The Golden Rule, Nature, karma, evolution, birth, life, love, happiness, procreation, individual freedoms, self-defense, subsistence fishing/hunting/farming, death, and an infinite universe that always was and always will be. Just off the top of my head. And the Blazers.
I don't understand how karma can exist in a true sense in a naturalistic worldview. Explain? Based on what? Where did it come from if the universe has always been static and unchanging? These things can be rendered as chemical reactions in the brain, an illusion and nothing more . The universe had a beginning, the stars are running out of fuel. An infinite universe is impossible.
I should also point out I said Nature, not Naturalism. I was referring specifically to Nature on Earth, everything that is not manmade, as I have a strong connection and understanding of the perfection of it in contrast to man's flawed mutations of it.
I am somewhat of a naturalist except most of them believe in a universe that is limited and I do not.
You're a science buff right, wasn't it basically proven back in the 1920's that the universe had a beginning? The universe is expanding and the stars are slowly dying. An infinite regress is impossible so there must be an uncaused first cause (God).
You didn't answer the question. If you don't believe in God or a higher power, or that the universe has any meaning whatsover, how can karma possibly exist? Still not a shred of evidence that one animal can magically "evolve" into another. You didn't answer the question. You said the universe always was and always will be, hence didn't have a beginning, hence static and unchanging. What brought about life? I never said I don't have them. They actually can exist in my worldview. To an atheist, emotions like happiness or sadness are nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain and hold no significance, and there is no such thing as "good" or "bad" without appealing to a higher authority. Can you prove me wrong? Uhhh ok...
That's news to me... Can you define what you mean by "beginning" here? The "first cause" (or cosmological) argument for god is basically just replacing one mysterious and apparently infinite entity (the universe) for another (god). There's no scientific basis for absolutely rejecting the theoretical possibility of an infinite god, but there's also no scientific basis for rejecting the possibility of an infinite universe.
Interesting, I thought it was pretty common knowledge amongst the scientific community today. So what makes more sense then? Personally I think theism makes much more logical sense than atheism. Hypothetically (according to the scientific community), billions of years from now when all the stars will have burnt out and supernovae'd, what will be left? And where did it all come from? It had to have had a beginning because it's currently on a finite time scale. Something infinite cannot have finite qualities. Unless of course you want to explain how this would work.
I've never heard of this statement being proven or even argued from a scientific or mathematical basis, but I'd be happy to offer a simple counter-example. Take a coin, and begin tracing your finger around the line formed by its outside edge. Do not stop until you reach the clear end of this line (meaning wherever the line clearly ceases to be). Assuming you do not pass out from hunger, you would be tracing this line forever. In other words, it's a cycle -- the distance traveled can be arbitrarily high, depending on how many times you want to go around the circle. And yet, measured across the middle of the coin, or from one fixed point on the edge to another, we can clearly discern finite distances: radius, circumference, etc...
I don't see how this counters the argument I've put forth. Something HAS to be eternal, we've pretty much settled that. Something cannot come from nothing, and if you were to believe that it would require a lot more faith than believing in God. Whether it's God or the matter that caused the big bang, something always existed. The universe shows signs of being on a finite time-scale, meaning that it was set into motion at some point. The stars and galaxies had a beginning because if they didn't they would have no end. They would have died an infinitely long time ago. Do you see what I'm saying? So ask yourself what the most logical conclusion is: a powerful, eternal, personal being who chose to create the universe, or dead matter that set itself into motion by completely sourceless and forever unexplainable causes. And if you go with the latter, I have a whole new set of questions I'd like to ask you. (Also, God's infinite nature is hard to grasp. We too are on a finite time scale, we are all about beginnings and ends. And we are bound to time, whereas God is not. We simply cannot comprehend His divine nature, we don't have that capacity.
You make several big assumptions about time, beginnings, and the nature of infinity that I do not agree with, but it is past my finite bedtime. Let me close with this: the universe's infinite nature is hard to grasp. Our entire lives take place within what seems to be a finite time scale, and we are all about beginnings and ends. And we are bound to the concept of a steady, consistent passage time, which may not be consistent with the origins of the universe. We simply cannot easily comprehend an event so outside of our frame of reference -- we don't have that capacity.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I'm simply wired to think this way, and when you combine what I've said with the complexity of life and the human body and the faith it takes to believe that it all arose from a pile of goo, and that a Godless universe has no objective way to determine moral values of right and wrong, it's a slam dunk to me. No to mention that God has changed my life in a big way. But I guess that's what makes us human, we all think differently.
