• flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 hours ago

    if there is only one god, which I am convinced of

    Why?

    if you accept god as the creator of everything

    Which one? And why would I believe some random thing about that god

    • Saleh@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Which one?

      If there is only one God, the question of “which one” is obsolete. The question becomes, what your understanding of God is.

      Why?

      For an overview of arguments see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monotheism
      Monotheism is the most consistent with the attributes of the divine.

      And why would I believe some random thing about that god

      Do you believe in Atoms and the latest theory of how they are composed? Unless you have conducted all the experiments leading to that theory yourself, which i doubt, because you don’t have particle accelerators readily available, you will have a basis of “scriptures” and “scholars” whose judgement you trust and follow.

      • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Unless you have conducted all the experiments leading to that theory yourself, which i doubt, because you don’t have particle accelerators readily available, you will have a basis of “scriptures” and “scholars” whose judgement you trust and follow.

        That’s nonsense. The difference is that you can conduct all those experiments on your own, and every further experiment is based upon earlier discoveries creating a chain of rationality. Also, if something is proven to be wrong or phenomenally unlikely we adapt our worldview to those facts, not the other way around. What’s trusted is the scientific method, not individuals and what they wrote. Some scientists simply become more trustworthy as their track record for applying the scientific method is immaculate, both by making discoveries as well as happily accepting when their assumptions were wrong. A well educated and critical mind is absolutely capable to read most studies and get a general understanding of its quality (of course those about particle physics require more knowledge than those about homeopathy). Meanwhile with religious texts it’s inherently impossible to come to any sensible conclusion that isn’t derived from yourself and your own opinions and emotions.

        tl;dr Science and Religion are inherently incomparable as one derives truth from systemic processes and measurable facts, while the other derives “truth” from everyone’s worldview and emotional state of individuals. There’s no inherent reason to believe the latter (some random thing about some god).