Post by Hairynosedwombat on Oct 9, 2017 10:10:24 GMT
Just to be clear the watchmaker argument is flawed, I am not defending it.
What I am saying is that the source of the source is irrelevant in a number of ways, as it is something that we can never know of (at least according to some theory) and it becomes similar to the existential question of are we real. If you accept that a thinking being was responsible for the creation of the universe, that does not require us to know the source of that thinking being, much like if you believe that the world is fake this will not change how you have to act with the world.
I think at a certain point we have to accept we do not know what happens next, and of course I admit that 'knowing' there is a God or not is among those things that is conjecture in a lot of ways, but that just further adds to my point, if we do not know if God exists then how much more hubris is it to demand the question where does he come from?
More to the point, the argument fails at the first step. Show me evidence of God. Any evidence that is stronger than evidence for no God.
I am not in the mood to use faith as evidence. We do not know and however far we drill down, we get the same answer. We do not know and probably never will.