God is the source of much doubt and controversy, of peace and of war. At this point in our human existence what was once certain and unquestionable has become the most questioned topic. The faithful, believing people have become unsure. I guess the question is either God exists or He doesn't. There really is no middle territory, and any attempt to remain neutral in relation to God's existence is automatically putting you in the category of unbelief. The age old question is far from being an irrelevant one, because if God does exist, then nothing else really matters; if He does not exist, then what does really matter at all. Until now I've never been put in a position where my ...view middle of the document...
When we claim that something is morally right or wrong, it appears that we are talking about properties of things that are out there, not considering human attitudes. People say that moral claims can be true and false, and also claim that people's moral views are occasionally wrong. All of this makes it seem that we're talking about moral facts existing independently of us. It’s very confusing when we talk about morality; it’s hard to see any difference between languages and how we talk about everyday physical objects. (Blackburn, Simon Spreading The Word, Oxford University Press, 1984--chapter 7).
But there is a major difference here: talk about morality, unlike talk about everyday physical objects, is a means of expressing attitudes and doesn't even pretend to describe mind-independent facts. So it looks like the projectivist, if that is where you are, is stuck. Ok so basically if he or she defends moral discourse against accusations that done in error, she seems to be committed to realism and to its commitments, if that makes sense. If he or she, from what I understand, refutes the appearance of moral discourse, then the projectivist is telling us that people are committed to realism though their use of ordinary moral language by mistake. (Blackburn, Simon Spreading The Word, Oxford University Press, 1984--chapter 5-7).
Blackburn's suggestion is that the projectivist can say that, the common subject matter of the debate is constituted jointly by the range of features and the range of responses on whether or not God exists and is that “perfect being”. The success of this response will go to the projectivist; but it is little help to the theistic project of definition. Than we have to agree that, God is morally perfect. Agreeing that we all mean by this that God possesses a set of properties which fall inside what can count as "moral perfection". Then the following will become a my position: According to Blackburn, I believe that God exists, I believe that God is morally perfect, and yet I do not have to regard God favorably. This is what I take from his writings as I put in this paper. (Blackburn, Simon Spreading The Word, Oxford University Press, 1984--chapter 5-7).
What about the Big Bang Theory
One of the greatest mysterious of my time in Sunday school was the Big Bang theory, which is the theory that time and space were created in a hot flash - everything was in the same spot, and just blew up. Ok they did not teach it in Sunday school and were not available for questions when asked where it fit in how the earth was created, but I learned about it through science and reading; The first evidence is Earth's constant radiation bath, equally strong, day or night, from every region of the sky, the Earth is under constant and unvarying radiation. From what scientists have agreed upon as to the source of the origin of this radiation; it is the afterglow of the big bang explosion in which the universe was born some 10-20 billion years...