94 réponses à ce sujet

[Little Queen]

FUS ROH DAH FTW wrote...
You 

That obvious? 

[Little Queen]

FUS ROH DAH FTW wrote...

Little Queen wrote...

FUS ROH DAH FTW wrote...
You 

That obvious? 

Yes ofc you're just an AI you can't possibly have seen anything interesting 

Better than creating something that tries to kill me after, you know. 

[TheKristoffski]

Silfren wrote...

KristoffMcguffinSmuck wrote...

Gwindor The Witchhunter wrote...

Your post is very confusing. Polytheism does not disproves the existence of God. The One God of Judaic Christian tradition. Make that very clear in your head first.

Im not saying Polythesim disproves that their is a god, im not suggesting anything, but if anything the only thing polythesim would prove is that there is more than one god

Achem.  Acting, practicing polytheist sitting right here.  *waves hand wildly*

Polytheism is the BELIEF in multiple deities.  It isn't PROOF, or DISPROOF, of anything.  Sheesh.

Also, I gotta say, the above comment, suggesting that the OP hypothesized that the Maker could be "many gods" and that the people of Thedas are worshipping just one face of that god?  Um, no, the OP didn't say that, but rather hypothesized that the Maker could be one AMONG many gods, and that the people of Thedas are worshipping this one among many AS IF he is only one.  

Significant difference in meaning there.  

 oops did i say ancient greek? i meant norse,  and i know polythesim is a belief, and I diddnt say it PROVES anything i was implying that if it were TRUE then it would disprove monotheism beliefs, and like-wise if it was vice-versa

Gosh, i also stated that these views were my own, and that its my opinion and i dont wish to bash other people beliefs or faiths, whatsoever , i aso believed i used a lot of what if, and lots of 'say if this was the case' so really my statement was of a philosoical nature and not really me shouting out what i believed,

Modifié par KristoffMcguffinSmuck, 14 avril 2012 - 01:47 .

[Uccio]

Elton John is dead wrote...

Conclusion:

It's irrational to believe the universe was the work of nothing and yes you do believe that which is why you deny God. Therefore you deny the theory that a mind was behind the universe and thus you believe the universe and all contained within are nothing but random accidents and products of a coincidence which as proven above just can't be possible. Accidents don't lead to things showing perfection, design and thought. It's more logical to believe a mind was behind the universe. I don't need science to tell me that since common sense itself tells me that.

No its not. I find it hilarious that people come up with this concept of a god/s behind all and base the idea on logic. Logic actually says that there is no god/s. Not a single evidence has been brought up to support such idea, therefore no god/s. The existence of universe is not a evidence. I suggest Richard Dawkins " the god delusion", it is a wonderful reading. Your common sense is only a result of your upbringing, family, society, etc. You could be devout budhist, hindu, atheist, what ever, just by being born in a specific society with upholds certain religous/non religous views therefore dictating the base of your view. There is no such thing as common sense, per se.

Just a food for  thought. Not trying to convert you or anything.

Modifié par Ukki, 14 avril 2012 - 01:50 .

[TheKristoffski]

Ukki wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

Conclusion:

It's irrational to believe the universe was the work of nothing and yes you do believe that which is why you deny God. Therefore you deny the theory that a mind was behind the universe and thus you believe the universe and all contained within are nothing but random accidents and products of a coincidence which as proven above just can't be possible. Accidents don't lead to things showing perfection, design and thought. It's more logical to believe a mind was behind the universe. I don't need science to tell me that since common sense itself tells me that.

No its not. I find it hilarious that people come up with this concept of a god/s behind all and base the idea on logic. Logic actually says that there is no god/s. Not a single evidence has been brought up to support such idea, therefore no god/s. I suggest Richard Dawkins " the god delusion", it is a wonderful reading. Your common sense is only a result of your upbringing, family, society, etc. You could be devout budhist, hindu, atheist, what ever, just by being born in a specific society with upholds certain religous/non religous views. There is no such thing as common sense, per se.

Just a food for  thought. Not trying to convert you or anything.

to be honest, the thought of life and the existence of the universe being a random and something of chance, is very compelling...and plus dna,is not a perfect structure if their is one thing thats true is that nothing in this universe is perfect, like for instance a pool or snooker table, the green surface appears to be smooth and 'perfect' at first glance, you get a powerful microscope and you see ridges, bumps holes and such, and catholicsm and christianity are actually different religions, its quite clear that, at one time people believed in one god, but us being humans and having vast intellectuall opinions made religion branch out into different sub groups, if you ask yourself what is the difference between muslamic and cathloic faith? very little, they both believe in one god,, that their god had a son or someone equivelent aka jesus and mohammed, it follws the same path almost, just slightly different storys, aliens are more real

[Gwindor The Witchhunter]

Silfren wrote...


The existence of spirits has nothing whatsoever to do with that of the Maker; the former's existence is not at all proof of the latter.

Y'know at some encounters in DAO, the nature of spirits were explained, they can't create any form of life or matter out of nothing. They can only use what is in nature.Therefore, spirits in the world of DA/Thedas definitely are made. These same said spirits could not have willed themselves into being because they can't even create life. This corresponds with the cannons of the Chantry. 

Also, the Guardian of The Gauntlet in DAO that had preternatural personal knowledge of the warden and companions gives testimony that Andraste is indeed with the Maker. This also corresponds with Chantry Lore. This Guardian suddenly vanished in front of the Warden and his/her companions after the quest of a test of faith. leaving behind his bones and armor. But you can only loot a helm i think.

Modifié par Gwindor The Witchhunter, 14 avril 2012 - 04:51 .

[akashacatbat]

Gwindor The Witchhunter wrote...

Silfren wrote...


The existence of spirits has nothing whatsoever to do with that of the Maker; the former's existence is not at all proof of the latter.

Y'know at some encounters in DAO, the nature of spirits were explained, they can't create any form of life or matter out of nothing. They can only use what is in nature.Therefore, spirits in the world of DA/Thedas definitely are made. These same said spirits could not have willed themselves into being because they can't even create life. This corresponds with the cannons of the Chantry.

Well, yes. But if the cannon of the chantry was created to explain such phenomenon, of course it would correspond. That is the whole point of a philosophy, religion, or scientific theory: they all exist to explain observable phenomenon. Doesn't automatically make it "true". Spirits could just as easily be really old dead people, who over time lost all semblence of their individuality and memories of their life.

Also, the Guardian of The Gauntlet in DAO that had preternatural personal knowledge of the warden and companions gives testimony that Andraste is indeed with the Maker. This also corresponds with Chantry Lore. This Guardian suddenly vanished in front of the Warden and his/her companions after the quest of a test of faith. leaving behind his bones and armor. But you can only loot a helm i think.

He could also be some sort of psychic ghost. He's an unknown entity (is he even a ghost?) so how can you explain for sure how he is able to do what he can do? We have no set of rules to apply to him, so one explination is just as good as another.  And of course his testimony would line up with the chantry. They are all followers of Andraste. He's going to toe the company line.

[Silfren]

Gwindor The Witchhunter wrote...

Silfren wrote...


The existence of spirits has nothing whatsoever to do with that of the Maker; the former's existence is not at all proof of the latter.

Y'know at some encounters in DAO, the nature of spirits were explained, they can't create any form of life or matter out of nothing. They can only use what is in nature.Therefore, spirits in the world of DA/Thedas definitely are made. These same said spirits could not have willed themselves into being because they can't even create life. This corresponds with the cannons of the Chantry. 

Also, the Guardian of The Gauntlet in DAO that had preternatural personal knowledge of the warden and companions gives testimony that Andraste is indeed with the Maker. This also corresponds with Chantry Lore. This Guardian suddenly vanished in front of the Warden and his/her companions after the quest of a test of faith. leaving behind his bones and armor. But you can only loot a helm i think.

As far as I know, the codices on spirits and demons are all story-based books written by people who are expressing their opinions and limited knowledge, such as the characters Brother Genitivi and Sister Petrine, who are both extremely biased Chantry-based sources.  I don't think there are non-character-produced codices on spirits and demons.

Anyway, whether the spirits "definitely are made" does NOT mean they are explicitly Maker-created beings.  They could be made by the Elven Gods, or some other deity.  Point being simply that even if they are made, it doesn't automatically follow that they were made by the Maker and thus are proof of him.

Re: the underlined portion.  I don't see how it follows that simply because the spirits are incapable of creating life, they therefore could not possibly have willed themselves into being.  This belief, without foundation, smacks very much of a personal assumption based on personal beliefs, not something that is necessarily a given.  Also, as far as it corresponding with the Chantry's canons (not cannons, fyi), you are assuming that the Chantry's doctrines came out of absolute knowledge of the spirits, when it could just as easily be that the Chantry made ASSUMPTIONS based on what little it knew.  It is fallacious to automatically assume this to be perfectly corroborating evidence.

Finally, I already addressed the thing about the Guardian and the entirety of the Sacred Ashes, by pointing out my disappointment in Bioware for not maintaining the ambiguity they started out with so well.  I don't think Bioware really INTENDED this, but boy did they ever fail.

Modifié par Silfren, 14 avril 2012 - 06:19 .

[Always Alice]

Ukki wrote…
No its not. I find it hilarious that people come up with this concept of a god/s behind all and base the idea on logic. Logic actually says that there is no god/s. Not a single evidence has been brought up to support such idea, therefore no god/s. The existence of universe is not a evidence. I suggest Richard Dawkins " the god delusion", it is a wonderful reading. Your common sense is only a result of your upbringing, family, society, etc. You could be devout budhist, hindu, atheist, what ever, just by being born in a specific society with upholds certain religous/non religous views therefore dictating the base of your view. There is no such thing as common sense, per se.

How would you be able to “prove” the existence of God? What would you consider acceptable evidence that supports the idea that the universe was created by an intelligent force?
The fact of the matter is, you can’t. Those who believe see evidence of God in every aspect of life: in the wonder of nature, in the beauty of love, in the laughter and joy of a giggling child, etc. Those who believe don’t need lights flashing in the sky that spell out “I EXIST.” And why would God feel the need to do something like that in the first place? From a believer's perspective, He already puts Himself out there for us all the time, and we can choose to accept or not.

Just a food for thought. Not trying to convert you or anything.

Interesting choice of words, given the subject matter

KristoffMcguffinSmuck wrote...
to be honest, the thought of life and the existence of the universe being a random and something of chance, is very compelling...and plus dna,is not a perfect structure if their is one thing thats true is that nothing in this universe is perfect, like for instance a pool or snooker table, the green surface appears to be smooth and 'perfect' at first glance, you get a powerful microscope and you see ridges, bumps holes and such,

How do we decide if something is “perfect” or not? What is perfect in our eyes may not be the same as what a creator-entity views as perfect.

and catholicsm and christianity are actually different religions, its quite clear that, at one time people believed in one god, but us being humans and having vast intellectuall opinions made religion branch out into different sub groups, if you ask yourself what is the difference between muslamic and cathloic faith? very little, they both believe in one god,, that their god had a son or someone equivelent aka jesus and mohammed, it follws the same path almost, just slightly different storys, aliens are more real

I know I’m going to regret asking this, but why do you think Catholicism and Christianity are “actually very different religions?” Catholics are followers of Christ, making them Christians. There are differences in practice along with certain ways of interpreting the Bible, but that doesn’t make Catholicism a separate religion, and I am baffled that this is actually a point of contention.

Modifié par Always Alice, 14 avril 2012 - 11:01 .

[Gwindor The Witchhunter]

:P

Modifié par Gwindor The Witchhunter, 15 avril 2012 - 12:53 .

[Silfren]

KristoffMcguffinSmuck wrote...

 to be honest, the thought of life and the existence of the universe being a random and something of chance, is very compelling...and plus dna,is not a perfect structure if their is one thing thats true is that nothing in this universe is perfect, like for instance a pool or snooker table, the green surface appears to be smooth and 'perfect' at first glance, you get a powerful microscope and you see ridges, bumps holes and such, and catholicsm and christianity are actually different religions, its quite clear that, at one time people believed in one god, but us being humans and having vast intellectuall opinions made religion branch out into different sub groups, if you ask yourself what is the difference between muslamic and cathloic faith? very little, they both believe in one god,, that their god had a son or someone equivelent aka jesus and mohammed, it follws the same path almost, just slightly different storys, aliens are more real

First, no, Christianity and Catholicism are NOT different religions.  To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.  Catholicism is a branch OF Christianity, in other words a Christian sect.  It is just as much a kind of Christianity as Protestantism is.  

It isn't at all clear that at one time people believed in one god.  The available evidence clearly shows that the earliest forms of religion were polytheistic.

There is a great deal of difference between the Islamic faith and that of Christianity (which I use to drive home that Catholicism IS Christian).  The Islamic faith does NOT hold that God "had a son" in the same sense Catholics or any other Christian.  That belief is held by Islam to be blasphemous; it is why Islam considers Jesus purely human and not God in any form, or the literal Son or God either.  A prophet of God, but no more or less human than the rest of us.  Mohammed is view the same way: he is held to be a prophet, but otherwise completely human.  There is a great deal more to both faiths, and trying to claim that both are very similar on the sole basis that both are monotheistic..that's such a patently ridiculous notion I don't know whether to laugh or just shake my head.

Understanding the concrete, actual history of a religion comes from researching the historical record, not accepting a given religion's doctrines as literal fact, and not from muddying the reality of the historical basis in order to make it jive with a person's opinion, lest they instead be forced to *gasp* re-evaluate that opinion.

Five bucks says a mod comes in here shortly and tells us all to back off the off-topic thread.

Modifié par Silfren, 17 avril 2012 - 01:52 .

[TheShadowWolf911]

wowpwnslol wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

wowpwnslol wrote...

About as real as the God in real life. So to answer your question, no, the Maker isn't real.

Because you said it?

I say the opposite.

Therefore it must be true and since I'm the last person to say it I win by default.

So you believe in an omnipotent magician who created everything 6000 years ago? Lawl. And to think we're living in 21st century and not medieval Europe. People are as dumb as ever.

who here said they think the world was created 6k years ago? i believe and god, but i also believe in evolution and millions of years of this world's existance.

you can't project the opinions of one person who is religious to everyone who is.


Edit: to the people talking about Logic, Logic is a lie, everyone's Logic differes to a degree, and since everyon's definition of it and their own logic differ, it is therefor false.

Modifié par TheShadowWolf911, 16 avril 2012 - 07:50 .

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

--Let me explain with a fine example of our own faiths and religion (please note these are my opinions, and I dont mean to offend peoples beleifs or faiths whatsoever), As we all know there are 4 main religious groups in our society these are christianity, Juedaism, Muslamic faith and Catholic, but the list could go on.

Catholics are Christians, not a separate religion, dude. And you left out the polytheistic Hinduism, and Buddhism which could be said to have no gods. And yes, these are main religions with billions of followers.

Back on your actual topic though, I think it's likely that the Maker does not exist, and a mythos was built up around Andraste. This would imply that the Andrastians theory of the origin of the Darkspawn is also wrong.

[Uccio]

Always Alice wrote...

Ukki wrote…
No its not. I find it hilarious that people come up with this concept of a god/s behind all and base the idea on logic. Logic actually says that there is no god/s. Not a single evidence has been brought up to support such idea, therefore no god/s. The existence of universe is not a evidence. I suggest Richard Dawkins " the god delusion", it is a wonderful reading. Your common sense is only a result of your upbringing, family, society, etc. You could be devout budhist, hindu, atheist, what ever, just by being born in a specific society with upholds certain religous/non religous views therefore dictating the base of your view. There is no such thing as common sense, per se.

How would you be able to “prove” the existence of God? What would you consider acceptable evidence that supports the idea that the universe was created by an intelligent force?
The fact of the matter is, you can’t. Those who believe see evidence of God in every aspect of life: in the wonder of nature, in the beauty of love, in the laughter and joy of a giggling child, etc. Those who believe don’t need lights flashing in the sky that spell out “I EXIST.” And why would God feel the need to do something like that in the first place? From a believer's perspective, He already puts Himself out there for us all the time, and we can choose to accept or not.

Thats the fundamental problem. One would assume that omnipotent, omnipresent force would make itself known somehow, yet it only is left to "believing". This brings us to the to the question of the " invisible pink unicorn" problem. I say they exist because I believe, who can dispute that? However believing doesn´t equal existance. Personally I find old gods more intriquing than christian or any other monoteist god, even myself being a atheist.

Allright, I´ll stop now before I derail this thread too much.

[Always Alice]

Ukki wrote...

Thats the fundamental problem. One would assume that omnipotent, omnipresent force would make itself known somehow, yet it only is left to "believing". 

Again I ask, what would constitute as "making itself known?" Even in my hypothetical flashing lights example, I would assume most people would imagine it would some kind of practical joke or aliens communicating with us. The fact that we are able to reason and philosophize and love and have a conscience is enough proof for some. And if you follow the Christian faith, then God makes Himself explicitly known through the existance and divinity of Jesus Christ, as well as the Holy Spirit. There's divinely-inspired holy texts, and religious visions and miracles. So really, what it comes down to is acceptance or rejection of what is presented.

This brings us to the to the question of the " invisible pink unicorn" problem. I say they exist because I believe, who can dispute that? However believing doesn´t equal existance.

Believeing doesn't automatically equal existance, true. But on the flipside, just because someone doesn't believe in the existance of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And what does it mean for something to "exist" in the first place?

Personally I find old gods more intriquing than christian or any other monoteist god, even myself being a atheist.

I find other belief systems to be fascinating as well. Fo me personally, it might have something to do with how monotheism is so prevalent, so that anything that goes against the cultural norm seems "exotic" (for lack of a better word). It never hurts to research and expand horizons, regardless of personal belief.

Allright, I´ll stop now before I derail this thread too much.

Haha, I think this thread has been heading off the tracks for a while now. Once I saw the title of the thread I knew immediately this would end up into a discussion about the existance of God.

So to tie this whole thing back to Dragon Age, there's no way to prove or disprove the existance of the Maker. There are things that could be seen as definitive proof, which you can either accept or reject.

Modifié par Always Alice, 16 avril 2012 - 08:46 .

[LobselVith8]

Silfren wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Oghren says the entire mountain is running thick with lyrium and that might have been causing the magical properties of the area -- the Guardian's survival through the centuries being one of those 'magical' things.

I wish this had been played up more, because these vague mentions don't do much against the fact that the story as presented doesn't leave much room for ambiguity.  Not only do we have the Magical Healing Ashes, but we have all the spirt-forms of Andraste's disciples--and her earliest enemies, for that matter--and the Guardian.  And now we have the events from Legacy. 

Honestly, I wish the developers had gone with the original plan to forgo the Urn of Sacred Ashes quest, because I don't see any reason why a Dwarven, Dalish, an atheist Cousland, or possibly even a Magi Warden would bother trying to find a relic that he (or she) wouldn't even believe exists.

As for the ghostly disciples, the enemies of Andraste, and even the Guardian, I would wager the wall of lyrium mentioned by Ethereal has something to do with it. Magic and a thick wall of lyrium. Genitivi mentions that Andraste's disciples gave up their lives to guard the place if you speak with him after encountering one of the wraiths, and I figure the discplies were responsible for setting up the 'traps' and the 'apparitions' in the ruined temple. Had any of it been compelling, we would have seen Morrigan and Sten convinced that there was some truth to the Maker and Andraste as a Prophet, rather than remaining relatively unconvinced. Although I think you make a good point about giving more weight to the 'alternative' theory that is proposed by Oghren, and more investigation into why the ashes have healing properties.

Silfren wrote...

At the  very beginning, Bioware did an excellent job of making the entire backdrop of the Chantry, Andraste, the Maker, and all the attendant trappings, realistically vague enough to make skepticism plausible.  But then they added in the Sacred Ashes questline, and gave us Corypheus, and it's harder and harder to ignore this physical evidence that much of the Chantry's religious claims are literally true.

While Corypheus addresses that the Chantry is actually wrong, I personally saw the character as pointless. Aside from making Hawke responsible for more destruction and death in Thedas, along the writers insistence on having Hawke continue to stand idly by while dangerous people walk away, there was no point to Legacy. It was another story where the "choices" resulted in "two" endings that are virtually the same.

Silfren wrote...

The Sacred Ashes story could have been written so that more attention was given to the question of why the ashes have the ability to heal, instead of just going with the assumption that they really did have healing powers just because they were the ashes of Andraste herself.  A throwaway line about the presence of all that lyrium really doesn't do much.  But had there been some cut-scene dialogue from some of the more skeptical characters--Morrigan would have been the obvious choice, for cripes' sake!!--speculating on a more "scientific" explanation, I'd be better able to believe that it had been truly left open for debate. 

I agree - Sten and Morrigan should have proposed alternatives as well, not simply Oghren.

Morrigan already dismisses the notion that a creator must exist simply because magic exists in Thedas (based on her conversations with Leliana), and even The Warden can be an atheist as well. Given Morrigan's remarks to Leliana about the Maker, it would have made sense, as she has shared her view previously:

Leliana: So you truly do not believe in any sort of higher power?

Morrigan: It has been bothering you, I see. No, I do not. Must I?

Leliana: What do you believe happens to you after you die then? Nothing?

Morrigan: I do not go sit by the Maker's side, if that's what you mean.

Leliana: Only those who are worthy are brought to the Maker's side. So many other sad souls are left to wander in the void, hopeless and forever lost.

Morrigan: And what evidence of this have you? I see only spirits, no wandering ghosts of wicked disbelievers.

Leliana: It must be so sad to look forward to nothing, to feel no love and seek no reward in the afterlife.

Morrigan: Yes, the anguish tears at me so. You have seen through me to my sad, sad core.

Leliana: Now you're simply mocking me.

Morrigan: You notice? It appears your perceptive powers know no bounds.

At least The Warden can voice that he (or she) doesn't think Andraste was a Prophet, despite the Ashes' healing properties.

Silfren wrote...

Then again, I'm still trying to figure out why we are all expected to believe that Jowan, of all people, had the knowledge and skill to create some kind of magical poison that not one other person in all of Ferelden had a clue about or how to counter.  I'd have found it far more believable if a certain Witch of the Wilds had been responsible for Eamon's condition, because at least it would have made sense for HER to have that kind of secret knowledge.

I suspect Loghain was responsible for giving Jowan the 'poison,' rather than Jowan creating the elixir on his own.

[Silfren]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Oghren says the entire mountain is running thick with lyrium and that might have been causing the magical properties of the area -- the Guardian's survival through the centuries being one of those 'magical' things.

I wish this had been played up more, because these vague mentions don't do much against the fact that the story as presented doesn't leave much room for ambiguity.  Not only do we have the Magical Healing Ashes, but we have all the spirt-forms of Andraste's disciples--and her earliest enemies, for that matter--and the Guardian.  And now we have the events from Legacy. 

Honestly, I wish the developers had gone with the original plan to forgo the Urn of Sacred Ashes quest, because I don't see any reason why a Dwarven, Dalish, an atheist Cousland, or possibly even a Magi Warden would bother trying to find a relic that he (or she) wouldn't even believe exists.

As for the ghostly disciples, the enemies of Andraste, and even the Guardian, I would wager the wall of lyrium mentioned by Ethereal has something to do with it. Magic and a thick wall of lyrium. Genitivi mentions that Andraste's disciples gave up their lives to guard the place if you speak with him after encountering one of the wraiths, and I figure the discplies were responsible for setting up the 'traps' and the 'apparitions' in the ruined temple. Had any of it been compelling, we would have seen Morrigan and Sten convinced that there was some truth to the Maker and Andraste as a Prophet, rather than remaining relatively unconvinced. Although I think you make a good point about giving more weight to the 'alternative' theory that is proposed by Oghren, and more investigation into why the ashes have healing properties.

Silfren wrote...

At the  very beginning, Bioware did an excellent job of making the entire backdrop of the Chantry, Andraste, the Maker, and all the attendant trappings, realistically vague enough to make skepticism plausible.  But then they added in the Sacred Ashes questline, and gave us Corypheus, and it's harder and harder to ignore this physical evidence that much of the Chantry's religious claims are literally true.

While Corypheus addresses that the Chantry is actually wrong, I personally saw the character as pointless. Aside from making Hawke responsible for more destruction and death in Thedas, along the writers insistence on having Hawke continue to stand idly by while dangerous people walk away, there was no point to Legacy. It was another story where the "choices" resulted in "two" endings that are virtually the same.

Silfren wrote...

The Sacred Ashes story could have been written so that more attention was given to the question of why the ashes have the ability to heal, instead of just going with the assumption that they really did have healing powers just because they were the ashes of Andraste herself.  A throwaway line about the presence of all that lyrium really doesn't do much.  But had there been some cut-scene dialogue from some of the more skeptical characters--Morrigan would have been the obvious choice, for cripes' sake!!--speculating on a more "scientific" explanation, I'd be better able to believe that it had been truly left open for debate. 

I agree - Sten and Morrigan should have proposed alternatives as well, not simply Oghren.

Morrigan already dismisses the notion that a creator must exist simply because magic exists in Thedas (based on her conversations with Leliana), and even The Warden can be an atheist as well. Given Morrigan's remarks to Leliana about the Maker, it would have made sense, as she has shared her view previously:

Leliana: So you truly do not believe in any sort of higher power?

Morrigan: It has been bothering you, I see. No, I do not. Must I?

Leliana: What do you believe happens to you after you die then? Nothing?

Morrigan: I do not go sit by the Maker's side, if that's what you mean.

Leliana: Only those who are worthy are brought to the Maker's side. So many other sad souls are left to wander in the void, hopeless and forever lost.

Morrigan: And what evidence of this have you? I see only spirits, no wandering ghosts of wicked disbelievers.

Leliana: It must be so sad to look forward to nothing, to feel no love and seek no reward in the afterlife.

Morrigan: Yes, the anguish tears at me so. You have seen through me to my sad, sad core.

Leliana: Now you're simply mocking me.

Morrigan: You notice? It appears your perceptive powers know no bounds.

At least The Warden can voice that he (or she) doesn't think Andraste was a Prophet, despite the Ashes' healing properties.

Silfren wrote...

Then again, I'm still trying to figure out why we are all expected to believe that Jowan, of all people, had the knowledge and skill to create some kind of magical poison that not one other person in all of Ferelden had a clue about or how to counter.  I'd have found it far more believable if a certain Witch of the Wilds had been responsible for Eamon's condition, because at least it would have made sense for HER to have that kind of secret knowledge.

I suspect Loghain was responsible for giving Jowan the 'poison,' rather than Jowan creating the elixir on his own.

On your last point, well, certainly it could be argued that Loghain only hired Jowan because the arlessa was specfically looking for an apostate, rather than that Loghain needed a mage with access to illicit magic and Isolde gave him a coincidentally great opportunity.  However, it still doesn't explain why in the world the Magical Healing Ashes were the only available recourse.  It flies in the face of all plausibility that it was EASIER to go hunting on a quest for a religious artifact than to find someone else with the knowledge of the poison and how, if possible, to counteract it.  However, it leaves open the question of the nature of the substance.  Are we expected to believe that some natural, non-magical substance cannot be cured by any known magic, legal or otherwise?

If that were the case, I would have much preferred some additional scenes making this clear: Circle mages brought in to examine the arl realized either that his condition was the result of a rare poison with no known cure, or else a cure that was very, very difficult to acquire under the best of conditions, never mind the complications of Ferelden's then-current circumstances.  Yes, granted, we are given hints to this from the few bits of dialogue spelling out that nothing attempted on Eamon had had any effect.  But given the sheer importance of this questline, and the story-significance of Arl Eamon himself, why couldn't we have gotten an early cutscene depicting Loghain meeting with a shadowy figure to arrange for Eamon's poisoning?  

I maintain that it just doesn't make sense for a Warden to have to traipse all over Ferelden in search of a myth, without even attempting to cure him with magic, or trying to figure out what on earth kind of poison can defy even magical attempts at healing?

[prizm123]

of course the Maker is real, you have already met the Maker