View Full Version : Theists and atheists: try to persuade me!
Norsefire
08-10-08, 10:12 PM
Since both of you cannot give me actual evidence (although the burden of proof lies more with theists, atheists still can't disprove God), I want you to use various other things, such as
logics
reasoning
incentives
etc
To back up your argument, and to try to persuade me to go either way! I am curious to see what you come up with.
lightgigantic
08-10-08, 10:42 PM
Since both of you cannot give me actual evidence (although the burden of proof lies more with theists, atheists still can't disprove God), I want you to use various other things, such as
logics
reasoning
incentives
etc
To back up your argument, and to try to persuade me to go either way! I am curious to see what you come up with.
Arguments of logic etc can only bring one to the platform of practice. If one is reluctant to take up practice there is no question of approaching evidence. It doesn't matter what field of knowledge one might be discussing.
Since there is no evidence for atheistic claims and also no practice, a majority of atheist arguments aim to deconstruct the very practices required for evidencing the nature of god.
Basically spiritual life begins at the point of understanding that one is not the body. As long as one remains in the bodily conception of life, their logic reasoning and pursuit of incentives will all be askew (even if they are a so-called theist) ... so I would argue that first one has to develop a little conviction about the unreasonable, illogical and totally uninspiring nature of considering the body as the self ... then perhaps there is the possibility of approaching spiritual life with a little determination.
scorpius
08-10-08, 10:55 PM
... atheists still can't disprove God),
what are you joking??
heres your disproofs for xian god
http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/godlogic.html
http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/evangelical_ath/einstein_emc2.htm
the rest of them
www.godchecker.com
who gives a F...:D
one_raven
08-10-08, 10:58 PM
Define God.
Norsefire
08-10-08, 10:58 PM
Define God.
A Creator. That, and only that.
To clarify for atheists, I am speaking of the "scientific" concept of a Creator, not of religious scripture.
one_raven
08-10-08, 11:02 PM
Meaning what?
God did nothing more than flick the first marble and thus followed the creationg of matter and everything else happened without his/her interference?
Did God create life on this planet (and perhaps elsewhere)?
Did he design all the different life forms?
Be more specific.
Give us a brief biography.
Norsefire
08-10-08, 11:04 PM
Meaning what?
God did nothing more than flick the first marble and thus followed the creationg of matter and everything else happened without his/her interference?
Did God create life on this planet (and perhaps elsewhere)?
Did he design all the different life forms?
Be more specific.
Give us a brief biography.
An intelligent entity that is somehow responsible for the creation of our reality/universe.
one_raven
08-10-08, 11:17 PM
So, this God just flicked the first marble and nothing else?
Norsefire
08-10-08, 11:20 PM
So, this God just flicked the first marble and nothing else?
I like the term "Creator" more; "God" implies supernatural/magical things, whereas "Creator" simply implies, well, a Creator. It could be simply a scientist performing an experiment (our universe), etc, etc,
Simply a creator that created our universe. Nothing else.
one_raven
08-10-08, 11:24 PM
Seems rather pointless to me and I don't why anyone would bother caring to worship or even consider it.
This God has nothing to do with my life - it has done nothing in Billions of years and may as well not exist.
You might as well say it does not exist and the universe was created through entirely natural means, or that it always existed.
What does it matter if this God exists?
Norsefire
08-10-08, 11:28 PM
Seems rather pointless to me and I don't why anyone would bother caring to worship or even consider it.
This God has nothing to do with my life - it has done nothing in Billions of years and may as well not exist.
You might as well say it does not exist and the universe was created through entirely natural means, or that it always existed.
What does it matter if this God exists?
Simply for curiousity; why do we even bother learning the history of the universe? For information, for answers. And as of now, there is no reason at all to suggest that there is not, or that there is, a Creator.
You must realize one thing: our universe is our universe. Everything we know, is confined to its spaces. Everything beyond, if anything, would not be subject to our universal laws.
And another thing, our universe operates with its own set of laws and order. Our universe is like a machine; the question is, what, or who, created or led to the beginning of this "machine"?
shaman_
08-10-08, 11:29 PM
I want you to use various other things, such as ..incentives etc
I will send you cookies if you become an atheist.
one_raven
08-10-08, 11:30 PM
Our universe is like a machine; the question is, what, or who, created or led to the beginning of this "machine"?
This is a question that we will, in all likelihood never find an answer to.
Does it matter if we say "God", "magic", "Big Bang" or "Fred Jenkins"?
They are all the same answer: "I don't know."
Norsefire
08-10-08, 11:31 PM
I will send you cookies if you become an atheist.
Ha.
A great thing I've always wondered is, "why not?"
Why not believe in God and heaven and good? Why not believe that you will be saved and everything is OK and there is a being watching over and caring for you?
Why not? For atheists, don't you want to believe that there is a heaven and there is something higher?
Why not?
That is the great incentive that religion offers. Atheism offers nothing. Science doesn't bring you happiness. Would you eat from the Tree of Knowledge only to die shortly afterwards?
It comes down to a choice: cold, hard facts, which result in a nihilistic and pessimistic life, or happiness.
one_raven
08-10-08, 11:38 PM
Why not believe in God and heaven and good? Why not believe that you will be saved and everything is OK and there is a being watching over and caring for you?
You said nothing about heaven, good, watching over, caring for...
All you said was this God created the universe and nothing more.
There is a world of difference.
Why not? For atheists, don't you want to believe that there is a heaven and there is something higher?
Some people chose to beleive what they want to beleive to make themselves feel better, be less scared, sleep better at night...
Some, like me, can't simply decide to beleive something because it feels good.
Some see a placebo as nothing more than a sugar pill and chose to not lie to themselves.
Why not?
Truth.
That is the great incentive that religion offers. Atheism offers nothing. Science doesn't bring you happiness. Would you eat from the Tree of Knowledge only to die shortly afterwards?
I perfer truth to fantasy.
fantasy is fun, but I will never convince myself it is true no matter how hard I tried - and I don't want to try.
What is so bad and scary about reality that you can't face it?
It comes down to a choice: cold, hard facts, which result in a nihilistic and pessimistic life, or happiness.
I am personally happy with truth (or the pursuit of it).
I am not nihilistic or pessimistic.
Truth makes me happy.
Lies make me unhappy.
Betrayer0fHope
08-11-08, 12:13 AM
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83542 should cover a portion of Gods.
Since both of you cannot give me actual evidence (although the burden of proof lies more with theists, atheists still can't disprove God), I want you to use various other things, such as
logics
reasoning
incentives
etc
To back up your argument, and to try to persuade me to go either way! I am curious to see what you come up with.
I'll be interested to see how many responses you get from atheists. As one myself, I have no particular interest persuading you of anything. The only thing that gets my back up and evokes a rersponse is when theists make ridiculous claims , and then only in an attempt to prevent them spreading their virus.
I like the term "Creator" more; "God" implies supernatural/magical things, whereas "Creator" simply implies, well, a Creator. It could be simply a scientist performing an experiment (our universe), etc, etc,
Simply a creator that created our universe. Nothing else.
Would you worship this creator when it was proven to you that it indeed was a scientist, and we were his experiment ?
one_raven
08-11-08, 03:28 AM
Would you worship this creator when it was proven to you that it indeed was a scientist, and we were his experiment ?
Good question!
Norsefire, if you don't become an atheist we will genetically engineer you to live forever and then torture you forever.
Arguments of logic etc can only bring one to the platform of practice. If one is reluctant to take up practice there is no question of approaching evidence. It doesn't matter what field of knowledge one might be discussing.
Since there is no evidence for atheistic claims and also no practice, a majority of atheist arguments aim to deconstruct the very practices required for evidencing the nature of god.
Basically spiritual life begins at the point of understanding that one is not the body. As long as one remains in the bodily conception of life, their logic reasoning and pursuit of incentives will all be askew (even if they are a so-called theist) ... so I would argue that first one has to develop a little conviction about the unreasonable, illogical and totally uninspiring nature of considering the body as the self ... then perhaps there is the possibility of approaching spiritual life with a little determination.
Let us re-word that and say that the use of reason can bring one to reasonable conclusions. The practice involved is that of thinking. Why should one have to develop "a little conviction about the unreasonable " ? I regard that as a retrograde step. Maintaining a healthy scepticism is more to the point.
one_raven
08-11-08, 03:34 AM
Norsefire, if you don't become an atheist we will genetically engineer you to live forever and then torture you forever.
Maybe atheists should try that approach!
It worked really well for the other side.
Maybe atheists should try that approach!
It worked really well for the other side.
Hehe.. I was just being sarcastic for that precise reason :D
audible
08-11-08, 05:52 AM
Arguments of logic etc can only bring one to the platform of practice. If one is reluctant to take up practice there is no question of approaching evidence. It doesn't matter what field of knowledge one might be discussing.
Since there is no evidence for atheistic claims and also no practice, a majority of atheist arguments aim to deconstruct the very practices required for evidencing the nature of god.
Basically spiritual life begins at the point of understanding that one is not the body. As long as one remains in the bodily conception of life, their logic reasoning and pursuit of incentives will all be askew (even if they are a so-called theist) ... so I would argue that first one has to develop a little conviction about the unreasonable, illogical and totally uninspiring nature of considering the body as the self ... then perhaps there is the possibility of approaching spiritual life with a little determination. Let us re-word that and say that the use of reason can bring one to reasonable conclusions. The practice involved is that of thinking. Why should one have to develop "a little conviction about the unreasonable " ? I regard that as a retrograde step. Maintaining a healthy scepticism is more to the point.Myles, do come on, it is after all, Lightgigantic's post, you are talking about here.
Since both of you cannot give me actual evidence (although the burden of proof lies more with theists, atheists still can't disprove God), I want you to use various other things, such as
logics
reasoning
incentives
etc
To back up your argument, and to try to persuade me to go either way! I am curious to see what you come up with.
Read the Bible.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
audible
08-11-08, 09:05 AM
Read the Bible.
All Praise The Ancient Of DaysYes Adstar is right, thats the best way to convince yourself there is no god.
Salute Homo habilis.
EmptyForceOfChi
08-11-08, 10:01 AM
Reading many parts of the bible and also quran lead me to believe god either does not exist or is evil. But reading texts alone will be useless, religion as a whole on a global scale is a failure and a mockery. Clinging onto selfish and unjust traditions and scriptures will never work, life changes constantly unless you adapt you will fall, take the wisdom of others and evaluate the good intentions and true spirit of them, don't blindly follow use the tools we have to spot bad intentions, greed and deciet.
If somebody tries to control you or what you believe what are the intentions of that controlling force (like a person for instance). I think people would be happier believing in god who grants them an afterlife. I don't gain anything from trying to get you to believe in god, but you might.
peace.
Myles, do come on, it is after all, Lightgigantic's post, you are talking about here.
I regret my mistake. My only excuse is that the all-pervasive ,subtle ,spiritual energy failed to spin my chakras.
Read the Bible.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
That's what I call sound advice. When I was studying logic, the bible was my constant companion. It was also used in sex education, Ruth, Solomon, gang-rape ( judges and genesis) and finally the art of warfare, knocking down walls and killing everything within, including those sinful animals.
We were also told that it was not a sin of pride to blow one's own trumpet because that was what Joshua did.
I cannot see the need for any other book if one seeks an education in the round.
Clinging onto selfish and unjust traditions and scriptures will never work
The traditions are the best part about religion.
The traditions are the best part about religion.
I like the one where water is poured over a baby's head by a man in a dress, a few words are mumbled and the baby becomes a Christian.
Since both of you cannot give me actual evidence (although the burden of proof lies more with theists, atheists still can't disprove God), I want you to use various other things, such as
logics
reasoning
incentives
etc
To back up your argument, and to try to persuade me to go either way! I am curious to see what you come up with.
You can only use logic, reasoning etc. to refute specific gods/religions that people propose. For example, one could try to argue that a god who loves everyone but damns some people to hell because they made the mistake of not believing in him is illogical. Or one could use the fact that study after study shows that prayer doesn't affect people's recovery rate from injury or illness as evidence to refute claims that a god who answers those sorts of prayers exists. But you can't disprove the general concept of a hypothetical god that doesn't get any more specific than that. So if you want atheists to make those sorts of arguments, maybe you should specify which god/religion you want refuted. Christianity? Islam? Hinduism? I don't think anyone is going to bother trying to prove that a generic supernatural creator doesn't exist.
I would also like to point out that merely proving or disproving that a generic magical creator exists is pretty useless, since the information wouldn't actually be of use to anyone. You would know that such a deity existed, but you still wouldn't knowing anything about how it wanted you to behave, why it made the universe, what it thinks about humans (if it thinks about them at all), or anything else.
You can only use logic, reasoning etc. to refute specific gods/religions that people propose. For example, one could try to argue that a god who loves everyone but damns some people to hell because they made the mistake of not believing in him is illogical. Or one could use the fact that study after study shows that prayer doesn't affect people's recovery rate from injury or illness as evidence to refute claims that a god who answers those sorts of prayers exists. But you can't disprove the general concept of a hypothetical god that doesn't get any more specific than that. So if you want atheists to make those sorts of arguments, maybe you should specify which god/religion you want refuted. Christianity? Islam? Hinduism? I don't think anyone is going to bother trying to prove that a generic supernatural creator doesn't exist.
I would also like to point out that merely proving or disproving that a generic magical creator exists is pretty useless, since the information wouldn't actually be of use to anyone. You would know that such a deity existed, but you still wouldn't knowing anything about how it wanted you to behave, why it made the universe, what it thinks about humans (if it thinks about them at all), or anything else.
That's where the experts come in. They tell us what god expects of us and so on/ We jusy have to sit back and listen. Baa !
Norsefire
08-11-08, 05:49 PM
Would you worship this creator when it was proven to you that it indeed was a scientist, and we were his experiment ?
What would be the point? Although, of course, that idea isn't illogical IMO; hell, for all we know that's what it is. And for all we know in the future we will create a universe and become "gods"
Read the Bible.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
And then I should read Dr. Seuss?
Sorry, but a book doesn't help me. The Bible is an interesting and meaningful piece of LITERATURE............but that's about it.
Cyperium
08-11-08, 08:14 PM
Truth. I think there is a difference between simple facts, and Truth.
To get to the actual Truth, I think we need to approach the spiritual, cause no fact will satisfy that need.
Facts can mean nothing at all, facts need not be understood, or realised in any way, you can just know a bunch of stuff with no real influence in your life.
Truth must be within. Facts can scatter all around.
That's my understanding of it.
I like the one where water is poured over a baby's head by a man in a dress, a few words are mumbled and the baby becomes a Christian.
:roflmao:Too much. Did that happen to you Myles?
What would be the point?
Indeed..
:roflmao:Too much. Did that happen to you Myles?
It did. Like millions of others I was a victim of ignorant, hypocritical BABY-SNATCHERS FOR JESUS. I kicked the bastards out of my life when I was 14 but I take it you are still tainted.
Norsefire
08-12-08, 02:34 PM
Indeed..
However, that is off topic; I am questioning whether or not there is a Creator; worship has nothing to do with this.
However, that is off topic; I am questioning whether or not there is a Creator; worship has nothing to do with this.
Why would there be a creator ?
Norsefire
08-12-08, 03:34 PM
Why would there be a creator ?
Why would the universe have begun on it's own?
The question "why would there be a creator" does not make sense. Why are there dogs? I don't know, but there are.
Why would the universe have begun on it's own?
The question "why would there be a creator" does not make sense. Why are there dogs? I don't know, but there are.
Dogs arose in an already existent universe.
To assert that something predates existence is completely illogical.
It's like me claiming I created [insert whatever] before I was born.
Norsefire
08-12-08, 04:05 PM
Dogs arose in an already existent universe.
To assert that something predates existence is completely illogical.
It's like me claiming I created [insert whatever] before I was born.
No, it'd be after you were born. If there is a Creator, he'd obviously exist within his own "universe" or existence.
It'd be more like you creating something after you were born, which is not illogical.
No, it'd be after you were born. If there is a Creator, he'd obviously exist within his own "universe" or existence.
It'd be more like you creating something after you were born, which is not illogical.
Oh, so this creator created the universe only when the universe was already there :confused:
Norsefire
08-12-08, 11:17 PM
Oh, so this creator created the universe only when the universe was already there :confused:
His universe. Our universe would be the product of his actions.
In a similar manner as if we Humans created a universe, we create one, but we already have one of our own which in turn had a beginning.
I am simply saying, the concept of a creator (when I say creation, I am not referring to traditional Creationism) should not be excluded. As of now, we have absolutely nothing to suggest either natural beginning or creation. Both are on the table as the only possibilities and equally probable or at least reasonable.
Or, for all we know, both atheists and theists are wrong; for all we know, it's something we'll never even imagine. Who knows?
11parcal
08-12-08, 11:24 PM
Ahh but then the question of how Gods universe came to be or even how God himself came to be far to many paradoxes for there to be a God
Norsefire
08-12-08, 11:36 PM
Ahh but then the question of how Gods universe came to be or even how God himself came to be far to many paradoxes for there to be a God
The same could be said about nature.
Michael
08-13-08, 12:34 AM
1) Reality is eternal. There done.
2) Disprove God is Smurfette :)
3) Disprove the existence of Xenu.
As for #2, although it's not possible to disprove God is Smurfette, why would you bother believing She is? And while people DO think Xenu exists, just because it's not possible to disprove Xenu .... do you really want to waste your time???
MII
Steve100
08-13-08, 02:00 AM
I don't care which way you go, so long as you don't go around trying to convert people who do not wish it.
His universe. Our universe would be the product of his actions.
In a similar manner as if we Humans created a universe, we create one, but we already have one of our own which in turn had a beginning.
I am simply saying, the concept of a creator (when I say creation, I am not referring to traditional Creationism) should not be excluded. As of now, we have absolutely nothing to suggest either natural beginning or creation. Both are on the table as the only possibilities and equally probable or at least reasonable.
Or, for all we know, both atheists and theists are wrong; for all we know, it's something we'll never even imagine. Who knows?
So God created our sub universe but already lived in a higher universe himself, who created this higher universe ?
The same could be said about nature.
No.. something could have always been.
SnakeLord
08-13-08, 07:44 AM
Since both of you cannot give me actual evidence (although the burden of proof lies more with theists, atheists still can't disprove God)
The burden of proof lies solely with the theists even if an atheist says "gods are all fictional".
I can say santa does not exist, mermaids do no exist, leprechauns do not exist, the tooth fairy does not exist and nobody would ever even consider saying that I had some burden of proof - to provide evidence for the non existence of those entities.
I can likewise say exactly the same thing with 4,999 gods. I can happily say zeus does not exist, osiris does not exist, marduk does not exist, abellio does not exist and again nobody would ever even consider saying that I had some burden of proof - to provide evidence for the non existence of those entities.
But with their god they consider it different - simply because they believe it exists. It is as foolish as all the aforementioned entities. It doesn't exist.
try to persuade me to go either way
No need.
Regards,
Norsefire
08-13-08, 07:45 PM
So God created our sub universe but already lived in a higher universe himself, who created this higher universe ?
A paradox. However, a paradox shared equally by nature.
I do not think it is that simple. If indeed our universe was created by an intelligent being(s), their universe could've been made naturally.
Or ours is natural, and the ones WE create would fit the description of creation.
No.. something could have always been.
No, not logically.
Snake, you are referring to scripture. Yes, you can say all of those deities do not exist. However, I am speaking of concept: all of those deities share the same concept. The concept itself, is not ridiculous or illogical.
11parcal
08-13-08, 07:54 PM
God can no more be proved or disproved then the concept of an Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster, if such a thing existed but due to it's invisibility had never been found does it exist? God works along the same principle if there were ancient texts about said flying spaghetti monster telling of it's incredible deeds would we not believe in it?
Norsefire
08-13-08, 07:56 PM
You're making the same ignorant mistake all atheists make: stop making specifics!
I am saying a Creator. That is it. No specifics, no scriptures, none of that. A creator. I am not speaking of details or identity. Only a creator. Nothing else. Do you get it? Got it? Good?
And please tell me what of THAT is comparable to unicorns or a giant spaghetti monster.
It's absolutely so annoying when people can't quite understand what I am saying.
11parcal
08-13-08, 08:08 PM
Then i tend to agree with an earlier poster if all you want is to know whether or not someone was there to knock over the first domino there is truly no purpose to this thread. Whether or not the big bang was caused naturally or not makes no difference as no one believes in a deity for that reason
Norsefire
08-13-08, 08:12 PM
Then i tend to agree with an earlier poster if all you want is to know whether or not someone was there to knock over the first domino there is truly no purpose to this thread. Whether or not the big bang was caused naturally or not makes no difference as no one believes in a deity for that reason
However, it is the pursuit of knowledge. Technically there's no reason to even bother figuring out how the universe began, but people do for the pursuit of knowledge and answers to great mysteries.
And so, the concept of "creation" (not in a religious sense, i.e, not creationism) is not ridiculous. The problem is there is absolutely NO way of knowing whether or not the universe was created or if it began by means other than intention (naturally)
Of course, I am not suggesting this creator has to be some magical being. It could be a scientist in a lab coat, and we are an experiment (our universe)
However that is mere speculation: all I can say for sure is that the concept of a creator, and natural beginning, are, to me, both very open possibilities and there is of yet no reason to lean either way.
11parcal
08-13-08, 08:21 PM
Then i suppose we could even go as far to say that The Matrix was right so far as we know this world could have been created by another race from another universe or, I can't believe i'm saying this, Horton Hears A Who could have gotten it right and we are but i small spec in a larger universe and so long as we don't know how the universe was created we can never know if the universe is even REAL... What is real is it something you can see, something you can touch, or taste or smell? Then isn't real just a series of electrical signals sent to your brain?
Norsefire
08-13-08, 08:27 PM
Then i suppose we could even go as far to say that The Matrix was right so far as we know this world could have been created by another race from another universe or, I can't believe i'm saying this, Horton Hears A Who could have gotten it right and we are but i small spec in a larger universe and so long as we don't know how the universe was created we can never know if the universe is even REAL... What is real is it something you can see, something you can touch, or taste or smell? Then isn't real just a series of electrical signals sent to your brain?
It is true that reality is only as you can sense it. Therefore, yes, I suppose it is somewhat possible (though I'd say unlikely) that "reality" is an illusion.
SnakeLord
08-14-08, 04:48 AM
Snake, you are referring to scripture. Yes, you can say all of those deities do not exist. However, I am speaking of concept: all of those deities share the same concept. The concept itself, is not ridiculous or illogical.
What 'concept' is that? From your posts I gather that the 'concept' in question is "a creator" but, with all due respect, if you don't get anymore specific than that then there is simply nothing to talk about.
A creator? Seemingly you don't mean some natural event but some intelligent entity. I get this from your statement:
"The problem is there is absolutely NO way of knowing whether or not the universe was created or if it began by means other than intention (naturally)"
Clearly from your above statement, when you say "created" you refer to some intelligent entity. As such further defining of said entity is required else the conversation is pointless.
Regards,
[QUOTE=Norsefire;1965328]However, it is the pursuit of knowledge. Technically there's no reason to even bother figuring out how the universe began, but people do for the pursuit of knowledge and answers to great mysteries.
And so, the concept of "creation" (not in a religious sense, i.e, not creationism) is not ridiculous. The problem is there is absolutely NO way of knowing whether or not the universe was created or if it began by means other than intention (naturally)
Of course, I am not suggesting this creator has to be some magical being. It could be a scientist in a lab coat, and we are an experiment (our universe)
However that is mere speculation: all I can say for sure is that the concept of a creator, and natural beginning, are, to me, both very open possibilities and there is of yet no reason to lean either way
You have answered your own question. Further discussion would be futile. Why pursue knowledge of something which cannot be known ?
Norsefire
08-14-08, 04:17 PM
What 'concept' is that? From your posts I gather that the 'concept' in question is "a creator" but, with all due respect, if you don't get anymore specific than that then there is simply nothing to talk about. That's the point. Asserting that our universe was created (caused to be through processes based on intention) is not illogical. However, you cannot go further. How can you know the nature and identity and ability of this creator? You cannot, thus religion is foolish. How can you know of heaven and hell? You cannot. There is no evidence for it.
However the concept of a creator is not based on evidence, it's based on logic. In itself, that concept is not illogical. If an apple falls to the ground, that is natural. If I throw an apple, it is because of my intention that I pick it up and apply the force necessary to throw it.
A creator? Seemingly you don't mean some natural event but some intelligent entity. I get this from your statement:
"The problem is there is absolutely NO way of knowing whether or not the universe was created or if it began by means other than intention (naturally)"
Clearly from your above statement, when you say "created" you refer to some intelligent entity. As such further defining of said entity is required else the conversation is pointless.
Regards, Further definition is foolish. I can say, by using logic, that a Creator is possible and as of now, quite probable, or at least, no more improbable than natural beginning. I can reach this standpoint based on logic and current scientific knowledge.
To go further, as to state anything of the nature of this creator, makes no sense. I have no evidence in order to go further. Simply suggesting our universe was created does not mean there has to be a heaven and hell and angels and all of that. I am also not saying that said creator has any impact on our universe nor that he is magical and all knowing. This is stupid to assert because it is impossible to know.
The core concept, on the other hand, still makes sense.
You have answered your own question. Further discussion would be futile. Why pursue knowledge of something which cannot be known ?
For the sake of the pursuit of knowledge. People want to learn about the universe.
SnakeLord
08-14-08, 06:26 PM
That's the point. Asserting that our universe was created (caused to be through processes based on intention) is not illogical.
The assertion has absolutely no basis.
However, you cannot go further. How can you know the nature and identity and ability of this creator? You cannot, thus religion is foolish.
This you would have to take up with the respective religions. In the case of christianity they would assert that the nature of such entity can be known because he.. 'communicates' with them. It is as baseless as your statements - and as equally worthless.
If I throw an apple, it is because of my intention that I pick it up and apply the force necessary to throw it.
I don't see the relation, sorry.
I can say, by using logic, that a Creator is possible and as of now, quite probable, or at least, no more improbable than natural beginning.
On what basis?
I can reach this standpoint based on logic and current scientific knowledge.
Incorrect - "scientific knowledge" does not hint at the existence of 'creator entities'.
Simply suggesting our universe was created does not mean there has to be a heaven and hell and angels and all of that.
Both statements are equally baseless.
Regards,
Norsefire
08-14-08, 06:39 PM
What do you mean "baseless"? It's based on trying to figure out how our universe came to be.
SnakeLord
08-14-08, 06:51 PM
What do you mean "baseless"?
You would need to base the argument that "a creator might have done it" on something, (unless we're talking pure imagination), so what exactly do you base such a statement on?
"It's possible" isn't actually an argument to anything, it is an acceptance of any old imagination as a competing argument - when they are not. One could say "it's possible we live in the matrix", but it is baseless and isn't a competing argument to existence. It has no actual worth.
So, what do you base your "it's possible" on?
Norsefire
08-14-08, 07:16 PM
I don't understand; it's based on figuring out how the universe came to be. It is as baseless as saying the universe began by natural means, then.
I don't understand; it's based on figuring out how the universe came to be.
There would have to be some sort of observation to lead one to "figure out" anything. What observation is there for creation? That would be the "basis" on what you are "figuring out."
It is as baseless as saying the universe began by natural means, then.
Not when there are mountains of observations to support it.
Norsefire
08-14-08, 07:32 PM
There would have to be some sort of observation to lead one to "figure out" anything. What observation is there for creation? That would be the "basis" on what you are "figuring out." My observation is that the universe exists.
Not when there are mountains of observations to support it.
There is not a shred of evidence to support either natural beginning or "creation" (I don't mean creationism)
My observation is that the universe exists.
Playing coy?
From what observation of the universe's existence leads you conclude a creator?
There is not a shred of evidence to support either natural beginning or "creation" (I don't mean creationism)[/QUOTE]
Norsefire
08-14-08, 07:41 PM
Playing coy?
From what observation of the universe's existence leads you conclude a creator?
The observation is that it exists. This observation leads me to conclude that it somehow came to be.
This can be said of beleving in a natural beginning as well.
SnakeLord
08-14-08, 08:04 PM
I don't understand; it's based on figuring out how the universe came to be. It is as baseless as saying the universe began by natural means, then
As stated by Q. If you assert a proposition it has to be based upon something. In this instance you might like to claim that your claim to "a creator" is based upon "the universe exists" but that doesn't lead beyond the statement that "the universe exists".
Claims to why or how the universe exists can either be imagined, (hence worthless in the grand scheme of things) or hypothesised based upon observations. I would therefore ask what observations lead to the idea that a 'creator did it'. "It exists" is not an observation that in itself leads anywhere beyond the statement.
Now, when the time is right I will happily sit here and go through "natural means" with you. I shall discuss in depth how it works, what observations support such claims and so on - going through cosmology in depth, (and having said that I should point out that I am not a cosmologist and so ultimately am happy to say "I don't know") - which still never gives rise to asserting that it was 'created' by some intelligent entity - especially given theistic arguments that don't remove the problems they pin upon natural means, (everything must be caused), but ignore it completely: "oh well, my entity clearly wasn't caused - just everything else must have been".
But first, as you were the one that made the original assertion, kindly provide me the basis for asserting that a 'creator did it'.
Regards,
Norsefire
08-15-08, 03:58 PM
As stated by Q. If you assert a proposition it has to be based upon something. In this instance you might like to claim that your claim to "a creator" is based upon "the universe exists" but that doesn't lead beyond the statement that "the universe exists". Therefore claiming that the universe began naturally also is baseless. It's based on "the universe exists" as well.
Claims to why or how the universe exists can either be imagined, (hence worthless in the grand scheme of things) or hypothesised based upon observations. I would therefore ask what observations lead to the idea that a 'creator did it'. "It exists" is not an observation that in itself leads anywhere beyond the statement. Any speculation as to how the universe came to be is just that, speculation. The fact that the universe exists is evidence enough that it came to be. The question is, how?
That's where we speculate: it was either created, or it came to be on it's own.
Now, when the time is right I will happily sit here and go through "natural means" with you. I shall discuss in depth how it works, what observations support such claims and so on - going through cosmology in depth, (and having said that I should point out that I am not a cosmologist and so ultimately am happy to say "I don't know") - which still never gives rise to asserting that it was 'created' by some intelligent entity - especially given theistic arguments that don't remove the problems they pin upon natural means, (everything must be caused), but ignore it completely: "oh well, my entity clearly wasn't caused - just everything else must have been". There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever as to how the universe came to be. If we are to say that there was anything before our universe, and it had also likewise had to come from somewhere, it therefore means it's quite possible our universe is the product of previous universes, and these previous universes were the products of creation and natural beginning.
Think of it as a cycle: if indeed our universe began naturally, eventually we Humans will one day have the power to create universes. And this universe would have been created.
But first, as you were the one that made the original assertion, kindly provide me the basis for asserting that a 'creator did it'.
Regards,
Again, it is speculation based on the fact that we are here.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.