By the way, I think this is a cool thread. Despite people's differing viewpoints and outlooks on life, people are very respectful to eachother. Good job everybody!
Inspired by Tom Allens Thread -
- Thread starter Adamantium
- Start date
Seconded, not to sound like the judgmental noob I am... but I did not expect this level of maturity (not that I had a specific reason to think otherwise
)Tom.
There is no plausible connection between what we are discussing with the failure of evolution, they are two entirely separate considerations.
The theatre of this world we live in was set up by a creator in terms of providing the laws that govern our universe to act upon the matter left over from the big bang.
Those laws underwrite everything we have, and can ever experience, they are god created laws and designed to provide an environment that doesn't need his constant intervention hence the phenomenon we describe as chance.
I don't think it's surprising that a world left to itself will not always follow a divine path of perfection and will sometimes undergo aberrations .... you must remember, the same mechanism that provides change for evolution to process for the betterment of a species [a greater ability to survive] also provides biological fuhk-ups that get weeded out.
I do not think God sits behind each and every biological mechanism/action ensuring a correct and improving environment, I believe he has thrown the dice [against Einstein's advice] and stood back .... agnosticism at its finest.
I think this answers your most recent queries ... well maybe not answer to your satisfaction but it does to mine
There is no plausible connection between what we are discussing with the failure of evolution, they are two entirely separate considerations.
The theatre of this world we live in was set up by a creator in terms of providing the laws that govern our universe to act upon the matter left over from the big bang.
Those laws underwrite everything we have, and can ever experience, they are god created laws and designed to provide an environment that doesn't need his constant intervention hence the phenomenon we describe as chance.
I don't think it's surprising that a world left to itself will not always follow a divine path of perfection and will sometimes undergo aberrations .... you must remember, the same mechanism that provides change for evolution to process for the betterment of a species [a greater ability to survive] also provides biological fuhk-ups that get weeded out.
I do not think God sits behind each and every biological mechanism/action ensuring a correct and improving environment, I believe he has thrown the dice [against Einstein's advice] and stood back .... agnosticism at its finest.
I think this answers your most recent queries ... well maybe not answer to your satisfaction but it does to mine
What makes it such a certainty that it was God that created these laws? Why does it have to have a creative being?
The argument that it is because there is no other logical answer holds no weight at all.
There was a time that people were absolutely positive that the world was flat, because there was not logical way it couldn't be... we'd just fall off.... they had no understanding of the force of gravity, so they were not in a position to see the logic at work. Now that we are, it seems so simple and obvious.
That’s the connection I’m trying to make - just because we can't see the logic of something doesn’t mean there isn't any, we just don't understand it yet .Throughout our existence, there has always been things we don't understand... and throughout history we've been very quick to attribute these things to a God.
You yourself quoted “Faith begins where knowledge ends” which is entirely true, and leads me onto this point:
Without a person, writing about God’s creation in the Bible and/or other text...How would you have known and what would you think? Would you have created such a deity to explain these mysteries? Or simply resign yourself to not knowing (yet?). Is it not possible someone came to this conclusion at the point when their knowledge and understand ran out?
It is logical that a man without understanding would come to that conclusion... but it doesn't mean that conclusion is logical.
Just incase my tone doesn’t translate here; I just want to clarify that I am in no way trying to belittle or persuade you ‘out of faith’. That would be futile, I just like to understand your point of view.
I realise I've responded to your answers with more questions
EDIT: Spelling and slight expansion of point.
a quote from the film signs, if you havnt seen it mel gibson plays as a father thats lost his faith due to the experience of his wife passing. This speech he gives to his brother when he asks for a little comfort as they both watch a news broadcast showing unidentified lights flying above mexico, got me thinkin anyway..
People break down into two groups. When they experience something lucky, group number one sees it as more than luck, more than coincidence. They see it as a sign, evidence, that there is someone up there, watching out for them. Group number two sees it as just pure luck. Just a happy turn of chance. I'm sure the people in group number two are looking at those fourteen lights in a very suspicious way. For them, the situation is a fifty-fifty. Could be bad, could be good. But deep down, they feel that whatever happens, they're on their own. And that fills them with fear. Yeah, there are those people. But there's a whole lot of people in group number one. When they see those fourteen lights, they're looking at a miracle. And deep down, they feel that whatever's going to happen, there will be someone there to help them. And that fills them with hope. See what you have to ask yourself is what kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, that sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky? Or, look at the question this way: Is it possible that there are no coincidences?
People break down into two groups. When they experience something lucky, group number one sees it as more than luck, more than coincidence. They see it as a sign, evidence, that there is someone up there, watching out for them. Group number two sees it as just pure luck. Just a happy turn of chance. I'm sure the people in group number two are looking at those fourteen lights in a very suspicious way. For them, the situation is a fifty-fifty. Could be bad, could be good. But deep down, they feel that whatever happens, they're on their own. And that fills them with fear. Yeah, there are those people. But there's a whole lot of people in group number one. When they see those fourteen lights, they're looking at a miracle. And deep down, they feel that whatever's going to happen, there will be someone there to help them. And that fills them with hope. See what you have to ask yourself is what kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, that sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky? Or, look at the question this way: Is it possible that there are no coincidences?
I prefer:
"Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. This is why the $740,000 reward of James Randi, offered to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal effect under proper scientific controls, is safe."
-Richard Dawkins
"Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. This is why the $740,000 reward of James Randi, offered to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal effect under proper scientific controls, is safe."
-Richard Dawkins
I think it quite logical to assume that the entity who created the universe would also be responsible for the laws that prevail in it and I'm afraid the question you then go on to ask, that of, 'Why does it have to have a creative being'? is quite an alarming one not least because it's ludicrous to conclude that something that has obviously been created [we see evidence of these laws every second of every day] has not had its origins inextricably tied to anything but a creator ...they go hand in hand ...
Now if I was surprised by that last little gem in the previous quote , I was absolutely flummoxed by this one.
The reason?
I suppose, because to me, the fact there is no other logical answer is the very reason it should hold weight.
Think of this please and I promise I will make things algebraically easy ....
I am given an equation that reads:-
7x+3=17 and I have to prove that x=2.
My proof goes something like:-
I can state that 7x + 3 = 17 because that's given to me already.
I can now add 3 to both sides because there is an axiom that states there is an addition property of equality which now gives rise to 7x = 14.
We can now divide both sides by 7 because there is another axiom that states there is a division property of equality; we therefore end up with x=2 which is the proof we were asked to perform.
My point?
My point is .... that when we arrive at the final line of my proof x=2, there was no other logical possibility but you are suggesting [erroneously may I venture] that the answer cannot be 2 just because there is no other logical possibility .. this is bunkum my friend, absolute bunkum.
Firstly, it wasn't the fact the Flat Earth Society were ignorant of gravity that led them to believe the Earth was flat, you can just as easily factor in gravity to a flat earth with no practical problems whatsoever [for that time], they were merely ignorant of the curvature of the earth and so could only judge by what they saw ... it was as simple and as ignorant as that.
But to compare those guys with my assertion of there being a God based upon the evidence of this universe is quite inappropriate mainly because I have more than enough evidence to conclude there is a god, come to think of it, how much evidence would you like?
I mean you have the whole universe as evidence, is there any more????
Hmmm, I’m struggling with this mainly because I’m not clear as to what you are trying to say here, leastwise the point eludes me.
You seem to be getting confused between evidence and logic; the Flat Earth brigade were ignorant of evidence not logic.
And as to the knee-jerk attribution of God to things we don’t know ... I agree but this hardly applies to what I am suggesting as I am backing up my assertion ... I’m certainly not the brightest person in the world, nowhere near it but I’m lucky enough to possess a sufficient dollop of grey matter to be able to connect the things I know and to then apply rationale, hence my assertion of God creating the universe.
Once again there seems to be a certain degree of confusion going on here in this paragraph above; I don’t need a religious God to conclude there is a creator behind this universe.
A scientific mind will always look for causality and I’m afraid there is no recourse to religion at any point.
People’s writings serve up different forms of religious Gods, I’m not interested in any of those in terms of offering insights into God’s mind or intentions.
There is no point in mentioning any boundary between faith and knowledge as it’s completely academic in this context I’m afraid.
I think this sentence above is based upon some pretty flawed reasoning and thus makes little sense to me. If you are saying that any person who concludes God created this universe but at the same time had no understanding [as to what? I have zero idea] then I would rebut this by suggesting I am not ignorant at all; I am equipped to prove everything I state:-
I have five senses and can think therefore I am able to bear witness.
I bear witness to a universe outside of me.
I am intelligent enough to understand the notion of causality.
I conclude that God, creator, whatever you wanna call him is responsible for the construction of our universe ... end of!!!
No probelmo, I didn’t think for one second you were trying do either and I also hope you are assured I am not doing the same though my tone has pis$ed many a person off before and if it does you, then I apologise, it's not intended I promise.
It’s cool, there’s nothing I can’t answer here J
I fail to see the evidence of conscious design in the laws of nature, I just see battling forces that have achieved equilibrium after billions of years of chaotic existence. This is also only based on the assumption that there was a creative being.
Am I right in suggesting that the logic you employ to come to this is assumption based on faith?
Personally, the existence of an all powerful creative God seems so unlikely, given the absolute complexities of existence.
Pardon my laziness but I find this quote very relevant to the subject of logic, and specifically its relevance in making assumptions based on it. Note: this is not my own words.
“It's worth mentioning a couple of things which logic is not.
First, logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe. Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be impossible, period. It was also believed at one time that Euclidean geometry was a universal law; it is, after all, logically consistent. Again, we now know that the rules of Euclidean geometry are not universal.
Second, logic is not a set of rules which govern human behavior. Humans may have logically conflicting goals. For example:
• John wishes to speak to whoever is in charge.
• The person in charge is Steve.
• Therefore John wishes to speak to Steve.
Unfortunately, John may have a conflicting goal of avoiding Steve, meaning that the reasoned answer may be inapplicable to real life.
There are other ways to communicate, discuss and debate.”
Unfortunately I don’t see the relevance of the example for algebra since it has a definitive and uncompromising answer. If you applied any other value to x, then the result would not be the correct. You understand the rules of this in full and therefore you can come to an answer without any doubt of its validity.
Where as, the creation of the universe is not so definite, since there are extreme gray areas of understanding surrounding the point of creation. It’s not as black and white as mathematics.
Just because you personally don't see the logic in something does not been there isn't any to be found.
To my understanding it is gravity that causes planets to settle in a spherical shape. So gravity would not allow a flat earth to exist, at least in any habitable way. I believe that i would not even be able to exist flat within an orbit (another thing they were unaware of).
So in having a low understanding of gravity was still the issue that created that ignorant view. Again, they failed to see any other logic due to the poor understanding of the law(s) involved.
I don’t see the universe as evidence; I see the lack of knowledge that leads to a faith that…’well someone had to do it, otherwise how did happen’. Some tribal cultures believed that rain and crop growth was provided by a God, now that we have a higher knowledge of how climate works, we know it’s a delicate balance of opposing forces.
It’s not like he signed his name. (not that you would, but last time I made that point someone suggested that *we* are that signature….please, will no-one subject me to that self centered tripe)
So yes - for me, there would need to be a lot more evidence for conscious creation to be viable. Preferably, something less vague than the entire Universe.
The ‘Flat Earth Brigade’ or the majority of the Scientific Community as they were known at the time, were unable to quantify the logic due to the lack of evidence. My point was (again back to the concept of logic) that at that specific point – they were unable to see any other logical answer to that question. There was still another conclusion to be had, they were just unaware of it at the time.
Without questioning your obvious intelligence - could it not possible that you find yourself in a similar situation… because you haven’t been witness to the proof of undiscovered non-sentient forces that could of caused a reaction known as the ‘Big Bang’, you are making the assumption of a higher being was responsible based on where your knowledge ends?
I am in no way advocating that there 100% wasn’t/is a God… I am in no place to assert such things… no one is, as states previously it is impossible to prove such a thing. Equally I don’t believe anyone is in the position to assume there 100% is one.. – it is purely a matter of faith not evidence. I’m quite comfortable to resign that we don’t understand this yet and must strive to gain that knowledge – fortunately there are much more intelligent people than me researching this as we speak.
So are you saying that you came to this conclusion without any influence from religion at all?
I find that incredibly hard to believe. That concept has been indoctrinated into ours and almost all other cultures for thousands of years, but fair enough I won't push that point.
Personally without being disrespectful, but I find that a bit of a wishy washy statement. It seems like a glorified, “I think it is, because it just is”
Proof is defined as: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true.
I don’t believe the universe and its laws are sufficient enough evidence for anyone to declare it as proof of a creationist deity – it stands up to no scientific analysis. Where as the big bang and universal expansion are well documented and observed, plus observation given the temperature of the universe it was initially all photons which condense into matter (after 379,000 years no less...) therefore light existed before matter and 6 billion years before the earth.*CMBR and Radiation decoupling from matter are further studies/discoveries that a support a non sentient creation.
Although you may argue that a deity caused all this as part of his/hers creation....but you could do that forever, which would be tedious.
This has been extremely fascinating and a great view point from the other side of the fence. A fence we obviously sit firmly on opposite sides of.
I fear that eventually (in maybe another 10 or 15 pages more
) we will have to agree to disagree (personally I absolute despise that phrase, especially because I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you.. just exploring your different view point.) It has been refreshing to speak to someone who actually attempts to explain their reasoning, instead of dismissing any critic of their belief.
Much respect is due.
C'mon Pete, you gotta do better than that. And I know you can.
That conclusion you reach is basically just filling in the blanks, replacing an unknown with something that isn't proven at all by that previous line of reasoning.
I have five senses and can think and am therefore able to bear witness. True.
I bear witness to a universe outside of me. Agreed.
I am intelligent enough to understand the notion of causality. Indeed.
I conclude that god, creator, whatever you wanna call him is responsible for the construction of our universe... end of!!! Come again?
I conclude that someone, something, somethings or some event or events is/are responsible for the construction of our universe.
Whether or not this was by intelligent design or some random factors thrown together has yet to be proven and going by the notion God is one singular, intelligent entity, his existence can not be proven by the above reasoning. Unless you are willing to heap all those possible "creators" together under the "god banner", but then the discussion would be more along the lines of what constitutes God?
It's funny to see though how close we are in our opinions when you look at them closely. We both believe in a superpowerful force that created the Universe, but we differ in the conclusion of what this force is. Other than that, there seems to be zero difference of opinion.