Who is Responsible?

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Are you saying the fundamental laws of nature are evidence of intelligence?

Yes, the fact that we see fundamental laws of nature, implies that intelligence put those laws in place. It is natural for us to conclude this because we've only ever known laws to come from intelligence because we make laws ourselves as human beings.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Not necessarily in just a superficial causal way. I'm getting more at ultimate responsibility.
I don´t know what you mean by "ultimate responsibility"? "Ultimate" often seems to be used to force something into our thinking that needn´t be there.
What should be praised or blamed for the various events, good and bad, that happen in our lives?
Not sure why you want something to be praised or blamed for it.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Yes, the fact that we see fundamental laws of nature, implies that intelligence put those laws in place. It is natural for us to conclude this because we've only ever known laws to come from intelligence because we make laws ourselves as human beings.
I have never made such a conclusion. That seems unnatural to me, as the only "intelligence" that I have encountered has been the property of a brain, so it could not have been what put those laws into place.

How do you propose we test your conclusion to see if it is accurate, or if you are simply projecting?
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I have never made such a conclusion. That seems unnatural to me, as the only "intelligence" that I have encountered has been the property of a brain, so it could not have been what put those laws into place.

How do you propose we test your conclusion to see if it is accurate, or if you are simply projecting?

I don't think there's any scientific test that can prove an intelligent God created the laws of nature and I think this is by design because God wants you to believe in him because you feel the evidence points to him, not because you think you can prove that he exists through testing.

Only God can prove that He exists, so for one to think they can prove God would mean one is putting themselves on the same level as God, not a good idea.

Keep following the evidence with an honest heart :)
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
I don't think there's any scientific test that can prove an intelligent God created the laws of nature
That is not what I asked. You don't even have evidence that "intelligence" was involved, other than your opinion.
and I think this is by design because God wants you to believe in him because you feel the evidence points to him, not because you think you can prove that he exists through testing.
I am not asking for proof.
Only God can prove that He exists, so for one to think they can prove God would mean one is putting themselves on the same level as God, not a good idea.
Try sticking to the question being asked of you: How do you propose we test your conclusion to see if it is accurate, or if you are simply projecting?
Keep following the evidence with an honest heart :)
Do you consider those that disagree with you to be dishonest?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Yes, the fact that we see fundamental laws of nature, implies that intelligence put those laws in place. It is natural for us to conclude this because we've only ever known laws to come from intelligence because we make laws ourselves as human beings.
Whether it seems 'natural' or not, this is a category error. Experience tells us that what seems 'natural', intuitive, or 'common-sense' is not a reliable guide to reality. This is why we have developed critical thinking and methodological naturalism to validate what seems natural, intuitive, or common-sense.

The 'laws of nature' and the laws made by man are qualitatively different. The laws of nature are abstracted from the observed consistencies of how the natural world does behave; they are descriptive. The laws of man are imperative instructions as to how one should behave; they are prescriptive. [There's also a good argument to be made that the behaviour of man, including the inclination to make rules and laws, arises out of the consistencies of the natural world (i.e. is emergent) through evolutionary processes - we also see simple rule structures in other social mammals.]

So, no; that men make laws has no logical bearing on how we interpret the behaviour or origins of the natural world.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
I don't think there's any scientific test that can prove an intelligent God created the laws of nature and I think this is by design because God wants you to believe in him because you feel the evidence points to him, not because you think you can prove that he exists through testing.
Leaving aside the straw man of 'proof', this is very confused thinking. Evidence-based explanation is what science does. A scientific test is a the collection and assessment of evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Leaving aside the straw man of 'proof', this is very confused thinking. Evidence-based explanation is what science does. A scientific test is a the collection and assessment of evidence.

Agreed and that collection and assessment of evidence will point to what's true. I'm just saying that if a person proves something is true, this does not mean it's true because the person proved it, it was always true, even if the person did not prove it. Therefore, if God is proven true to someone, it's because God proved himself to them, not because the person proved God.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Agreed and that collection and assessment of evidence will point to what's true.
Good to hear you changed your mind about scientific tests.
I'm just saying that if a person proves something is true, this does not mean it's true because the person proved it, it was always true, even if the person did not prove it.
Surely this is trivially obvious?
Therefore, if God is proven true to someone, it's because God proved himself to them, not because the person proved God.
That's a confused non-sequitur. What follows from your first statement is that if God is proven true to someone, God was always true (by 'true' here I assume you mean the existence of God). But if God is proven true to someone, they may have proven it themselves, someone else may have provided them with proof, or - as you suggest - God may have given proof of himself.

However, God is an ill-defined and unfalsifiable concept, so unprovable (as for Russell's Teapot). Strictly, proof is only applicable to analytic (logical, mathematical) statements - although we generally loosen the criteria for trivially obvious states of affairs. But as God is ill-defined and unfalsifiable, then someone who thinks they have proof of, or have proved, God's existence, is either mistaken or deluded (unless they have obtained a well-defined and falsifiable God concept - let's hear it!); so logically, as an unprovable concept, the only certainty is that God might exist; I guess this is why faith is so valued in theism.
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Good to hear you changed your mind about scientific tests.
Surely this is trivially obvious?
That's a confused non-sequitur. What follows from your first statement is that if God is proven true to someone, God was always true (by 'true' here I assume you mean the existence of God). But if God is proven true to someone, they may have proven it themselves, someone else may have provided them with proof, or - as you suggest - God may have given proof of himself.

However, God is an ill-defined and unfalsifiable concept, so unprovable (as for Russell's Teapot). Strictly, proof is only applicable to analytic (logical, mathematical) statements - although we generally loosen the criteria for trivially obvious states of affairs. But as God is ill-defined and unfalsifiable, then someone who thinks they have proof of, or have proved, God's existence, is either mistaken or deluded (unless they have obtained a well-defined and falsifiable God concept - let's hear it!); so logically, as an unprovable concept, the only certainty is that God might exist; I guess this is why faith is so valued in theism.

Exactly! God might exist and if the cumulative evidence points to God then this increases the likelihood that God does exist as well as the expectation for God to be taken seriously as a viable answer to all questions about reality.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Exactly! God might exist and if the cumulative evidence points to God then this increases the likelihood that God does exist as well as the expectation for God to be taken seriously as a viable answer to all questions about reality.
Before we can propose that a God created anything, we must establish that a God (and a God with such capabilities) exists. Without a well-defined and falsifiable definition of God, it's impossible to say whether any of our observations constitute evidence for it; all we have are untestable assertions. Even if we could establish the existence of a God, the hypothesis, 'A God created the laws of the universe', isn't testable, so we can't reject the null hypothesis, 'A God did not create the laws of the universe'. So the issue is doubly undecidable; we can't reject either null hypothesis, 'A God does not exist', and 'A God did not create the laws of the universe'.

Assuming, without evidence, that the existence of consistencies in the behaviour of the natural world implies the existence of an entity that has the potential to create such consistencies, is magical thinking; but assuming that an entity exists that has the capability to do anything, and then using unexplained or inexplicable features of the natural world to retrospectively bolster the assumption, is bootstrap or recursive magical thinking. Endowing such an assumed entity with anthropomorphic character and anthropocentric interests is plain wishful thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveB28
Upvote 0