Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[Eudaimonist]

I love star trek. I tried using thinking skills, to talk about the heart of man, but unless it can be seen under a microscope, people wont believe it exists, even though its already inside them. Even Spock had a heart, he was half human.

No one here doubts that human beings have feelings. No one.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Extraneous]

No one here doubts that human beings have feelings. No one.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Before a person meets their wife or husband, they dont know if such a person exists, but they hope to find them one day. That's how it is with God. We see others having a relationship with him, and we want that as well, and we hope. Then we find, eventually, after some heartache and growth. That's love, its not easy, but its what our heart and soul longs for, and in the end, if we find it, we are very happy. You cant put that under a microscope, although you can observe chemical reactions in the brain, but you cant see God there any more than you can see the person that someone loves through those chemical reactions. You can see people, i will grant you that, but try to see whats in the heart of millions of people who believe in God too. Try to acknowledge thats its a real thing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Before a person meets their wife or husband, they dont know if such a person exists, but they hope to find them one day. That's how it is with God. We see others having a relationship with him, and we want that as well, and we hope.

I don't feel like that at all.

In fact, I hope for the opposite. I hope I never find myself in a state of mind where I think believing things on bad evidence is a good idea.

Then we find, eventually, after some heartache and growth. That's love, its not easy, but its what our heart and soul longs for, and in the end, if we find it, we are very happy. You cant put that under a microscope, although you can observe chemical reactions in the brain, but you cant see God there any more than you can see the person that someone loves through those chemical reactions. You can see people, i will grant you that, but try to see whats in the heart of millions of people who believe in God too. Try to acknowledge thats its a real thing.

I don't think anyone here denies the religious feelings people have.

The thing is though, feelings and beliefs don't necessarily reflect reality.

After all.... Jihadi's have such strong feelings and beliefs, they are even willing to blow themselves up.

 

[The Cadet]

The teleological argument is very strong.
So yes, facts point to a creator.
(chiming in very late...)

The teleological argument is based on the findings of cosmology and astrophysics. What percentage of astrophysicists and cosmologists accept the consequence of the teleological argument and belive in God?

 

[Extraneous]

I don't feel like that at all.

In fact, I hope for the opposite. I hope I never find myself in a state of mind where I think believing things on bad evidence is a good idea.




I don't think anyone here denies the religious feelings people have.

The thing is though, feelings and beliefs don't necessarily reflect reality.

After all.... Jihadi's have such strong feelings and beliefs, they are even willing to blow themselves up.

Maybe so, and i surely wouldnt argue against that, but the truth remains that God wants to give us love, and want us to love Him. Anyway friend, there is no debating this, and no proving anything, because God only is found by those seeking him with their heart and mind.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not seeing this as a God of the Gaps argument. He's simply asking questions and wondering out loud. That's a fair approach to the question of the origin of the universe. In order to truly be the God of the Gaps argument you have to posit that since science can't answer the question, the answer must be God did it. I don't see that in his argument.

I think we can all agree that people are doing more than just asking the question. This is what they believe to be true. It is disingenuous to claim that they are just asking the question. More over, they have no interest doing research to answer that question.

It's completely logical to ask questions and throw out one's thinking in a forum designed for just that. Rather than offering a snarky reply you could simply engage the questions in an honest way.

Part of the problem is that it is not an honest question. There is no intention of testing the idea, and no intention of supporting the idea with evidence.

 

[Extraneous]

I meant to say in my last post "wouldn't argue against that" (had to edit)

 

[Loudmouth]

The teleological argument is very strong.
So yes, facts point to a creator.
(chiming in very late...)

The teleological argument makes the unsupported assumption that the goal of the universe is us.

 

[bhsmte]

....because the universe is apparently fine tuned...


By chance?
The probability of that is infinitesimally small, so it does not point to chance, at all..

Does this mean all lotto winners won because of god?

 

[Loudmouth]

....because the universe is apparently fine tuned...
By chance?
The probability of that is infinitesimally small, so it does not point to chance, at all..

Any universe would be fine tuned for the things found in it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Before a person meets their wife or husband, they dont know if such a person exists, but they hope to find them one day. That's how it is with God. We see others having a relationship with him, and we want that as well, and we hope.

If I said that I was in a relationship with a woman, but no one could see her, talk to her, hear her, or detect her existence in any manner, wouldn't you think I was a bit nuts?

 

[DogmaHunter]

the truth remains that God wants to give us love, and want us to love Him.

Truth is demonstrable. This thing you call "truth", is, in fact, merely what you believe.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Before a person meets their wife or husband, they dont know if such a person exists, but they hope to find them one day.

I assume you mean that they don't know which person that will be. I certainly did believe since a tender young age that if I were ever to decide to get married (which I did end up doing), that the woman I would marry exists or would be born soon. I had ample evidence that women exist.

Then we find, eventually, after some heartache and growth. That's love, its not easy, but its what our heart and soul longs for, and in the end, if we find it, we are very happy.

Congratulations on the happy feelings, but that doesn't mean that God exists.

You cant put that under a microscope, although you can observe chemical reactions in the brain, but you cant see God there any more than you can see the person that someone loves through those chemical reactions.

Which may make God entirely non-existent. I can see my wife through my eyes. If all I had were feelings to "see" my wife, I would have every reason to think that I was imagining it all.

You can see people, i will grant you that

Um, good...

but try to see whats in the heart of millions of people who believe in God too. Try to acknowledge thats its a real thing.

I have no doubt that the feelings are real, just as mine would be if I were imagining that I had a wife. That doesn't mean that God is real. Sorry, but that argument just doesn't work, and it's not because I lack feelings or don't value feelings.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

Cause and effect are quite established. To claim cause and effect
are not relevant or active is the end of scientific discovery. I'm
afraid that the given argument is literally, the end of reason.

If you are going to argue with your own source, have at it.

 

[PapaZoom]

I think we can all agree that people are doing more than just asking the question. This is what they believe to be true. It is disingenuous to claim that they are just asking the question. More over, they have no interest doing research to answer that question.



Part of the problem is that it is not an honest question. There is no intention of testing the idea, and no intention of supporting the idea with evidence.

I see your point. It is true that it's not just asking the question (at least in my case this is true). It is what I believe to be true. I stil see it as an honest question. If I ask it, I am sincere in wanting to know your views on the question. As for testing the ideas, at 64 years old, I've tested many questions already. I've contemplated a world without a Supreme being. I've considered the evidence for God and the arguments against the evidence. I've never found a reason to disbelieve in God's existence. A question I ask here is more likely asked to help in understanding the views and thinking of others.

 

[PapaZoom]

The teleological argument makes the unsupported assumption that the goal of the universe is us.

In what way is the argument unsupported?

 

[Loudmouth]

I stil see it as an honest question.

With all due respect, I don't. On the scientific side, you have people who are actually trying to put forward testable ideas. They put their ideas at risk through experiments and new observations. On the theistic side, you have a belief that was never reached through evidence or testing, and a belief that is impervious to evidence and questioning. No matter what is observed, no matter what the results of experiments are, the theistic belief will remain.

What is being put forward is a false equivalence between scientific theories and religious beliefs. They are not the same thing. Science actually asks questions. Religious orthodoxy is dogmatic and resistant to questions.

As for testing the ideas, at 64 years old, I've tested many questions already. I've contemplated a world without a Supreme being. I've considered the evidence for God and the arguments against the evidence. I've never found a reason to disbelieve in God's existence. A question I ask here is more likely asked to help in understanding the views and thinking of others.

What evidence? How is it questioned? What observations, if made, would disprove the existence of God?

Also, the burden of proof lies with supporting an idea, not in disproving the idea when there is a lack of supporting evidence. There is no theory in science that is accepted simply because it hasn't been disproven.

 

[Loudmouth]

In what way is the argument unsupported?

In what way is it supported? The burden of proof lies with those making the positive claim.

What evidence demonstrates that the universe was created for human beings as opposed to rock features on Mars, or giant black holes? It would appear to me that the universe is as finely tuned for a geologic feature on Mars that looks like a face as it is for humans. All of the supposedly fine tuned characteristics of our universe that give rise to life are also required to create the Face on Mars:

 

[Chriliman]

With all due respect, I don't. On the scientific side, you have people who are actually trying to put forward testable ideas. They put their ideas at risk through experiments and new observations. On the theistic side, you have a belief that was never reached through evidence or testing, and a belief that is impervious to evidence and questioning. No matter what is observed, no matter what the results of experiments are, the theistic belief will remain.

What is being put forward is a false equivalence between scientific theories and religious beliefs. They are not the same thing. Science actually asks questions. Religious orthodoxy is dogmatic and resistant to questions.



What evidence? How is it questioned? What observations, if made, would disprove the existence of God?

Also, the burden of proof lies with supporting an idea, not in disproving the idea when there is a lack of supporting evidence. There is no theory in science that is accepted simply because it hasn't been disproven.

The fact that the scientific method is not the only way to discover what is true about reality should inform you that you should not solely rely on the scientific method in order to discover what is true about reality.

Unless of course you believe the scientific method is the best and only way to discover what is true about reality, which I would argue is a very close minded view.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fact that the scientific method is not the only way to discover what is true about reality should inform you that you should not solely rely on the scientific method in order to discover what is true about reality.

What are the other ways? Just believing something is true, and hoping?

Unless of course you believe the scientific method is the best and only way to discover what is true about reality, which I would argue is a very close minded view.

Show me a better way that leads to verifiable answers.