Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[Chris B]

1/3 isn't a minority,.

No? 2/3 of the planet don't agree with you. How is that not a minority?

Atheists only comprise 16%. The numbers are against you.

But I never tried to make a case from numbers.
(if Luther and others had packed up just because the majority was against him, Europe would be very different today.
No bibles in English?)

 

[Chris B]

That science cannot answer some question does not imply that religion can.

Of course it can. Lots of religious answers are available. A great diversity of them, in fact.
"Answers" we don't have a shortage of.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Can you please point to another method and give a specific example that objectively advanced human knowledged in some area?

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.

I'm not aware of any method that does a better job.

However, you are welcome to point me to one and support your claim with evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

One other way is being open to logical arguments that point to a specific truth. Namely, logical arguments for the existence of God.

A logical argument is only as good as its premises.
And premises need to be supported with evidence.

Which, ironically, requires science.

Logic is pretty much based in empiricism.

If you just don't want to believe in God regardless of how logical the arguments are then that's a separate personal issue that requires a separate personal answer.

What one "wants" is irrelevant.
If you are going to argue that it IS relevant, I'm just going to point you to the logical fallacy that that leads to.

If you deny that there are any logical arguments for the existence of God, then I'm at a loss because many do seem very logical to me, but maybe I'm the illogical one and this is a question that I often ask myself. Is my understanding inline with the reality that I perceive around me? I think we should all honestly ask ourselves this question from time to time.

I have never encountered an "argument" for a god that wasn't loaded with fallacies.

Furthermore, no amount of mere words can even be sufficient to demonstrate the actual existence of a thing.

Being open to all possibilities and facing the fear of the personal implications of the possibilities i.e. the implications of being wrong. Everybody fears being wrong about their deeply held beliefs and this is why it's very healthy to ask honest questions when our comfortable perception of reality is being shaken.

"We should be open minded, but not SO open minded that our brains fall out" - Professor Richard Dawkins.

 

[DogmaHunter]

God answers prayers before you offer them up. He is there at the beginning and the end and exists outside of time.
But you just made the point, that the cause exists outside of our reality, so says you and science.

Did you even read the question you are replying to? Because it seems like you are answering a completely different post.

I'll just ask my question again:
How can something happen BEFORE time itself exists?

 

[Extraneous]

Can you please point to another method and give a specific example that objectively advanced human knowledged in some area?



I'm not aware of any method that does a better job.

However, you are welcome to point me to one and support your claim with evidence.

The Gospel is what tamed both the barbarian and the Roman both, and although neither followed the Word with all their heart, all the time, its still that Word that enlightened the ancient world, whether you will admit it or not. Before the Gospel man was savage, and even the so called enlightened Roman empire with all its glorious philosophy and art, was nothing but a barbarian. It was the teaching of Love and mercy that Christ brought into the world that all modern civilization is built on. Its also the filthy remnant left over by the barbaric yet so called "civilized" Romans that is causing war, hate, greed and pride today.

If mankind followed Christ with all its heart, instead of clinging to mans wisdom and mans glory, then we would have no war or poverty. Mankind however glories instead in his own wisdom, and in the creation of his own hands. He worship idols made by his own hand, just as his forefathers did as well. He is reaping what he sows, just as God declared. Revelation speaks a great mystery concerning this, and mankind has reaped Gods plagues because he refuses to repent and Give God glory. Mankind doesn't even see it either because he is spiritualy blind, which is also part of the plague that he reaps

 

[DogmaHunter]

There are only 16% who dont believe in some kind of creator. that leaves 84% who believe in some kind of creator.

If 100% of people believe that the sun orbits the earth instead of the other way round, then 100% of people are wrong.

Truth is not determined by popular opinion or by numbers of followers.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The scientific method is not itself testable.

I disagree.

Take a problem. Try to solve it using multiple methods, one of which is the scientific method. Then see which method achieves the best results.

The reason why the scientific method won out, is because it achieved the best results.

Science accomplished immensly more in just 2 centuries then all other methods combined in the 10.000 years preceeding it.

The scientific method has limitations. I don't need to show an alternative method for this to be true. We use our minds and make inferences from what we observe. Science after all simply means knowledge. Positing a Supernatural being from observations of what is made ( the material World) is not unscientific given an adequate explanation, relating to observed facts.

Positing unfalsifiable and unsupportable entities is about as unscientific as it gets.

We can, and do, make logical inferences from observable data. Those inferences may be wrong, but scientists make inferences every day.

And how do you find out if those inferences are wrong?

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you first want to know if a claim is false?

You see how this would differ from someone who wants to know if a claim is true. No?

This goes back to a question I asked you a while ago, and which you did your outmost best to avoid answering...

How do you differentiate true claims from false claims, if not through some form of testability?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The truth about reality would logically be unfalsifiable

Why?

 

[Extraneous]

If 100% of people believe that the sun orbits the earth instead of the other way round, then 100% of people are wrong.

Truth is not determined by popular opinion or by numbers of followers.

We will reap what we sow. If we sow to the spirit we will reap of the spirit, if we sow to the flesh we will reap only corruption. Its the truth, its the meaning of life itself. God commands that all men repent and believe in the Good News that he has given us.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The Gospel is what tamed both the barbarian and the Roman both, and although neither followed the Word with all their heart, all the time, its still that Word that enlightened the ancient world, whether you will admit it or not. Before the Gospel man was savage, and even the so called enlightened Roman empire with all its glorious philosophy and art, was nothing but a barbarian. It was the teaching of Love and mercy that Christ brought into the world that all modern civilization is built on. Its also the filthy remnant left over by the barbaric yet so called "civilized" Romans that is causing war, hate, greed and pride today.

If mankind followed Christ with all its heart, instead of clinging to mans wisdom and mans glory, then we would have no war or poverty. Mankind however glories instead in his own wisdom, and in the creation of his own hands. He worship idols made by his own hand, just as his forefathers did as well. He is reaping what he sows, just as God declared. Revelation speaks a great mystery concerning this, and mankind has reaped Gods plagues because he refuses to repent and Give God glory. Mankind doesn't even see it either because he is spiritualy blind, which is also part of the plague that he reaps

I asked for a method, other then the scientific one, to differentiate that which is true from that which is false.

What you gave here is mere religious preaching.

Try again.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We will reap what we sow. If we sow to the spirit we will reap of the spirit, if we sow to the flesh we will reap only corruption. Its the truth, its the meaning of life itself. God commands that all men repent and believe in the Good News that he has given us.

That's a pretty random reply to me pointing out the logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum) you were using.

I can only repeat myself......

Truth is not determined by popular opinion or by numbers of followers. If 100% of people believe the moon is made out of cheese, then 100% of people are wrong.

 

[Extraneous]

That's a pretty random reply to me pointing out the logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum) you were using.

I can only repeat myself......

Truth is not determined by popular opinion or by numbers of followers. If 100% of people believe the moon is made out of cheese, then 100% of people are wrong.

There is only one truth. Its not found in mans wisdom, but in Gods wisdom. The answer i gave is the answer to any question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is only one truth. Its not found in mans wisdom, but in Gods wisdom. The answer i gave is the answer to any question.

Then I guess there is no point in having a discussion with you about anything.

 

[Hieronymus]

Of course it can. Lots of religious answers are available. A great diversity of them, in fact.
"Answers" we don't have a shortage of.

Ah, but there is only one serious claim, it's Genesis.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ah, but there is only one serious claim, it's Genesis.

Genesis isn't any more serious or special then any other creation myth.

 

[KCfromNC]

85% of the world has some kind of faith, half are Christians i believe. Must be something to it.

If you really thought raw numbers meant anything, you'd be a Catholic or Muslim, or maybe Hindu.

 

[KCfromNC]

I disagree.

Take a problem. Try to solve it using multiple methods, one of which is the scientific method. Then see which method achieves the best results.

The reason why the scientific method won out, is because it achieved the best results.

Some people take it on faith that it is a requirement to logically deduce epistemology from first principles. But until they can logically deduce that claim from first principles, that approach is self-defeating. While they're busy chasing their tails, more results oriented groups have figured out that pragmatism is the best you're going to get and have moved on to solving actual problems rather than navel-gazing.

There's a reason that science and engineering gets the funding while philosophy is relegated to PhDs writing papers for 8 other PhDs to read.

 

[SkyWriting]

Did you even read the question you are replying to? Because it seems like you are answering a completely different post.I'll just ask my question again:
How can something happen BEFORE time itself exists?

Logically that would not be possible. You just made the point, that the cause
exists outside of our reality, not a natural event, so says you and science.