Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[PapaZoom]

Best of luck to your brother PapaZoom. Sorry to hear about his situation.

It sucks. But we are hopeful as anyone would be. In the meantime we pour out our love as best we can. Thanks for the thoughts.

 

[bhsmte]

Once I am home and have access to my computer (with a keyboard) I will try to answer questions more thoroughly. Also, there are some posts to which I have not yet responded. They are on my radar. I'm currently in AZ visiting my brother who has been fighting cancer. He has finished his first bout with chemotherapy and radiation. He is weak but improving. Fortunately my sister lives here and is able to help him regularly. I fly home tomorrow.

Best of luck Papa.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not limitless but open to considering reasonable ideas.

Science is very open to reasonable ideas.

Science is not open to faith based dogmas that believers will not allow to be tested. When someone says, "I don't care what the evidence is, I am right" you are no longer dealing with a reasonable idea. You are dealing with dogma.

Imagine if science worked that way. If we had a drug trial where 99% of the test group were cured and 10% of the placebo group were cured, then you would reasonably conclude that the drug probably works. If 10% of the test group were cured and 10% of the placebo group were cured, would you be reasonable in concluding that the drug really did work because the drug's will was still done? Or that the drug didn't want people to be forced into believing that the drug worked, so the drug made it appear as if the drug didn't work? These are the same descriptions we are given for God's actions when there appears to be no action whatsoever. Imagine if we ran science that way. I bet everyone would scoff at science for using the same arguments that people use for the existence of God.

 

[Radrook]

From a biblical standpoint what existed prior to the Big Bang is a realm which it calls heaven and all those residing in that realm. Before the existence of heaven it tells us was the creator who is eternal. Before him there was nothing because he was always in existence. That heavenly realm should not be too hard for physicists to imagine since they have considered the possibility of other dimensions and even universes where our laws of nature do not exist and the ones that do exist are radically different. Also to keep in mind is that cause and effect are merely perceived temporal and spatial sequences those sequences are nothing more than nerve impulses facilitated via chemicals called neural transmitters and are dependent on being received and interpreted by our brains.

The philosopher Hume even went so far as to challenge the cause and effect sequences and classified them as nothing more than perceptions learned via force of habit and conclusions reached based merely on temporal priority and spatial propinquity.

If indeed that is so, then in other dimensions where our laws do not apply, the effect might very well precede the cause. If so, that means that an eternal creator who had no cause seems ridiculously or impossible to us merely because we are inextricably tethered to this particular universe and dimension where cause and effect are the rule. Heaven being another dimension might just be an exception.

 

[SkyWriting]

First, you say that it is not logically possible.

Then in the next breath, you go on to claim that that which you just called to be logically impossible, happened anyway.

Talk about self-defeating claims..........

Well we are here after all. I'm not the one who
brought up the conflict. You made the argument
for a supernatural cause yourself.

 

[KCfromNC]

Okay, lets say someone told me they know who created the website, but that I'd have to search for him myself in order to find him because all they know is that he created the website because they saw him do it. So the only evidence I have to begin my search is the created website and this other person's claim that they know the person. I have no physical evidence of the person themselves, yet I have no trouble believing they exist, why is that?

Because you observe people every day. We observe them creating web sites every day.

Get back to us when you have similar objective observations of your god and it creating universes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well we are here after all. I'm not the one who brought up the conflict. You made the argument
for a supernatural cause yourself.

No. I'm the one who pointed out the nonsensicalness of what is being proposed here by the "first cause" argument.

You're the one who insists on having the impossible happen anyway.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... That heavenly realm should not be too hard for physicists to imagine since they have considered the possibility of other dimensions and even universes where our laws of nature do not exist and the ones that do exist are radically different.

That doesn't follow; physicists hypothesise and speculate about other universes based on the mathematical models that describe our universe; they are extrapolations of, solutions to, or predictions of, the maths underlying those models. This allows them to deduce what the properties and attributes of these universes might be. As far as I'm aware, the heavenly realm has no physical or mathematical basis of this kind.

Also to keep in mind is that cause and effect are merely perceived temporal and spatial sequences those sequences are nothing more than nerve impulses facilitated via chemicals called neural transmitters and are dependent on being received and interpreted by our brains.

Everything we perceive is, "nothing more than nerve impulses facilitated via chemicals called neural transmitters and are dependent on being received and interpreted by our brains", and that nerve impulse transmission, reception, and interpretation is itself a causal sequence.

The philosopher Hume even went so far as to challenge the cause and effect sequences and classified them as nothing more than perceptions learned via force of habit and conclusions reached based merely on temporal priority and spatial propinquity.

He was challenging not the idea of causality per-se, but glib acceptance of the certainty of causality, by exploring what we can learn from our limited experience & perception of events; i.e. he saw that causality is an abstract (mental) concept that codifies our experience of 'constant conjunction' with 'necessary connection'. That it is entirely experiential leads to the 'Problem of Induction'.

... the in other dimensions where our laws do not apply, the effect might very well precede the cause.

Seems to me universal retrocausality is just a question of perspective; any universe can be seen as its own causal inverse. For example, one could argue our own universe is such a place; whichever way cause and effect operates, it appears the same to us because our experience has a dependency on the arrow of time, which reflects cause and effect. To attempt to separate them appears to make a circular argument. Local retrocausality is controversial; let's not go there

 

[DogmaHunter]

From a biblical standpoint what existed prior to the Big Bang is a realm which it calls heaven and all those residing in that realm. Before the existence of heaven it tells us was the creator who is eternal. Before him there was nothing because he was always in existence. That heavenly realm should not be too hard for physicists to imagine since they have considered the possibility of other dimensions and even universes where our laws of nature do not exist and the ones that do exist are radically different. Also to keep in mind is that cause and effect are merely perceived temporal and spatial sequences those sequences are nothing more than nerve impulses facilitated via chemicals called neural transmitters and are dependent on being received and interpreted by our brains.

The philosopher Hume even went so far as to challenge the cause and effect sequences and classified them as nothing more than perceptions learned via force of habit and conclusions reached based merely on temporal priority and spatial propinquity.

If indeed that is so, then in other dimensions where our laws do not apply, the effect might very well precede the cause. If so, that means that an eternal creator who had no cause seems ridiculously or impossible to us merely because we are inextricably tethered to this particular universe and dimension where cause and effect are the rule. Heaven being another dimension might just be an exception.

And if Paris could fit in my pocket, then I could fit Paris in my pocket.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Okay, lets say someone told me they know who created the website, but that I'd have to search for him myself in order to find him because all they know is that he created the website because they saw him do it. So the only evidence I have to begin my search is the created website and this other person's claim that they know the person. I have no physical evidence of the person themselves, yet I have no trouble believing they exist, why is that?

Because people exists. Websites exist. And you know by which process websites come about.

Claiming that a person created the website is not an extra ordinary claim.
In fact, saying that a person (or persons) created the website is even stating the obvious. That's how well established the origins of websites are.

Christians are saying that the universe and everything in it is evidence of the Creator(similar to the complex website being evidence of a creator) and they are saying that they know the Creator because of what He has done in their personal lives(similar to personally seeing the website being created), they've experienced the restoration and healing that God provides on a personal level. Yet you have no physical evidence of this Creator Himself, but neither did the person in the example above and yet they have no trouble believing he exists. What's the difference?

God's don't demonstrably exist.
The origins of the universe are utterly unknown.
Anecdotes are a dime a dozen.

I think the difference is our inability or unwillingness to comprehend the superiority of a being who is capable of creating us.

No.
The difference is "faith based claims" vs "evidence based claims".

 

[DogmaHunter]

It cant disprove him either, that's the point you keep missing.

It also can't disprove magical unicorns, centaurs, griffins and extra-dimensional aliens. Or pink graviton pixies. Or..... (i can go on for quite a while like that).

 

[DogmaHunter]

Most of what you said does make sense to me, except this.

If gravity were the truth about reality then it should be able to explain everything in reality, including, but not limited to things like why there is good and evil. Gravity cannot explain this.

 

[durangodawood]

I've seen people create websites.
I've created them myself.

So I know by direct firsthand evidence that the creation of websites by people actually happens.

If you told me a mouse created a website, then I'd be skeptical and ask to see it happen.

 

[Radrook]

And if Paris could fit in my pocket, then I could fit Paris in my
pocket.

And ifin I responds with drivel-then I responds with drivel.
And ifin I has nuffin better, den I has nuffin betta.
And ifin I lacks basic knowledge, den I lacks basic knowledge
And ifin I exudes confusion-den I exudes confusion
And ifin all I gots is dis, den all I gots is dis.
And if i has nuffin mau wow-den I has nuffin mau wow.

 

[bhsmte]

The same Albert that said, belief in personal gods, was a childlike superstition.

 

[Loudmouth]

And if I choose to respond with mockery-then i am responding with mockery
because if I have no other response, then I have no other response because
if I am deficient in general knowledge-then I am deficient in general common knowledge
of basis things that I should know- because they are basic things that I should know
and if I am utterly unable then I am utterly unable
So if I am resorting to sarcasm then I am resorting to sarcasm..

The point is that logical arguments don't start with "what if". Assuming your conclusion is called "begging the question", and it is a logical fallacy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And ifin I responds with drivel-then I responds with drivel.
And ifin I has nuffin better, den I has nuffin betta.
And ifin I lacks basic knowledge, den I lacks basic knowledge
And ifin I exudes confusion-den I exudes confusion
And ifin all I gots is dis, den all I gots is dis.
And if i has nuffin mau wow-den I has nuffin mau wow.

Good job on missing the point.

Which, obviously, was that with "if's" you can support anything and everything.

 

[Radrook]

Many atheists seem to be under the misguided impression that confident declarations of inability to see or perceive constitutes a genuine rebuttal of a premise. Sorry to rain on your parade or ruin your party but all that proves is either your genuine inability to see or feigned inability to see and nothing else.

You see, a rebuttal of premise demands that it be proven false or defective. Interestingly, I have yet to encounter am atheist who has attempted it. Instead, they immediately claim intellectual blindness or else they go into the inconsistency of policy mode in the erroneous belief that such fervent declarations constitute a rebuttals. The sad part about it is that many theists who appear to lack knowledge of what a genuine rebuttal entails feel intimidated by those irrational antics and humbly submit to the knee-jerk-reaction charade.

 

[Radrook]

The point is that logical arguments don't start with "what if". Assuming your conclusion is called "begging the question", and it is a logical fallacy.

Tell that to your atheist physicists who propose those ideas as feasible.

 

[Radrook]

Good job on missing the point.

Which, obviously, was that with "if's" you can support anything and everything.

This discussion is about what can be considered feasible-is it not?
The facts are that these ideas are considered feasible by your atheist scientists and are based on what your atheist scientists regularly discuss publicly on the internet and wrote about. Your dismissal of the concepts as irrelevant or ridiculous is a criticism of them-not me. If indeed you are totally ignorant of such basic concepts then perhaps you should not be attempting to represent science at all.