Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

2 know him · Mar 10, 2016

expos4ever said:
Let me start by saying that you are raising a question that minds far greater than mine - and I will politely suggest far greater than yours too - have struggled with for millennia.

I basically agree with what you are saying, although I think some nuances and other information is helpful. First, I believe that the laws of quantum mechanics really do allow for the possibility that the universe - time, space, and matter (the whole deal) - really can spring into existence from literally nothing. However, and I believe Stephen Hawking acknowledges this, there is still the mystery of explaining how the very principles of quantum mechanics themselves came into existence. As Hawking has written "who put the fire in the equations".

I certainly do think that human beings cannot, repeat cannot, conceive of an "effect" without an antecedent cause. However, we should be careful to be aware of the possibility that this may be a fundamental boundary on the nature of human thinking, and not necessarily some "law" that nature herself has to respect.

If you have a void, there is not space, time, material, nothing, you have nothing and it will be constantly be nothing infinitely. To think that a void can create something is unreasonable and it is such thinking that caused Atheists to ridicule those who claimed to believe in God without factual evidence.

Let's not negate reasonableness in our thinking, as to do so would be to make us unreasonable. Let's use facts to establish what we think, or else why are we discussing anything? If something can exist independently of consciousness, you and I cannot accept it as reality: as there would be no you and I. You and I cannot conceive of anything without first existing and so our existence is essential to the equation.

Should we create our theories upon unreasonable grounds, because we just believe it by faith: without any reasonable evidence what so ever? Can we have popped into existence from a void? Again I state: there must be an eternal first cause that has always been, in order for anything to exist; why is this simple truth so hard to understand and accept? It is reasonable and sound and to reject it, is to reject reason as a construct of theorization.

variant · Mar 10, 2016

2 know him said:
If we are not going to use facts to understand anything, we mine as well be taking about our farts.

Facts and absolute undeniable truth are two different ideas.

I'm all for using facts, but I doubt you can establish any about your beliefs in a creator God.

expos4ever · Mar 10, 2016

2 know him said:
If you have a void, there is not space, time, material, nothing, you have nothing and it will be constantly be nothing infinitely. To think that a void can create something is unreasonable...

I sympathize, but I see no deep principled reason why there is any more mystery (to use your term "unreasonableness") to believe in any of the other options to explain the profound mystery of why anything exists at all.

variant · Mar 10, 2016

2 know him said:
Have you ever taken a look at any of the quantum physics studies? They took a photon of light and wanted to understand if it traveled as a particle or as a wave and what they clearly observed is that the photon moves as a wave until one becomes aware of it and then in that instance it becomes a particle. The experiment clearly shows that what you see only takes on physical characteristics because of consciousness. In other words, what you see only exists when one observes it and otherwise it doesn't physically exist.

A book written by Robert Lanza explains it more fully and shows how the only way to explain many of the quantum physics experiments is when one understands that what we see is being created by consciousness, not the other way around. The book is called Biocentrism, if you google videos by the same name you will be able to have Robert explain more of the quantum physics studies in more details.

I understand quantum physics well enough to understand that you are misunderstanding it.

That the observer changes the observed doesn't mean that the objective universe requires consciousness.

To say so is absurd, as consciousness very likely requires an objective universe in order to exist in the first place...

Chris B · Mar 10, 2016

2 know him said:
There must be an eternal first cause,

Err, No. Next?

...as a void could not produce anything.

You are well out of date, I'm afraid.

If our own existence is fact and we are conscious of time as a linear concept, that is evidence of our finite existence. Seeing consciousness is the only fact one has: eternal consciousness is the only theory that is factual and therefore reasonable.

No. There's at least one other model of consciousness that matches the same data.
Consciousness as an emergent property of particularly organised matter.
No eternal cosmos-spanning consciousness required.
(there may be such, but the existence of individual discrete sparks of consciousness does no demand it of necessity.)
Looking around, consciousness seems to come with a very particulate nature, on the whole.

2 know him · Mar 10, 2016

variant said:
Facts and absolute undeniable truth are two different ideas.

I'm all for using facts, but I doubt you can establish any about your beliefs in a creator God.

The only fact we have is consciousness.

Chris B · Mar 10, 2016

2 know him said:
the photon moves as a wave until one becomes aware of it and then in that instance it becomes a particle.

Not really. Try :
"the photon does what it does until one bounces an electron off it and the result is recorded."
There is far too much both wrong and loaded in the sentence in its original form.
If unobserved how do you know what the photon is doing or where in the universe it is?
There's a statistical probability, but only that.

Chris B · Mar 10, 2016

2 know him said:
The only fact we have is consciousness.

Well, the appearance of consciousness as an important entity, at least.
The experiments of Libet and others suggest what we think of as being consciousness in control may be more "consciousness along for the ride: in the cockpit of the plane but with the real controls somewhere else."

Davian · Mar 10, 2016

Chriliman said:
I can know that I exist because I have my consciousness to prove I exist, but I must trust that it's true that other conscious entities exist. This trust is what I understand to be faith in the truth that I did not create everything I see with my own consciousness. Everything, including my own consciousness, was created by something else. Many call this "something else", God, which makes sense and is just one of many reasons I have faith in God.

This doesn't make sense to other's and that's fine, it won't stop me from explaining the many reasons why I believe in God in logical and reasonable ways.

What are these "logical and reasonable" ways?

Davian · Mar 10, 2016

2 know him said:
The only fact we have is consciousness.

Define what you mean by "consciousness" if it differs from how it is used in modern philosophy of mind and neuroscience.

Chriliman · Mar 10, 2016

Davian said:
What are these "logical and reasonable" ways?

View attachment 171046

Davian · Mar 10, 2016

Chriliman said:
View attachment 171049

View attachment 171046

In this case, you are neither the deep thinker, or the free thinker. You are asserting truth. Or to be more accurate, your religious opinion as truth.

Chriliman · Mar 10, 2016

Davian said:
In this case, you are neither the deep thinker, or the free thinker. You are asserting truth. Or to be more accurate, your religious opinion as truth.

Davian · Mar 10, 2016

Chriliman said:
View attachment 171052

You concede my post then.

Leevo · Mar 10, 2016

I don't think that there are any facts that point to a creator. I think what we do know about the universe and life gives us good reason to believe there is one. We will never prove God exists, or that he doesn't. As scripture says: "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."

Faith is key.

Chriliman · Mar 10, 2016

Davian said:
You concede my post then.

Davian · Mar 10, 2016

Chriliman said:
View attachment 171055

Again, I do not see you seeking anything. You are simply declaring your opinion as truth.

I do not accept your opinion as truth.

Chriliman · Mar 10, 2016

Davian said:
Again, I do not see you seeking anything. You are simply declaring your opinion as truth.

I do not accept your opinion as truth.

That's good. I don't accept anyone's opinion as truth either, I only accept the truth.

ToddNotTodd · Mar 10, 2016

Chriliman said:
That's good. I don't accept anyone's opinion as truth either, I only accept the truth.

Do you want other people to accept what you believe to be the truth?

Chriliman · Mar 10, 2016

ToddNotTodd said:
Do you want other people to accept what you believe to be the truth?

I do, but I don't want anyone to believe just because I believe. The truth speaks for itself.

Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

Newbie

Happy Cat

Well-Known Member

Happy Cat

Old Newbie

Newbie

Old Newbie

Old Newbie

fallible

fallible

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

fallible

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

fallible

Well-Known Member

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

fallible

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Iconoclast

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency