Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[TreasureHunter12]

.

 

[Chriliman]

Now you're being skeptical. Why are you being skeptical?

Would you agree that the only reason I have to be skeptical is because you refuse to explain how it's possible that you can fly, let alone your refusal to show me.

 

[The Cadet]

Would you agree that the only reason I have to be skeptical is because you refuse to explain how it's possible that you can fly, let alone your refusal to show me.

No, I wouldn't. I could give you a perfectly logical, sound explanation for how I could fly, and it wouldn't mean bupkiss if I couldn't actually fly. So let's say I give you an explanation for how I can fly based on fairy dust. Again, why are you being skeptical?

 

[Chriliman]

No, I wouldn't. I could give you a perfectly logical, sound explanation for how I could fly, and it wouldn't mean bupkiss if I couldn't actually fly. So let's say I give you an explanation for how I can fly based on fairy dust. Again, why are you being skeptical?

So you agree that the truth of whether you can fly or not is more important than being skeptical of your claim that you can fly?

I might be skeptical of your claim because of my preconceived notions of what it means to fly, but my preconceived notions have no effect on the actual truth of your claim.

 

[Shempster]

There must be an eternal first cause, the question is what is it.

You are messing around with the fabric of the universe there.
Its best that you abandon this search. If you keep pushing the issue you might discover something we are not supposed to know. Then you will share it with others and they will start to think you are a heretic and avoid you like the plague.
Yet, the question nags at some of us & we cannot leave it alone.
What about our consciousness? Did we just pop into existence out of nowhere for no reason whatsoever? Is this life a test that perhaps we agreed to take. Did all of those deja vu moments mean anything real or did we all imagine it? When you meet someone and instantly have a connection with them....is that a complete coincidence?

 

[PapaZoom]

The universe has always existed.
At any moment in time, there was a universe.

That's a bit disingenuous. Before there was time, there was no time. Just an eternal now (which isn't probably accurate but who has words to explain it). There was zero matter before the big bang and zero passage of time. But there was a moment during the big bang when the universe was simply forming and therefore didn't yet exist. And before the moment of the big bang, there was no universe. Science speculates there was nothing but they don't know with certainty.

 

[The Cadet]

Before there was time

Not sure that's a coherent concept.

 

[PapaZoom]

Not sure that's a coherent concept.

It's not. But you try explaining what was before time began since time is not eternal. Explain it in non time language. I think of it as the ever present now.

 

[The Cadet]

It's not. But you try explaining what was before time

...So... It's not a coherent concept to think of "before time", but we should try to consider it anyways? You seem to be thinking of time like a number line, where there can be something before "0". I don't know that that's a coherent concept in any meaningful way, and the way you describe it doesn't help.

 

[devolved]

That's a bit disingenuous. Before there was time, there was no time. Just an eternal now (which isn't probably accurate but who has words to explain it). There was zero matter before the big bang and zero passage of time. But there was a moment during the big bang when the universe was simply forming and therefore didn't yet exist. And before the moment of the big bang, there was no universe. Science speculates there was nothing but they don't know with certainty.

While it's a reply to the above, it's a general reply to the thoughts developed in this thread.

1) Science doesn't speculate "nothing" in terms of absolute void. It's a meaningless concept.

2) Much of the issues with this discussion are semantic problems. For example, people bringing up "consciousness", which is an abstract concept which generally describes a function of the brain, and then attempt to carry this concept outside of the definable context and providing any shred of evidence that such possibility is remotely viable.

The same goes with the ideas of "before time". Time is an abstract concept that's only relevant in a scope of observable change in reality. We measure the differences in change, formulate these in some form of consistently observable intervals and rate, and then call it "time". Questions like "what time is it" are semantically bound to Earthly intervals, because these wouldn't have much meaning while floating in space somewhere without some points of cyclical reference to latch on to. Thus, time as we understand it is a rather pragmatic perspective that doesn't really reflect the ontology of reality. It's our subjective interpretation of reality that we form by perception of change in our brain. What happens outside of our perception is a matter of educated guess.

 

[Loudmouth]

The only point of being a skeptic is to doubt truth claims. My goal was never to doubt truth claims, but rather find the actual truth. When a person's goal is to find the actual truth, they are motivated by truth. When a person's goal is doubt truth claims, they are motivated by doubt. Big difference! Understanding this difference will help in being open minded to truth instead of doubting every truth claim you come across.

The problem is that you are motivated by faith based beliefs and bare assertions, and those beliefs and explanations are indistinguishable from something made up and untrue.

 

[Chriliman]

The problem is that you are motivated by faith based beliefs and bare assertions, and those beliefs and explanations are indistinguishable from something made up and untrue.

I said I'm motivated by my trust in truth. I trust that there is truth that can clear up the contradicting and confusing information being thrown at me everyday. I am not motivated by the fact that I have beliefs because that is irrational motivation. Logically, the fact that I believe something does not change the nature of truth, therefore, I should trust in truth instead of my own beliefs about the truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

I said I'm motivated by my trust in truth.

What you trust is indistinguishable from something made up and untrue.

Logically, the fact that I believe something does not change the nature of truth, therefore, I should trust in truth instead of my own beliefs about the truth.

Logically, just believing something to be true does not make it true.

 

[Chriliman]

What you trust is indistinguishable from something made up and untrue.

Sure, because truth means something different to you than it does to me. Yet there is a truth to who's wrong and who's right.

Logically, just believing something to be true does not make it true.

How does this differ from what I said? I said whether or not I believe the truth does not change the nature of the truth. This means the truth would change me instead of the other way around.

 

[bhsmte]

Sure, because truth means something different to you than it does to me. Yet there is a truth to who's wrong and who's right.



How does this differ from what I said? I said whether or not I believe the truth does not change the nature of the truth. This means the truth would change me instead of the other way around.

Independent of your opinion, how do you test who is wrong or right?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure, because truth means something different to you than it does to me.

It appears that this is so. Your definition of truth is what you want to be true. My definition of truth is what is actually true.

How does this differ from what I said? I said whether or not I believe the truth does not change the nature of the truth. This means the truth would change me instead of the other way around.

Belief in untruth will also change you.

 

[Chriliman]

It appears that this is so. Your definition of truth is what you want to be true. My definition of truth is what is actually true.

So what is actually true about why the universe exists?

Belief in untruth will also change you.

For the worse, I presume.

 

[Loudmouth]

So what is actually true about why the universe exists?

We don't know.

For the worse, I presume.

If by worse, you mean people confusing beliefs with facts, then yes, worse.

 

[Chriliman]

We don't know.

Doesn't the fact that "we" don't know at this point in human history seem bizarre to you? I mean, how many brilliant people, way smarter than you and I, have tried to answer this question and still "we've" failed to find the true answer? And where are the aliens!! "We" need help figuring this out!!

What if the answer is so simple that collective human knowledge has just passed right by it in the pursuit for more knowledge and less truth?

Just venting some thoughts.

 

[bhsmte]

Doesn't the fact that "we" don't know at this point in human history seem bizarre to you? I mean, how many brilliant people, way smarter than you and I, have tried to answer this question and still "we've" failed to find the true answer? And where are the aliens!! "We" need help figuring this out!!

What if the answer is so simple that collective human knowledge has just passed right by it in the pursuit for more knowledge and less truth?

Just venting some thoughts.

If the answer was simple, you would be able to demonstrate this simple answer is correct.

Would you agree that science has a history of making well evidenced discoveries in due time? We knew a lot less about the universe 100 years ago (short time in human history) than we know with a high degree of confidence today. I am sure you know why that is, correct?

From my experience on this site, it appears some christians, just cant bring themselves to say; i dont know and they then manufacture an answer, which tends to align with their personal faith belief.