'Knowledge' of Existence

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No. If the universe(s)/muliverse(s) always was, then the best one might attempt to argue, is some sort of intervening 'change agent.' Hence, the claim for creation, or a creator, becomes a specious notion.

We’d have to determine exactly what that ‘change agent’ is in order to fully rule out God, therefore, no, creator does not become a specious notion.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
We’d have to determine exactly what that ‘change agent’ is in order to fully rule out God, therefore, no, creator does not become a specious notion.

It appears that my point has not been addressed? IF the universe is eternal, then the word 'creator' IS specious ;) And by eternal, I mean always was, no beginning; just in differing forms.

And yet, it is very hard to wrap my brain around it. And yet there exists well established proven theories which also follow the same results (i.e.) gravity, relativity...
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It appears that my point has not been addressed? IF the universe is eternal, then the word 'creator' IS specious ;) And by eternal, I mean always was, no beginning; just in differing forms.

And yet, it is very hard to wrap my brain around it. And yet there exists well established proven theories which also follow the same results (i.e.) gravity, relativity...

Gotcha, so if the universe in eternal and unconscious then it unintentionally created us.

What do you mean when you say those theories follow the same results?
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Gotcha, so if the universe in eternal and unconscious then it unintentionally created us.

What do you mean when you say those theories follow the same results?

No. If the universe always was, then nothing would ever have been 'created'. The term 'creation' implies there was something to create, as if complete absence existed prior. If something always was, (just maybe in a differing form, or other), then the term 'creation' becomes vacuous to imply, within the very same reference point or context.

cre·a·tion
/krēˈāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: creation; noun: Creation; noun: the Creation
1.
the action or process of bringing something into existence

******************

My other point was that gravity and relativity are fairly well established. Enough so that they have now been considered scientific theory. And yet, these two conclusions of 'fact' vex my brain to no end, even now. All I'm saying is that to think that something never had a beginning, is equally as vexing - (just like gravity and time are equally baffling for their perspective reasons to me).

 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No. If the universe always was, then nothing would ever have been 'created'. The term 'creation' implies there was something to create, as if complete absence existed prior. If something always was, (just maybe in a differing form, or other), then the term 'creation' becomes vacuous to imply, within the very same reference point or context.

cre·a·tion
/krēˈāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: creation; noun: Creation; noun: the Creation
1.
the action or process of bringing something into existence

******************


Well obviously there was something and then there came something else, for example, us. We can still describe ourselves as being brought into existence, whether it be by God or something else. The question is whether humanity was intentionally brought into existence or by happenstance.

I do understand your point that the term 'creation' isn't the best term to describe a process that's unintentionally taking place.


My other point was that gravity and relativity are fairly well established. Enough so that they have now been considered scientific theory. And yet, these two conclusions of 'fact' vex my brain to no end, even now. All I'm saying is that to think that something never had a beginning, is equally as vexing - (just like gravity and time are equally baffling for their perspective reasons to me).

Gotcha, well there had to always be something because it's logically incoherent to say there was literally nothing and then there was something, since literal nothingness can't cause anything.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Well obviously there was something and then there came something else, for example, us. We can still describe ourselves as being brought into existence, whether it be by God or something else. The question is whether humanity was intentionally brought into existence or by happenstance.

I do understand your point that the term 'creation' isn't the best term to describe a process that's unintentionally taking place.

Arguing for or against a designer has never gotten (me) anywhere.

(more rhetorical, and not a straw man attempt; but instead needed to affect):

I could simply mention the giraffe's laryngeal nerve, for instance. To 'create' such a path would be about as logical as giving one directions to the house directly next door, (which is immediately to my left), but instead telling the person to first turn right, circle seven other blocks, then pass my own house again before ending up next door to my left. It makes no sense....

You could then mention the human eye, etc....

It would never end.... (back and forth)


Gotcha, well there had to always be something because it's logically incoherent to say there was literally nothing and then there was something, since literal nothingness can't cause anything.

If the universe always was, then the terms 'nothing' nor 'creator' are not logically permissible in this application.

In your case, presumably, the 'something' is your believed 'alpha creator.' In my case, we simply don't know yet, as we still possibly do not know more than we actually do know :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Arguing for or against a designer has never gotten (me) anywhere.

(more rhetorical, and not a straw man attempt; but instead needed to affect):

I could simply mention the giraffe's laryngeal nerve, for instance. To 'create' such a path would be about as logical as giving one directions to the house directly next door, (which is immediately to my left), but instead telling the person to first turn right, circle seven other blocks, then pass my own house again before ending up next door to my left. It makes no sense....

You could then mention the human eye, etc....

It would never end.... (back and forth)


Interesting point.


Again, if the universe always was, then the terms 'nothing' nor 'creator' are not logically permissible in this application.

I understand what you're saying, however, we do observe a beginning to our universe so like I said before, whatever came before our universe would have to be completely different from it, yet may also still exist within it.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Interesting point.




I understand what you're saying, however, we do observe a beginning to our universe so like I said before, whatever came before our universe would have to be completely different from it, yet may also still exist within it.

You replied before you saw my edit :)

We simply don't know, yet or ever. So to instead assert an answer or conclusion, where we do not know yet, or ever, may be fallacious.
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You replied before you saw my edit :)

We simply don't know, yet or ever. So to instead assert an answer or conclusion, where we do not know yet, or ever, may be fallacious.

Saying ‘no one knows’ is also a form of asserting an answer or conclusion and may also be fallacious if indeed God exists and is gradually revealing how/why he created everything as we’re able to understand.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Arguing for or against a designer has never gotten (me) anywhere.

(more rhetorical, and not a straw man attempt; but instead needed to affect):

I could simply mention the giraffe's laryngeal nerve, for instance. To 'create' such a path would be about as logical as giving one directions to the house directly next door, (which is immediately to my left), but instead telling the person to first turn right, circle seven other blocks, then pass my own house again before ending up next door to my left. It makes no sense....

You could then mention the human eye, etc....

It would never end.... (back and forth)
Why?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Saying ‘no one knows’ is also a form of asserting an answer or conclusion and may also be fallacious if indeed God exists and is gradually revealing how/why he created everything as we’re able to understand.

Admitting no confirmed substantiated conclusion, answer, or resolve, is most certainly not fallacious. Unless we are speaking about 'flat earthers' or something adjacent, who are instead in 'denial' about the earth's spherical shape or something else independently testable....

But thanks for trying to place me on the same level playing field as all asserting theists, and their conflicting and differing conclusions about 'creation'. Me admitting or pointing out that the answer is not yet concluded, is honest. And is in no way fallacious (i.e) like asserting an argument from ignorance for instance :)
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private

Well, to put it simply, for the dozens, if not hundreds, of posts I've read from your LOL argument for instance :)

It goes back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, with no resolve in sight.... Both sides end up eventually tiring, or walking away thinking they are victorious - (on both ends).

People begin to loose interest in reading them, and no side changes their stance regardless. Why? Because I already see how both sides can argue their case for or against a creator.

In my case, I don't know...

So like I stated, for (me), it becomes a vacuous/empty/meaningless proposition in the end.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: gaara4158
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't think I'm going to stick with this thread much longer since neither of us has budged at all and it's been several weeks.

Yet, it can't be demonstrated that empirical evidence be required to demonstrate a truth claim...
So does that mean your assumption that only empirical evidence is required to demonstrate a truth claim is untrue? We make truth claims even when we can't demonstrate empirically for those claims. We can claim that the universe is older than five minutes old but can we demonstrate that empirically?
Under an epistemology based on empiricism, it is true by definition that claims (specifically, synthetic propositions) must be demonstrated empirically. You are making an argument based on the assumption that empirical evidence can show us truth. Whether that's really true is an entirely different discussion. In any case, you cannot try to disprove my position on the grounds that it lacks empirical evidence when yours lacks it as well. That puts us on the same level empirically, as I have been saying.

Unfortunately, you are saying that and that is the problem. We can know all the ingredients of the cake. The material is know i.e. flour, sugar, etc. The knowledge of the material elements is just that, knowledge of the material. It says nothing about how that material became the cake. My position is not that we don't know the exact ingredients of the cake, but that we know what they are and they are not sufficient in themselves to give rise to the cake. The cake didn't create itself. The same could be said for a car, we know all the materials that make it work and how it works but the car didn't create itself. These are material things too, and we know they didn't create themselves. If we go to another planet and we find a cake lying on the surface of a rock we are not going to assume that it is part of the material of the planet and was created naturally. Life and intelligence is far more intricate than a cake but you expect me to believe that even without any evidence of life arising from non-life that life just appears on the surface of this planet and that it is a "natural" occurrence. Evolution didn't evolve. Only after life is present does the evolutionary processes act.
These are improper analogies because we already know the things you're comparing life, intelligence, etc. to are things that are made by people. It's not as though we really puzzle over the origin of cakes or cars in real life. We're already very familiar with the ways by which they come about. Life, intelligence, etc. aren't quite so mapped out yet. That's why I compared it to our ignorance to the ingredients of a cake rather than the process of its preparation. That would better reflect the conundrum we're in.

I don't expect you to believe anything about the origin of life that isn't demonstrated, but we're comparing two worldviews that require us to take opposite sides. If you accept that we have identified all the materials required for life, identified the origins of those materials, and observed natural complex chemical reactions that display the potential to form rudimentary self-replicating molecules, it shouldn't take much work to imagine how life could flourish from there. God, on the other hand, has nothing going for him. Intricacy is not a reliable indicator of design, especially in a universe wherein you ultimately believe everything is designed. Intelligent Design proponents swallow their own tails whenever they try to argue that design can be recognized against nondesign because they don't actually believe there's anything that wasn't designed by their intelligent creator. It's kind of funny, but a little frustrating when they keep insisting on doing it.

Scientists agree that the universe and life itself has the appearance of design:

Richard Dawkins: (I will use quotes that show that he doesn't believe the design is from God:

I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.

Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.

The feature of living matter that most demands explanation is that it is almost unimaginably complicated in directions that convey a powerful illusion of deliberate design.

Paul Davies:
"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature�s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

"The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

I hope the foregoing discussion will have convinced the reader that the natural world is not just any old concoction of entities and forces, but a marvelously ingenious and unified mathematical scheme. ...these rules look as if they are the product of intelligent design. I do not see how that can be denied.

Michael Turner:
The precision [of the fine tuning] is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.
And they don't agree on whether that appearance, being quite subjective, is an illusion or reality. That's why it's so important to nail down precisely what features are required to indicate design, and I don't know of a reliable way to do that without requiring the identification of structures or materials with known designers or design processes. You haven't offered one. I don't think going by the subjective impressions of people who admit they don't know is a good lead.

As you can see above, scientists are the ones making the statements about the appearance of design, even those that show their biases on their sleeves so to speak. Dawkins is a outspoken atheist as well as a biologist but he sees the design and claims everyone agrees that they see it. But you are right when you say it is due to our biases that we interpret that of which we do see. But to claim that there is no evidence of design or anyway to recognize it, is simply incorrect and goes against the empirical evidence for it.
Well, if you can objectively demonstrate a reliable measure of design, I'll be the first to congratulate you.

Tell me, don't you believe in your naturalistic worldview that there is something that is eternal? Either the universe, or the mulit-verse?
I don't know. The idea of eternity isn't something my brain can properly conceptualize, but that doesn't mean it's not real. Maybe there was an absolute beginning to the universe and all reality, and maybe there wasn't. That's beyond the scope of anyone's knowledge as far as I'm aware.
Now, will you tell me how your response addresses the dilemma I have shown you you're in?
Please see the post I made to Silmarien.
I don't see anything in your exchange with her that indicates Christianity is the only worldview that can coherently house a rationally intelligible universe.

I hope then that you don't use any Bible error arguments in your posts.
I'd be glad to drop them if you'd do the same with your Bible prediction arguments. For any verse there's a charitable interpretation and an uncharitable one. What's stopping you from interpreting them all charitably and claiming the Bible had foreknowledge?

You are under the mistaken assumption that only one fundamental constant determines all this. That is not the case. Change one and it affects all, and then you open another can of worms.
What demonstrated empirical evidence do you have that shows that changing just the cosmological constant would affect the ways the other constants affect the formation of life as we know it?
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Lol!................I think I'm losing track of just exactly which aspect(s) of either ontology or epistemology that you, @Silmarien, and @gaara4158 are wanting to discuss. :rolleyes:

What are the four of us trying to focus on in this game of "Ring-around-the-Rosie"?
I jumped in because I saw a juicy Transcendental Argument for God's existence I could sink my teeth into and 20 some odd pages later here we are, flapping in the wind.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I jumped in because I saw a juicy Transcendental Argument for God's existence I could sink my teeth into and 20 some odd pages later here we are, flapping in the wind.

Flapping in the wind, ay? I prefer not be 'earth-bound,' so my cup up of tea is to just spin out of control existentially in space-time when the ol' shrapnel hits the epistemic fans... ^_^

 
  • Haha
Reactions: gaara4158
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I jumped in because I saw a juicy Transcendental Argument for God's existence I could sink my teeth into and 20 some odd pages later here we are, flapping in the wind.

And what Transcendental Argument for God's existence did you confuse for a Carl Jr's Burger, pray tell? :rolleyes: [...we'll talk more later. Right now, I have to go pick up some food for me and the wife!]
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Admitting no confirmed substantiated conclusion, answer, or resolve, is most certainly not fallacious. Unless we are speaking about 'flat earthers' or something adjacent, who are instead in 'denial' about the earth's spherical shape or something else independently testable....

But thanks for trying to place me on the same level playing field as all asserting theists, and their conflicting and differing conclusions about 'creation'. Me admitting or pointing out that the answer is not yet concluded, is honest. And is in no way fallacious (i.e) like asserting an argument from ignorance for instance :)

I’ll agree that no human knows exactly how everything came to be.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I jumped in because I saw a juicy Transcendental Argument for God's existence I could sink my teeth into and 20 some odd pages later here we are, flapping in the wind.

Only 20 pages? Come on, you need to make it another 10 at least for the absurdity to really set in.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And what Transcendental Argument for God's existence did you confuse for a Carl Jr's Burger, pray tell? :rolleyes: [...we'll talk more later. Right now, I have to go pick up some food for me and the wife!]
It’s Hardee’s where I’m based =P
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums