Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
It appears that my point has not been addressed? IF the universe is eternal, then the word 'creator' IS speciousAnd 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?
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).
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.
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.
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)
Again, if the universe always was, then the terms 'nothing' nor 'creator' are not logically permissible in this application.
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.
Why?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)
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.
Why?
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
Well, if you can objectively demonstrate a reliable measure of design, I'll be the first to congratulate you.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.
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.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 see anything in your exchange with her that indicates Christianity is the only worldview that can coherently house a rationally intelligible universe.Please see the post I made to Silmarien.
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?I hope then that you don't use any Bible error arguments in your posts.
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?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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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 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.
It’s Hardee’s where I’m based =PAnd what Transcendental Argument for God's existence did you confuse for a Carl Jr's Burger, pray tell?[...we'll talk more later. Right now, I have to go pick up some food for me and the wife!]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?