Who is Responsible?

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Are you saying the fundamental laws of nature are evidence of intelligence?

Click to expand...

Yes, the fact that we see fundamental laws of nature, implies that intelligence put those laws in place. It is natural for us to conclude this because we've only ever known laws to come from intelligence because we make laws ourselves as human beings.

Tree of Life said:

Not necessarily in just a superficial causal way. I'm getting more at ultimate responsibility.

Click to expand...

I don´t know what you mean by "ultimate responsibility"? "Ultimate" often seems to be used to force something into our thinking that needn´t be there.

What should be praised or blamed for the various events, good and bad, that happen in our lives?

Click to expand...

Not sure why you want something to be praised or blamed for it.

Chriliman said:

Yes, the fact that we see fundamental laws of nature, implies that intelligence put those laws in place. It is natural for us to conclude this because we've only ever known laws to come from intelligence because we make laws ourselves as human beings.

Click to expand...

I have never made such a conclusion. That seems unnatural to me, as the only "intelligence" that I have encountered has been the property of a brain, so it could not have been what put those laws into place.

How do you propose we test your conclusion to see if it is accurate, or if you are simply projecting?

Davian said:

I have never made such a conclusion. That seems unnatural to me, as the only "intelligence" that I have encountered has been the property of a brain, so it could not have been what put those laws into place.

How do you propose we test your conclusion to see if it is accurate, or if you are simply projecting?

Click to expand...

I don't think there's any scientific test that can prove an intelligent God created the laws of nature and I think this is by design because God wants you to believe in him because you feel the evidence points to him, not because you think you can prove that he exists through testing.

Only God can prove that He exists, so for one to think they can prove God would mean one is putting themselves on the same level as God, not a good idea.

Keep following the evidence with an honest heart

Chriliman said:

I don't think there's any scientific test that can prove an intelligent God created the laws of nature

Click to expand...

That is not what I asked. You don't even have evidence that "intelligence" was involved, other than your opinion.

and I think this is by design because God wants you to believe in him because you feel the evidence points to him, not because you think you can prove that he exists through testing.

Click to expand...

I am not asking for proof.

Only God can prove that He exists, so for one to think they can prove God would mean one is putting themselves on the same level as God, not a good idea.

Click to expand...

Try sticking to the question being asked of you: How do you propose we test your conclusion to see if it is accurate, or if you are simply projecting?

Keep following the evidence with an honest heart

Click to expand...

Do you consider those that disagree with you to be dishonest?

Chriliman said:

Yes, the fact that we see fundamental laws of nature, implies that intelligence put those laws in place. It is natural for us to conclude this because we've only ever known laws to come from intelligence because we make laws ourselves as human beings.

Click to expand...

Whether it seems 'natural' or not, this is a category error. Experience tells us that what seems 'natural', intuitive, or 'common-sense' is not a reliable guide to reality. This is why we have developed critical thinking and methodological naturalism to validate what seems natural, intuitive, or common-sense.

The 'laws of nature' and the laws made by man are qualitatively different. The laws of nature are abstracted from the observed consistencies of how the natural world does behave; they are descriptive. The laws of man are imperative instructions as to how one should behave; they are prescriptive. [There's also a good argument to be made that the behaviour of man, including the inclination to make rules and laws, arises out of the consistencies of the natural world (i.e. is emergent) through evolutionary processes - we also see simple rule structures in other social mammals.]

So, no; that men make laws has no logical bearing on how we interpret the behaviour or origins of the natural world.

Chriliman said:

I don't think there's any scientific test that can prove an intelligent God created the laws of nature and I think this is by design because God wants you to believe in him because you feel the evidence points to him, not because you think you can prove that he exists through testing.

Click to expand...

Leaving aside the straw man of 'proof', this is very confused thinking. Evidence-based explanation is what science does. A scientific test is a the collection and assessment of evidence.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Leaving aside the straw man of 'proof', this is very confused thinking. Evidence-based explanation is what science does. A scientific test is a the collection and assessment of evidence.

Click to expand...

Agreed and that collection and assessment of evidence will point to what's true. I'm just saying that if a person proves something is true, this does not mean it's true because the person proved it, it was always true, even if the person did not prove it. Therefore, if God is proven true to someone, it's because God proved himself to them, not because the person proved God.

Chriliman said:

Agreed and that collection and assessment of evidence will point to what's true.

Click to expand...

Good to hear you changed your mind about scientific tests.

I'm just saying that if a person proves something is true, this does not mean it's true because the person proved it, it was always true, even if the person did not prove it.

Click to expand...

Surely this is trivially obvious?

Therefore, if God is proven true to someone, it's because God proved himself to them, not because the person proved God.

Click to expand...

That's a confused non-sequitur. What follows from your first statement is that if God is proven true to someone, God was always true (by 'true' here I assume you mean the existence of God). But if God is proven true to someone, they may have proven it themselves, someone else may have provided them with proof, or - as you suggest - God may have given proof of himself.

However, God is an ill-defined and unfalsifiable concept, so unprovable (as for Russell's Teapot). Strictly, proof is only applicable to analytic (logical, mathematical) statements - although we generally loosen the criteria for trivially obvious states of affairs. But as God is ill-defined and unfalsifiable, then someone who thinks they have proof of, or have proved, God's existence, is either mistaken or deluded (unless they have obtained a well-defined and falsifiable God concept - let's hear it!); so logically, as an unprovable concept, the only certainty is that God might exist; I guess this is why faith is so valued in theism.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Good to hear you changed your mind about scientific tests.
Surely this is trivially obvious?
That's a confused non-sequitur. What follows from your first statement is that if God is proven true to someone, God was always true (by 'true' here I assume you mean the existence of God). But if God is proven true to someone, they may have proven it themselves, someone else may have provided them with proof, or - as you suggest - God may have given proof of himself.

However, God is an ill-defined and unfalsifiable concept, so unprovable (as for Russell's Teapot). Strictly, proof is only applicable to analytic (logical, mathematical) statements - although we generally loosen the criteria for trivially obvious states of affairs. But as God is ill-defined and unfalsifiable, then someone who thinks they have proof of, or have proved, God's existence, is either mistaken or deluded (unless they have obtained a well-defined and falsifiable God concept - let's hear it!); so logically, as an unprovable concept, the only certainty is that God might exist; I guess this is why faith is so valued in theism.

Click to expand...

Exactly! God might exist and if the cumulative evidence points to God then this increases the likelihood that God does exist as well as the expectation for God to be taken seriously as a viable answer to all questions about reality.

Chriliman said:

Exactly! God might exist and if the cumulative evidence points to God then this increases the likelihood that God does exist as well as the expectation for God to be taken seriously as a viable answer to all questions about reality.

Click to expand...

Before we can propose that a God created anything, we must establish that a God (and a God with such capabilities) exists. Without a well-defined and falsifiable definition of God, it's impossible to say whether any of our observations constitute evidence for it; all we have are untestable assertions. Even if we could establish the existence of a God, the hypothesis, 'A God created the laws of the universe', isn't testable, so we can't reject the null hypothesis, 'A God did not create the laws of the universe'. So the issue is doubly undecidable; we can't reject either null hypothesis, 'A God does not exist', and 'A God did not create the laws of the universe'.

Assuming, without evidence, that the existence of consistencies in the behaviour of the natural world implies the existence of an entity that has the potential to create such consistencies, is magical thinking; but assuming that an entity exists that has the capability to do anything, and then using unexplained or inexplicable features of the natural world to retrospectively bolster the assumption, is bootstrap or recursive magical thinking. Endowing such an assumed entity with anthropomorphic character and anthropocentric interests is plain wishful thinking.