Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4774 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


(1)
Message 1 of 187 (603907)
02-08-2011 5:30 PM


I am curious about the thoughts behind the common atheist/agnostic statement "There is no evidence for a Creator". As I see it, evidence for a creator is abundant and clear, although not strictly "scientific" by definition. Two barometers of truth show solid evidence for the existence of a reasoning Creator. The 1st one is objectivity. Much of the objectivity contested upon in atheistic/theistic debates comes through the scientific method and matters of science. But, the scientific method is a human construct, and is bound by empirical observation and human limitations. It does not form the basis of all truth or all reality; it can't. Science cannot contain all reality. Science should not be expected to deal with any truths or concepts higher than it, or outside of it. True objectivity (or reality) predates both science and humanity and lies outside of them. Humanity is but a product of reality. Human methods do not define reality, for we are mere creations. Reality is the Creator.
Now let's deal with a 2nd barometer of truth: Reason. Whatever or whomever one envisions as existing before all other things is the "Creator" by default. The Creator is real in the sense of being uncreated, eternal, and everlasting. The Creator is the Source, the Existence, the highest of the high, and evidently has the ability to reason. How can it be deduced that the Creator has this ability?
Think about it. Whenever we apply ourselves to create a functioning system (or design) such as a computer, the system's functioning is only an INdirect result of the physical components or forces at work within it. The system's functioning (and existence) directly results from the fact that someone has applied their reasoning and manipulative powers to the organization of material and forces and control of their thought process, or whatever. Now consider the alternative to a reasoning Creator: the ability to reason evolving from the inability to reason. Is it logical to make the leap from unreasoning (inanimate and unconscious) to reasoning (animate and conscious) through evolution? No it is not. It is not logical to conclude that reasoning ability had to have evolved from ANY force lacking the ability to reason and think. Yet this is the conclusion that (I believe) inflated views of the (limited) scientific method have led many to revere. Many times people forget that science, by definition, is not intended or required to explain all things. Sure science may attempt to explain all natural (observable) phenomena in physical and empirical terms, but it cannot concern itself with what is not observable to people in the first place (but may still be wholly natural and real). As far as science is concerned, anything that can't be pin-pointed tangibly, (or at least inferred/implied through empiricism) does not exist. But the key words here are "as far as science is concerned".
To me, strict adherence to science and empiricism is like a group of blind mice scientists insisting that color and vision do not exist. No amount of studying the world through their existing senses and methods will ever enlighten these mice to the fact that sight and color vision do exist- they are born blind with no concept of sight. Important big-picture, guiding and unifying (non-physical) principles can be missed or ignored when focusing one's life too closely under the microscope of science. Don't get me wrong, I have respect for scientists and science in general. It's just that reason convinces me that something, rather Someone, much higher than science exists.
Anyway, the logical conclusion is that reasoning ability was granted from the Source- the Creator, who has always had the ability to reason. The power of reason and the ability to apply logic is something that was handed down. The power of reason was not handed up through a (mindless) chain of events and chemical interactions, and evolution. Such a claim is not even scientific, though many adherents to science believe that it is. We reason because our Source, our Creator, does. The Creator has given humanity its existence and all its capacities. All order and existence in the universe is ultimately irreducible to a fully functional Creator, not simply an unreasoning force, energy, or matter. There are no infinite creators, only one Creator who is eternal. If we are honest, the very least any of us could do is acknowledge that such a Creator exists.
The deduction of a personal, reasoning Creator, although not empirical, is rational. The conclusion that (all) those who acknowledge such a Creator are simply too blinded by religious dogma to know any better is incorrect. I have shared my thoughts on the topic, what are yours? Is science like a way of thinking for all areas in life for you atheists and agnostics? If so, why? Does what you believe about science determine your disbelief in God?
Edited by goldrush, : For clarity, I hope : )
Edited by goldrush, : For clarity, I hope.
Edited by goldrush, : Break up message into paragraphs
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by goldrush, : clarity and form
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by goldrush, posted 02-08-2011 5:56 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 02-08-2011 11:55 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 5 by Taq, posted 02-09-2011 12:00 AM goldrush has replied
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 02-09-2011 12:32 AM goldrush has not replied
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2011 12:41 AM goldrush has not replied
 Message 9 by GDR, posted 02-09-2011 12:58 AM goldrush has not replied
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2011 1:59 AM goldrush has not replied
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 02-09-2011 2:04 AM goldrush has not replied
 Message 14 by Phage0070, posted 02-09-2011 5:51 AM goldrush has not replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4774 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 2 of 187 (603908)
02-08-2011 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-08-2011 5:30 PM


I'm sorry about the cruddy format. I've tried to fix it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-08-2011 5:30 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 3 of 187 (603910)
02-08-2011 11:20 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 4 of 187 (603914)
02-08-2011 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-08-2011 5:30 PM


goldrush writes:
I am curious about the thoughts behind the common atheist/agnostic statement "There is no evidence for a Creator".
I think Eric MacDonald gave an excellent answer to this in his blog:
New Atheists, although they may argue, like Dawkins, against the existence of a god or gods, using all the old arguments familiar to those who have studied philosophy of religion, are really not sceptical about the existence of a god or gods. We have no question about it at all, and this, not because of unwarranted certainty, but because we have no idea what a god is, and we don’t think that religious believers know either.
http://choiceindying.com/...02/07/the-new-atheism-once-again

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-08-2011 5:30 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 5 of 187 (603915)
02-09-2011 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-08-2011 5:30 PM


The 1st one is objectivity. Much of the objectivity contested upon in atheistic/theistic debates comes through the scientific method and matters of science. But, the scientific method is a human construct, and is bound by empirical observation and human limitations. It does not form the basis of all truth or all reality; it can't. Science cannot contain all reality. Science should not be expected to deal with any truths or concepts higher than it, or outside of it. True objectivity (or reality) predates both science and humanity and lies outside of them. Humanity is but a product of reality. Human methods do not define reality, for we are mere creations. Reality is the Creator.
The very things you criticize science for are the very things that make up objectivity. The idea behind objectivity is to verify you ideas by pointing to something real and tangible that is the same for everyone. It is necessarily limited by our own limitations. It seems to me that you want to be able to point to something that can't be verified and still call it objective. It doesn't work that way.
Is it logical to make the leap from unreasoning (inanimate and unconscious) to reasoning (animate and conscious) through evolution? No it is not.
You never explain why this is not logical. Why can't an organism capable or reasoning come from a natural process with no intelligence behind it?
To me, strict adherence to science and empiricism is like a group of blind mice scientists insisting that color and vision do not exist.
That is a strange analogy to use given the fact that science has allowed us to "see" wavelengths of light that our eyes can not directly detect. Science has allowed us to see galaxies that can not be seen by the naked eye, bacteria that are too small to be seen, and deconstruct the very atoms that make up matter. On top of that, science has allowed us to cure blindness.
Important big-picture, guiding and unifying (non-physical) principles can be missed or ignored when focusing one's life too closely under the microscope of science.
Examples?
The power of reason was not handed up through a (mindless) chain of events and chemical interactions, and evolution. Such a claim is not even scientific, though many adherents to science believe that it is.
Why isn't it scientific?
We reason because our Source, our Creator, does.
The only argument you have put forth for this is an argument based on incredulity. That is, your inability to accept the idea that nature can produce a species capable of reasoning. From this inability you then proceed to assert the existence of an entity for which there is zero evidence. This is very poor logic.
There are no infinite creators, only one Creator who is eternal. If we are honest, the very least any of us could do is acknowledge that such a Creator exists.
Based on what evidence?
Is science like a way of thinking for all areas in life for you atheists and agnostics? If so, why? Does what you believe about science determine your disbelief in God?
Ask yourself why you don't believe that Thor uses a great hammer to create thunder and you will have the answer.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-08-2011 5:30 PM goldrush has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Jon, posted 02-09-2011 12:19 AM Taq has replied
 Message 36 by goldrush, posted 02-09-2011 8:59 PM Taq has replied
 Message 38 by goldrush, posted 02-09-2011 9:35 PM Taq has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 187 (603918)
02-09-2011 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taq
02-09-2011 12:00 AM


The very things you criticize science for are the very things that make up objectivity.
Wrong.

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taq, posted 02-09-2011 12:00 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Taq, posted 02-09-2011 11:29 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 187 (603921)
02-09-2011 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-08-2011 5:30 PM


Initial Questions
Welcome Goldrush!
This is a great OP; I've a couple of questions, however:
The deduction of a personal, reasoning Creator, although not empirical, is rational.
What do you suppose the logical and rational argument to be that would support the existence of a Creator? In all instances that I myself have attempted to rationalize at least part of my belief in GOD, I've never been able to do it. If you've found the way, then there are many who would love to hear it!
Now let's deal with a 2nd barometer of truth: Reason. Whatever or whomever one envisions as existing before all other things is the "Creator" by default.
What makes you suppose something must have existed before other things? What role might empiricism have played in bringing you to this conclusion?
To me, strict adherence to science and empiricism is like a group of blind mice scientists insisting that color and vision do not exist. No amount of studying the world through their existing senses and methods will ever enlighten these mice to the fact that sight and color vision do exist- they are born blind with no concept of sight. Important big-picture, guiding and unifying (non-physical) principles can be missed or ignored when focusing one's life too closely under the microscope of science. Don't get me wrong, I have respect for scientists and science in general. It's just that reason convinces me that something, rather Someone, much higher than science exists.
Is there any way for the blind mice to truly understand vision and color short of experiencing it first hand? Could any amount of explaining really convey to them even part of the essence of their missing sense?
If the Creator is the vision which empiricists lack, how might they come to see this Creator? If all humans exist within the empirical world, how might anyone come to experience the Creator?
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-08-2011 5:30 PM goldrush has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2011 3:02 AM Jon has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 8 of 187 (603923)
02-09-2011 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-08-2011 5:30 PM


I am curious about the thoughts behind the common atheist/agnostic statement "There is no evidence for a Creator". As I see it, evidence for a creator is abundant and clear, although not strictly "scientific" by definition. Two barometers of truth show solid evidence for the existence of a reasoning Creator. The 1st one is objectivity. Much of the objectivity contested upon in atheistic/theistic debates comes through the scientific method and matters of science. But, the scientific method is a human construct, and is bound by empirical observation and human limitations. It does not form the basis of all truth or all reality; it can't. Science cannot contain all reality. Science should not be expected to deal with any truths or concepts higher than it, or outside of it. True objectivity (or reality) predates both science and humanity and lies outside of them. Humanity is but a product of reality. Human methods do not define reality, for we are mere creations. Reality is the Creator.
Your point is obscure.
Let us say for the sake of argument that there are truths which must forever lie outside the scope of science (a point which you have asserted but not, I note, attempted to prove).
Very well then --- in what way does this answer or even relate to the charge that there is no evidence for a Creator?
Now let's deal with a 2nd barometer of truth: Reason. Whatever or whomever one envisions as existing before all other things is the "Creator" by default.
Well, no. The word "creator" implies other things, such as intelligence and volition, and indeed an act of creation, which are not included in this definition. A Creator must create, and he must be a whoever and not a mere whatever.
You might as well write: "Whoever or whatever causes 'fairy rings' to exist is a fairy". But we ascribe other qualities to fairies besides the formation of 'fairy rings'.
Think about it. Whenever we apply ourselves to create a functioning system (or design) such as a computer, the system's functioning is only an INdirect result of the physical components or forces at work within it. The system's functioning (and existence) directly results from the fact that someone has applied their reasoning and manipulative powers to the organization of material and forces and control of their thought process, or whatever.
No-one disputes that this is true of computers. But it is plainly not true of everything. The existence of a tiger, for example, is a "direct result" of two other tigers having sex, and not of someone applying their reasoning.
Your argument, then, needs a little work.
Now consider the alternative to a reasoning Creator: the ability to reason evolving from the inability to reason. Is it logical to make the leap from unreasoning (inanimate and unconscious) to reasoning (animate and conscious) through evolution? No it is not. It is not logical to conclude that reasoning ability had to have evolved from ANY force lacking the ability to reason and think.
But this is mere assertion. Suppose an atheist wrote: "Is it logical to believe in God? No it is not." Would you be impressed by his argument? No, you wouldn't --- for one thing because that is not an argument.
Anyway, the logical conclusion is that reasoning ability was granted from the Source- the Creator, who has always had the ability to reason. The power of reason and the ability to apply logic is something that was handed down. The power of reason was not handed up through a (mindless) chain of events and chemical interactions, and evolution. Such a claim is not even scientific, though many adherents to science believe that it is.
Again, I invite you to imagine someone saying to you: "Anyway, the logical conclusion is that reasoning ability was produced by natural causes. The power of reason was not handed down by a Creator. Such a claim is not even scientific, though many adherents to religion believe that it is."
This is mere assertion. You call views that you happen to like "logical"; you deny that views you dislike are "scientific". This is not persuasive --- this is the sort of rhetoric that would pass muster only if you were preaching to the choir.
The deduction of a personal, reasoning Creator, although not empirical, is rational. The conclusion that (all) those who acknowledge such a Creator are simply too blinded by religious dogma to know any better is incorrect.
And yet so far you have devoted more of your time to asserting your dogma than engaging in rational argument. Let us see you attempt to prove what you so confidently proclaim, and then perhaps we shall ascribe your views to reason rather than dogma.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-08-2011 5:30 PM goldrush has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 9 of 187 (603925)
02-09-2011 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-08-2011 5:30 PM


goldrush writes:
Is it logical to make the leap from unreasoning (inanimate and unconscious) to reasoning (animate and conscious) through evolution? No it is not.
As a theist I think that it is perfectly logical to believe that the creator created life as we know it through an evolutionary process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-08-2011 5:30 PM goldrush has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Taq, posted 02-09-2011 11:32 AM GDR has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 10 of 187 (603934)
02-09-2011 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-08-2011 5:30 PM


Oh, I forgot.
You start off by saying that the Creator is "whatever or whomever one envisions as existing before all other things". And then you start talking about a Creator who "has given humanity its existence and all its capacities"
Now, there seems to be no reason why an argument for one should be an argument for the other, or any reason given why, even if they both exist, they should be the same entity.
There is, of course, a long-standing religious dogma to the effect that they are one and the same, but you claim to derive your conclusions from reason rather than dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-08-2011 5:30 PM goldrush has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 187 (603935)
02-09-2011 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-08-2011 5:30 PM


Let us look at your two arguments.
The first claims that "objectivity" is a "barometer of truth". THen it asserts that there are things that science can't deal with. Then it asserts that "Reality is the Creator". However it also assumes a Creator/Created dichotomy which is impossible if "Reality is the Creator" - the created are a part of reality. Thus objectively speaking, this argument is nonsensical. It doesn't even use the "barometer of truth" it is supposedly applying.
The second is an argument from personal incredulity. Put simply it asserts that since you don't understand how consciousness works, it must have been "granted" by a source that is itself reasoning. But this is simply jumping to conclusions. Even worse the argument uses emotional attacks as an excuse for ignoring what we do know about consciousness. And that is hardly objective or rational.
Neither of these arguments constitutes a rational reason for believing in a God. They seem more like desperate rationalisations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-08-2011 5:30 PM goldrush has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 12 of 187 (603938)
02-09-2011 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jon
02-09-2011 12:32 AM


Re: Initial Questions
Hi Jon,
Jon writes:
What do you suppose the logical and rational argument to be that would support the existence of a Creator?
Speaking for myself.
The universe and everything in it exists.
The standard theory puts forth that the universe had a beginning.
If the universe had a beginning to exist whatever caused it to begin to exist would be the creator.
An absence of anything can not bring into existence something.
Therefore there is a creator as we exist, along with the universe and everything in it.
Jon writes:
What makes you suppose something must have existed before other things? What role might empiricism have played in bringing you to this conclusion?
I can't speak for Goldrush but I have never had anyone explain how everything in our universe could begin to exist in an absence of anything.
Jon writes:
If the Creator is the vision which empiricists lack, how might they come to see this Creator?
Jesus put it this way, in Luke 18:25 "For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
A rich man is a person that has everything he needs therefore he does not have to depend upon anyone for anything.
An empiricists is a person who has everything they need in what they think the facts really are. Therefore he does not have to depend upon anyone for anything.
Jon writes:
If all humans exist within the empirical world, how might anyone come to experience the Creator?
Thats easy.
Jesus explains it this way:
Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
A person must be as trusting as a little child.
Then they must be born again of the Spirit of God.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Everyone alive today has had the water birth Jesus was talking about, which is the brith from the placenta filled with water.
Everyone has not been born of the Spirit of God.
To do that you must be as that little child and take God at His Word believing that He is and is a rewarder of those that seek Him.
God has offered a free full pardon to all mankind all they have to do is receive it.
But a man/woman that has need of nothing will not receive it because they are satisfied with what they have.
But once you have met Him face to face you will experience Him. When you have experienced Him you will never be alone again.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : correct spelling

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 02-09-2011 12:32 AM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2011 5:43 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 15 by Phage0070, posted 02-09-2011 6:06 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2011 8:19 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 187 (603942)
02-09-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by ICANT
02-09-2011 3:02 AM


Re: Initial Questions
The universe and everything in it exists.
The standard theory puts forth that the universe had a beginning.
If the universe had a beginning to exist whatever caused it to begin to exist would be the creator.
I've already commented on this sort of reasoning in this thread.
You might as well say:
* "Whatever causes 'fairy rings' is a fairy."
* "Whatever caused the Giant's Causeway was a giant."
* "Whatever causes frost on the windowpanes is Jack Frost."
* "Whatever causes me to fall asleep is the Sandman."
When we say "creator" we do not just mean "whatever caused the universe to exist"; we mean someone with personality and will and intelligence who knew what he was about when he made the universe --- just as when we say "fairy" we do not just mean "whatever causes mushrooms to grow in 'fairy rings'" but a person of diminutive size with magical powers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2011 3:02 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2011 4:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 187 (603945)
02-09-2011 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-08-2011 5:30 PM


goldrush writes:
As I see it, evidence for a creator is abundant and clear, although not strictly "scientific" by definition.
Thats fine, lets get down to it then! Considering the stream of replies you already have I will keep it brief.
goldrush writes:
Much of the objectivity contested upon in atheistic/theistic debates comes through the scientific method and matters of science. But, the scientific method is a human construct, and is bound by empirical observation and human limitations. It does not form the basis of all truth or all reality; it can't. Science cannot contain all reality. Science should not be expected to deal with any truths or concepts higher than it, or outside of it. True objectivity (or reality) predates both science and humanity and lies outside of them. Humanity is but a product of reality.
All of that is quite astute; the scientific method is a procedure developed by humans as a way to come to correct conclusions about the world. It has no monopoly on truth, but it does have a proven track record of superiority provided we have data.
goldrush writes:
Human methods do not define reality, for we are mere creations. Reality is the Creator.
Whoops, now thats quite a jump into Begging the Question. The term "created" is usually used, especially in the context of this type of debate, to mean "to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes." To equate human origin as a natural emergent property of the particular unguided interactions of the universe with "creation" is at the very least a gross misuse of terminology.
So your first "barometer of truth" amounts to semantic slight-of-hand into Begging the Question. Not a great start.
goldrush writes:
Now let's deal with a 2nd barometer of truth: Reason. Whatever or whomever one envisions as existing before all other things is the "Creator" by default.
Now hold on here, "whatever or whomever one envisions"? When did imagination become some sort of defining aspect of truth? At the very most one might be able to argue that whatever you envisioned is the Creator by "definition", but there is certainly no reason to say that you would be correct in your definition.
Furthermore there isn't any reason to say that just because something is first to exist that it is the "creator" of anything. That first something presumably began to exist not based on the actions of another existent thing (due to there not being one of course). Therefore there is no reason to conclude that other things couldn't continue to come into existence in a similar way, independent of the first thing. Its unreasonable to claim a monopoly on creation for the first thing to exist.
goldrush writes:
The Creator is real in the sense of being uncreated, eternal, and everlasting. The Creator is the Source, the Existence, the highest of the high, and evidently has the ability to reason. How can it be deduced that the Creator has this ability?
Whaaat? Things don't become real by virtue of "the sense of being uncreated, eternal, and everlasting". That doesn't make sense; a robot unicorn doesn't "become real in the sense of being orgasmically beautiful and mechanically eternal". Assigning qualities to something through definition does not make that something real in any way.
At the very least I would have hoped that an attempt to define something into reality would include trying to attach the quality of existence to a concept simply through definition. It would still be wrong of course, but it would at least vaguely make sense.
As for "the Source, the Existence, the highest of the high", I'm going to assume that those are meaningless rhetoric and ignore them. It would help if you could keep such pollution to a minimum but I accept the handicaps of each individual.
Now onto your deduction of a hypothetical creator's ability to reason!
goldrush writes:
Is it logical to make the leap from unreasoning (inanimate and unconscious) to reasoning (animate and conscious) through evolution? No it is not. It is not logical to conclude that reasoning ability had to have evolved from ANY force lacking the ability to reason and think.
Well that settles it then. You asked a hypothetical question and answered it yourself with a simple statement without any exposition on your reasoning or support of your conclusion. Who could disagree?
Oh wait, that wasn't an appropriate answer to the question "How can it be deduced that the Creator has this ability?" was it? There wasn't any deduction involved at all, simply a flat statement of your position. Also it was based on the False Dichotomy of assuming that rejection of the ability to reason evolving from the inability to reason must inevitably lead to acceptance of a reasoning creator!
You would have to prove that those are the only two possible options before disproving one would lead to acceptance of the other. But you put even less effort into establishing that point as you did by simply firmly stating your position as a substitute for reasoned deduction.
The rest of your post continues based on these two deeply flawed supports for your argument so I'm going to completely discard it as well. So far it appears your case for a creator is completely valueless and unsupported, but feel free to surprise me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-08-2011 5:30 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 187 (603947)
02-09-2011 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by ICANT
02-09-2011 3:02 AM


Re: Initial Questions
ICANT writes:
An absence of anything can not bring into existence something.
Your entire argument hinges upon this statement. It is how you try to deduce the existence of a causative force, which you then for whatever reason morph into a reasoning creative being. But before we dissect that tortured transition you need to support the original statement.
Describe a known mechanism through which something can be brought into existence, presumably by another existent thing. Then, establish that no other mechanism of bringing things into existence can possibly be exercised. Then, prove that the known method/s of bringing things into existence cannot be performed by something which does not exist.
Can you do *any* of that? Have you even tried? Or are you just going to grit your teeth and push out another word salad liberally speckled with undigested scripture?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2011 3:02 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2011 4:08 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024