|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
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. Tell that to research scientists, or those dying of cancer - see if they believe you.
A person must be as trusting as a little child. You have puppies!? It's just round the corner? You're an old family friend? You know mom!? Sure I'll get into the backseat...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Wrong. Elaborate, please. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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. And that logic would be . . . ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Taq writes: And that logic would be . . . ? I'm not saying that it is evolution that leads to theism, but if one is already a theist, and if science leads us reliably to evolution then I believe that it is logical to assume that the two are compatible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I'm not saying that it is evolution that leads to theism, but if one is already a theist, and if science leads us reliably to evolution then I believe that it is logical to assume that the two are compatible. So what you are describing is a belief that is projected onto reality which is not objective. The idea behind objectivity is that there is a reality which is independent of our beliefs and minds. By making reality conform to your beliefs you are proposing a subjective view of reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Jon writes: Taq writes: The very things you criticize science for are the very things that make up objectivity. Wrong. Elaborate, please. Objectivity is a smokescreen behind which people with beliefs no more justified than those of any other person hide; from here they shout insults at the people on the outside who aren't so delusional. Objectivity is only definable within a method. The OP argument is that empiricism is limited in the conclusions it can drawthe 'objective realities' it can describe; if you choose to use the empirical standard of objectivity to counter such position, you'll just find yourself running in circles. Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Objectivity is only definable within a method. The OP argument is that empiricism is limited in the conclusions it can drawthe 'objective realities' it can describe; if you choose to use the empirical standard of objectivity to counter such position, you'll just find yourself running in circles. One of the problems in the OP is that it proposes objectivity as a "barometer of truth". The OP complains about empiricism but never proposes a different method. Even worse, "True objectivity" is not defined as a method but as reality itself. So we are left with the complaint that empiricism is limited. That is true of ALL objective methods. All are limited. If they were no line then objective and subjective would be one in the same. What the OP seems to be arguing for is Kant's Rationalism which is further exemplified in the argument that a reasoning entity must be created by another entity capable of reasoning. If anything, the OP seems to be arguing against objectivity as a "barometer of truth".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Taq writes: So what you are describing is a belief that is projected onto reality which is not objective. The idea behind objectivity is that there is a reality which is independent of our beliefs and minds. By making reality conform to your beliefs you are proposing a subjective view of reality. Fair enough but we all do that. Everyone's beliefs regarding god, gods, or no god(s) is subjective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Fair enough but we all do that. Everyone's beliefs regarding god, gods, or no god(s) is subjective. When we are attempting to be objective we try NOT to do this. We design methods that try to ferret out sources of subjectivity. We are swayed by our own beliefs and subjective opinions, I won't argue otherwise. However, we do try an limit it as much as possible when we use objectivity as a "barometer of truth" as the OP puts it. The whole purpose of the scientific method is to remove subjective beliefs, or at least as many beliefs as possible, from the conclusion. What you propose is to just give up and include subjective beliefs. I don't see the utility in that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Phage,
Phage00070 writes: Describe a known mechanism through which something can be brought into existence, I know of no known mechanism whereby something can be brought into existence from an absence of anything. I don't know if you can vision an absence of anything but if you can you should be able to conclude that no thing can begin to exist in or out of no thing. The evidence for such a statement would be: Stephen Hawking's imaginary time in which the universe existed. As well as the Hawking/Turok instanton. The various String theories. The search for the God particle. All of these are efforts to provide something that can produce the universe and everything in it. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The OP complains about empiricism but never proposes a different method. I'm being careful not to judge the OP as the entirety of goldrush's argument. No single post is meant to relay the whole of a poster's argument. This is why I opened with questions, rather than a barrage of counter-arguments.
"True objectivity" is not defined as a method but as reality itself. I never said it was defined as a method, but within a method; if you wish to relabel 'objectivity' as 'reality', then you face the same problem as before: your standard only makes sense within the structure of some method pertaining to 'objectivity' or 'reality'.
If anything, the OP seems to be arguing against objectivity as a "barometer of truth". From what I can tell, the OP uses the term 'objectivity' in two ways: (1) The reality which empiricism defines(2) The reality which is actually Real I can't tell you I agree with these views, but this at least is what I see in the OP; I'd be glad to know what/if you see something different. Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
ICANT writes: I know of no known mechanism whereby something can be brought into existence from an absence of anything. You also don't know of any known mechanism whereby something can be brought into existence from the presence of something. In fact lets paint with a wider brush here: You don't know a goddamn thing about mechanisms of bringing *anything* into existence. You don't understand how something could come into existence from nothing. You don't understand how something could come into existence from something. You don't understand one iota of how something could come into existence in any way whatsoever. So where do you get off making sweeping proclamations of how it couldn't have happened or how it did?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes: * "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." I don't know what causes 'fairy rings' I have never seen one.I also have never seen the Giant's Causeway. I know condensation and cold causes frost on the windowpanes. I have no idea what causes you to fall asleep. I can look up into the sky, and down at my feet on ground and conclude the heaven and the earth exist. The standard theory says they had a beginning. If they did not exist but now exist. How did they begin to exist out of an absence of anything. I have been told over and over that there is nothing outside of the universe. Therefore it would be a self produced something out of an absence of anything.
Dr Adeqauate writes: 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 So you would require God to be a human being. Well I am not included in that 'we'. I hold that whatever caused the universe and everything in it to begin to exist would be God. God being everything that is, has ever been or ever will be. I have been told that is what existed in that very small, very dense, very hot something the size of a pin point at T=10-43. To me God is eternal existence, and everything that does exists does so at His beck and call, by His permission. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I know condensation and cold causes frost on the windowpanes. Then would you also say that Jack Frost is condensation and cold?
If they did not exist but now exist. How did they begin to exist out of an absence of anything. If frost did not exist before but does exist now does that mean the frost came from nothing? Does the frost also require a creator deity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Phage,
Phage0070 writes: You also don't know of any known mechanism whereby something can be brought into existence from the presence of something. I was a contractor for over 30 years and created many things out of existing material. So yes I do understand how things can be created out of existing materials.
Phage0070 writes: You don't understand how something could come into existence from nothing. Correct. So why don't you start a thread and enlighten me, and all those who are looking for the theory of everything. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024