Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 4:53 AM
41 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (3 members, 38 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,573 Year: 3,610/19,786 Month: 605/1,087 Week: 195/212 Day: 10/27 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
13NextFF
Author Topic:   Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 187 (604029)
02-09-2011 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ICANT
02-09-2011 5:08 PM


Re: Initial Questions
ICANT writes:

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.

No, thats existing material being rearranged. There was no new material created. Try again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2011 5:08 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2011 5:27 PM Phage0070 has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 32 of 187 (604030)
02-09-2011 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Taq
02-09-2011 4:53 PM


Re: Initial Questions
Hi Taq,

Taq writes:

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?

No, since the frost is created out of existing materials it does not need a creator deity to form it out of an absence of anything.

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."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Taq, posted 02-09-2011 4:53 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Taq, posted 02-10-2011 12:14 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 33 of 187 (604031)
02-09-2011 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Phage0070
02-09-2011 5:09 PM


Re: Initial Questions
Hi Phage,

Phage0070 writes:

No, thats existing material being rearranged. There was no new material created. Try again.

Yes that is rearranging existing material into a new creation such as a house or a cabinet.

There is no way I could go to the jobsite and set up my tools and build a house without existing materials.

So how could the universe and everything in it begin to exist out of an absence of any existing material, in an absence of any place to begin to exist? Litteraly an absence of any thing.

If you would like to discuss this any further please start a thread and we can continue but here we are off topic.

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."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Phage0070, posted 02-09-2011 5:09 PM Phage0070 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 34 of 187 (604032)
02-09-2011 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ICANT
02-09-2011 4:32 PM


Re: Initial Questions
I know condensation and cold causes frost on the windowpanes.

So would it therefore be correct to say that you believe in Jack Frost, and that you believe that he is condensation and cold?

So you would require God to be a human being.

I do not; and I am unable to conceive by what confusion of ideas you arrived at that bizarre conclusion.

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.

But the word "God" has a meaning. Amongst other things, it implies a sentient being. If someone maintains that the universe was created by blind unthinking natural causes, then if you say: "That man believes in God, albeit a different God from the one that I believe in", you are simply not speaking the English language as it is spoken.

It is as though you privately redefined "unicorn" to mean any animal with a single horn on its head, and then went around saying that I believe in unicorns, justifying this claim to yourself on the grounds that I do believe in rhinoceroses. But that is not the definition of "unicorn" in the English language as it is understood; and in fact I do not believe in unicorns, and it would be meretricious to say that I do.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2011 4:32 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Huntard, posted 02-09-2011 6:01 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 1:33 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 35 of 187 (604033)
02-09-2011 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dr Adequate
02-09-2011 5:31 PM


Re: Initial Questions
Dr Adequate writes:

It is as though you privately redefined "unicorn" to mean any animal with a single horn on its head, and then went around saying that I believe in unicorns, justifying this claim to yourself on the grounds that I do believe in rhinoceroses.


Not to take away from the heart of your analogy, which is of course, quite accurate, but Rhino's (with two exceptions, but that's really more of a "stump" than a horn) have two horns. If you wanna talk real horns, only two have them, the black and the white. The black has two large ones, the white has a large one and a small one.

Black:

White:

Indian:

(Stumpy 1)

Javan:

(Stumpy 2)

Sumatran:

Why do I know this? I didn't. In fact, I thought there were only two species of Rhino, black and white, but I was fairly certain they had two horns. And they do. But to my surprise there were three more species of Rhino, and two had a single bony growth on it's snout, the others all have two.

Anyway "rhinoceroses" can't be said in general to have only a single horn.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2011 5:31 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
goldrush
Member (Idle past 2852 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 36 of 187 (604049)
02-09-2011 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taq
02-09-2011 12:00 AM


Taq writes:


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?

For the same reason symphonies are not composed and arranged without some intelligence behind it. For the same reason wrong does not equal right, and eternal lack has no means to become anything but lack, which is nothing.

To me, strict adherence to science and empiricism is like a group of blind mice scientists insisting that color and vision do not exist....

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.

I explained in the beginning that I wouldn't be giving
any strictly empirical evidence. My logic, or line of reasoning, though is not very well spelled out I admit, so I will attempt to elaborate. It is not logical to go from one extreme to the next without evidence. Without additional evidence to prove otherwise, we go on
what we can reasonably infer. The simplest solution to a "beginning" of the universe from something that always existed is the concept of an existence that is irreducible to a fully functioning Creator with the ability to do anything that is possible - like reason. IOW, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. The most rational solution is not to start wholly from scratch and open potential, especially without evidence. For certain features to develop, certain definite principles must presuppose it, certain features must simply be eternal and uncreated. The concept of a Creator fully satisfies the existence and development of the universe we study and see. We have no valid scientific evidence even to assume that mind or reasoning ability is a relatively new development in the universe. But we have plenty of scientific evidence to lead us to infer that mind is as old as the universe, and existence itself.

Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Attempt to fix unbelievable quoting screw-up.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 02-09-2011 9:09 PM goldrush has responded
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2011 9:44 PM goldrush has responded
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 02-10-2011 12:56 AM goldrush has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 37 of 187 (604054)
02-09-2011 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by goldrush
02-09-2011 8:59 PM


Hi, Goldrush! Welcome!

But we have plenty of scientific evidence to lead us to infer that mind is as old as the universe, and existence itself.

And you plan to show us some of this plentiful scientific evidence?

I don't think you can.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by goldrush, posted 02-09-2011 8:59 PM goldrush has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by goldrush, posted 02-09-2011 10:09 PM Coragyps has responded

    
goldrush
Member (Idle past 2852 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 38 of 187 (604056)
02-09-2011 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taq
02-09-2011 12:00 AM


Taq writes:

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.

I had answered this question in my last response to you, but somehow it got erased :/. So here I go again. Would a blind mice scientist trust a seeing doctor (layman) to perform surgery on him? What evidence besides the doctor's testomines and assurance would the scientist have to go by? None. The scientist would just have to trust the doc. But of course, science requires evidence. It is true that scientific advances have allowed us to
peer into things beyond our wildest dreams. The thing is though, science is good for empirically discovering "how" things work together (as far as our sense allow us to tell and verify empirically) but not so good about the "why" (in a strictly empirical way). For example, a scientist could find a watch, study it and describe it's components and how it ticks and functions. But what he/ she could not explain with any true certainty is the purpose of the watch, why it exists, what was going through the mind of the designer when they designed it, why it was designed, etc. Even the fact that the watch was designed at all (which you know it was) is an only inference based on previous experience and knowledge of watchmakers if the scientist did not witness it being designed (and there are no fingerprints, lol). The questions of "why" are not really science questions, that's why it's necessary to use the basic faculties of reason and inference.

Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed Quote Box


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 02-10-2011 12:25 AM goldrush has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 39 of 187 (604057)
02-09-2011 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by goldrush
02-09-2011 8:59 PM


For the same reason symphonies are not composed and arranged without some intelligence behind it.

Again, we admit the point so far as it applies to symphonies. But it is plain that a bacterium (for example) is produced without any intelligence at all.

The simplest solution to a "beginning" of the universe from something that always existed is the concept of an existence that is irreducible to a fully functioning Creator with the ability to do anything that is possible - like reason.

Well, no it isn't.

The simplest explanation for the existence of the Universe is that there is something which causes universes to exist. To add to it, as you do, such properties as reasoning power and omnipotence is as superfluous and unsupported by reason as if you added the properties of octagonality and pinkness.

For someone who claims to be guided by rationality rather than religious dogma you sure seem full of religious dogma. On what other grounds do you leap to the conclusion that a Creator must be omnipotent? Even if we grant the existence of a Creator, that would be no reason to suppose that he could have created anything he liked. By analogy, the fact that my car was created by Toyota gives me no reason at all to suppose that if they pleased they could have created a car that gets a thousand miles to the gallon or which runs on water instead of petroleum.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by goldrush, posted 02-09-2011 8:59 PM goldrush has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by goldrush, posted 02-09-2011 10:03 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 2852 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 40 of 187 (604061)
02-09-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
02-09-2011 9:44 PM


Dr Adequate writes:

For the same reason symphonies are not composed and arranged without some intelligence behind it.

Again, we admit the point so far as it applies to symphonies. But it is plain that a bacterium (for example) is produced without any intelligence at all.

Perhaps, but did the universe begin with the bacterium?

The simplest solution to a "beginning" of the universe from something that always existed is the concept of an existence that is irreducible to a fully functioning Creator with
the ability to do anything that is possible - like reason.

Well, no it isn't.

The simplest explanation for the existence of the Universe is that there is something which causes universes to exist. To add to it, as you do, such properties as reasoning power and omnipotence is as superfluous and unsupported by reason as if you added the properties of octagonality and pinkness.

For someone who claims to be guided by rationality rather than religious dogma you sure seem full of religious dogma. On what other grounds do you leap to the conclusion that a
Creator must be omnipotent? Even if we grant the existence of a Creator, that would be no reason to suppose that he could have created anything he liked. By analogy, the fact that my car was created by Toyota gives me no reason at all to suppose that if they pleased they could have created a car that gets a thousand miles to the gallon or which runs on water instead of petroleum.

Actually simply "causing universe to exist" is an oversimplified version of a Creator. It more or less just says things were able to be caused. This is not an explanation. It does nothing to unify the whole of what we observe, or explain the underlying principles behind these observations. And if you think about it, this causer would have to be omnipotent, or having all the power, to be responsible for bringing everything into existence. Not sure why you wanted to compartmentalize the term omnipotent as a wholly religious concept. It's universal.

Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2011 9:44 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Jon, posted 02-09-2011 10:13 PM goldrush has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-09-2011 10:13 PM goldrush has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2011 11:08 PM goldrush has not yet responded

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 2852 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 41 of 187 (604062)
02-09-2011 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coragyps
02-09-2011 9:09 PM


Coragyps writes:

Hi, Goldrush! Welcome!

But we have plenty of scientific evidence to lead us to infer that mind is as old as the universe, and existence itself.

And you plan to show us some of this plentiful scientific evidence?

I don't think you can.

I don't have to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 02-09-2011 9:09 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Coragyps, posted 02-09-2011 10:17 PM goldrush has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 187 (604063)
02-09-2011 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by goldrush
02-09-2011 10:03 PM


unnecessary

Edited by Jon, : No reason given.


Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by goldrush, posted 02-09-2011 10:03 PM goldrush has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 43 of 187 (604064)
02-09-2011 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by goldrush
02-09-2011 10:03 PM


You are blotching up you quote coding
You are blotching up you quote coding. This results in your message becoming a mess. You need to be careful, so that such coding errors don't happen.

Using the "rquote" button can be a dangerous thing.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by goldrush, posted 02-09-2011 10:03 PM goldrush has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 44 of 187 (604065)
02-09-2011 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by goldrush
02-09-2011 10:09 PM


I don't have to.

No, of course you don't! But why would you come to a debate forum and bring it up unless you weren't at least faintly interested in defending your position?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by goldrush, posted 02-09-2011 10:09 PM goldrush has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by goldrush, posted 02-09-2011 11:26 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 45 of 187 (604070)
02-09-2011 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by goldrush
02-09-2011 10:03 PM


Perhaps, but did the universe begin with the bacterium?

No, but it may have begun like the bacterium, as a product of unintelligent causes.

Actually simply "causing universe to exist" is an oversimplified version of a Creator. It more or less just says things were able to be caused.

But do we have any grounds for producing a more complex and detailed account of whatever-it-was?

And if you think about it, this causer would have to be omnipotent, or having all the power, to be responsible for bringing everything into existence.

Actually, if I think about it, I see no such thing.

An entity which has the power to do something, even something so impressive as creating the universe, does not necessarily have the ability to do anything. Why should it?

Not sure why you wanted to compartmentalize the term omnipotent as a wholly religious concept. It's universal.

The idea that the cause of the universe is possessed of such properties as intelligence and omnipotence is a religious dogma. If you have any reason for believing it besides that your religion teaches it, now would be an ideal time to mention this reason.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by goldrush, posted 02-09-2011 10:03 PM goldrush has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
13NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019