Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


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 replied

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(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 replied

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


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 replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 55 of 187 (604106)
02-10-2011 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by goldrush
02-09-2011 11:26 PM


The same is true for buildings, houses, monuments and blueprints. They are a product of mind and deliberation. Why must trees, seeds, cells, and DNA be any different?
But they are manifestly different. A house is designed and produced by an intelligent mind. A tree is produced by another tree (via a seed) without any exercise of intelligence at all. We know this; you cannot dispute it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by goldrush, posted 02-09-2011 11:26 PM goldrush has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 1:52 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 187 (604112)
02-10-2011 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by ICANT
02-10-2011 1:33 AM


Re: Initial Questions
No.
And yet if I redefined "Jack Frost" to mean "whatever causes frost", then you would.
But neither you nor I are capable of redefining the English language to prove a point.
If I am not mistaken the condensation is moisture that is in the air which would form on the windowpane due to the difference in the outside temperature and the inside temperature.
So what does this have to do with something coming from an absence of anything? Or existence begining to exist from non existence?
Nothing whatsoever. It does, however, have something to do with your attempt to redefine the creator as "whatever caused the universe to exist", which is the subject that I was actually discussing.
You seemed to be giving God human traits so you could better understand Him.
No; but I require him to have at least one human trait, that of sentience, in order for him to qualify as God at all. If he doesn't have that, he isn't a him, he's an it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 1:33 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 2:44 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 187 (604122)
02-10-2011 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by ICANT
02-10-2011 2:44 AM


Re: Initial Questions
I have said and maintain if there was something that materalized and caused the universe to begin to exist it would be God, regardless of what type of entity it was.
And this is just as foolish as saying that anything that causes frost is Jack Frost no matter what kind of entity it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 2:44 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 3:29 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 64 of 187 (604124)
02-10-2011 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by ICANT
02-10-2011 1:52 AM


Re: Tree
The seed has DNA which contains the information to produce that specific tree. Just like the blueprint is used to build a particular house.
If intelligence was required to produce the blueprint to build the house so was intelligence required to build the blueprint in the seed to construct the tree.
But we know for a fact that the DNA of a tree is in fact produced without any intelligence whatsoever by another tree or trees.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 1:52 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 3:22 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 67 of 187 (604127)
02-10-2011 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by ICANT
02-10-2011 3:14 AM


Re: Tree
Maybe you are right and nobody else knows what they are talking about.
Or maybe he is right and everyone who knows what they're talking about agrees with him.
Googling on the phrase DNA "not a blueprint" gets 28,000 hits, so he is hardly alone in his assertion.
The point is, perhaps, a subtle one, but it is worth bearing in mind. The DNA of a tree is a set of instructions for making a tree --- nowhere does it contain anything remotely resembling a description of what a tree looks like. It is, in a well-worn phrase "a recipe, not a blueprint".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 3:14 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 3:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 70 of 187 (604131)
02-10-2011 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by ICANT
02-10-2011 3:22 AM


Re: Tree
What does a seed producing a tree from its seed have to do with the intelligence required to create the information in the DNA in the first seed?
Why should we think that there was any such intelligence?
Every time we see a seed being produced, it was produced by an unintelligent process of reproduction with variation (which is, naturally, subject to natural selection). This is very different from the process which produces (for example) a house. On what basis are we to infer that at some point a tree must have been produced in a manner like that by which a house is produced rather than in the manner in which a tree is produced?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 3:22 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 11:11 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 187 (604132)
02-10-2011 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by ICANT
02-10-2011 3:38 AM


Re: Tree
A house blueprint is a set of instructions for making a house.
No it isn't. It's a diagram of what the house should look like when it's built. It contains no instructions whatsoever as to how this aim is to be achieved. From the blueprint alone, one wouldn't even know that it is necessary to build the ground floor before building the upstairs.
By contrast, DNA contains a set of instructions for constructing an organism but nothing remotely like a diagram or description of what the organism should look like when it's finished.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 3:38 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 11:38 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 154 by Parasomnium, posted 02-17-2011 6:55 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 72 of 187 (604133)
02-10-2011 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
02-10-2011 3:29 AM


Re: Initial Questions
Are you that dense?
Apparently I am indeed so dense that you can't see my point. I am inclined to attribute my stupidity to you having been dropped on your head as a child.
How do you compare something being produced out of existing materal,
and
something being produced out of an absence of anything?
There are doubtless differences between the formation of frost and the formation of a universe.
However, this is irrelevant to my point, which I will repeat: it is as fatuous to identify whatever caused the universe as "God" as it is to identify whatever causes frost as "Jack Frost".
Your belief that the universe was created ex nihilo does not affect this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 3:29 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 11:48 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 105 of 187 (604277)
02-10-2011 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by goldrush
02-10-2011 12:14 PM


If we can't show how a cell and DNA form from purely chemical processes (with lack of purpose, design or deliberation) ...
But we can. The chemical mechanism which produces DNA is particularly well-understood.
The fact that we as humans have the will and ability to reason (and to a degree know) which has enabled us to basically shape and re-shape society (through the creation of systems, and designs) should behoove us to appreciate that the systems and mechanisms we observe in nature are also a result of knowledge, will, mind, and design
The fact that the systems and mechanisms we observe in nature are not a result of knowledge, will, mind, and design "should behoove us to appreciate" that they are not a result of knowledge, will, mind, and design.
Face it, a computer is not such a good analogy for a tree as a tree is. In particular, when it comes to the question of how the computer and the tree came into being, the computer was produced by intelligent beings and the tree was produced unintelligently by natural causes.
If you wish to fantasize that at some point some tree was produced in a manner like that in which a computer was produced rather than in the manner in which trees are actually produced, then we have observed nothing that would support that hypothesis.
Being perfect in knowledge, the Creator can set the establishment and order of all other things (reasoning to superlative).
Again with the religious dogma.
Thre is no reason to suppose that, even if the universe has a Creator, he should be "perfect in knowledge". That is merely a tradition of your religion.
If you have any reason to suppose that the creator of what looks to me like a fairly slapdash universe was "perfect in knowledge", please present it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by goldrush, posted 02-10-2011 12:14 PM goldrush has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by sac51495, posted 02-10-2011 11:12 PM Dr Adequate 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