Assumptions about a creator
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-03-2017, 12:09 AM
RE: Assumptions about a creator
(10-03-2017 11:21 PM)socialistview Wrote:  Sorry faith is an hypothesis.

Do you by chance have a more complex lexicon that maybe you're not currently using? I'm considering jumping into the conversation, but I want to be assured that you can hold a conversation on my level.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2017, 12:33 AM
RE: Assumptions about a creator
(10-03-2017 04:04 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(10-03-2017 03:50 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  the tao that can be spoken is not the eternal tao.

Always a great first line.

Laugh out load

It's the ultimate disclaimer. Basically, "Disregard everything else I say."

Yet people still listen to me. Guy says, "pick up yer cross and follow me;" guy doesn't say it's gonna be easy. Laugh out load

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2017, 12:34 AM
RE: Assumptions about a creator
(10-03-2017 11:21 PM)socialistview Wrote:  Sorry faith is an hypothesis.

Faith is moral certainty. You're an hypothesis. Tongue

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
11-03-2017, 01:50 AM
Assumptions about a creator
(10-03-2017 01:50 PM)Alla Wrote:  
Aliza Wrote:6. The creator chooses to intervene only if the above goals are not being accomplished naturally.
I agree with this because I am convinced it is true.


Can you give an objective observation confirming that this has ever happened? Can you give even a single example of a natural phenomenon which required a god to function?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2017, 01:55 AM
Assumptions about a creator
(10-03-2017 03:33 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(10-03-2017 03:08 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  I think we're getting astray from the original topic here.

The question isn't whether we believe these things about a creator, or why, or even whether a creator existed.

The question is, IF there was a creator, what could be known about that creator just from the fact that it was a creator, and what assumptions are frequently made about a creator that aren't really supported on those grounds alone?
if creator doesn't communicate in any way, nothing can be known about him/her/it.
It would also mean that it doesn't matter what we think about the creator.


At the risk of repeating myself, here is a take on this from PZ Myers:

You can’t say something is “real”, and then claim it exhibits none of the properties of any other real objects, and can’t ever be examined or analyzed empirically. That’s pretty much a good definition of “not real."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Rachel's post
11-03-2017, 02:03 AM
RE: Assumptions about a creator
(11-03-2017 01:50 AM)Rachel Wrote:  Can you give even a single example of a natural phenomenon which required a god to function?

I am.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2017, 02:21 AM
RE: Assumptions about a creator
(10-03-2017 11:21 PM)socialistview Wrote:  Sorry faith is an hypothesis.

Not without falsification criteria and reserved judgement, it isn't. Also, some parsimony would be nice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2017, 09:19 AM
RE: Assumptions about a creator
(11-03-2017 01:55 AM)Rachel Wrote:  
(10-03-2017 03:33 PM)Alla Wrote:  if creator doesn't communicate in any way, nothing can be known about him/her/it.
It would also mean that it doesn't matter what we think about the creator.


At the risk of repeating myself, here is a take on this from PZ Myers:

You can’t say something is “real”, and then claim it exhibits none of the properties of any other real objects, and can’t ever be examined or analyzed empirically. That’s pretty much a good definition of “not real."

I agree with this statement because it is 100% true.
I was never convinced that creator "exhibits none of the properties of any other real objects, and can’t ever be examined or analyzed empirically".
Creator or god who "exhibits none of the properties of any other real objects, and can’t ever be examined or analyzed empirically" is creator or god that never existed, doesn't exist and will never exist. This kind of creator or god is someone's fantasy.

.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2017, 09:42 AM
RE: Assumptions about a creator
Rachel Wrote:Can you give an objective observation confirming that this has ever happened? Can you give even a single example of a natural phenomenon which required a god to function?
I think I can. If I am wrong, please correct me.

I will take a desert in Utah, for example. Peach tree or a rose bush can not grow in Utah's desert naturally . But someone(creators) have some goals. They need peach trees in this desert, they need rose bushes, corn, wheat and many other things in this desert. They(creators) intervene and only then there is something that would never happen naturally in the desert.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2017, 11:10 AM
RE: Assumptions about a creator
(11-03-2017 02:21 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(10-03-2017 11:21 PM)socialistview Wrote:  Sorry faith is an hypothesis.
Not without falsification criteria and reserved judgement, it isn't. Also, some parsimony would be nice.

How do you falsify a hypothesis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: