Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2015, 01:17 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
At work.

The OP posted that they have put forwards facts.

I am afraid I missed them. Might I see a repost or something in bullet points?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 01:27 PM
Is it plausible?
Hello all,

In the first thread I responded to in this forum someone asked me is my hypothesis (that we owe our existence to a Creator that exists outside of the universe) is plausible or if a model of such exists. The answer is yes such a model does exist. The only sentient beings we know exist are humans and as of now, humans aren't capable of producing a real universe. However, with the help of technology we are able to produce the next best thing....virtual universes! In fact the only known way for a virtual universe to come into existence is by creator designers who create the conditions of such universes. In short the folks who created virtual universes are the undisputed gods of such universes. They can alter the laws of physics which they create in the first place however they see fit.

Lets go one step further. Suppose in the future with technology that makes today's super computers seem like a Nintendo machine, sentient beings could create a virtual universe in which virtual sentient beings (in the fullness of time) came into existence. I wonder how long it would take them before they started asking the same questions we do. How did our existence come about? Why is there something rather than nothing? Do we owe our existence to mindless forces and happenstance or is our existence the result of planning and engineering by beings transcendent to us? Undoubtedly in such a universe those questions would be debated by theists and atheists. I wonder who would be right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 01:33 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(26-07-2015 12:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 07:06 AM)KnowtheSilence Wrote:  First, I have to say that I agree with you that there actually is evidence for God's existence, at least for certain concepts of God. It actually irks me a bit when I hear other atheists say that there is no evidence for God's existence, which as actually a pretty strong claim (which makes it even more odd coming from people who identify as "weak" or "agnostic" atheists precisely to avoid making strong claims that they don't feel they can support). I think it mostly comes down to them using a different definition of the word "evidence."

You have added your assertion to the theists' assertions that there is evidence of God, yet none of you present any evidence.

What is your definition of evidence and what is the evidence?

Evidence is something that makes a hypothesis more probable than it would have been otherwise. Evidence can be weak or strong, and one piece of evidence by itself is probably not going to be enough to make a case; there has to be a preponderance of evidence to show one hypothesis is more likely than its rivals.

I'd count the existence of conscious beings as evidence of God's existence. There are a number of reasons that a morally perfect being would want conscious creatures to exist and a number of ways that an omnipotent being could make that happen; on naturalism, there's pretty much only one way that conscious creature could evolve. So, the existence of conscious creatures would be less surprising (if not expected) on theism but very surprising on naturalism.

We can flip that, though, because there are a number of specific facts about the nature of the existence of conscious creatures that are surprising on theism but expected on naturalism (the mind's dependence on a physical brain, the fact that conscious beings arose from a process of evolution by natural selection, etc). The specific facts amount to a preponderance of evidence that eventually overcomes the evidence presented in the general fact.

I'm just thinking out loud.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 01:35 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
At work.

Ah, the "Well world" science fiction novels.Big Grin

So.... how does one go about finding Nathan Brazil?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
26-07-2015, 01:38 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(26-07-2015 12:43 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 12:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  You have added your assertion to the theists' assertions that there is evidence of God, yet none of you present any evidence.

What is your definition of evidence and what is the evidence?

Throw in a definition of god too, while you're at it.

I usually leave it up to the theist I'm talking to to give the specifics (no point arguing against something other than what they actually believe in), but left to my own devices, I'm usually talking about a maximally great (omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect) being with an unembodied mind that exists by its own nature and brought the universe into existence.

I'm just thinking out loud.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 01:55 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(26-07-2015 01:27 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Hello all,

In the first thread I responded to in this forum someone asked me is my hypothesis (that we owe our existence to a Creator that exists outside of the universe) is plausible or if a model of such exists. The answer is yes such a model does exist. The only sentient beings we know exist are humans and as of now, humans aren't capable of producing a real universe. However, with the help of technology we are able to produce the next best thing....virtual universes! In fact the only known way for a virtual universe to come into existence is by creator designers who create the conditions of such universes. In short the folks who created virtual universes are the undisputed gods of such universes. They can alter the laws of physics which they create in the first place however they see fit.

Lets go one step further. Suppose in the future with technology that makes today's super computers seem like a Nintendo machine, sentient beings could create a virtual universe in which virtual sentient beings (in the fullness of time) came into existence. I wonder how long it would take them before they started asking the same questions we do. How did our existence come about? Why is there something rather than nothing? Do we owe our existence to mindless forces and happenstance or is our existence the result of planning and engineering by beings transcendent to us? Undoubtedly in such a universe those questions would be debated by theists and atheists. I wonder who would be right?

Humans are able to create virtual worlds using computers, but guess what has to come first ?

The material that those computers were made from.

Nature precedes life.
Life precedes intelligent life.
Intelligent life precedes design.

Imagine if someone argued that a full grown adult could not possibly have been naturally born from inside another adult. There must be some kind of creator at work that creates full grown adults.

I really wish I had the time to help you connect all the dots about reality, but I don't.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
26-07-2015, 02:16 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(26-07-2015 01:33 PM)KnowtheSilence Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 12:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  You have added your assertion to the theists' assertions that there is evidence of God, yet none of you present any evidence.

What is your definition of evidence and what is the evidence?

Evidence is something that makes a hypothesis more probable than it would have been otherwise. Evidence can be weak or strong, and one piece of evidence by itself is probably not going to be enough to make a case; there has to be a preponderance of evidence to show one hypothesis is more likely than its rivals.

I'd count the existence of conscious beings as evidence of God's existence. There are a number of reasons that a morally perfect being would want conscious creatures to exist and a number of ways that an omnipotent being could make that happen; on naturalism, there's pretty much only one way that conscious creature could evolve. So, the existence of conscious creatures would be less surprising (if not expected) on theism but very surprising on naturalism.

We can flip that, though, because there are a number of specific facts about the nature of the existence of conscious creatures that are surprising on theism but expected on naturalism (the mind's dependence on a physical brain, the fact that conscious beings arose from a process of evolution by natural selection, etc). The specific facts amount to a preponderance of evidence that eventually overcomes the evidence presented in the general fact.

Shown to be "probable" or "likely" is not the definition of evidence. You have not given any evidence for the existence of god.

Surely by the god definition you gave, if it were omniscient, it would have known ahead of time that at some point it would be either unable and/or unwilling to do what should be the right thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 02:31 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(26-07-2015 02:16 PM)pablo Wrote:  Shown to be "probable" or "likely" is not the definition of evidence. You have not given any evidence for the existence of god.
That's going to depend on your definition of "evidence." What's yours?

(26-07-2015 02:16 PM)pablo Wrote:  Surely by the god definition you gave, if it were omniscient, it would have known ahead of time that at some point it would be either unable and/or unwilling to do what should be the right thing.
I suppose, but by the definition of God that I gave, its moral perfection would mean that it wouldn't allow such a situation to arise.

I'm just thinking out loud.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 02:40 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Quote:You have yet to present any facts. Let me say it again: You have yet to present any facts. You have repeatedly presented conclusions about facts, but that does not make them into a new set of facts. And we solidly reject your conclusions, for reasons we are stating as clearly as we can, just as we also will not allow you to relabel them facts.

And I'll repeat I don't give a rats ass about whether the facts or conclusions I presented convince my opponents who are advocates of atheism. If I was making my case in a courtroom I wouldn't be attempting to persuade the other lawyer the merits of my case. I do believe I would fare very well before an impartial crowd of fair unbiased triers of fact. I said in the OP my opponents will continue to claim no evidence, that's what they do.

Quote:Further, being aware of more facts than the ones you present means only that I am not willing to let you define the only set of facts that may be considered in forming my own conclusions about your proposals. You say there are only five facts; it turns out there are ten, and I am aware of the other five, which when considered as a full unit of ten shines new light on your five. That does not make me biased, it makes me unwilling to accept your bias, that I might remain neutral.

I said I would offer 5 facts...I never said those were the only ones. But those are the facts and the reasons so many folks subscribe to the belief we owe our existence to a Creator and because scientists and atheists have failed to come up with some plausible workable model of how things came about minus plan and design. They tend to resort to mocking, ridiculing and marginalizing those who disagree which only persuades those already convinced. That is in part why atheism is such a loser in the court of world opinion.

Quote:That's what makes this a Ergo Decido fallacy. You're trying to imply that because we have come to the conclusion that Gods are all manmade, we cannot impartially make such a determination, because our minds are made up. But that's just not how a scientific mindset works! Saying otherwise shows that you are either unaware of the methodology of those who accept the Scientific Method of thinking/reasoning, or are deliberately trying to slander science in an attempt to gain ground for pseudoscientific reasoning approaches. I suspect the latter.

I didn't know everyone who posts in this forum (except me I guess) are scientists. Its also news to me that its a scientific fact that God is just a made up myth. Funny I watch the news everyday I would have thought that would have caught my attention. Scientists admit that bias and pre-concieved notions may influence their reasoning and bias there observations so they create experiments that hopefully eliminate such from occurring. Tell me what branch of science is working on or determining if we owe our existence to God? Is that the science of Godology?

Lets look at some of the quotes from your fellow unbiased persuaded only by fact scientists...

I am compelled to see if one of you preachy fuckers ever actually comes up with something that makes sense...so far, you are true to form...ignorant and arrogant.

Now please use a more tasteful example. Why do you fuckers always fixate on Hitler and the Holocaust? What would be wrong with fairies at the bottom of the garden as an example?

I could cut and paste more examples but actually most of the banter in here has been fairly reasonable. But a far cry from passive objective reviewers of fact who as OJ Simpson's lawyers once said just in a search for the truth. Are those people on the other board you frequent just passive scientists also? Those jerks tolerate no dissent whatever.

Quote:If you think people are afraid to say that (as I do) they are convinced by the body of evidence that God is 100% made up, you haven't spent much time looking around this forum.

I hope they speak up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 02:42 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Drewpaul, you are making delicious word salad. What a nice salad bar this thread has become.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: