Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2015, 02:42 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(26-07-2015 01:27 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  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.

Wrong again. It may be your opinion it's "the next best thing" but in reality, it a not even a close substitute, therefor your idiotic analogy if false.

Some String theorists posit that this universe is a hologram running on data from the surface of the universe. Maybe THIS is one.

If you made a virtual universe it would be proof of nothing except that you made one. It wouldn't demonstrate anything about anything. You don't know what the conditions were or that universes could come about by other means.

Your desperation is showing again.

(26-07-2015 01:27 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Lets go one step further.

Let's not. Until you demonstrate why the analogy is correct and meaningful, and address the issues above.

(26-07-2015 01:27 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  I wonder who would be right?

Well clearly YOU would be there still making stupid assumptions.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 03:04 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(26-07-2015 02:40 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  
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?

1. This is how I know you're a dishonest person. You lie. You lied and deliberately misrepresented what I said, for the purpose of your own preaching. No one said we here on this forum are scientists. I happen to be a retired one, but that's not what I meant. The "scientific mindset" means those who follow the Scientific Method's (note: a method) way of evaluating information, and the results that come from that method, known as the body of scientific knowledge.

2. You LYING FUCK. No one said science disproves God. No one said that science is trying to do what you claim. It is as dishonest as I can even imagine to state such a strawman argument. What is wrong with you!?

Is this the state of Christian honor? Have you no decency? At long last, sir, have you no decency?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
26-07-2015, 03:15 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(26-07-2015 02:31 PM)KnowtheSilence Wrote:  
(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?

In this case, proof of god. You haven't even met your own definitions requirements though.

(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.

As I'm typing this, somone on this planet is needlessly dying.
Why is god allowing it? Is it not able to stop it? Is it not willing to stop it?
Is it all according a a bigger plan?
Why did god not have the forsight to make a plan that didn't involve needless deaths?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like pablo's post
26-07-2015, 03:21 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(26-07-2015 03:15 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 02:31 PM)KnowtheSilence Wrote:  That's going to depend on your definition of "evidence." What's yours?

In this case, proof of god. You haven't even met your own definitions requirements though.

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.

As I'm typing this, somone on this planet is needlessly dying.
Why is god allowing it? Is it not able to stop it? Is it not willing to stop it?
Is it all according a a bigger plan?
Why did god not have the forsight to make a plan that didn't involve needless deaths?

There must be some confusion here. I'm an atheist. A strong atheist. I believe that the type of God I'm describing does not exist. I agree with you that everything you just mentioned counts against the idea of a God existing.

I'm just thinking out loud.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 03:23 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(26-07-2015 01:03 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  
Quote:I never claimed it was impossible for all we observed to be the result of mindless mechanistic forces that didn't plan or intend to:

Cause themselves to exist
Cause the universe to exist
Cause the laws of physics to exist
Cause the laws of physics to be such that stars, planets, solar system and galaxies to exist.
Cause the chemicals and conditions for abiogenesis to occur (if it did occur)
Cause the conditions for sentience to emerge.

You have not demonstrated that there even needed to be a cause for any of those.

[quote]The current theory is that the big bang emerged from a phenomena (I don't think it could be called an object) known as the singularity.

Actually, I thought most models had moved away from a singularity. It isn't an area I can speak on since I'm not in that field. I always find it amusing to hear others talk about how impossible it sounds in their uninformed opinions though. Please carry on.

Quote:A phenomena that scientists say the laws of physics and time don't apply to (sounds rather supernatural doesn't it?).

It might if that's what they actually said. Our understanding of the laws of physics break down under the conditions of the early universe but that's not supernatural, just a recognition that we don't know what happened.

Quote: The evidence I hear atheists offer is that things can be explained by an appeal to natural causes after the fact of a universe existing with seemingly inviolable laws of physics that appear to dictate how things occur and supposedly that allows them to conclude that its 'mindless forces' all the way down.

You obviously do not read anything that anybody responds with. When you continually stick with your strawman arguments it becomes increasingly pointless to discuss anything.

Nobody has concluded anything. We see that "mindless forces" exist and that they have been the explanation for everything we have found so far so it makes sense to continue exploring how they might account for what we still don't know. That is not a conclusion, it is simply the only avenue of investigation that has proven fruitful.

When you provide a mechanism to detect supernatural causation we will be happy to evaluate it and use it if it proves to be effective. Until then, claiming that it is a viable answer is useless.

Quote:The reason science has any success in understanding the universe is because it has rules.

You confuse descriptive rules with proscriptive rules.

Quote:I'm citing observed facts we do know to infer the cause of what we don't know which I might add is exactly what you do.

You are inferring something that has never been demonstrated to exist. If you are allowed to do that then you can make up anything to explain anything. Your ideas will get respect when you show that they have a basis in reality.


Quote:A Creator hasn't been shown to be needed because its assumed its not needed. I could assume a laptop has no Creator and use as evidence the fact it works without a creator directly involved in making it work and all its functions can be explained naturalistically no Creator necessary. Does that give you reason to think a laptop came about by mindless forces? Why not?

Because I can show you exactly how a laptop is designed and created and I can replicate the process in front of you. You can't explain to me how a universe is created or anything about the process or even show that it had to be created in the first place.

Quote:I don't know for sure God caused the universe to exist any more than you know for sure natural forces alone were sufficient to cause as we observe but those are our respective beliefs.

For the last time, please stop telling me what my beliefs are when I've told you otherwise. I suspect it is all natural because that's the conclusion all the evidence I've seen leads to but I do not claim to know.

Quote:The delineation of what is natural or supernatural is a moving goal post that moves every time something that was thought to be impossible occurs. 200 years ago time dilation was considered the stuff of science fiction. Today we know it does happen so its natural. If things can come into existence uncaused out of nothing how do you say that's not magic?

From what I've read about QM, things do come into existence without any apparent cause all the time. You are arguing against your own case though. If we find something new that is part of the natural world then it gets factored into a naturalistic understanding of how things work. That doesn't mean it was magical, supernatural, transcendent, or whatever other word you care to use before it was understood. It only means that we didn't understand it. It also means that it wasn't reasonable to believe in it before it was found just like believing in a creator god doesn't make sense now. Until there is evidence there should be no belief.

Quote:Just because I'm manning up and offering an opinion for what I believe to be true doesn't mean I should be penalized.

Are you 12? It isn't "manning up" to promote belief in something for which there is no evidence. It is just intellectually dishonest.

Quote: I could just say I lack belief in the notion mindless natural forces caused the universe and life to exist...do I get a pass if I express it that way? Secondly I am making a case, I presented undisputed facts and argued from those facts in favor of my opinion.

You have every right to your opinion. You may even turn out to be right. I looked at your arguments and I find them utterly unconvincing. They are nothing but an expression of your being uncomfortable with not having an answer.

Quote:I would frame this case as a choice between two possibilities. We owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend to create themselves or the universe we live in and then without plan or intent or knowledge proceeded to create something utterly unlike itself life and sentience or we owe our existence to a transcendent being of great power who deliberately caused the conditions and laws of physics that account for our existence.

Ignoring the emotionally charged language, please demonstrate that this is a true dichotomy and that there are no other options.

Quote:Then I would lay out the facts that support that conclusion.

But you haven't laid out any facts that actually support your conclusion.

Quote:If in response all you do is criticize my belief you will lose badly.

Burden of proof

Quote:You are attempting to use facts not in evidence to support your conclusion even though you admit you don't know if life in some other form exists. I'm trying to explain things as they stand now not based on some finding that may or may not occur. You have to at least admit, that is a naturalism in the gaps argument isn't it?

No, I'm asking questions and pointing out that you are making implicit assumptions. I don't need to be able to show that other forms of life can exist to respond to your implicit claim that no life could exist under other conditions.

Quote:Of course that is how folks make a case or debate a topic. They cite facts they think comport with their belief, then argue from those facts. It would be foolish and rather boring to debate a topic we already know the answer to.

So the question is why are you debating in support of a conclusion when you admit you do not know if it is right? As I said before, thinking something might be an option is fine but believing it without evidence that supports it (against other options) is not.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
26-07-2015, 04:09 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(26-07-2015 03:23 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
Quote:Just because I'm manning up and offering an opinion for what I believe to be true doesn't mean I should be penalized.

Are you 12?

Yeah, that about sums it up. Coulda saved yourself a lot of typing, Unfogged. Tongue

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
26-07-2015, 04:40 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?

That solves nothing. Where did those beings come from? It's an infinite regress unless you employ special pleading.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 04:57 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Hello! Smile

Shame you didn't like my Jack L. Chalker. reference, ah well....

(26-07-2015 02:40 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  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.

So.. you don't care about what the non-theists here think.. okay... again, why are you seemingly posting to yourself then? Consider

(26-07-2015 02:40 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  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.

Sorry, I again seem to have missed these facts that you have posted. Could you offer a link or a refresh post?

(26-07-2015 02:40 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  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.

Okay... just because people 'believe' something to be true..? Doesn't make it true. You understand that,right?

Again with the "Science doesn't know what happened before T=0 there for deity!" claim.
I think multiple others have pointed out that science (scientists) make the comment of simply "Science doesn't yet know what happened before T=0... but we're thinking/working on it really hard!"

(26-07-2015 02:40 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  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?

Um.... Blink dafaq? Sorry, you lost me with this.
"Every one on the forum are scientists" ?
"You watch the news" ?
"Scientists admit that bias and per-conceived notions may influence their reasoning..."

Those are seemingly just three different/random sentences smushed together.....

(26-07-2015 02:40 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  I hope they speak up.

Big Grin I have been! *Waves*
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
26-07-2015, 05:05 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(26-07-2015 03:21 PM)KnowtheSilence Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 03:15 PM)pablo Wrote:  As I'm typing this, somone on this planet is needlessly dying.
Why is god allowing it? Is it not able to stop it? Is it not willing to stop it?
Is it all according a a bigger plan?
Why did god not have the forsight to make a plan that didn't involve needless deaths?

There must be some confusion here. I'm an atheist. A strong atheist. I believe that the type of God I'm describing does not exist. I agree with you that everything you just mentioned counts against the idea of a God existing.

I thought you were arguing for the existence of god. Now I'm confused, which seems to be my natural state. Blink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 05:14 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(26-07-2015 05:05 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 03:21 PM)KnowtheSilence Wrote:  There must be some confusion here. I'm an atheist. A strong atheist. I believe that the type of God I'm describing does not exist. I agree with you that everything you just mentioned counts against the idea of a God existing.

I thought you were arguing for the existence of god. Now I'm confused, which seems to be my natural state. Blink

Nope. I'm arguing that there is some (weak) evidence for the existence of God, but that that evidence is outweighed by other evidence to the contrary. Saying that there is no evidence for God's existence is pretty typical coming from atheists, so I can kinda see where the confusion could come from (in my defense, I'm not the only one who thinks like this; Jeffrey Lowder would be a big-name atheist who thinks the same way).

I'm just thinking out loud.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: