God can exist

[lightgigantic]

Speculation is central to science. And there is evidence of life arising from chemicals.

and after speculation, or hypothesis, comes what?

But there is evidence for it, just not definitive proof.

if you want to write speculation off as evidence, sure

Yes.

the fact that persons like popper are required to frequently come in and redefine the workable understandings of what is science tends to indicate otherwise

Science isn't a religion. If anyone were able to show evidence for a creator, I would be fascinated to hear about it.

I can go one better

if anyone was able to show evidence (not the speculative variety sorry) how life arises from chemicals, I would not only be fascinated to hear it, but also apply the process to do it.

 

[spidergoat]

Evidence that life arises from it's chemical constituents is different from how.

 

[lightgigantic]

Evidence that life arises from it's chemical constituents is different from how.

not really
in terms of empirical validity (the type "science" rests squarely upon), if you can't exhibit the "how", the "that" is particularly weak

 

[SnakeLord]

Does it exist outside of the universe? I don't see why. If the Creator displayed universal characteristics, and was surrounded by a universal setting, then there would be nothing to differentiate between Creator and creation.

Perhaps you've got it back to front. Why say "if the creator displayed universal characteristics" as opposed to "the universe displays creator characteristics"? Is there a specific reason you have in mind that a creator must invariably create something that far removed from itself?

Emotion is a human state of consciousness. Who says a Creator is subject to this?

1) If an entity is completely emotionless it wouldn't ever do anything because there would be no need or desire to.

2) Most religious texts describe a creator as having emotions and apparently most people believe in those creators so, to answer your question, most people.

If that satisfies them, then it's nobody else's problem.

That's not an answer to what was asked of you.

A Creator can be a he, but there is no more legitimacy to saying that than there is if you say the Creator is a she

Unless such a creator was a he in which case there would be more legitimacy in saying so.

Logically, a Creator would not follow the traits of his creation

Again that's back to front. Why would a creation not follow the traits of his creator? When you see a robot that looks like a human would you espouse that logically a human would not follow the traits of the robot while not recognising that it is indeed the other way around?

You need to stop viewing the Creator as a reflection of his creation.

You need to stop getting it back to front.

Are humans the reflection of this robot, or - correctly - is this robot a reflection of it's creator?

Hmmm...

 

[Kadark]

Perhaps you've got it back to front. Why say "if the creator displayed universal characteristics" as opposed to "the universe displays creator characteristics"? Is there a specific reason you have in mind that a creator must invariably create something that far removed from itself?

Because if the Creator was in accordance and similarity to his very own creation, then the Creator too would be subject to the natural laws of the universe. We know for sure that this is not a possibility.

1) If an entity is completely emotionless it wouldn't ever do anything because there would be no need or desire to.

Emotion is a human characteristic. Besides, do humans, when they feel (very) little to no emotion, stand frozen in time?

2) Most religious texts describe a creator as having emotions and apparently most people believe in those creators so, to answer your question, most people.

That's fine. Many people view the Creator in different ways.

Unless such a creator was a he in which case there would be more legitimacy in saying so.

It's kind of like, "what came first - the chicken or the egg"? You can debate that until you forever (because there is no answer), or you can simply come to the sane conclusion - "it doesn't matter!"

Again that's back to front. Why would a creation not follow the traits of his creator? When you see a robot that looks like a human would you espouse that logically a human would not follow the traits of the robot while not recognising that it is indeed the other way around?

Are humans the reflection of this robot, or - correctly - is this robot a reflection of it's creator?

That robot was created using preexisting Earthly materials by humans who are confined within a universe. The same relationship does not exist between Creator/creation (system of the universe and all contents within).

 

[SnakeLord]

Because if the Creator was in accordance and similarity to his very own creation, then the Creator too would be subject to the natural laws of the universe.

Again this is back to front. If there was such a creator, and it is contended that this creator created those natural laws, (along with everything else), then there is no argument to assume that such an entity would not or could not create things 'in its own image' so to speak.

Emotion is a human characteristic.

Not really. Cats, dogs, elephants etc etc etc and so on display emotions.

Besides, do humans, when they feel (very) little to no emotion, stand frozen in time?

Curious question. "Frozen in time"? No, but if they had no need or desire to do anything they wouldn't do it.

That's fine. Many people view the Creator in different ways.

Indeed and in every case, including yours, all those absolutes come across looking quite silly.

It's kind of like, "what came first - the chicken or the egg"?

The egg.

or you can simply come to the sane conclusion - "it doesn't matter!"

Something mattering or not mattering is not an issue of sanity. Certain things matter to certain people irregardless to their mental state.

That robot was created using preexisting Earthly materials by humans who are confined within a universe.

That robot was created expressly in the image of the creator. Where they got the materials is neither here nor there to the point. That point being that you were looking at it back to front.. "a creator would not follow the traits of his creation" as opposed to "the created might have some traits of the creator".

Is there a reasonable argument to suggest that a creator wouldn't create things with some semblance of familiarity to its own construction other than it's entirely emotionless - in which case it wouldn't do anything?

The same relationship does not exist between Creator/creation (system of the universe and all contents within)

Curious absolute statement. You met this creator or are you ultimately just guessing?

 

[Kadark]

Again this is back to front. If there was such a creator, and it is contended that this creator created those natural laws, (along with everything else), then there is no argument to assume that such an entity would not or could not create things 'in its own image' so to speak.

Of course there is. A Creator that made a universe to his resemblance and setting would have to be subject to its very laws of nature. If a Creator made a universe to his resemblance and setting, then there wouldn't be anything left to differentiate between Creator/creation. If a Creator made a universe exactly to his resemblance and setting, then it can be argued that nothing new was created at all. If a Creator made a universe exactly to his resemblance and setting, then it would be an unproductive and unimportant one. If a Creator made a universe to his resemblance and setting, then we would assume the Creator lives in a similar system, which is an impossibility.

Curious question. "Frozen in time"? No, but if they had no need or desire to do anything they wouldn't do it.

Says who?

Something mattering or not mattering is not an issue of sanity. Certain things matter to certain people irregardless to their mental state.

In this case it is an issue of sanity, because it has been established that neither are more logical than the other. Both have an equally good argument, and an equally bad downfall. If it does matter to them, fine - but they're not going to get any closer to solving it than the person who doesn't take the issue to mind.

That robot was created expressly in the image of the creator. Where they got the materials is neither here nor there to the point. That point being that you were looking at it back to front.. "a creator would not follow the traits of his creation" as opposed to "the created might have some traits of the creator".

Yes, the materials are exactly the point. The robot was created by beings within the universe, wherein the beings used universal materials to do so. There is no reason to believe the Creator/creation relationship follows those standards, simply because the Creator is obviously not of the universe of the creation. The same cannot be said about the fallacious human/robot example.

 

[Enmos]

"what came first - the chicken or the egg"?

Egg.

 

[SnakeLord]

A Creator that made a universe to his resemblance and setting would have to be subject to its very laws of nature. If a Creator made a universe to his resemblance and setting, then there wouldn't be anything left to differentiate between Creator/creation. If a Creator made a universe exactly to his resemblance and setting, then it can be argued that nothing new was created at all. If a Creator made a universe exactly to his resemblance and setting, then it would be an unproductive and unimportant one. If a Creator made a universe to his resemblance and setting, then we would assume the Creator lives in a similar system, which is an impossibility.

Let me just double check to make sure... You're telling me this creator "can't"?

Btw, out of interest, most of your above was an emotional appeal. "It wouldn't be important".. to you, certainly but not specifically to anything else.

Says who?

That's the way it is. Anymore than that is going to be a very long and needless discussion.

In this case it is an issue of sanity, because it has been established that neither are more logical than the other.

Still not an issue of sanity, sorry.

"You spoke about the chicken or egg issue!? Quick, take these pills 3 times a day or you'll be moved into padded cell accomodation".

There is no reason to believe the Creator/creation relationship follows those standards, simply because the Creator is obviously not of the universe of the creation.

But of course this 'creator' could be the universe. A vast consciousness that changes and within itself has room for growth and 'creation'.

The thing is you busted my balls over saying what something could or could not do but then do the exact same thing, ultimately defining what is arguably the most confined entity any human mind could imagine. It can't do this, it must do that, it must be this. You then whine that discussing issues such as this show insanity but then spend so much time giving me absolutes based upon your own little understanding. It doesn't matter indeed :bugeye:

 

[spidergoat]

not really
in terms of empirical validity (the type "science" rests squarely upon), if you can't exhibit the "how", the "that" is particularly weak

It was pretty well evident as soon as we learned about DNA.

 

[greenberg]

The point is, neither atheists nor theists can say, as fact, that they are right, and those that do attempt to are idiots; nobody knows, and we can only know when we die. If there is a God, we shall know, if not, we shall not know anything.
And since God is not impossible (as I have yet to see proof that proves that he is impossible), it is possible.
Therefore, atheists lack religion, but they cannot say as fact that there is no God. Nor can theists say, as fact, that there is God. They are both beliefs. So don't try to pass your belief as fact. Nobody knows.

Which boils down the whole question of God's existence onto the question of how we deal with potentialities; potentialities that might be either pernicious or beneficial or neutral for us if they were true.

So what is a wise way to relate to something that might be true,
and if it were true, would have serious consequences for us,
but we currently do not have the means to find out whether it is true,
or we would have to be willing to inflict harm upon ourselves and others in order to find out if it is true (like Abraham who was just about to stab his son; or the person who is brought to their wit's end, puts a gun to their head and thinks "I will pull the trigger, and if God exists, he will prevent it from firing")?

 

[greenberg]

Well.. it's ridiculous in the sense that the way in which you've defined this creator makes it immune to such analysis.

Essentially, you're saying that this creator is beyond being disproved (or proven...), and then asking for disproof.

I understand that.
The problem is that you've jury-rigged the whole situation. You cannot require that something be proven if you're going to define it in such a way that it is impossible to prove or disprove.

Welcome to the world of paradoxes and double binds!

I think this is what some religions bet their success on: Present their tenets by using paradoxes and double binds (and other fallacies). This will completely confuse (plus all the uncomfortable psychological effects of that) the mind of the average and the less than average, who will conclude that if they cannot disprove something, it must be that it is true - and believe the tenets.

The above-average, as long as there is existential fear in them, trying to be precise, logical, will be caught by the paradoxes and double binds, trying to work them out - in vain.

Either way, the religion will persevere.

 

[greenberg]

Not at all. I find the greatest contradiction is dismissing the argument of a Creator, all the while giving no solution of your own.

One can dismiss the argument of a Creator God on the grounds that acting as if that God existed leads to misery for oneself and others - and humans do not wish to cause themselves misery, nor to some others.

 

[glaucon]

Welcome to the world of paradoxes and double binds!

I think this is what some religions bet their success on: Present their tenets by using paradoxes and double binds (and other fallacies). This will completely confuse (plus all the uncomfortable psychological effects of that) the mind of the average and the less than average, who will conclude that if they cannot disprove something, it must be that it is true - and believe the tenets.

The above-average, as long as there is existential fear in them, trying to be precise, logical, will be caught by the paradoxes and double binds, trying to work them out - in vain.

Either way, the religion will persevere.

Indeed, as most delusions do. After all, how does one wake oneself from a dream?

All of this reminds me of Putnam's 'Brain In A Vat' argument. Normally this is used in strict epistemological circles (as the ultimate incarnation of solipsism, a contemporary take on Descartes 'evil deceiver'..), but I find that application here to be just as instructive.

 

[lightgigantic]

It was pretty well evident as soon as we learned about DNA.

Once again, big difference between life and the chemicals life utilizes.
You could say the same thing about the synthesis of urea.

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

One can dismiss the argument of a Creator God on the grounds that acting as if that God existed leads to misery for oneself and others - and humans do not wish to cause themselves misery, nor to some others.

Only if one is sold out to the activities if misery.

For instance a big time criminal might have many strong arguments against the principles of justice ..... but then that probably explains the constitutional position of a criminal .....

 

[greenberg]

Only if one is sold out to the activities if misery.

Believing in a Creator God eventually becomes disempowering - because the person has given over the responsibility for their happiness and for their suffering over to someone else, the person doesn't believe anymore that their happiness and their suffering are in their hands.

I have no doubt that attachment to a Creator God can for a long time feel very fulfilling, and the person thrives.
But at some point, this attachment becomes detrimental for the person's happiness.

 

[(Q)]

not really, since that model of reality doesn't account for everything

for instance consciousness cannot be explained merely in terms of matter and energy

The mind of the ignorant and gullible will revert to the fantastic or divine to explain that which they don't understand themselves or that which currently does not have an answer, yet.

 

[SnakeLord]

for instance consciousness cannot be explained merely in terms of matter and energy

It can be said that there is a great deal of work on ths subject. Of course nothing, not the tiniest little speck actually points to sky beings or anything 'supernatural'. The argument of "a god did it" serves no real value to anyone except to satisfy emotions. Anyway, some interesting reading:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel...0-source-of-human-empathy-found-in-brain.html

http://www.newscientist.com/channel...ld-quantum-effects-explain-consciousness.html

 

[Vega]

I have now turned towards the darkside! I am boycotting the religion forum for good!
cya on the otherside folks!!! ...yupee