Theists and atheists: try to persuade me!

[Myles]

However, it is the pursuit of knowledge. Technically there's no reason to even bother figuring out how the universe began, but people do for the pursuit of knowledge and answers to great mysteries.

And so, the concept of "creation" (not in a religious sense, i.e, not creationism) is not ridiculous. The problem is there is absolutely NO way of knowing whether or not the universe was created or if it began by means other than intention (naturally)

Of course, I am not suggesting this creator has to be some magical being. It could be a scientist in a lab coat, and we are an experiment (our universe)

However that is mere speculation: all I can say for sure is that the concept of a creator, and natural beginning, are, to me, both very open possibilities and there is of yet no reason to lean either way


You have answered your own question. Further discussion would be futile. Why pursue knowledge of something which cannot be known ?

 

[Norsefire]

What 'concept' is that? From your posts I gather that the 'concept' in question is "a creator" but, with all due respect, if you don't get anymore specific than that then there is simply nothing to talk about.

That's the point. Asserting that our universe was created (caused to be through processes based on intention) is not illogical. However, you cannot go further. How can you know the nature and identity and ability of this creator? You cannot, thus religion is foolish. How can you know of heaven and hell? You cannot. There is no evidence for it.

However the concept of a creator is not based on evidence, it's based on logic. In itself, that concept is not illogical. If an apple falls to the ground, that is natural. If I throw an apple, it is because of my intention that I pick it up and apply the force necessary to throw it.

A creator? Seemingly you don't mean some natural event but some intelligent entity. I get this from your statement:

"The problem is there is absolutely NO way of knowing whether or not the universe was created or if it began by means other than intention (naturally)"


Clearly from your above statement, when you say "created" you refer to some intelligent entity. As such further defining of said entity is required else the conversation is pointless.

Regards,

Further definition is foolish. I can say, by using logic, that a Creator is possible and as of now, quite probable, or at least, no more improbable than natural beginning. I can reach this standpoint based on logic and current scientific knowledge.

To go further, as to state anything of the nature of this creator, makes no sense. I have no evidence in order to go further. Simply suggesting our universe was created does not mean there has to be a heaven and hell and angels and all of that. I am also not saying that said creator has any impact on our universe nor that he is magical and all knowing. This is stupid to assert because it is impossible to know.

The core concept, on the other hand, still makes sense.

You have answered your own question. Further discussion would be futile. Why pursue knowledge of something which cannot be known ?

For the sake of the pursuit of knowledge. People want to learn about the universe.

 

[SnakeLord]

That's the point. Asserting that our universe was created (caused to be through processes based on intention) is not illogical.

The assertion has absolutely no basis.

However, you cannot go further. How can you know the nature and identity and ability of this creator? You cannot, thus religion is foolish.

This you would have to take up with the respective religions. In the case of christianity they would assert that the nature of such entity can be known because he.. 'communicates' with them. It is as baseless as your statements - and as equally worthless.

If I throw an apple, it is because of my intention that I pick it up and apply the force necessary to throw it.

I don't see the relation, sorry.

I can say, by using logic, that a Creator is possible and as of now, quite probable, or at least, no more improbable than natural beginning.

On what basis?

I can reach this standpoint based on logic and current scientific knowledge.

Incorrect - "scientific knowledge" does not hint at the existence of 'creator entities'.

Simply suggesting our universe was created does not mean there has to be a heaven and hell and angels and all of that.

Both statements are equally baseless.

Regards,

 

[Norsefire]

What do you mean "baseless"? It's based on trying to figure out how our universe came to be.

 

[SnakeLord]

What do you mean "baseless"?

You would need to base the argument that "a creator might have done it" on something, (unless we're talking pure imagination), so what exactly do you base such a statement on?

"It's possible" isn't actually an argument to anything, it is an acceptance of any old imagination as a competing argument - when they are not. One could say "it's possible we live in the matrix", but it is baseless and isn't a competing argument to existence. It has no actual worth.

So, what do you base your "it's possible" on?

 

[Norsefire]

I don't understand; it's based on figuring out how the universe came to be. It is as baseless as saying the universe began by natural means, then.

 

[(Q)]

I don't understand; it's based on figuring out how the universe came to be.

There would have to be some sort of observation to lead one to "figure out" anything. What observation is there for creation? That would be the "basis" on what you are "figuring out."

It is as baseless as saying the universe began by natural means, then.

Not when there are mountains of observations to support it.

 

[Norsefire]

There would have to be some sort of observation to lead one to "figure out" anything. What observation is there for creation? That would be the "basis" on what you are "figuring out."

My observation is that the universe exists.

Not when there are mountains of observations to support it.

There is not a shred of evidence to support either natural beginning or "creation" (I don't mean creationism)

 

[(Q)]

My observation is that the universe exists.

Playing coy?

From what observation of the universe's existence leads you conclude a creator?



There is not a shred of evidence to support either natural beginning or "creation" (I don't mean creationism)[/QUOTE]

 

[Norsefire]

Playing coy?

From what observation of the universe's existence leads you conclude a creator?

The observation is that it exists. This observation leads me to conclude that it somehow came to be.

This can be said of beleving in a natural beginning as well.

 

[SnakeLord]

I don't understand; it's based on figuring out how the universe came to be. It is as baseless as saying the universe began by natural means, then

As stated by Q. If you assert a proposition it has to be based upon something. In this instance you might like to claim that your claim to "a creator" is based upon "the universe exists" but that doesn't lead beyond the statement that "the universe exists".

Claims to why or how the universe exists can either be imagined, (hence worthless in the grand scheme of things) or hypothesised based upon observations. I would therefore ask what observations lead to the idea that a 'creator did it'. "It exists" is not an observation that in itself leads anywhere beyond the statement.

Now, when the time is right I will happily sit here and go through "natural means" with you. I shall discuss in depth how it works, what observations support such claims and so on - going through cosmology in depth, (and having said that I should point out that I am not a cosmologist and so ultimately am happy to say "I don't know") - which still never gives rise to asserting that it was 'created' by some intelligent entity - especially given theistic arguments that don't remove the problems they pin upon natural means, (everything must be caused), but ignore it completely: "oh well, my entity clearly wasn't caused - just everything else must have been".

But first, as you were the one that made the original assertion, kindly provide me the basis for asserting that a 'creator did it'.

Regards,

 

[Norsefire]

As stated by Q. If you assert a proposition it has to be based upon something. In this instance you might like to claim that your claim to "a creator" is based upon "the universe exists" but that doesn't lead beyond the statement that "the universe exists".

Therefore claiming that the universe began naturally also is baseless. It's based on "the universe exists" as well.

Claims to why or how the universe exists can either be imagined, (hence worthless in the grand scheme of things) or hypothesised based upon observations. I would therefore ask what observations lead to the idea that a 'creator did it'. "It exists" is not an observation that in itself leads anywhere beyond the statement.

Any speculation as to how the universe came to be is just that, speculation. The fact that the universe exists is evidence enough that it came to be. The question is, how?

That's where we speculate: it was either created, or it came to be on it's own.

Now, when the time is right I will happily sit here and go through "natural means" with you. I shall discuss in depth how it works, what observations support such claims and so on - going through cosmology in depth, (and having said that I should point out that I am not a cosmologist and so ultimately am happy to say "I don't know") - which still never gives rise to asserting that it was 'created' by some intelligent entity - especially given theistic arguments that don't remove the problems they pin upon natural means, (everything must be caused), but ignore it completely: "oh well, my entity clearly wasn't caused - just everything else must have been".

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever as to how the universe came to be. If we are to say that there was anything before our universe, and it had also likewise had to come from somewhere, it therefore means it's quite possible our universe is the product of previous universes, and these previous universes were the products of creation and natural beginning.

Think of it as a cycle: if indeed our universe began naturally, eventually we Humans will one day have the power to create universes. And this universe would have been created.

But first, as you were the one that made the original assertion, kindly provide me the basis for asserting that a 'creator did it'.

Regards,

Again, it is speculation based on the fact that we are here.