Do you believe in a creator of the universe/universes?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you believe in a creator, a conscious force/spirit/energy or being who created this universe/universes?

No.

If you think that the universe can't exist without somehow having a creator, but you think that something as wildly powerful, intelligent, creative and motivated as a creator can exist without also being created, then I believe you have lapsed into cognitive dissonance.

In fact, the universe, if you look at it from the viewpoint of the cosmologists, is a wildly simpler thing than a creator could ever be.

 

[Starlight]

No.

If you think that the universe can't exist without somehow having a creator, but you think that something as wildly powerful, intelligent, creative and motivated as a creator can exist without also being created, then I believe you have lapsed into cognitive dissonance.

In fact, the universe, if you look at it from the viewpoint of the cosmologists, is a wildly simpler thing than a creator could ever be.

I do not believe the concious source/spirit/force/god have existed forever as concious. How? Well. What was eternal? I believe a unconscious force/energy always have existed. Eternally. But this energy became concious after some time.

 

[Starlight]

So i believe consciousness came before matter. I believe the opposite of what materialistic atheists believe.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I do not believe the concious source/spirit/force/god have existed forever as concious. How? Well. What was eternal? I believe a unconscious force/energy always have existed. Eternally. But this energy became concious after some time.

Why? How? These are just suppositions that support what you have already decided, but they are suppositions with no basis for supposing them -- other than that they support what you already believe. And that is a terrible way to discover any sort of "truth."

 

[Starlight]

Why? How? These are just suppositions that support what you have already decided, but they are suppositions with no basis for supposing them -- other than that they support what you already believe. And that is a terrible way to discover any sort of "truth."

Hmm my belief is not strange. If my belief is strange then your belief is strange too. Why? You believe matter came before consciousness. You believe matter after long long time became animals with consciousness. So How? I ask you. How did matter magically became matter with consciousness? Your belief is strange too.

So the only difference between us is: you believe matter magically became concious. And i believe spirit/energy/force magically become concious

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hmm my belief is not strange. If my belief is strange then your belief is strange too. Why? You believe matter came before consciousness. You believe matter after long long time became animals with consciousness. So How? I ask you. How did matter magically became matter with consciousness? Your belief is strange too.

So the only difference between us is: you believe matter magically became concious. And i believe spirit/energy/force magically become concious

I can show you, in real time and real life, endless bundles of "matter" that are conscious. I myself am one. My dogis one. And neuroscience, while it does not have all the answers (we never, ever get "all the answers" on any topic), has amassed a great deal of information demonstrating how consciousness appears to work.

You cannot produce for me a single, solitary example of a consciousness without matter. Not one.

And therefore, of course, you assume that I must be wrong (by virtue of having evidence), and you must be right (by virtue of having none).

You will understand why I don't think very much of your position.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So i believe consciousness came before matter. I believe the opposite of what materialistic atheists believe.

Yes, it's abundantly clear that is what you believe. What is not clear is whether you have any basis at all for your belief, other than that it is what you want to believe.

 

[osgart]

An eternally intelligent natural force makes sense to me because otherwise you have a leap from mindlessness to intelligent function solely because of laws of occurrence and motion.

It has to be inferred philosophically from what is evident to get to even know of a creator.

Some people are satisfied with natural laws as the sole reason for life existence. Others, much maligned, see a perfectly reasonable conclusion for a creator.

I'm truly amazed that people war over these conclusions either way. Both sides see the other as extremely implausible. And there are highly intelligent people on both sides.

It makes no sense to denigrate someone over it. Sometimes I wonder if the forum here is some kind of setup for trying to knock down those with the conviction that life is created.
Why must an individual conform to other people's rules of thought as if they are the absolute authority in such matters and you are a total fool if you don't comply.

 

[Katzpur]

Do you believe in a creator, a conscious force/spirit/energy or being who created this universe/universes?

Yes, absolutely.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, I don't.

I think that consciousness and intelligence are a consequence of the action of natural laws and cannot exist outside of such laws. In other words, they are things in the universe, not things outside of it.

So we are back to this again ---
1 - how can a universe create itself when it didn't exist?
2 - why did the universe create itself?

forget quantum fluctuations, time loops and the like - I refer to events before
these things even existed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you believe in a creator, a conscious force/spirit/energy or being who created this universe/universes?

Of course not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe the creator did not wanted us to know if a creator existed or not?

If that were the case, then either:

- theism is irrational, or
- this creator sucks at stopping us from knowing about them.

 

[idea]

Do you believe in a creator, a conscious force/spirit/energy or being who created this universe/universes?

"I have been looking for spontaneous generation during twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible.... You place matter before life, and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists... to consider that life has existed during eternity and not matter?" - Louis Pasteur

Conservation of mass, conservation of energy, conservation of information and conscience? Created? It's all eternal, no beginning, no end, just changing form.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

It makes no sense to denigrate someone over it. Sometimes I wonder if the forum here is some kind of setup for trying to knock down those with the conviction that life is created.

I don't think it's an intentional setup, I think it's just an effect of the spirit of the time we're living in.
There was a time where people got ridiculed and judged for saying that the earth is a sphere instead of flat.
Because for many it was quite obvious and thus proven that the earth was flat.
But now, it's the other way around.

 

[firedragon]

I understand that you say that your claim is based on research. I understand that you used 'deduction' incorrectly. I understand that you jump to conclusions. I understand.

Not at all.

 

[thomas t]

- this creator sucks at stopping us from knowing about them.

so you seek God? I mean you said you have been stopped?
This would be interesting to know, I think.
Or did you mean that people in general search for God?

 

[blü 2]

Do you believe in a creator, a conscious force/spirit/energy or being who created this universe/universes?

No.

I have no reason to think it's necessary to account for the universe.

And it leads to the question, do you believe in a prior creator, a conscious force or being, who created the creator of the universe?

 

[Clara Tea]

Your logic statement says: There exists x such that (the null set is an element of x) and for all y (y is an element of x or the y or the set of y is an element of x). I think that you are saying that x is religion (belief in anything or everything), and y is God or the set of Gods. I think that you are saying that we can believe or not in one or many Gods.

 

[Clara Tea]

If we created a robot, should that robot believe us to be God? Should that robot be told not to kill, then kill to appease?

Perhaps we ascribe too much goodness to the creator?

 

[wellwisher]

Do you believe in a creator, a conscious force/spirit/energy or being who created this universe/universes?

Both science and religion have their own versions of creators. Science uses a God of dice and card, who is not exactly conscious or definitive, but nevertheless can use the flip of a coin to add whatever is needed to the universe, to assist science. Science cannot explain the first life, so like magic, the God of dice provides; poof! He is not called a God, even though this "Poof" requires special powers unexplainable by science; if a duck quacks.

Religion, on the other hand, uses a creator who is more conscious, rational and definitive. He has the same powers as the God of dice. Both can create life from scratch or start the universe. The God of religion differs in that he is able to direct the outcome based his reason and vision; brood over the deep. Both Gods lead to the same place; life or BB, with the God of religion showing more organized intelligence and less mindless gambling addiction.

If you believe man was made in the image of God, then God should behave similar to man, since both are in the same image. Most people do not begin the day by throwing dice. Rather most are self reliant and will try to plan things in advance. Although, there are still many people who consult psychics, oracles, and polls, so they can hopefully learn the future. The God of hosts and the God of dice are both still part of the system. Many have been created in each image.

In Judeo-Christian tradition, the God of reason and vision plans and executes the universe. It comes out perfect since he is very organized. The God of dice is more like Lucifer and Satan, who adds wild cards and imperfections to the blend. Science uses both God images but the image of the God of cards and dice has made inroads in their creations. This adds imperfections that will need to be corrected.

For example, in the world of dice and cards, active DNA is show as a double helix in textbooks. But in reality, the DNA is not bioactive without hydrating water. Bioactive DNA actually contains a double helix of water within the major and minor grooves of the DNA double helix. This active material, is overlooked by science textbooks, due to the influence off the God of dice, who does not need a rational connection. The God of reason allows one to infer this, since one cannot count of lottery miracles. The textbooks need to be corrected if truth is important to the God of dice.