Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[Polymath257]

The precision that exists within the laws of nature.

Why does that take a creator? If anything, for a creator to function, a great deal of complexity is required, meaning there already need to be some 'laws of nature' governing the properties of that creator.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if those are self existing they would have to come from an eternal universe which is a questionable theory.

What makes you think that? Why would the universe always have had to exist?

 

[QuestioningMind]

in my opinion, there is no evolutionary advantage for those who find a countryside like this one beautiful:

View attachment 46619
https://pixabay.com/photos/switzerland-zermatt-mountains-snow-862870/

in my opinion, the evidence for a loving creating force is still strong.

in my opinion, there is no evolutionary advantage for those who find a countryside like this one beautiful:

Do you believe that you have considered every single possible evolutionary advantage that might come from a species finding their surroundings to be beautiful? Are you of the opinion that if you haven't been able to think of such an advantage that it's impossible for such an advantage to exist that you simply haven't thought of? Unless you claim to know EVERYTHING I don't see how you can honestly say that it's impossible for our appreciation of beauty to be a natural product of evolution.

So if it's POSSIBLE that your evidence indicates a creator being, but it's also POSSIBLE that it's evidence for a natural evolutionary development, one would have to have a confirmation bias to conclude that one is true and the other is false. That is to say if I start off looking for confirmation of evolution I would conclude that this 'evidence' confirms that evolution is real. But if I were to start off looking for evidence of a creator being I would conclude that this is 'evidence' for my creator being.

Thus if you're genuinely looking for truth and not just looking for evidence of your preconceptions you'd have to conclude that the fact that people find beauty in nature to be INCONCLUSIVE evidence for either proposition. It's just like how we concluded earlier that if it's POSSIBLE the creator was god and it's also POSSIBLE the creator was pixies, we can't conclude with any certainty that it was one or the other.

So if it COULD be a creator being or it COULD be a natural product of evolution, how have you decided that it's definitely evidence for a creator being?

 

[Valjean]

They dictate how other things can be formed. Order has to be behind those laws.

No. More the other way around. Those laws dictate what order will emerge from their application.

The order of water existing and the order of automobiles requires just as much precision.

What's your point? That cars came from intentional planning and craftsmanship, so water must too? -- That doesn't follow. Two separate -- and understood -- mechanisms.

Even musical laws, numbers, and geometry have order and design. They are an example of the laws of nature. They are not man-made.

They have order, but that doesn't imply design. As you said, they are examples of the workings of the unguided, unintentional, natural laws of nature.

 

[Polymath257]

What scientists believe that the universe is eternal? Newton believed in God.

Be careful, the term 'eternal' can mean a couple of different things. it can imply an infinite amount of time (which has not been demonstrated) OR it can mean 'whenever there was time'.

It is quite possible that time is only finite into the past.

My statement is that most scientists believe that whenever there was time, there were also matter and energy. That is the case even if time is finite into the past. But it would also mean there is no 'before the universe' and that a 'cause of the universe' is nonsense.

Newton lived 300 years ago and we have learned a few things since that time. He had some great insights, but his theology was, well, unusual.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The precision that exists within the laws of nature.

You are back to making claims that are not supported and seem to be pointless. Another "So what?" argument.

The order of water existing and the order of automobiles requires just as much precision.

Once again, So what?

Lawyers would never take the place of a criminal because God's ways aren't our ways. God is just for punishing himself and not us because the penalty of the crime is still paid. Our sins hurt ourselves and God because God is not the author of confusion and all sin is confusion.

Eastern Christians don't believe in original sin.

A "penalty" that he pays to himself for himself from supposed crimes that he made up tell us that there should have been no penalty to start with. This is a failed argument. It only paints God as petty and vindictive.

And if you do not believe in original sin then why insist that the Adam and Eve myth is true?

 

[Skywalker]

No, no no. The judge does not receive the benefit of those good deeds so no bribe is needed. I have known some drug troubled people that got caught doing various crimes. One did the right thing when he was on the run. He got a job. For several years. And then he turned himself in. That made a big difference in his sentencing since he had demonstrated that he wanted to and could be a productive member of society. I see far too many that do not follow this example. Even if one is going to go to prison eventually demonstrating good behavior before sentencing makes all of the difference in the world.


And in case you forgot our so called "sinful nature" is God's fault due to the Genesis myths.

Eastern Christians reject the doctrine of original sin that some people believe is in Genesis.

 

[Polymath257]

The order of nature is similar to the order of a car. A car requires a complex pre existing conciousness to come into existence.

No, it is NOT similar to the order of a car. The parts of the universe spontaneously assemble, as has been demonstrated in a variety of ways. The basic particles have properties and those properties *are* the reason we see the 'order' we do in the universe.

 

[Skywalker]

You are back to making claims that are not supported and seem to be pointless. Another "So what?" argument.



Once again, So what?




A "penalty" that he pays to himself for himself from supposed crimes that he made up tell us that there should have been no penalty to start with. This is a failed argument. It only paints God as petty and vindictive.

And if you do not believe in original sin then why insist that the Adam and Eve myth is true?

God punishes sin because sin is confusion that harms ourselves and harms God. It's not so much that sin is bad because it's against the laws of God it's more it's against the laws of God because it's bad.

 

[Skywalker]

No, it is NOT similar to the order of a car. The parts of the universe spontaneously assemble, as has been demonstrated in a variety of ways. The basic particles have properties and those properties *are* the reason we see the 'order' we do in the universe.

A car cannot spontaneously assemble.

 

[Polymath257]

It's not JUST ONE THING like the eclipse. It is THOUSANDS of things. A handful of coincidences might mean nothing, but there are MANY more.

We are part of this universe, formed because of the way the parts of the universe interact. it is not a coincidence we are adapted to survive in the environments we evolved to survive in.

 

[Skywalker]

We are part of this universe, formed because of the way the parts of the universe interact. it is not a coincidence we are adapted to survive in the environments we evolved to survive in.

How could an eternal universe explain adaptations evolving to intermediate organs? That's a logical impossibility.

 

[Polymath257]

Why can't the properties of a car come together on their own?

Well, because the metals in the car tend to be chemically inert and don't attract each other.

That contrasts with, for example, the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that are NOT chemically inert and *do* attract each other, spontaneously forming bonds that give water.

Or, for the chemicals involved in life, which are NOT chemically inert and DO attract each other, forming larger structures.

 

[Polymath257]

How could an eternal universe explain adaptations evolving to intermediate organs? That's a logical impossibility.

What does the age of the universe have to do with that?

Organs, like every other aspect of living things, are initially produced by a mutation that slightly changes a structure that already exists, allowing it to perform another function. If that new function promotes passing genes to the next generation, then it is preserved. This goes all the way back to the earliest life.

 

[Valjean]

I know because it is being taught to me. It isn't obvious.

People have been teaching all sorts of contradictory nonsense for thousands of years. What makes you think your understanding is the correct one?
Your theological beliefs don't stand up to observations, testing or reason, nor do they follow logically.

Canonical laws are the laws of the universe that God created by using numbers and geometry. Musical laws.

They may be the laws of the universe, but why do you attribute them to an invisible, intentional magician? Show your reasoning, please.

 

[Polymath257]

A car cannot spontaneously assemble.

I agree. Why not? because the part of the car don't have the chemical and physical properties that promote self-organization.

 

[Skywalker]

I agree. Why not? because the part of the car don't have the chemical and physical properties that promote self-organization.

Nor does what ultimately caused the properties of nature to come into existence.

 

[Skywalker]

What does the age of the universe have to do with that?

Organs, like every other aspect of living things, are initially produced by a mutation that slightly changes a structure that already exists, allowing it to perform another function. If that new function promotes passing genes to the next generation, then it is preserved. This goes all the way back to the earliest life.

There are no fossil records of intermediate organs nor is it possible for them to exist. People don't have intermediate organs in the embryo.

 

[Skywalker]

Well, because the metals in the car tend to be chemically inert and don't attract each other.

That contrasts with, for example, the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that are NOT chemically inert and *do* attract each other, spontaneously forming bonds that give water.

Or, for the chemicals involved in life, which are NOT chemically inert and DO attract each other, forming larger structures.

That doesn't explain the origins of those chemicals. How do the laws of physics cause compounds to be chemically inert and attract each other?

 

[Skywalker]

No, no no. The judge does not receive the benefit of those good deeds so no bribe is needed. I have known some drug troubled people that got caught doing various crimes. One did the right thing when he was on the run. He got a job. For several years. And then he turned himself in. That made a big difference in his sentencing since he had demonstrated that he wanted to and could be a productive member of society. I see far too many that do not follow this example. Even if one is going to go to prison eventually demonstrating good behavior before sentencing makes all of the difference in the world.


And in case you forgot our so called "sinful nature" is God's fault due to the Genesis myths.

Even with the gray areas of sentencing guidelines the judge still had to be just with a person who had good behavior and turned themselves in.

 

[Valjean]

actually it is evidence for a creator force behind, I think. So it isn't worthless, in my view.
Evidence for such a force is better than nothing, I think.
I leave it open whether it is pixies or God, for now.

I'm voting for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Equally plausible, equally evidenced -- no?