Does God require a creator?

[Subduction Zone]

That is another meaning..
..as in "what faith are you?"
..and many people answer with "i am Protestant" or what have you.

In other words, many people do not choose a creed .. they inherit it.
A serious person will look into religion, and employ reason to decide on a creed.

Saying that it is an accident of birth is the same as saying that they inherited. it. And yes, some people do seriously consider alternatives. Tha tis where many atheists come from.

 

[nPeace]

Jeez, this is hard work!

Yeah. It is.
I'll try to make it easy for you.

What I said was: "That the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself, is perfectly consistent with what we know from science."

Which isn't true.

I didn't say that this is what we know from science,

What?
It perfectly consistent with what we know from science, is not saying this is what we know from science?

I said it is consistent with what we know. That is, there is no contradiction between what we know and the view that the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself.

... and what do we know?
Nothing you presented says we know that the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself.
There are many and varied ideas. None of which says we know anything... except that scientists have various models to explain how the universe might have begun.

ETA: This was in response to your claim that: "What that would mean, is that the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself. That's not our understanding of the universe."

Of course.
A response which we both know contained a false assertion.
Just giving any response for the sake of argument against something, isn't going to go unnoticed.

 

[ratiocinator]

Which isn't true.

It's absolutely true.

It perfectly consistent with what we know from science, is not saying this is what we know from science?

No, it isn't. There are things we know, things we know are false, and things that we don't know. If something is not in the 'things we know are false' category, they are things that are consistent with what we know. This really isn't rocket science, it's very, very basic logic.

In fact my case is somewhat stronger than that, because the obvious interpretation of the best theory we have would suggest exactly that the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself, it's only that we know that there is a gap in our knowledge that introduces the doubt.

Nothing you presented says we know that the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself.

And I didn't claim they did. What I said was that the best theory we have suggests that that is the case.

A response which we both know contained a false assertion.

No. You seem to be having problems with basic comprehension.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Saying that it is an accident of birth is the same as saying that they inherited. it. And yes, some people do seriously consider alternatives. Tha tis where many atheists come from.

I get all that .. but atheism is only one possible alternative that one can decide on,
using reason.

 

[nPeace]

It's absolutely true.


No, it isn't. There are things we know, things we know are false, and things that we don't know. If something is not in the 'things we know are false' category, they are things that are consistent with what we know. This really isn't rockets science, it's very, very basic logic.

In fact my case is somewhat stronger than that, because the obvious interpretation of the best theory we have would suggest exactly that the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself, it's only that we know that there is a gap in our knowledge that introduces the doubt.

Please provide the paper that shows that the idea that "the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself" was scientifically tested, and verified.

And I didn't claim they did. What I said was that the best theory we have suggests that that is the case.

Please provide the paper that says "the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself" is a scientific theory.

No. You seem to be having problems with basic comprehension.

Basic comprehension of unsupported claims... yes, of course.
I'd rather see, data that everyone has.

 

[ratiocinator]

Please provide the paper that shows that the idea that "the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself" was scientifically tested, and verified.

Why? I didn't say it was.

Please provide the paper that says "the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself" is a scientific theory.

Why? I didn't say it was.

You seem to have a serious problem in distinguishing between something that is established theory and something that is consistent with current theory. You tried to dismiss the idea of "the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself " by claiming that "That's not our understanding of the universe.", as if that was established science. It isn't. There is nothing in science that can possibly rule out "the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself ". Is any of this sinking in?

 

[Twilight Hue]

It may be. I have never seen any examples. I definitely have not seen that coming from you. "Faith" is the excuse that people use when they have no evidence, no reason to believe. If a person has evidence they tend to go to that first.

Whenever I hear the word faith it immediately takes me to Franz Reichert who in spectacular fashion, demonstrated the raw reality of what faith really is.

 

[nPeace]

Why? I didn't say it was.

You did not say the idea that "the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself" was scientifically tested, and verified.
Yet you say it is absolutely true.

You are not trying to confuse me right? Are you confused?
How is it absolutely true that "the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself" if it has not been scientifically tested, and verified?

Why? I didn't say it was.

You did not say the idea that "the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself" is a scientific theory.
Yet, you say, "What I said was that the best theory we have suggests that that is the case."

If you are indeed trying to confuse me, you have succeeded.
Can you please explain how it is the best theory we have, if it's not a scientific theory?

Edit. @ratiocinator
Oh, you are saying that you speculate this is true because you think the theory suggests that.
Is that not a speculation. Or do you prefer conjecture?

You seem to have a serious problem in distinguishing between something that is established theory and something that is consistent with current theory.

Why is it me that has the serious problem.
I've been consistent so far, in what I have said, and what is the current understand of Big Bang cosmology, haven't I.
If you think not, please point out where I have been wrong in what I said.

You tried to dismiss the idea of "the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself " by claiming that "That's not our understanding of the universe.", as if that was established science. It isn't. There is nothing in science that can possibly rule out "the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself ". Is any of this sinking in?

I thought I stated a fact.
Are you not the one who is trying to dismiss that?
It looks that way, from every angle you look at it.

 

[nPeace]

Whenever I hear the word faith it immediately takes me to Franz Reichert who in spectacular fashion, demonstrated the raw reality of what faith really is.

Many people like yourself have that misguided view.
Myth : Faith is blind irrational belief.
Fact : Faith is reasonable evidence based assured conviction.

 

[Twilight Hue]

---

Many people like yourself have that misguided view.
Myth : Faith is blind irrational belief.
Fact : Faith is reasonable evidence based assured conviction.

No. It's the former.

Blind irrational belief.

 

[ratiocinator]

You did not say the idea that "the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself" was scientifically tested, and verified.
Yet you say it is absolutely true.

No, I didn't.

How is it absolutely true that "the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself" if it has not been scientifically tested, and verified?

I didn't say it was absolutely true. Seriously? Are you really not capable of following this? What I said was absolutely true was "That the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself, is perfectly consistent with what we know from science."

Are you actually incapable of distinguishing between "X is absolutely true" and "'X is consistent with what we know' is absolutely true"? The first says that X is true, the second says that we have no basis for ruling out X. Is this really too hard for you?

 

[nPeace]

---

No. It's the former.

Blind irrational belief.

Like yourself they stick to thier misguided view... blindly.
Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant, or evidence. while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.
Read more.

Truly, the latter does not demonstrate reason. Only insistence on their view being right, and the only understanding... as if they lived for all eternity in the past, so as to know everything.
Faith is not a new term. Perhaps do some research. Let me know what you come up with.

Then we can discuss it
That's way better than just blurting out assertions - irrationality.

 

[nPeace]

No, I didn't.

I didn't say it was absolutely true. Seriously? Are you really not capable of following this? What I said was absolutely true was "That the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself, is perfectly consistent with what we know from science."

You didn't?

What I said was: "That the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself, is perfectly consistent with what we know from science."​

​

Which isn't true.​

It's absolutely true.​

No. You actually did.

Are you actually incapable of distinguishing between "X is absolutely true" and "'X is consistent with what we know' is absolutely true"? The first says that X is true, the second says that we have no basis for ruling out X. Is this really too hard for you?

Resorting to attacking my character for the last three posts, is what the opponent does as a last ditched effort at saving face.
Notice, I have not called you a liar, throughout this discussion. Do I not have reason to?
Bye now. Take care.

 

[ratiocinator]

You didn't?

No, I didn't.

You did not say the idea that "the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself" was scientifically tested, and verified.
Yet you say it is absolutely true.

What I said was absolutely true was "That the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself, is perfectly consistent with what we know from science."

Are you actually, seriously telling me you can't see the difference?

Resorting to attacking my character for the last three posts, is what the opponent does as a last ditched effort at saving face.

I'm not trying to attack your character, I just don't understand why you apparently can't see the difference between two different propositions.

Notice, I have not called you a liar, throughout this discussion. Do I not have reason to?

No, you don't.

Two different claims:

1. X is absolutely true.
2. "X is consistent with what we know" is absolutely true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Many people like yourself have that misguided view.
Myth : Faith is blind irrational belief.
Fact : Faith is reasonable evidence based assured conviction.

Yet you can never present any reasonable evidence.

 

[nPeace]

No, I didn't.



Are you actually, seriously telling me you can't see the difference?


I'm not trying to attack your character, I just don't understand why you apparently can't see the difference between two different propositions.


No, you don't.

Two different claims:

1. X is absolutely true.
2. "X is consistent with what we know" is absolutely true.

Would you say the multiverse idea is perfectly consistent with what we know from science?

 

[Zwing]

Faith is reasonable evidence based assured conviction.

What is there that is objective about anybody’s conviction, regardless of his level of assurance?

 

[nPeace]

What is there that is objective about anybody’s conviction, regardless of his level of assurance?

A title deed is your assurance to whatever inheritance that deed contains. It is the evidence leading to/for your conviction - assured.
That's objective, yes?

 

[Zwing]

A title deed is your assurance to whatever inheritance that deed contains. It is the evidence to/for your conviction - assured.
That's objective, yes?

The title deed renders assurance of intervention by the state under certain circumstances, based upon applicable law and my past experience of knowing the state to have intervened in other cases. Before I continue, my guess is that you are using the title deed as an analogy for scripture (the Bible)?

 

[Copernicus]

I think that science is grounded in the methodological assumption that everything we observe has a prior cause. We can't actually observe the Big Bang, although we can extrapolate its existence from what we do observe of the early universe. So there is a sense in which belief in the Big Bang is an article of faith, and scientists do act on that faith when they use their reasoning abilities to formulate cosmological theory. Nevertheless, as muhammad_isa pointed out very early on in this thread, our concept of time is based on what we can measure. That is, it is based on dynamic spatial relationships between physical objects. That does not preclude the possibility of time and dynamic spatial relationships that occur outside of the light cone that we can observe. It's just that the best we can do is speculate on the existence of such orthogonal temporal frameworks, and such speculation is not something as reliable as faith grounded in observation and measurement. That's why they call it "blind faith".