Does God require a creator?

[PureX]

Not sure this makes sense. It's an unknown. There are plenty of those. Why 'represent' it as anything else but a simple unknown?

It's human nature. We want to find some way of gaining a sense of control or preparedness in the face of a mystery. We seek to "get a handle on it", conceptually speaking. So we create representations for the mystery, like words, and numbers, and stories, and images, and so on. And these representations provide us with some kind of "handle" we can use to conceptualize the mystery, and gain some sense of control in relation to it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's human nature. We want to find some way of gaining a sense of control or preparedness in the face of a mystery. We seek to "get a handle on it", conceptually speaking. So we create representations for the mystery, like words, and numbers, and stories, and images, and so on. And these representations provide us with some kind of "handle" we can use to conceptualize the mystery, and gain some sense of control in relation to it.

The human existential absurdity of our big brains and that we need certainty. I use faith for that.

 

[ratiocinator]

You have to make a leap of faith and trust the universe to be real, orderly and knowable.

No. The success of science is direct evidence of that. You are using the evidence to post that it's a 'leap of faith'.

You can take the extreme 'brain is a vat' sceptical view but, as I keep saying, it's useless intellectual playing with yourself. Who cares? If what we regard as real, isn't, it might as well be.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's human nature. We want to find some way of gaining a sense of control or preparedness in the face of a mystery. We seek to "get a handle on it", conceptually speaking.

Speak for yourself. I see no prospect at all of getting to the bottom of the mystery of the basis for existence, so I only ever think about it in discussions like this.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It's human nature. We want to find some way of gaining a sense of control or preparedness in the face of a mystery. We seek to "get a handle on it", conceptually speaking. So we create representations for the mystery, like words, and numbers, and stories, and images, and so on. And these representations provide us with some kind of "handle" we can use to conceptualize the mystery, and gain some sense of control in relation to it.

Have you not learned yet that people take exception to your liberal use of the word "we?" I know I've mentioned this to you more than a few times previously.

When will you learn to speak for yourself and not for others?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. The success of science is direct evidence of that. You are using the evidence to post that it's a 'leap of faith'.

You can take the extreme 'brain is a vat' sceptical view but, as I keep saying, it's useless intellectual playing with yourself. Who cares? If what we regard as real, isn't, it might as well be.

Well, here it is again.
You use wiki, so I use it:
"...
According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes;[43] that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals. These assumptions would then be justified partly by their adherence to the types of occurrence of which we are directly conscious, and partly by their success in representing the observed facts with a certain generality, devoid of ad hoc suppositions."[44] Kuhn also claims that all science is based on assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions – a paradigm – comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[45] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the "correct" paradigm, and there is no such thing as supernatural, i.e. anything above, beyond, or outside of nature. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality, including the human spirit.[46]

Some claim that naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists, and that the following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method:[47]..."

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now understand something about these debates. I am Wikipedia, I am those 2 scientists. All the links even referencing dead people are me. I am all of the Internet and the world as such for all times skepticism of this kind has happened.
Does you understand? It is all me alone over history and the Internet.
That is called a reductio ad absurdum.

Now that you have to cope with this kind of skepticism by making it about me as a single individual says something about you and not me. It is all about how you cope. You are that special, right?!!!

 

[PureX]

No. The success of science is direct evidence of that. You are using the evidence to post that it's a 'leap of faith'.

You can take the extreme 'brain is a vat' sceptical view but, as I keep saying, it's useless intellectual playing with yourself. Who cares? If what we regard as real, isn't, it might as well be.

But that is faith. Trusting that what we hope to be true, is true, and then acting on it. We all do it, because we have to. Existence is a mystery. And we have to deal with it.

 

[ratiocinator]

But that is faith. Trusting that what we hope to be true, is true, and then acting on it.

No. It's nothing like faith. You are directly looking at the evidence for it, i.e. the device that you're reading this on.

As for the 'brain in a vat' scepticism, I'm also not trusting that. I don't care about the possibility because it makes no difference.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well, here it is again.
You use wiki, so I use it:

Of course you can, but as I have already posted a counterargument, it seems a little pointless.

Now understand something about these debates. I am Wikipedia, I am those 2 scientists. All the links even referencing dead people are me. I am all of the Internet and the world as such for all times skepticism of this kind has happened.
Does you understand? It is all me alone over history and the Internet.
That is called a reductio ad absurdum.

No, that's just the absurdum bit.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course you can, but as I have already posted a counterargument, it seems a little pointless.
..

Yeah, which assumes the your assumptions are correct.

You are really special. You have solved an over 2000 years old problem of what knowledge is. That is how special you are.

 

[PureX]

No. It's nothing like faith. You are directly looking at the evidence for it, i.e. the device that you're reading this on.

But the device is the result of people acting on faith. Faith gets results. That's why we act on it. It doesn't always get the results we hoped for, but we act on the hope, anyway, because we have no surety. Only estimated probability. And sometimes not even that.

As for the 'brain in a vat' scepticism, I'm also not trusting that. I don't care about the possibility because it makes no difference.

We live in a mystery so big that we can't even see the limits of it. So we have to limit what we can care about. But we shouldn't deceive ourselves, either, into thinking that we've got it figured out. Because we really do not.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yeah, which assumes the your assumptions are correct.

What assumptions?

The 'reality' we perceive is either real or it might as well be. From that we have evidence for several of the so called assumptions of science that were listed.

You are really special. You have solved an over 2000 years old problem of what knowledge is. That is how special you are.

An exact definition of knowledge is tricky and I don't make any claims to have solved that problem. What I've said is not original. Some philosophy is pure bunkum, sorry.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. It's nothing like faith. You are directly looking at the evidence for it, i.e. the device that you're reading this on.

As for the 'brain in a vat' scepticism, I'm also not trusting that. I don't care about the possibility because it makes no difference.

Take 2. It is all about you, right?!!!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What assumptions?

The 'reality' we perceive is either real or it might as well be. From that we have evidence for several of the so called assumptions of science that were listed.


An exact definition of knowledge is tricky and I don't make any claims to have solved that problem. What I've said is not original. Some philosophy is pure bunkum, sorry.

Evidence for bold without using philosophy. I only want based on the 5 senses, instrument reading or the scientific theory that Some philosophy is pure bunkum, sorry the answer. I don't want how you think/feel. I want scientific evidence for that claim and no first person feelings and thinking. That is not science!!!

 

[ratiocinator]

But the device is the result of people acting on faith.

Now you're conflating different senses of the word 'faith' and it isn't really accurate for any sense. Science proceeds from building hypotheses and then testing them. There is no faith that they are correct. They are exactly as good as the extent to which they make accurate predictions. Once a hypothesis has been well tested, it becomes accepted theory and some such theories form the basis for technology, which is direct evidence that the theory is a good model of reality (or what might as well be reality).

This is absolutely nothing like religious faith. Get over it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Evidence for bold without using philosophy. I only want based on the 5 senses, instrument reading or the scientific theory that Some philosophy is pure bunkum, sorry the answer.

There are various ways in which it is bunkum. In this case, it was trivially easy to refute.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are various ways in which it is bunkum. In this case, it was trivially easy to refute.

But that refutation has to be scientific and not philosophical. If you use philosophy, you are not doing it in the correct manner. Only natural science is correct, that it is the truth. If you use philosophy, you are doing irrelevant nonsense and that is a fact.
Only science matters and that can't be doubted. Such things as philosophy and skepticism are meaningless and irrelevant.

So do the refutation only using science and I will listen.

 

[PureX]

Now you're conflating different senses of the word 'faith' and it isn't really accurate for any sense. Science proceeds from building hypotheses and then testing them. There is no faith that they are correct. They are exactly as good as the extent to which they make accurate predictions. Once a hypothesis has been well tested, it becomes accepted theory and some such theories form the basis for technology, which is direct evidence that the theory is a good model of reality (or what might as well be reality).

This is absolutely nothing like religious faith. Get over it.

I didn't say anything about religious faith.

Trusting in the unknown is also faith. And probability does not change that because it's remains an unknown.

Pretending that probability eliminates the necessity of faith is just self-deception. As it's logically and fundamentally untrue.

 

[ratiocinator]

Trusting in the unknown is also faith.

What does that even mean? How do you trust an unknown?

And probability does not change that because it's remains an unknown.

Where did probability come into this?

Pretending that probability eliminates the necessity of faith is just self-deception.

No idea what you're even trying to say here. You appear to be answering a post I didn't write.

 

[ratiocinator]

But that refutation has to be scientific and not philosophical.

The refutation was simply pointing out the actual evidence for the supposed assumptions. Checking the evidence is science.