Evidence for a Creator God Who Likes Creating Things

[mikkel_the_dane]

The laws of nature weren't "given".

They instead are our descriptions of how the universe works.

Please solve Agrippa's Trilemma and the problem of the-thing-in-itself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again you have no clue what i said

Then perhaps the problem is that you talk in vague riddles.

I just took your statement and brought it to its obvious conclusion.

You said human suffering is the result of walking away from god.
A rape victim suffers.
So logically, this would mean that the only reason she got raped, was because she "walked away from god".
So it's her own fault.

Please explain how this isn't the logical conclusion of your statement.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you have knowledge to the standard of it not being a subjective belief system?

I.e. in regards to the-thing-in-itself and Agrippa's trilemma. Or in other words, you can solve cognitive relativism?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I merely pointed out that @ChristineM didn't claim "naturalism" to be "evidence" of anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

there is a logical connection between variety and a potential variety loving Crator God.

I think you confuse the word "logical" with "a priori religious beliefs".

How can there by a "logical" connection to an undemonstrable entity that is indistinguishable from sheer imagination?

There are so many things for the Theory of Evolution that cannot be repeated, either. Repeat the LUCA being the origin of all known life today.

That's not a process.

The process of evolution can be repeated.
History is not a process.

History however CAN be supported.
And common ancestry of life most definatly can be supported. Proven even, to the extent that anything can be proven. Common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.

Yet there is evidence for the LUCA.
Same with God, I think.

The evidence for common ancestry is based in objective predictability, verifiability and is falsifiable.
There is nothing remotely similar for gods.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

...

You are not skeptical about your own beliefs?

 

[Messianic Israelite]

So you use unobserved assumptions to contradict other unobserved assumptions?

Hi mikkel the dame. Good afternoon. We can start anywhere. Let's start with cosmology. Scientists claim that the Universe is what, 13.8 billion years old, and yet stars have been discovered that are roughly 14 billion years old according to our measurements. Now, please do explain how this discrepancy came to be? It's clear that stars couldn't exist before the Big Bang, according to scientists. It's clear that our dating methods are wrong. Are you going to tell me that after these discoveries, you can say that our dating of stars is correct. It's wrong. I've always said it is wrong. And now we have proof. BigBangDidIt is not a plausible theory.

 

[ChristineM]

Sure, we just cannot see the beginingless starting point (anAdi ananta)

Started around 13.8 billion years ago as far as this universe is concerned

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He is the cause of all the chain of causes behind the algorithm and the math to make everything hold and maintain the laws

1. if he is the "first cause" (aka, the trigger of the big bang), then he has nothing to do with the variety of life forms and landscapes as in such a universe these things are still the result of geological and biological activity.

2. that's quite a bold claim. do you have equally bold evidence to support it? You don't, right?

After a zillion iterations of derivatives of the Absolute Truth, finally algorithms and designs are made in His leadership.

Biological evolution:
selection, adaption,
GetThisEnvironment() - no need , but just for the records
IsEnvironmentConducive(this)
AugmentDNA()

So you agree then... the variety in landscapes and life forms is the result of geological and biological activity and not of gods fiddling about and creating each from scratch, like the OP seems to be claiming?

 

[ratiocinator]

I see a logical connection between a God who likes to creeate things... and a great variety of things that we see.

A variety of things doesn't logically lead to a creator that likes to make a variety of things - there are other explanations. You're just assuming your conclusion again (begging the question).

The unexplained part (as I see it): why does geology have such a great potential to bring forth all kinds of landscapes? The kind of landscapes that are able to bring forth a great variety of plant and animal life...

I suggest you learn a bit more about geology and biology. And as I said, an unknown doesn't make your favourite just-so story any more believable.

 

[Clara Tea]

In my opinion there exists great evidence for a Creator God who loves creating things:
the great variety of life and landscapes on earth.
Landscapes keep changing and life can be found in all its forms.

"Landscapes keep changing" is called evolution. You can see evolution in COVID. Life adapted to attack another life form, and you can see changes in its DNA that accomplishes this.

We need new flu vaccines every year because of evolution.

We could assume, of course, that God created plagues for the "benefit" of mankind?????

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hi mikkel the dame. Good afternoon. We can start anywhere. Let's start with cosmology. Scientists claim that the Universe is what, 13.8 billion years old, and yet stars have been discovered that are roughly 14 billion years old according to our measurements. Now, please do explain how this discrepancy came to be? It's clear that stars couldn't exist before the Big Bang, according to scientists. It's clear that our dating methods are wrong. Are you going to tell me that after these discoveries, you can say that our dating of stars is correct. It's wrong. I've always said it is wrong. And now we have proof. BigBangDidIt is not a plausible theory.

Well, I am a global skeptic. I don't claim any form of knowledge either as natural or supernatural. All claims of knowledge are wrong including yours. Not just naturalism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Only one who has become as pure as God dont get sick or sin anymore.
Extremely few humans become like God in purity. I am far from pure enough

But how would that work?

Suppose you become "pure like god".
You travel to some destination in an airplane.
The airplane crashes.

You come out completely unharmed?
Or does god step in to make sure you get a soft landing?

Do you think the coronavirus is selective on who it will infect?
"Let's not infect this one - he's pure like god, let's go infect that other one there.. he's greedy".


Come on now.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Then perhaps the problem is that you talk in vague riddles.

I just took your statement and brought it to its obvious conclusion.

You said human suffering is the result of walking away from god.
A rape victim suffers.
So logically, this would mean that the only reason she got raped, was because she "walked away from god".
So it's her own fault.

Please explain how this isn't the logical conclusion of your statement.

As i said to you earlier, to understand God you can not use human thoughts or logic, i can not answer for why God do as he does

 

[Spirit of Light]

But how would that work?

Suppose you become "pure like god".
You travel to some destination in an airplane.
The airplane crashes.

You come out completely unharmed?
Or does god step in to make sure you get a soft landing?

Do you think the coronavirus is selective on who it will infect?
"Let's not infect this one - he's pure like god, let's go infect that other one there.. he's greedy".


Come on now.

I am not like God nor am i god so i can not answer what happto someone who become like God but still have body. I just dont know

 

[ratiocinator]

As i said to you earlier, to understand God you can not use human thoughts or logic, i can not answer for why God do as he does

So basically, you're saying that nothing in the world is a direct, logical, or evidential basis for what you believe, so you just have blind faith, regardless?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you are unnatural, when you do subjective existential meaning. Or if the natural is the only real, are you in part unreal?

Try reformulating that in such a way that it actually makes sense as a reply to the point I was making.

As it stands, I'm just shrugging my shoulders with an eyebrow raised, saying "uhu, sure" and walk away.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good afternoon SalixIncendium. Did a BigBangDoIt? I think I would rather believe Yahweh created all these things than support a theory infested with problems, sustained by numerous unobserved assumptions, and, most importantly, contradicts the biblical teaching of creation.

So you don't like big bang theory because it requires a few assumptions and therefor you reject it, while ignoring all evidence that supports it, in favor of something that has NO evidence whatsoever and nothing BUT unobserved assumptions?

Uhu, makes perfect sense.

 

[ChristineM]

. BigBangDidIt is not a plausible theory

The Big Bang is the only theory, it fits with known facts, measurements and observations. Of course the stars measured at older than 13.8 billion years are as yet an unsolved problem. Although they can be accommodated by some of the hypothesis on the BB and before.

Of course if you have an alternative please feel free to publish

 

[Spirit of Light]

So basically, you're saying that nothing in the world is a direct, logical, or evidential basis for what you believe, so you just have blind faith, regardless?

No, i say in Gods realm there are different rules of " logic"
Spiritual teaching is about getting in to heaven, not stay in human realm

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry to sound impersonally rude but isn't that a bit too myopic ? Hurricane factory?!

I was making a point about what "natural" means in such a context.
A hurricane is a natural phenomenon.
There is no "who" there. There is just natural forces acting upon an environment with a hurricane as the inevitable result.

The point was made in response of you trying to inject a "who" in "natural" for no other reason then you wanting to inject a who because it fits your a priori religious beliefs.

That is all.

Before the implementation came the algorithm, prototype, design, and blueprint.

No.
You confuse our descriptions of natural processes with prescriptions of those processes.

Before that came the math and the intelligence and the axioms and the laws.

No.
Same as above....
Math is our invention. Our attempt, as pattern seeking animals, to make sense of the workings of the world around us. Math isn't a "discovery". It is an invention.

Same with the laws. They are our attempt at describing the world in more abstract terms. They aren't prescriptive nor do they exist outside of our heads.

There is no "Who" for the purpose of ego, yes, but there has to be an actual egoless Who to manifest and implement the What by engineering the How

In your belief system only.