Evidence for a Creator God Who Likes Creating Things

[mikkel_the_dane]

Dude..........................

If you can not have an honest discussion, then just stop.
A few more of these posts and I'll violate my own principles and put you on ignore, something I usually never do.

I'm growing tired of this.
I haven't said anything remotely close to your nonsense here. Neither did @ChristineM .
Who, btw, liked the post in which I informed you that you are misrepresenting what she said. You should take that as a hint that you might indeed be misrepresenting her.

Now, either reply to the points actually made or accept the invite to my ignore list, thanks.
For the record: I prefer to have an honest open discussion instead of having to "silence" people.

But even my angelic-style patience has limits.

Just deliver justified reasons that avoids Agrippa's Trilemma and the problem of solipsism as per Rene Descartes and I will leave you alone. Or admit that you can't.
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia
Solipsism - Wikipedia

So in other words, how do you know that the universe is real?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An analogy:
if the road is wet... this counts as evidence for rain to have caused the wet road.

No. It's evidence of the road being wet. In and of itself, it is not evidence for HOW the water ended up on the road.

Sure, rain is a likely candidate. But not the only plausible one.
Flooding can cause the road to be wet as well.
A truck moving water bottles losing its cargo can cause the road to be wet.
A car catching fire and then firetrucks hosing it down can cause the road to be wet.
A car wash on the road can cause the road to be wet.
A grumpy person chasing away the neighbour's cat with the hose can cause the road to be wet.
Snow that melted can cause the road to be wet.

The simple fact that the road is wet, is only evidence that it became wet. And all of the above are plausible scenario's. So you'ld require more detailed information, more data, to narrow it down.

There is no logical error involved when I claim so

Well that depends... see above.

Even if the wet road might be wet due to other reasons...

Then the conclusion of it being due to rain would be false, now wouldn't it?
Then the road being wet wouldn't be evidence of rain, now would it?

Instead, it's evidence of it becoming wet in some way.
To find out how exactly, requires additional data / evidence.

Same here:
If we see a great variety of landscapes... it should count as evidence for a creator that likes creating.

You make zero sense.
I hope that your own example shows how a mere factoid of "things are how they are", is only evidence of how they are and NOT how they came to be such.

Having said that..............................
Note all my plausible sources above for a wet road.
Note how ALL of them are plausible ONLY because you can actually test each and every one of them. How we have precedents for each and every one of them.

Note how "extra-dimensional unicorns appeared and started peeing water all over the road" is not one of the plausible options. Why not, do you think?



Your creator god? => in the category of the extra-dimensional peeing unicorns.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please expand on appears and We do this through observation and experiment.

Drop your keys 20 times.
How many times did they fall to earth and how many times did they shoot off into space?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now, either reply to the points actually made or accept the invite to my ignore list, thanks.
For the record: I prefer to have an honest open discussion instead of having to "silence" people.

But even my angelic-style patience has limits.

Just deliver justified reasons that avoids Agrippa's Trilemma and the problem of solipsism as per Rene Descartes and I will leave you alone. Or admit that you can't.
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia
Solipsism - Wikipedia

So in other words, how do you know that the universe is real?

Okay then.
Sounds like you have made your choice.

Bye bye

 

[Samael_Khan]

How you ever doubted with skepticism what knowledge is and how that leads to this:
"
3. The definition of relativism
There is no general agreed upon definition of cognitive relativism. Here is how it has been described by a few major theorists:

• “Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be”. (Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)
• “The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth.” (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)
• “There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)
• “There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable” (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)
• “There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.)

Without doubt, this lack of consensus about exactly what relativism asserts is one reason for the unsatisfactory character of much of the debate about its coherence and plausibility. Another reason is that very few philosophers are willing to apply the label “relativist” to themselves. Even Richard Rorty, who is widely regarded as one of the most articulate defenders of relativism, prefers to describe himself as a “pragmatist”, an “ironist” and an “ethnocentrist”.

Nevertheless, a reasonable definition of relativism may be constructed: one that describes the fundamental outlook of thinkers like Rorty, Kuhn, or Foucault while raising the hackles of their critics in the right way.

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:

(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
..."
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

In other words, if you use skepticism not just on other humans' claims, but also your own, you will learn that there is no knowledge as you use it. It is a belief system just like religion, as there is no evidence in the end for that the word is natural nor from God.
Of if you like, reason, logic and evidence is limited and nobody can show what the world is. That is: "No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others."

So you claim knowledge. To me that is belief system just like religion. And since you made the positive claim of knowledge, you do the job and with reason and logic show that you have knowledge.

That is fascinating, I will look it up further.

I would explain my viewpoint another way:

Solipsism is the most logical philosophical conclusion as to what I can say about reality:

"Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. "

This makes sense because everything that we perceive is recognized by our senses, and if our senses are deceived by illusion then we will still think the illusion is real. We experience this point when dreaming, as in the dream world our senses recognize everything to be true.

But one cannot operate in the real world under solipsism because it is something that is unprovable and unfalsifiable, therefore assuming that our world might or might not be an illusion is pointless and impractical. We need evidence to support the idea that the world is an illusion.

So what I do is operate in the world that my senses are detecting and operating under. I know what my senses are detecting and within that world I follow certain rules as to detecting what is true.

Even though solipsism makes philosophical sense, I have no empirical reason to believe that I am operating under a world that is an illusion, therefore I consider the world I operate in as real, that the people I encounter are real, and that we do actually have real knowledge of the world. But our knowledge adapts to new information that we receive and our logic adapts accordingly as well. This is because we are more ignorant than knowledgeable about the world as we don't have the means to examine everything in the universe and whatever is beyond that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Drop your keys 20 times.
How many times did they fall to earth and how many times did they shoot off into space?

So you take for granted that your experience of that means that independent of your experience your keys are there as keys in themselves and they are real.
"...
Descartes
The foundations of solipsism are in turn the foundations of the view that the individual's understanding of any and all psychological concepts (thinking, willing, perceiving, etc.) is accomplished by making an analogy with his or her own mental states; i.e., by abstraction from inner experience. And this view, or some variant of it, has been influential in philosophy since Descartes elevated the search for incontrovertible certainty to the status of the primary goal of epistemology, whilst also elevating epistemology to "first philosophy"
..."
Solipsism - Wikipedia

You are taking for granted that the keys are real in effect and thus you know. But you don't, because you have only said that you believe that. I don't accept, because you could be e.g. a Boltzmann Brain.
Boltzmann brain

There are other variants. E.g. Descartes evil demon.

 

[ChristineM]

Okay then.
Sounds like you have made your choice.

Bye bye

Yeah, he has that effect, my ignore list is quite exclusive too but some few people earn a place in it

 

[blü 2]

Exact;y! And His favorite club is YogaNidrA. Meditative sleep on the primordial waters

I heard it was [his] golf club. Why not both?

after putting everything on auto-pilot, after cloning Himself and delegating to the cloned crew.

Unfortunately, one thing an omnipotent being can't do is live in the same multiverse as a perfect copy of [him]self.

CEO and Presidents do not work on assembly lines

The Christian God doesn't, but the other two ─ given they actually do anything ─ have little choice, it appears.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Drop your keys 20 times.
How many times did they fall to earth and how many times did they shoot off into space?

Two?

 

[Kenny]

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.

Personally, in addition to the life and landscapes on earth, all I have to do is look at the human body, all of its intricacies, the unfathomable workings of the brain and everything else that it does and I can't help but come to the conclusion that there is a Creator God that loves creating things.

Ken

 

[Subduction Zone]

Personally, in addition to the life and landscapes on earth, all I have to do is look at the human body, all of its intricacies, the unfathomable workings of the brain and everything else that it does and I can't help but come to the conclusion that there is a Creator God that loves creating things.

Ken

And this is another argument from ignorance. "I don't understand therefore God". Those that understand the body the best do not seem to agree with you.

 

[Kenny]

And this is another argument from ignorance. "I don't understand therefore God". Those that understand the body the best do not seem to agree with you.

Actually, no.

More like "I do understand therefore God"!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, no.

More like "I do understand therefore God"!

No, seriously, you have no clue. If you did understand you would see that there is no need for God for those particular observations. You are only a half a step away from the frightened person that first invented a God of Thunder.

 

[Kenny]

No, seriously, you have no clue. If you did understand you would see that there is no need for God for those particular observations. You are only a half a step away from the frightened person that first invented a God of Thunder.

LOL..... If that makes you happy!

Denis Alexander, Werner Arber et al would disagree with you. I know it sounds foolish for you, but for me it is the power of God unto salvation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL..... If that makes you happy!

Denis Alexander, Werner Arber et al would disagree with you. I know it sounds foolish for you, but for me it is the power of God unto salvation.

Would they though? You should not assume that just because someone is a Christian that they are one for the same bad reasons that you gave.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@KenS , occasionally scientists do make the logical error of making an argument from ignorance as you did. Do you know when they do that? They do that only when they run into a problem that they cannot solve. Newton did it. Guess what? All of the problems that he could not solve and led him to his arguments from ignorance (yes even Newton "sinned") have been solved. Of the two that you mentioned only Arber appears to have that flaw. Alexander, not so much. And who knows? Arber may have been quoted out of context. Most scientists that believe in God see no point in making him the menial servant that you want him to be.

And by the way, by appealing to those two you just accepted the fact of evolution. Thank you for admitting that you are an ape.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I rarely received this many answers from one and the same person.

Surely not. It is just that my responses are grouped together in close proximity and really, really good.

Landscapes can exist even without a great variety of them being in place. See the (variety of) landscapes on the moon.

Then we agree that, based on the evidence, that there can be as few as a single landscape all the way to numerous different landscapes.

Ah yes, if someone loves creating a variety, it's plausible to expect a great variety of created things. If a musician likes composing stuff, it makes sense to assume there are lots of compositions.

But we can observe a musician and establish his or her existence independent of musical composition.

no idea. I'm no philosopher.

Philosophy is not required to answer a simple question like that. You equated the "wonder of the variety" and "variety" in response to another poster. Your words. They are not synonymous. Variety is the quality of diversity for some set of objects or ideas. The wonder of the variety is how someone might feel when presented with variety.

no, I'm no intellctual.

Perhaps. At least not very observant and capable of seeing a pattern.

it's what I said in the post.

The problem is that what you posted is incoherent and needs clarification. Hence, "What?"

I don't care.

But you do. Those are all examples of your logic applied to a piece of evidence to support an unverified, yet pre-conceived conclusion. You raised evidence and made a claim on it that is not an obvious or verifiable assertion about that evidence.

didn't claim so.

Au contraire. You did and your words exist saying so.

but here, the natural processes could explain everything, I assume.

The evidence of beetle diversity is explained by the theory of evolution. No other explanation is substantiated.

no, the wet road is evdence, as I see it.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say it wasn't evidence.

Wikipedia sees evidence like this:
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion,[1] because evident things are undoubted. There are two kind of evidence: intellectual evidence (the obvious, the evident) and empirical evidence (proofs).
the wet road definitely supports the rain hypothesis.

By itself, not necessarily. It would in light of other evidence that further supports the rain. Observation of rain. Water pooling in objects and places other than the road. Pressure changes. Increased humidity. Etc., etc. However, I have seen roads that were wet from a firetruck dumping its tanks, fire fighting, and flooding with no local rain. However, all these things have physically verifiable evidence.

There could be other reasons for a wet road though.

Agreed, that is what I said. So even you recognize that without other evidence, rain is not definite as an answer.

If there are two competing explanations, such as the fire truck, we need more information as to which explanation is the right one.

Of course. That is a pretty good conclusion. If there is a natural theory competing with a supernatural theory, evidence for the supernatural is required. Though, I am unsure how one gathers evidence for something that is beyond the natural and physical. Certainly, you have provided none in support of your original claim. The mere existence of evidence that you are in wonder of, is not that evidence.

actually, I'm not I think.

Don't sell yourself short. You are incorrect.

it's the analogy to a musician who likes his art of composing. Even if he does not perform live on stage, which happens sometimes.

An analogy does not establish a claim as fact. Again, we could verify the existence of a composer without having ever heard the compositions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Owkay then.

I don't even know how to respond to that.

I didn't either. As a Christian, I am not waiting with bated breath for death.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And this is another argument from ignorance. "I don't understand therefore God". Those that understand the body the best do not seem to agree with you.

Wouldn't it be an argument from incredulity instead? But it arises out of ignorance since the objects mentioned are clearly things that most people understand very little about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually, no.

More like "I do understand therefore God"!

You just find it all incredible and difficult to imagine a reason other than what you believe and want to be the reason.