themadhair
Well-Known Member
I agree. But do really think Fatihah is using the word 'creator' in that way.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It All Comes Down to Faith
- Thread starter Kilgore Trout
- Start date
themadhair
Well-Known Member
As I pointed out, you havent provided an initial explanation for which people could propose an alternative to. It is easy to make stuff up harder to provide a foundation for it.
I linked to peer-reviewed paper that proposed just such an alternative using string theory. Guess you missed that.
Moreover, I am in the I dont know camp until somebody does something more than blindly assert unfounded propositions.
THANK YOU!! Now I have something to work with.
Okay... after a few minutes of thinking and discussing off-forum with MoonWater, I've realized that clarification is what's needed.
I'm not describing my own beliefs here. I'm describing what I see in the Abrahamic version of the Creator God. From what I can see, God the Creator is not part of this world (i.e., reality), is conscious (I used the wrong word, earlier), and cannot be described by science or mathematics.
Now, in terms of not being part of what we perceive as reality, God can still interact with our reality. In the same way, we can enter a room without being part of it.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
A while back when you described your own beliefs they made sense so i was wondering where the rest of it came from.
This thread touches on some of the issues discussed in this thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html
Themadhair has a point river. First off it's "conscious" not "conscience". Now in terms of whether or not a creator is conscious consider this. Are the cells in the human body conscious? Even if they are conscious of themselves are they conscious of the human body they make up? Regardless of the answer they still make up the human body. Or perhaps a better example would be: are a sperm and an egg conscious? Regardless of whether or not they are they still create new life.
Also the creator may or may not be outside our "normal reality". Was michelangelo outside of the normal reality of what he created. Also consider poetry as an example. Whenever I write something I poor myself into it. I may be physically seperate from the writing but spiritually and emotionally there can be no seperation and thus I am in the poem and the poem is in me.
And also why would you say "poetry is needed" to describe this creaotr when you fully admit that the poetry is inadequate? How is it "needed" if it is also "inadequate?
Perhaps he is perhaps he isn't. I don't know enough about him to say one way or the other.
I'm defending the concept of the Abrahamic Creator God, and trying to help you guys understand it more fully.
Disagreement does not give the right to misunderstand.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Non sequitur. Mathematics is distinct from silly notions of a creator.
Don't you mean one can fully understand and still disagree?
I believe that it's our responsibility.
Last edited:
Please explain.
, umm, I agree.... I was trying to clarify what you meant by your last statement. I wasn't asking for your opinion on mine. Maybe you could reword yours for me so I can understand it better?
Last edited:
This is all very simple. I'm not just speaking of 'having faith in something'. I have faith that it will rain sometime during the month. But I don't hold to that belief dogmatically. I'm saying if people have faith in God, that means they believe in God, suspending reason in the process. The Bible puts it very nicely for me: "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1) That is dogmatism.
[QUOTE:themadhair]
I linked to peer-reviewed paper that proposed just such an alternative using string theory. Guess you missed that.
Response: I can not have a discussion with a link. However, if you can provide your thought of the information on the link since this is your argument than I can comment.
I linked to peer-reviewed paper that proposed just such an alternative using string theory. Guess you missed that.
Response: I can not have a discussion with a link. However, if you can provide your thought of the information on the link since this is your argument than I can comment.
A thing doesn't imply physical properties. 'Thing' is a very useful term for the very reason that there is no definitive explantion for what it must represent. Check your dictionary.
Originally Posted by Fatihah http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...comes-down-faith-post1573590.html#post1573590
You are still doing it! You're assuming the world was created and then declaring that the assumed creation needs a creator. Your first premise needs to establish that the world was created and then, and only then, can you introduce your Creator.
Fatihah: Response: And you are still dismsissing the premise of providing a more logical claim that the world was not created. It works both ways. We know for a fact and can prove that things come into existence from a creator. The t.v., car, stereo, etc. They all are creations from a creator. So to say that the existence of something is a creation from a creator is not far fetched. So when we talk about the universe and life itself, you must now provide a more logical explaination of the origin of something existing other than it being created but you don't have one. Therefore, until you have done so, there is nothing more logical than the universe and life coming from a creator and since it is the most logical and nothing can be provided to to show more logic, then it has to be the truth.
Your argument is founded on the premise that where there are only two possibilities, in this case a self-existent world or a created world, only one of the possibilities can be true, and the most reasonable explanation will be the acceptable one. Although it is not a criterion of certain truth, I absolutely agree that it is as good a test of probability as were likely to get. However, I dont accept that creation is the more reasonable explanation than the notion of a self-existent world, for reasons that I will explain in detail shortly, and secondly the crux of this argument is not that a Creator is not far fetched, or the better theory, but your claim that is a truth. It isnt, and I invite you to demonstrate a contradiction.
You make inferences from the material world, using cause and effect to argue beyond the material world; this is entirely contingent upon the existence of Necessary Being, which you would call God. My argument for the universe being self-existent is predicated upon exactly the same notion, where contingent matter is contingent upon that which necessarily existent but without calling upon the notion of an external, worshipful deity. But unlike you, I dont have to argue for cause and effect (creation) being external to the material world, since we know it exists within it as a matter of fact. So which, then, is the more likely or reasonable a world that we agree exists, in which cause and effect is a known phenomenon, or a supposed external source that is assumed to have features of our known world? While the truth of both examples can be denied without contradiction, I contend that my argument is the more reasonable.
You are still doing it! You're assuming the world was created and then declaring that the assumed creation needs a creator. Your first premise needs to establish that the world was created and then, and only then, can you introduce your Creator.
Fatihah: Response: And you are still dismsissing the premise of providing a more logical claim that the world was not created. It works both ways. We know for a fact and can prove that things come into existence from a creator. The t.v., car, stereo, etc. They all are creations from a creator. So to say that the existence of something is a creation from a creator is not far fetched. So when we talk about the universe and life itself, you must now provide a more logical explaination of the origin of something existing other than it being created but you don't have one. Therefore, until you have done so, there is nothing more logical than the universe and life coming from a creator and since it is the most logical and nothing can be provided to to show more logic, then it has to be the truth.
Your argument is founded on the premise that where there are only two possibilities, in this case a self-existent world or a created world, only one of the possibilities can be true, and the most reasonable explanation will be the acceptable one. Although it is not a criterion of certain truth, I absolutely agree that it is as good a test of probability as were likely to get. However, I dont accept that creation is the more reasonable explanation than the notion of a self-existent world, for reasons that I will explain in detail shortly, and secondly the crux of this argument is not that a Creator is not far fetched, or the better theory, but your claim that is a truth. It isnt, and I invite you to demonstrate a contradiction.
You make inferences from the material world, using cause and effect to argue beyond the material world; this is entirely contingent upon the existence of Necessary Being, which you would call God. My argument for the universe being self-existent is predicated upon exactly the same notion, where contingent matter is contingent upon that which necessarily existent but without calling upon the notion of an external, worshipful deity. But unlike you, I dont have to argue for cause and effect (creation) being external to the material world, since we know it exists within it as a matter of fact. So which, then, is the more likely or reasonable a world that we agree exists, in which cause and effect is a known phenomenon, or a supposed external source that is assumed to have features of our known world? While the truth of both examples can be denied without contradiction, I contend that my argument is the more reasonable.
But not everyone believes that.
I'm trying to defend beliefs that are not my own, in case you haven't noticed.