Wild idea?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Let’s say the universe was created. Why then would it be so far fetched to believe that people were a part of that creation?

NEWS FLASH: trilobites antedate humans ... by a lot!​

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It sounds like you are in a similar position as believers are also. None of us have a knowledge of what God is. We might have some sort of an idea in our head but that is pretty superficial and probably mostly wrong.
To test the waters of these concepts, which you probably have some sort of an idea about with your time on RF, there has to be some sort of openness to the possibility at least.

Can you break the evidence you speak of down for me.

Let's take a baby forming on the womb. If four people watched the wonders of creation, what part of the babies conception, growth, to birth that shows us a creator did it, whose creator, and the thoughts and behaviors of a creator?

The same can be asked of a beautiful sunset and just as much so homeless suffering on the streets.

Regardless the nature suffering or not, all would be created by god per definition...but how do we know which?

What criteria can a pagan, atheist, Jew, and even an animist use to know

A. There is a creator
B. What's it's nature
C. Whose creator it is
D. How it thinks/talks/and does

Whats the evidence?

 

[Brian2]

All you're saying here is that some people were convinced to believe the wild guesses of other people. That's been known to happen in human societies, where perceptions can be created and disseminated among large numbers of people and passed from generation to generation. It doesn't mean that they're true, though.

I'm keeping in mind that the topic is not necessarily about whether or not a creator exists (since the OP topic is starting with that assumption), but about humanity's part within that creation. I sometimes think that religion is not so much an exploration of God or the supernatural, as much as it's an affirmation and proclamation that we humans are really something special and wonderful.

The Church couldn't even bear the thought that the Earth wasn't at the center of the Solar System. It implies a belief that we humans are at the center of it all, while God is in orbit around us.

But maybe it's not really like that at all.

Some people were convinced to believe the witnesses.

 

[Brian2]

No evidence at all, then. Seriously, how in earth do you think there is any evidence in either the 'wonders of creation' or the stories you refer to?

I wonder how people can say there isn't evidence in the wonders of creation and the Bible.

 

[ratiocinator]

I wonder how people can say there isn't evidence in the wonders of creation and the Bible.

The bible is a contradictory mess; I've no idea how people can claim it as evidence. The 'wonders of creation' is a vague term, what do you mean and why do you thing they are evidence for a god? In what sense would a god not be even more 'wondrous' and therefore, by the same 'logic', just as in need of explanation/a creator?

 

[Brian2]

There are countless different version of 'god' that people believe in and at the very least most of them don't exist (because they contradict each other).

I agree, but that says nothing about whether God exists.

Some of them do.

True, but that does not mean that belief in a God is silly.

Again, most god-concepts must be wrong. While it's not impossible that some sort of 'god' might exist, there are good reasons to rule out a just, fair, omnipotent, omniscient god with an important message (which covers a lot of theistic beliefs).

Sounds like the 'why is there suffering" argument. Yet believers trust God even though there is suffering and even though they are the ones who are suffering.
Wouldn't it be great to live in a paradise now.
No reason to trust God if we lived in a paradise now.
We were kicked out of the garden to live and suffer and die and seek God.

 

[Brian2]

Postulating a creator is a creative proposition (it is not obvious), so surely if there is no evidence (produce such) then there being no such thing is the default, even if 'I don't know' might be the more sensible option.

I've never understood why rejecting faith would be the more sensible option.
I have met people who say they would love to believe but cannot.
I sort of feel the same at times but I just keep on keeping on.

 

[ratiocinator]

Sounds like the 'why is there suffering" argument.

That's only part of it. If a god had an important message, was good, just, fair, and omnipotent, then why isn't the message clear to everybody? Why would such a god play childish and cruel games of hide-and-seek?

We were kicked out of the garden to live and suffer and die and seek God.

Not and very nice kind of god, then.

 

[Stevicus]

Some people were convinced to believe the witnesses.

Yes, that is apparent.

But even if we assume the witnesses are real and were speaking truthfully (and that the written version of their testimony is accurate, without any alterations or mistranslations), it's also possible that they may have mistook what they saw. Even in this day and age of video surveillance and instant communication, a lot of events and reports can be wildly inaccurate.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So where is this evidence...?

Everything is the evidence. You would rather believe everything came from nothing than accept the obvious conclusion.

 

[ratiocinator]

Everything is the evidence.

A joke?

You would rather believe everything came from nothing than accept the obvious conclusion.

I don't believe "everything came from nothing". Where did any creator come from?

 

[Wildswanderer]

A joke?


I don't believe "everything came from nothing". Where did any creator come from?

Better to leave that a mystery, then to conclude that order came from chaos. We actually copy the design in the natural world, so either it came from a super intelligence or chance is smarter than us.

 

[ratiocinator]

Better to leave that a mystery...

It's rather comical how theists give all these reasons why the universe needs a creator but as soon as we ask the same questions about it, suddenly it's ok just to ignore them. It's called 'special pleading', and it's a fallacy.

...then to conclude that order came from chaos.

First it was nothing, now it's chaos. Make up your mind what it is you think I think, or perhaps stop making assumptions. In fact, of course, if you have an infinite amount of chaos (randomness), then you're absolutely certain to get any degree of 'order' you may want to specify, but I digress.

We actually copy the design in the natural world...

Ah, so that's why it's so difficult to tell technology from nature, is it? Oh, wait....

...either it came from a super intelligence...

Which brings us right back to an infinite regress or resorting to special pleading.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It's rather comical how theists give all these reasons why the universe needs a creator but as soon as we ask the same questions about it, suddenly it's ok just to ignore them. It's called 'special pleading', and it's a fallacy.


First it was nothing, now it's chaos. Make up your mind what it is you think I think, or perhaps stop making assumptions. In fact, of course, if you have an infinite amount of chaos (randomness), then you're absolutely certain to get any degree of 'order' you may want to specify, but I digress.


Ah, so that's why it's so difficult to tell technology from nature, is it? Oh, wait....


Which brings us right back to an infinite regress or resorting to special pleading.

Who makes up these dumb categories that can't be used as arguments?

You have no answer to the question of why the universe exists, so you resort to what?
It just does?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I've never understood why rejecting faith would be the more sensible option.
I have met people who say they would love to believe but cannot.
I sort of feel the same at times but I just keep on keeping on.

Well I'll put this to you - as long as you accept the timescales involved and how humans have evolved from the primate line, as according to science. Some time back (say 200,000 years ago), when we were mostly just hunter-gatherers, do you think they had any concept of a creator? I would very much doubt it, and it's unlikely they would have had any concept of what stars were or the extent of the universe. I doubt their language would have enabled such. Moving on, we have various religions coming into being, but again these formed when they too had little knowledge as to what stars actually were (and regards the universe), even if some might have guessed that they were mostly just like our sun. We know better now, but if the religions did just form as explanations of reality (and coming from humans), are we any better off than those living 200,000 years ago, when these religions too formed not knowing the extent of the universe as we mostly do know now? It seems to me that there is a good chance for either - creator/creative force or not - given the universe as we now know it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Who makes up these dumb categories that can't be used as arguments?

No, no idea what you're trying to say.

You have no answer to the question of why the universe exists, so you resort to what?
It just does?

You mean like theists say about god? Or perhaps I could say "it's a mystery"? Actually I don't know, I just don't see any reason to take some made up 'just so' story about a creator, that just happens to exist for no known reason, at all seriously.

Positing a creator is a step in the wrong direction - you've actually ended up with more things that exist and that you can't explain, than you started with.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Positing a creator is a step in the wrong direction - you've actually ended up with more things that exist and that you can't explain, than you started with

No, because this universe was obviously not the result of a chance happening. A person would have to be blind and without a sense of touch to believe that.
Something caused it, something with intention. To pretend to not understand that is probably something scientists do out of fear of the unknown or because someone might accuse them of promoting God. So instead we are supposed to ignore the evidence of our senses.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Hey, @Kangaroo Feathers, haven't seen you around these parts in a long time. How have you been?

Hey. Nice to be missed. Have started a new university course which is taking up most of my time. Also found online environments to be a bit much during the election, so I stepped away for a while. This is probably more of a visit than a return, but Hi

 

[ratiocinator]

No, because this universe was obviously not the result of a chance happening.

You seem to be claiming some sort of omniscience here. How can you possibly know? What's more causation and time are parts of the universe, asking what caused it might not even be a valid question (general relativity suggests the b-theory of time and hence supports the notion that we cannot talk about a cause).

A person would have to be blind and without a sense of touch to believe that.
Something caused it, something with intention. To pretend to not understand that is probably something scientists do out of fear of the unknown or because someone might accuse them of promoting God. So instead we are supposed to ignore the evidence of our senses.

Empty assertions. You're trying to insert your favourite belief into an unknown. What's more you didn't actually address the problem. If we assume, without any real basis (apart from your wishful thinking), the universe had an intelligent creator, then where did the creator come from? Why does this amazing being just happen to exist? You wouldn't have answered the mystery of existence, just added to it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No, because this universe was obviously not the result of a chance happening. A person would have to be blind and without a sense of touch to believe that.
Something caused it, something with intention. To pretend to not understand that is probably something scientists do out of fear of the unknown or because someone might accuse them of promoting God. So instead we are supposed to ignore the evidence of our senses.

Well our senses (and perception) so often can deceive us, just as our thinking and feelings can. I suggest you do some research on this before you carry on insisting that what we see is what we get - obvious answers. It is simply foolish to take anything at face value - especially something as complex as the universe and/or its origins or life.