Does an ordered universe mean a created universe?

Author: janesix

Posts

Total: 54
#31
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
Are you not aware that everything you and I say in this discussion is subjective.

I am aware that neither you nor I have a solution to the universal conundrum.

If there was an unequivocal solution, then this discussion wouldn't have been ongoing for the past million years or so.

I respect your faith and your internal certainty, but that is not proof of anything, other than proof of your faith and internal certainty.

Personal experiences and observations are internal data processes, which we are able to formulate and output as subjective data responses. 
#32
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
As far as we can be certain, the universe is......I think that's sensible and also didn't require creation.
You believe it is sensible to say "it is," and so do I. It seems to be a self-evident truth for more people that it is. Question: Now how does it follow from that to say the universe does not require a reason when we continually find reasons for the way it works? If the universe was created there would be a reason or reasons for it. Finding reasons is an intentional process. Reason requires agency. If the universe is not created, there is no reason for it. The problem with finding reasons without a necessary mindful being is that all seems to suggest a chain of events that keep going, an infinite regress, yet we find reasons for a beginning to the universe. If the universe "came into being" then what caused that coming into being? That suggests a cause outside the universe unless you are proposing self-creation, which is a contradiction in terms. If you are suggesting an infinite universe or an infinite causal tree how do we ever get to the present? Thus, God is a more reasonable explanation. First, He does not live in the A-theory of time as we do, but in the B-theory. We constantly differentiate between the past, present, and future. To the biblical God, He knows all three and is the eternal I am. 'I am' is the present tense - eternally present.  Second, it is reasonable to think of creation because it suggests intentionality, a reason for why things happen in a given way, a way that is necessary for science. Science needs things to operate in a uniform manner, or else we could not predict any outcome since everything would be willy-nilly - chaotic. There would be no reason to expect to roll a six repeatedly unless the dice was fixed. Laws of nature are fixed. We can predict them. At sea level, we know the boiling point of water. We know how long it takes the earth to orbit the sun. We can measure the gravitational pull. We have laws of thermodynamics. We have measurements to conduct science that are reasonably accurate for telling us things. Third, as I mentioned before, we do find reasons for things. Why would this be the case in a senseless universe? Do you have a good reason why you would? If not, God or a Creator does seem to make more sense, doesn't He?   


And formulating an awareness and an ongoing understanding  of chaos, would be science.  

And it requires mindful beings to formulate understandings. Why would you expect to find reasons and uniformity of nature in a universe devoid of original thought and reason? Why do you keep trying? It is pointless. 

And meaning...what is meaning without a fixed reference point? It is subjectively elusive. And why meaning? If the universe is meaningless, why do you keep looking for meaning? And what does it matter? Why are you deluding yourself in thinking anything matters? Why do you make it matter? Why are you giving purpose to a purposeless existence, ultimately? 

Though the development/evolution of life would probably be impossible in a chaotic universe....So no worries.
Macro-evolution is a system of thought that presupposes many things. For one, it presupposes that we all originate from a common ancestor, the first 'simple' form of life. Again, it presupposes that the present is the key to the past since we are looking at the past from the present. The question is why would something that is not intentional, something that is mindless continue to function in the same manner that is necessary for so many principles we take for granted? Again, it does not make sense. What makes sense is a logical, reasoning Being who is mindful of those processes sustaining and directing them. 

So, you are welcome to your speculation that cannot make sense of beginnings with any certainty (at least I am not aware of how it does and maybe you can explain it) but it is not the most reasonable outlook.

The most reasonable outlook is that from a necessary mind, a necessary reason, a necessary logic, comes all other minds, reason, and logic.
#33
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you not aware that everything you and I say in this discussion is subjective.

Lol, you would be glad then to know that the word and meaning of objective exists, get yourself familiar with that no wonder you think everything is just thought processes and internal data.

I am aware that neither you nor I have a solution to the universal conundrum.

Wrong, but thanks for the opinion. Did you not know that both you and I come from a Reality that has all knowledge, information and solutions? never mind obviously you don't know that. 

If there was an unequivocal solution, then this discussion wouldn't have been ongoing for the past million years or so.

Um are you serious? there is a solution Zed, it's arguments of opinions that have been going on not the lack of solutions. The only issue is not everyone interprets the same worldview, not that there isn't solutions and answers. 

I respect your faith and your internal certainty, but that is not proof of anything, other than proof of your faith and internal certainty.

Looks like this conversation is at an end already unfortunately. Too bad, if God exists I guess you'll never know because you don't know the term objective exists.

Personal experiences and observations are internal data processes, which we are able to formulate and output as subjective data responses.

Go back and read those definitions again. Geezus, it seems this place is filled with people that don't understand what words mean and how they are defined.

Let me know if you ever want a discussion so you can know there are solutions and objectivity. Not sure what the point was in you asking questions just to ignore the answers.


#34
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@PGA2.0

Firstly the god theory falls down because it contradicts the something from nothing principle.... It's very easy to say, well lets just ignore that little issue and assume that a god just is...O.K. so the universe also contradicts this principle, but at least we can say with some certainty that the universe is.... Though at this point we also tend to assume or expect that the universe must have been created, whereas at the same point deists assume and expect the opposite of their god....You refer to reason and this is not reasonable.

We continually find reasons for the way it works.
I would suggest that we continually study the universe and achieve answers to certain questions, but answers to questions does not infer a reason or purpose, we can only imply reason.

Why would this be the case in a senseless universe.
Why would it not be the case.... Though we do make sense of it to a certain point, but once we have reached the limits of our ability to find answers, we then have to speculate/hypothesise.... And I would agree that at this point  all speculation is reasonable and valid.

So are you willing to agree, that at the point where our ability to know ceases, your god is therefore only speculation?

Having said all that, it does further occur to me, that the universe and/or a creator are both as reasonable as they are unreasonable.... The impossibility or possibility of nothing or something.
#35
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
Sorry.

But there is no point in any further discussion really, considering  this typical theistic/deistic intransigence.

You have no unequivocal proof of the existence  of yours or any other theistic  god....So as far as creation hypotheses go, you might be right or you right be wrong...Nothing would be more enlightening that to know the actual answer, but the ability to know is currently way beyond the limits of our capabilities....For the time being we will have to continue to rely upon our imagination.....Subjectivity.

So the universe seemingly has order and we can speculate that it is thus or was created thus, either by chance or purpose...To suggest that we know better, is to not be honest.
#36
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
But there is no point in any further discussion really

You're right, because your intransigence is crippling to the utmost. 
#37
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 268
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
If  the natural order was  different every day how could one formulate anything lasting?
#38
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
Interestingly, an expected response.

Though as I do not deny the validity of any creation hypothesis, I fail to see how I could be regarded as intransigent in regard to such issues. 

I simply have not been conditioned to have an unquestioning acceptance  of an unsubstantiated religious concept. (Belief in a specific, popular, deistic religion)

 
#39
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ronjs
Well. If you think about it

The natural order is and isn't different every day and things tend to last for a while, but not for ever.

Might sound like gobbledygook. But an ordered universe tends to mean a universe that seemingly complies to a regular pattern or set of rules, rather than something that provides  a stable environment in which humanity exists. Life on earth is fragile and tenuous and maybe purposeful or maybe not. Formulating anything lasting is therefore always a gamble, with uncertain odds.
#40
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
Firstly the god theory falls down because it contradicts the something from nothing principle.... It's very easy to say, well lets just ignore that little issue and assume that a god just is...O.K. so the universe also contradicts this principle, but at least we can say with some certainty that the universe is.... Though at this point we also tend to assume or expect that the universe must have been created, whereas at the same point deists assume and expect the opposite of their god....You refer to reason and this is not reasonable.
Something from nothing? God is Someone so I don't follow your logic. An eternal Being existing outside of our time continuum gives good reason for the universe. Something from nothing does not, neither does an eternal universe or universes because it begs the question of how we ever get to the present from an eternal past? Not only this, but I have also mentioned numerous other problems that with a mindless universe you cannot make sense of. If you want to believe in nonsense that is your prerogative. How would that go? You can make up many scenarios. Here is mine. 

"Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, the universe exploded into existence from nothing."

We continually find reasons for the way it works.
I would suggest that we continually study the universe and achieve answers to certain questions, but answers to questions does not infer a reason or purpose, we can only imply reason.
Implies reason from what? From a mindless, unreasoning universe?


Why would this be the case in a senseless universe.
Why would it not be the case.... Though we do make sense of it to a certain point, but once we have reached the limits of our ability to find answers, we then have to speculate/hypothesise.... And I would agree that at this point  all speculation is reasonable and valid.

No, all speculation is not reasonable and valid. When you can't make sense of something yet you believe it for no reason other than you don't like the alternative it is called blind faith, not reasonable faith, and anyone thinking this way is welcome to such foolish thinking. 

So are you willing to agree, that at the point where our ability to know ceases, your god is therefore only speculation?
It is you who speculates about some god, not me. I believe in God as my starting point and from that presupposition, I can make sense of what you cannot. The biblical God confirms what He says is true. 

Having said all that, it does further occur to me, that the universe and/or a creator are both as reasonable as they are unreasonable.... The impossibility or possibility of nothing or something.
Explain if it is reasonable. God is reasonable. A universe without intent or purpose is not, whether it be eternal or having a beginning.
#41
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
You assume god is something/someone and perhaps I do too,  all valid hypotheses but nonetheless absolute supposition and currently factless. The trouble with conditioned deists/theists is that they fail to recognise or refuse to admit to this basic "logic" fact.....So an eternal being existing outside our time continuum  is nothing more than a highly speculative suggestion....In other words gobbledygook unless unequivocally proven to be true....Belief proves nothing, other than itself, so we therefore all speculate, just as the compilers of the biblical hypothesis/tales speculated, just as all  previous deists speculated....And they speculated so, because it  was obvious though naïve to imagine that the reason for everything that we didn't understand was a mysterious being of human like form... In other words, we created gods in our own image... Though we had no clue as to where it was hiding out....Perhaps on top of an unclimbable mountain or perhaps up in the clouds or perhaps on the moon or perhaps on a star...Though as we gained access to our immediate environment and our understanding of the universe increased, god became more and more elusive. So much so, that it now can only be found outside of our time continuum...Where ever that might be.

The big bang is as illogical or as reasonable as a all assumed gods.  Both are just as reliant upon being created out of nothing, irrespective of the particular continuum in which ones preferred god might exist.

Therefore, based upon your logic the universe could just as easily have exploded into existence from nothing.

As far as we are able to know the intent or purpose of the universe is what it is.

Something from nothing....Explain this and we will be getting somewhere....Don't just keep repeating the mantra of God is so therefore.


#42
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
You assume god is something/someone and perhaps I do too,  all valid hypotheses but nonetheless absolute supposition and currently factless. The trouble with conditioned deists/theists is that they fail to recognise or refuse to admit to this basic "logic" fact.....So an eternal being existing outside our time continuum  is nothing more than a highly speculative suggestion....In other words gobbledygook unless unequivocally proven to be true....Belief proves nothing, other than itself, so we therefore all speculate, just as the compilers of the biblical hypothesis/tales speculated, just as all  previous deists speculated....And they speculated so, because it  was obvious though naïve to imagine that the reason for everything that we didn't understand was a mysterious being of human like form... In other words, we created gods in our own image... Though we had no clue as to where it was hiding out....Perhaps on top of an unclimbable mountain or perhaps up in the clouds or perhaps on the moon or perhaps on a star...Though as we gained access to our immediate environment and our understanding of the universe increased, god became more and more elusive. So much so, that it now can only be found outside of our time continuum...Where ever that might be.
You first have to presuppose something to think about other things. The question is how consistent is your chain of thinking starting from that core presupposition(s)? Core presuppositions are the building block all else rests upon and determines whether something is knowable or just thought to be so. If the core is rotten it then contaminates and pollutes the rest of the fruit. Is your framework consistent with your core beliefs? If not, inconsistency is usually a sign that something is dreadfully wrong in your thinking. 

Take morality, for instance.

Most people I discuss morality with don't seem to know that their belief about morals is inconsistent with their starting point. If you start with an 'is' - the universe - how do you get an 'ought,' an intangible or something not physical from it? If you start with God, a moral Being, you can understand why an ought is valid. Starting with yourself, or some other subjective, relative being, you have a relative, shifting standard that does not have what is necessary to validate what is "right." That is because your opinions are subjective and changing. You need an unchanging "best" to understand and compare what is right and wrong from, not some arbitrary preference you like but the next guy opposes. You understand this best or measurable standard when using quantitative values. How do you achieve it with qualitative values? They are not tangible like quantitative or physical things. If your core presuppositions start with an amoral universe, one devoid of a moral standard, how do you consistently get to "right" from such a starting point? Do you arbitrarily make it up based on likes or things you prefer? Do you use force to say what you like is that standard? That is only as good as your ability to enforce your tastes or preferences. As soon as someone comes along who is more powerful and can force you to adopt their stance "right" changes.

Morals require a conscious, thinking, rational being. You don't find them expressed by a piece of wood or rock.  Morals are not physical things by nature, but conceptual and mind driven, so expecting their derivation or origin from something physical needs an adequate explanation. Can you give it from your starting point (excluding God) of blind random, indifferent, mindless matter? No. You keep borrowing from the Christian or God centred framework/view to make sense of things. How does consciousness derive from matter? The Christian explanation is reasonable. From a necessary, mindful, logical, living, eternal Being come other mindful, logical, living beings. It is all we ever witness. We witness life coming from the living, personal beings coming from other such beings. We never witness people coming from rocks or inanimate, material objects devoid of consciousness. That requires assuming many things that are not logically or verifiably consistent. Sure, you can construct a whole worldview on the view that God is not necessary as your starting point for existence but how reasonable is that view?

Beliefs are rational, irrational, or blind. We all start somewhere and where we start can determine whether we can make sense of existence, the universe, morality, truth, etc., and in a consistent and logical manner. So if you were to unravel a belief system to its core suppositions you soon find whether it is coherent and consistent and makes sense of its fundamental starting points. As I said earlier, you're welcome to believe in something that cannot be justified as a sensible belief. With the biblical God that is not the case. 

And I think you assume there is no evidence for God.
Fact: The Bible says it is His revelation to humanity. That is reasonable evidence. 
Fact: There are many historical and archaeological pieces of evidence in the Bible that match external historical sources.
Fact: The Bible is unified in core teachings and you find particular themes running throughout.
Fact: It is most reasonable to believe biblical prophecy was written before the events prophesied.
Fact: Jesus Christ is found in typology on most pages of the Bible.
Fact: There is a physical chain of events that is also reflected in spiritual truths that I find most unbelievers I converse with are clueless about.
Fact: You have to seek God to know Him, and in His prescribed means to know Him rather than know about Him. (Hebrews 11:6)

Not only this, but He is also the necessary Being for us to have any certainty. You and I are not. It is when we think His thoughts that we understand and make sense of existence, origins, life, the universe, truth, consistency. 

The big bang is as illogical or as reasonable as a all assumed gods.  Both are just as reliant upon being created out of nothing, irrespective of the particular continuum in which ones preferred god might exist.
No, it is not. If you do not start with mindful being you start with what? Chance happenstance? How does something (if there was a 'something' before the start, what was it?) that has no intent or agency do anything? Not only that but as I have said earlier, why would you expect to find order and sensibility from the senseless and chaotic? I certainly would not, but that is me. 

Consistency speaks of uniformity of nature. We have to be able to expect the same thing will continually repeat itself for science and natural laws to be explained and verified. Take the examples of rolling dice with the number six rolled one billion times repeatedly, in a row. First, there has to be an agent rolling the dice, putting the chain of events into motion. What is your agent for the universe? Second, unless the dice are fixed there would be no reason for six to continue without stop. You would expect to see other random numbers appear. You call that 'chance.' There is as much 'chance' of rolling 2 as there is in rolling six. Does 'chance' explain anything? What is "chance?" Does it have agency and intent? Can you show me it? No, you can't. It is not physical but mental and conceptual, something thinking beings use to describe probability. It has no ability to do anything. Mindful beings, on the other hand, do. 

So, you have a "big bang" exploding or whimpering into existence from what? What do you speculate was before the "Big Bang?" Was there something or nothing? If something what? Energy? Why? How did it get here? Does thermodynamics suggest usable energy is dissipating and has a beginning?

I would appreciate it is you answered my questions above to help me understand how you explain and make sense of these things. The problem, I find, is people who believe this stuff can't explain how the core or fundamental starting points can make sense.  Belief in God can. There are self-evident starting presuppositions that if you deny you can't logically make sense of anything else. God is one of those starting points. I could give you another example that perhaps might be more self-evident to you as a necessary first principle or core presupposition. That would be the laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, and middle exclusion). You can't make sense of anything without using these fundamental reasoning tools. 

Therefore, based upon your logic the universe could just as easily have exploded into existence from nothing.
That's not based on my logic. Logically, how can something "self-create" itself? It would have to exist to create. What is "Nothing." It is no thing. If nothing exists how do you get something from it? I have zero dollars. How do I buy something that costs five dollars from zero dollars? How possible is it for me to BUY something that requires money with no money? Demonstrate how "nothing" can create "something." As someone once said, "Nothing is the thing rocks think about." 

As far as we are able to know the intent or purpose of the universe is what it is.
What does that mean? That is a tautology. It is what it is!!! It describes nothing useful. "You are what you are" has not described what you are. It just makes a statement that is nonrelatable. 

Something from nothing....Explain this and we will be getting somewhere....Don't just keep repeating the mantra of God is so therefore.
The physical dimension from the spiritual dimension, thus not as you claim, something from nothing, but something from a different dimension, a different realm. God, from the spiritual realm, a spiritual Being, gives birth to the physical or natural realm. For us, who are in the natural or physical realm the natural comes first. But God, who is in the greater realm, is Spirit, is before us and our realm. 

Us:
However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.

Thus, Jesus taught us we must be born again, regenerated, granted reconciliation with God and the spiritual to see or enter God's kingdom.

God is. He exists. We are temporal, we have a beginning. We are made in His image and likeness in the sense that we are not just physical beings. We are reasoning and conscious like He is, capable of abstract thought. The concept of mathematics, or addition, or 'twoness' is not a physical thing although it can be demonstrated by the physical. 2+2=4 does not depend on me thinking it for it to be true. Thus, it is beyond my physical being. It would still be true if I did not exist. My father thought it and he no longer lives in this world, yet his death did not nullify that mathematical principle of addition. Without mind, however, 2+2=4 is meaningless, for it is a mental thing. My mind is not necessary for 2+2=4 to be true and logically is it eternally true that 2+2=4. If you think otherwise, then when is 2+2 not 4? Thus, God, the necessary Mind is a reasonable and logical answer for the existence of numbers and mathematics to exist. Not only this, but we constantly discover mathematical principles that explain how things exist. We are able to make sense of the laws of nature through mathematics. That suggests and is reasonable to think that a Mindful Being put these natural laws into existence supernaturally. What is unreasonable to think is that random chance happenstance sustains the universe. The uniformity of nature or constancy is understood through intentionality and agency. 

while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Things change but God remains the same.


#43
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
So there are lots of questions I asked that I am curious as to how you answer them. I could put them in a separate post if you like, but that would take away from the context. I hope you try otherwise this conversation becomes pointless. It becomes like the trillion other conversations I have with unbelievers who what to pontificate how things are or most likely are, but when pressed are silent on these issues raised. You see, I believe the Christian worldview is very capable of giving reasonable and logical explanations for existence and meaning. I do not believe other systems of thought are. 
#44
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@EtrnlVw
@zedvictor4
Given the nature of human function and thought processes how is it possible to be sure of anything, let alone a hypothetical creator.
Some things are self-evident. Denying them leaves you nowhere else to turn in making sense of things. I believe the founding fathers stated many of these self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

These founding fathers knew how to think well! That is not so much the case today, generally speaking.

Laws should be moral agents of addressing right and wrong.

To deny equality under the law is to ignore justice. There can't be justice when some people are treated with a different standard from others. ALL have to be treated impartially and to the same standard for justice. You have to know what the standard is and it has to be a fixed standard. It is wrong to kill an innocent human being without sufficient reason, such reason being when a mother has no option but to abort her unborn otherwise they would both die (tubal pregnancy). If it is not wrong to kill an innocent human being try living under such a belief. "Step this way please, you are next in line!" Do you still think it reasonable that someone takes your life because they may not like your skin colour, or age, or size, or your looks, or just because they are more powerful than you and have the means to do so? Thus, you have to apply justice equally or there is none. 

Second, the most fundamental right is the right to life. It is a natural right and should be a legal right. That is self-evident for without "life" you do not exist. If your life is not intrinsically valuable it can be taken away easily. Without intrinsic value (which God gives us, for all human beings are created equally in His image and likeness) groups can be discriminated against, dehumanized, and destroyed at the whim of those who have the power to do so, but that is not right. Take that truth away and anyone can kill anyone else for whatever reason they like. So we recognize we are intrinsically valuable. 

The third is a necessary Being - the Creator, a personal being. Without Him, I continue to challenge you to make sense of things, which you are expressing doubt on the ability to do (see your underlined statement). You recognize and acknowledge that the nature of our human functions and thought creates problems of surety. 

A necessary being (the biblical God) has the qualities of objectivity, omniscience, immutability, and eternity. 
Other beings are subjective/relative/changing, limited in knowledge, and temporal. We both fit that description. Thus, to know objectively if we have a purpose, meaning, moral justification, how life originates, freedom, happiness, truth, origins of the universe, certainty, God existing and revealing is sufficient for those goals. Otherwise, it becomes a game of "I have the truth and you do not" or everyone becoming a skeptic, an agnostic, ignorant about lives most important and ultimate questions. Every major worldview ( including atheism because it too attempts to answer the very same questions) expresses answers to these ultimate questions 1) What am I, 2) Who am I, 3) Why am I here, 4) What difference does it make, 5) What happens to me when I die? 

#45
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@janesix
Does an ordered universe mean a created universe?

That's my question.
Why do you ask?
#46
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
There are basically two choices...Purpose or Chance.

You and I both err on the side of purpose.

All purpose  based ideas are fantastical to a certain degree.....Some so much so that they become pointlessly ritualistic, over elaborate and consequently contradictory.

Contradictory, in so much as the nonsense of ritual and worship totally demean the fundamental qualities of  ultimate knowledge and pure logic.

Nailing people to crosses etc, is complete and utter 2000 year old human naivety, in every sense.

My advice to traditionally conditioned theists, is to throw away those archaic mythological hypotheses and rethink "God" in a modern technological and ongoing evolutionary context.


#47
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
There are basically two choices...Purpose or Chance.
Or illusion, perhaps?

You and I both err on the side of purpose.

All purpose  based ideas are fantastical to a certain degree.....Some so much so that they become pointlessly ritualistic, over elaborate and consequently contradictory.
How so? God is a supernatural being. That means His power extends beyond what we are used to. And which is more plausible to believe, purpose or chance? Which can make sense of life's ultimate questions such as origins, meaning, life, consciousness, morality, truth, knowledge, certainty? 

Contradictory, in so much as the nonsense of ritual and worship totally demean the fundamental qualities of  ultimate knowledge and pure logic.

Nailing people to crosses etc, is complete and utter 2000 year old human naivety, in every sense.
Since God sees the whole of time before Him in the present how is prophecy unreasonable? Can not God make a creature act in a way that is counter to the normal? Is He not free to do the miraculous for a time and purpose, to demonstrate His power and knowledge, then cease doing such things? He knows the Romans will use the cross as a form of execution. He knows and ordains that His Son will die of this method so that humanity will know that salvation has been accomplished by Him. He is able to resurrect the dead. That is the message of Christianity. The dead are raised in Christ and God has shown this in the restriction of His Son. As for wrong against God, He shows through Israel that we can never live up to His perfect standard via our own means - our good works. It requires the perfect work of another. Adam sinned and cast the whole of humanity into alienation from God by sin. God supplies the way of reconciliation. There is nothing hard about that to understand. Nor is there anything contradictory if you believe the biblical God is the true God. What appears as a contradiction has reasonable explanations, most of which are found in His word - the Bible (Scripture interprets itself for God provides the explanation Himself. It just requires studying to get to know it). 

My advice to traditionally conditioned theists, is to throw away those archaic mythological hypotheses and rethink "God" in a modern technological and ongoing evolutionary context.
Your advice is to make your own god, an impotent and unreal god that is fashioned in the same way Israel fashioned gods of wood and stone. Such gods were incapable of doing anything because they were man's images and thoughts of God that were untrue. God requires we worship Him in spirit and in truth. Anything less is idolatry. 

#48
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@janesix
It's certainly a strong argument in favor being created. So what's puzzling is why it would be so easily dismissed.
#49
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Illusion...What about delusion.

Assuming that supernatural concepts are real and not requiring of any thing other than imaginary, supernatural evidence...sort of self perpetuating delusion.

The hypothesis is fine, but substantiate it with real evidence, as your intransigent belief in a supernatural god  that you create in your own image, is currently no more worthy than a god fashioned in wood or stone.

I have never advised anyone to make their own god...I don't know where you got this non-sense from...The same place as all the other non-sense I suppose.

I reiterate....I err on the side of universal purpose and merely suggest that the evolutionary development of matter may also have a related purpose, so I therefore refer to this as a god principle.....Basically, a supposition... A perceptible process...Therefore, assuming a purpose and an outcome.

Not quite the same as advising that there is an uncreated imaginary god, in an uncreated imaginary time continuum. Nonsense exacerbated by the obvious contradiction that you are attempting to prove creation, with imaginary non-created evidence.
#50
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
Illusion...What about delusion.
Sure, you could argue both ways.

Assuming that supernatural concepts are real and not requiring of any thing other than imaginary, supernatural evidence...sort of self perpetuating delusion.
They are not "self-perpetuating delusion" if they are real. The options are either your worldview is delusional, mine is, or both are, but which is more reasonable? As pointed out in other posts, and you have largely FAILED to address, your worldview (opposed to the biblical God) has not been able to make sense of core presuppositions.

The hypothesis is fine, but substantiate it with real evidence, as your intransigent belief in a supernatural god  that you create in your own image, is currently no more worthy than a god fashioned in wood or stone.
What evidence would you accept? That is the issue here. No matter what I offered it seems you will scoff at it without in-depth discussion, just superficial BS. Get to making sense of your core presuppositions, devoid of the Christian God. That's what I am interested in. I challenge you to make sense of your core building blocks, the things everything else rests upon. 

Make sense of your "chance" belief devoid of the biblical God. If you believe in a personal God, which one makes sense? There are only a few major beliefs that think of a personal, omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, immutable God. Other than that you are left with things originating from chance happenstance.  

I have never advised anyone to make their own god...I don't know where you got this non-sense from...The same place as all the other non-sense I suppose.
Post 41:
"In other words, we created gods in our own image... Though we had no clue as to where it was hiding out....Perhaps on top of an unclimbable mountain or perhaps up in the clouds or perhaps on the moon or perhaps on a star...Though as we gained access to our immediate environment and our understanding of the universe increased, god became more and more elusive. So much so, that it now can only be found outside of our time continuum...Where ever that might be."

Post 46:
"My advice to traditionally conditioned theists, is to throw away those archaic mythological hypotheses and rethink "God" in a modern technological and ongoing evolutionary context."

I reiterate....I err on the side of universal purpose and merely suggest that the evolutionary development of matter may also have a related purpose, so I therefore refer to this as a god principle.....Basically, a supposition... A perceptible process...Therefore, assuming a purpose and an outcome.
Universal purpose? From what? Purpose requires intentional mindful being. Which intentional being are you suggesting that purpose comes from? 

"[E]volutionary development of matter may also have a related purpose" from what? Again, this is nonsense unless you are proposing a mindful being. If so which one? Let's discuss this mindful being or how you get purpose from something devoid of mind? Again, what you are speaking of is getting an ought from an is, or put otherwise, the is/ought fallacy. 

 It seeks to make a value of a fact or to derive a moral imperative from the description of a state of affairs.

Not quite the same as advising that there is an uncreated imaginary god, in an uncreated imaginary time continuum. Nonsense exacerbated by the obvious contradiction that you are attempting to prove creation, with imaginary non-created evidence.
The two most cited causes for the origins of the universe are creation or chance happenstance. Merging from chance happenstance, if not originating (i.e., a beginning), is a subset belief that the universe is eternal - either one eternal universe or multiverses going to infinity. Which is more reasonable and which one of these two basic beliefs can make sense of origins? How do you make sense of origins from chance happenstance? Can you? Or do you make sense of it from an eternal omniscient being - if so, which one?

Let us put our beliefs side-by-side and see which is more reasonable and logical. So, identify what you believe so we can continue. Get specific. If you don't know then my case stands that you can't make sense of the universe whereas the Christian worldview can. Come out from behind your mask, stop hiding, and let's get real as to what you believe.
#51
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
We created gods in our own image.
In other words this is what humanity has been doing for millennia, pre and post Christianity....Not me in particular.


A world view is a world view and we are not discussing a world view.... You are putting forward the idea of a supernatural being that exists in a separate time continuum, this is hardly a world view.

The initial question itself, was only referring to the universe, and my thoughts and suggestions only focus on the likelihood of the known universe being purposeful....That purpose could be anything and also does not necessarily have to imply a creator....The necessity of a specific creator is a supposition that you have acquired through conditioning....I was conditioned differently and so I am questioning and  sceptical, and in my opinion I therefore have a more realistic and open minded approach to the big question. 

Being open minded allows me to consider the possibly lessening importance of humankind (and perhaps even similar kind) in a material universe that is now evolving technologically.....And yes, for the time being we still have a hold of the steering wheel.....but for how long?.....Hence my advice to traditional theists such as yourself, is to perhaps rethink the whole human/god/human-god hypothesis and include the strong possibility of the organic becoming a lessening part  of the purpose equation, and therefore not necessarily the overriding  reason for the instigation, continuation and purpose of everything.

Why anchor yourself resolutely to a 2000year old human centred hypothesis?....Especially when you have no real evidence for it's validity.
#52
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
We created gods in our own image.
In other words this is what humanity has been doing for millennia, pre and post Christianity....Not me in particular.
True, not just you, and Christianity and Judaism point this idol worship out. People substitute their graven images and thoughts for the real God. God's written revelation cleared the misconception of gods as opposed to God for those wanting to deny God by making Him in their own image and likeness rather than the other way around. 

A world view is a world view and we are not discussing a world view.... You are putting forward the idea of a supernatural being that exists in a separate time continuum, this is hardly a world view.
What does a worldview do? It is a way of looking at the world and explaining it though a system of thought, building on core principles that all else follow from. 

The initial question itself, was only referring to the universe, and my thoughts and suggestions only focus on the likelihood of the known universe being purposeful....That purpose could be anything and also does not necessarily have to imply a creator....The necessity of a specific creator is a supposition that you have acquired through conditioning....I was conditioned differently and so I am questioning and  sceptical, and in my opinion I therefore have a more realistic and open minded approach to the big question.
PURPOSE requires mindfulness, consciousness, thinking, reason, intention. Thus, that purpose cannot be anything. It has to be a being that is purposeful. A stone has no purpose. It just is. 

How is chance happenstance more realistic? I have asked to explain this to me a number of times by various questions.

Being open minded allows me to consider the possibly lessening importance of humankind (and perhaps even similar kind) in a material universe that is now evolving technologically.....And yes, for the time being we still have a hold of the steering wheel.....but for how long?.....Hence my advice to traditional theists such as yourself, is to perhaps rethink the whole human/god/human-god hypothesis and include the strong possibility of the organic becoming a lessening part  of the purpose equation, and therefore not necessarily the overriding  reason for the instigation, continuation and purpose of everything.
We all have biases. I believe that where you start guides what you accept. BUT, how does where you start then make sense of origins is the golden question? Can it make sense of these things? My point of contention is that an atheist or agnostic or a worldview that discounts a personal Being cannot make sense of origins of things sufficiently.  


Why anchor yourself resolutely to a 2000year old human centred hypothesis?....Especially when you have no real evidence for it's validity.

I have lots of reasonable evidence from the Bible's contents (internal) and history (external), plus I have what is necessary and sensible to make sense of origins. Not only that but the more I read and study the Bible the more its words, in conjunction with other things, confirm to me the truthfulness of its claims. Hebrews 11:6 is a must in having a relationship with God. That relationship is found through Jesus Christ and what He has done. I spend a lot of time trying to get you guys to explain and justify your belief systems. I do not believe you can because they are not true.  

I anchor myself to this revelation because it does make sense and because through His word, His Spirit, His Son, I have a relationship with God. His word confirms things to my mind about meaning and purpose for and in my life. 
#53
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Well.

An idol is a representation of something unknown....So as an assumed god is something unknown.... Ergo the worship of an assumed god is idol worship.

In the context of universal meaning, purpose is merely the alternative to chance and as such has no prerequisite requirements, you make up prerequisite requirements to suit the purposes of your hypothesis....Which in fairness is the nature of hypothesising.

Acceptance, especially without proof is certainly a bias, whereas open mindedness definitely isn't....  Because I am sceptical of the Christian hypothesis and all it's ritualistic machinations doesn't make me biased....Just sceptical.

So, atheist nor agnostic nor theist can make sense of the origins of things sufficiently, hence the ongoing discussion and unresolved issue.


Finally, how about addressing the subject of technological evolution/development, and how the possibilities that lie therein, fit with the Christian god theory.....For me,  material development fits well with a purpose and a god principle, but less so with the importance of humankind....So what do you think?
#54
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
Well.

An idol is a representation of something unknown....So as an assumed god is something unknown.... Ergo the worship of an assumed god is idol worship.
Then how can you call something "God" if you don't know that it is representative of God? 

The biblical belief is based on a revelation. Its writings claim to be the word of God. If true, and the internal nature of the books that make up the Bible would have correspondence to external pieces of evidence and proof since God as the Creature of all things would truly reveal the true nature of history and events from the beginning.

Thus, the Bible reveals the nature of the said God and it is logically and internally and externally consistent with what we witness and how we understand in making sense of things. 

You have to start someone but if you start with a false core belief it leads you into a system of untrue beliefs. Even though you can borrow from a true belief system the overall content and context of your belief system is foul and corrupt in such cases. Thus, Jesus said that we MUST worship God in spirit and in TRUTH. If you do not worship what is true you have built for yourself an idol, a false foundation. a house of cards that when the wind and waves of opposition blow against such beliefs they crumble and collapse in their foolishness.  

In the context of universal meaning, purpose is merely the alternative to chance and as such has no prerequisite requirements, you make up prerequisite requirements to suit the purposes of your hypothesis....Which in fairness is the nature of hypothesising.
Your thoughts point to relative and are self-defeating. It makes anyone wonder and question why you, a relative, subjective being, holds the answers to anything. You do not have what is necessary to make sense of morality. Something evil can be called good with your system of thought. Such thinking makes a farce of logic, turning it on its head and banging it against the pavement. 

Acceptance, especially without proof is certainly a bias, whereas open mindedness definitely isn't....  Because I am sceptical of the Christian hypothesis and all it's ritualistic machinations doesn't make me biased....Just sceptical.
Open-mindedness is usually another word for a particular kind of bias, a mascarade, a way to manipulate others, a concept that never materializes when it gets pushed into a corner. Then the true bias shines forth. A bias that is based on truth is desired.  

So, atheist nor agnostic nor theist can make sense of the origins of things sufficiently, hence the ongoing discussion and unresolved issue.
Atheists and agnostics do not have what is required to do so, thus they do not have the necessary means of doing so unless they steal from a particular theistic belief system. 

Finally, how about addressing the subject of technological evolution/development, and how the possibilities that lie therein, fit with the Christian god theory.....For me,  material development fits well with a purpose and a god principle, but less so with the importance of humankind....So what do you think?

As conscious beings created in the image and likeness of God, we are capable of using our reasoning to understand His creation and what He expects of us. The universe declares His glory, majesty, ability, and power. We use our God-given minds to improve and enhance our existence and at the same time when we ignore God, we use relativism to deconstruct what He has made self-evident to us in our rebellion. 

His written word has given us principles of morality to live by that are good and pleasing to Him. One of those principles is equality, as noted by your founding fathers. They did not say, "All men are evolved equally," or "all men are evolving to be equal." That is not the case. We witness around us every day what happens when humans live a life outside of the principles God has given for us to live WISELY. We see our inhumanity and devaluing, discriminating, and dehumanizing our fellow humans because we are in rebellion to God's ways. We prefer to live with our own revolving and evolving, shifting principles that are not self-evident but selfish and destructive.