Posts by unsure

56

"There is evidence of a Creator if you just look for it"

by unsure in

(for the record, i’m agnostic who is earnestly seeking an objective, honest and concrete hope for something greater).

“there is evidence of a creator if you just look for it”.

many of us have heard similar sentences from believers regarding proof of creator, proof that their religion is the correct one, proof that their particular sect is the right one, proof that their individual sects interpretation of a certain religious text is the right one, proof that their own personal interpretation of a certain religious text is the right one; the list goes on.. in one of my previous posts, i shared the following thought of mine:.

unsure

Evolution is the easy part, I firmly believe in that mechanism. the harder one is abiogenesis, the start of life, the appearance of matter, a form of energy, the laws that govern nature, the enigma of eternal time. your comment shows you have too narrow a view of creation, which is at least 4 times older than evolution's start
-----------------------------------
but that is exactly how Einstein thought about it, in his fruitful thought experiments, trying in a kind of mental game to pry the secrets of creation, the conversion of energy into matter, the time conundrum from the "lord" ,-- by way of dealing with the creation left behind by the creator. Albert must have felt it was set up like that: Here it is ;--use it,-- admire it, --work to find out my characteristics as expressed in my works.

@waton

Notice how I say "Many would say" or "those arguing for evolution would say". I am not speaking from my "too narrow view of creation" and for that matter I don't think evolutionists are either; they are very well educated and have explored both sides of the argument. I am speaking on the arguments presented by those who are exponentially more knowledgeable on the subject than I will ever be. I entertain arguments BOTH in favour of creation and against creation. To not do so would be intellectually dishonest with myself. My view of Creation is anything but narrow.

Einstein was at most agnostic (many would say atheist)

"According to Richard Dawkins, the gifted exponent of evolution, Einstein was an atheist: “Einstein sometimes invoked the name of God, and he is not the only atheistic scientist to do so, inviting misunderstanding by supernaturalists eager to misunderstand and claim the illustrious thinker as their own.”"

http://www.bethinking.org/god/did-einstein-believe-in-god

Instead, this deity (if it were rational) would simply create us with an innate belief in a creator deity along with a need to worship It which, coincidentally or not, is exactly the way most people are. The vast majority of human beings on this planet believe in some sort of creator God, whether they are monotheists, polytheists or animists. Atheists may have always existed too, but they have been an extremely small minority until recently.

@Rainbow_Troll

This "innate belief in a creator deity" does not prove anything if I'm being honest with myself.

At one time most of humanity believed that the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat. This did not make it true.

56

"There is evidence of a Creator if you just look for it"

by unsure in

(for the record, i’m agnostic who is earnestly seeking an objective, honest and concrete hope for something greater).

“there is evidence of a creator if you just look for it”.

many of us have heard similar sentences from believers regarding proof of creator, proof that their religion is the correct one, proof that their particular sect is the right one, proof that their individual sects interpretation of a certain religious text is the right one, proof that their own personal interpretation of a certain religious text is the right one; the list goes on.. in one of my previous posts, i shared the following thought of mine:.

unsure

Thanks everybody for the posts; keep them coming. If I don't respond to you directly I am still very appreciative of your contributions to this thread and will give a "like" to posts I agree with.

this statement shows you have *consciousness* and *cognitive ability* superior to animals of like body and functions. This (cognitive ability) is an *image of a creative mind* in function. Any ideas how thoughts are formed ?

Thank you for the answer but that doesn't cut it. Those arguing for evolution would say that our brains are more evolved then other creatures. As well, science is showing more and more "cognitive ability" in animals through many studies such as performing CT scans on dogs which shows "striking similarities between dogs and humans".

https://www.wired.com/2014/02/dog-brains-vocal-processing/

In terms of how thoughts are formed:

"They’re really just electro-chemical reactions—but the number and complexity of these reactions make them hard to fully understand…"

http://engineering.mit.edu/ask/what-are-thoughts-made

In regards to "make them hard to fully understand", this does not concretely point to a creator either. It could be that the science or tools to understand the more complex points are not there yet or it is currently being studied.

It is very hard to miss seeing creation, usually the sign of accomplished work, the doings of a creator, unless you believe that the universe created itself. Observe how creation works

Thank you for your post, however this is your subjective view and does not cut it. Many would say evolution is an accepted fact among the scientific community and even among many believers who see the overwhelming evidence for evolution and who do not take creation stories in religious texts literally.

-----------

When reading the quotes above in favour of evidence for a Creator, I think "Hmmm yes that could very well be" but if I'm being honest with myself their are many completely valid and provable points that do not include the need for a Creator.

This is what I'm referring to HONESTLY and OBJECTIVELY look at every argument for or against a Creator. I can't lie to myself.

56

"There is evidence of a Creator if you just look for it"

by unsure in

(for the record, i’m agnostic who is earnestly seeking an objective, honest and concrete hope for something greater).

“there is evidence of a creator if you just look for it”.

many of us have heard similar sentences from believers regarding proof of creator, proof that their religion is the correct one, proof that their particular sect is the right one, proof that their individual sects interpretation of a certain religious text is the right one, proof that their own personal interpretation of a certain religious text is the right one; the list goes on.. in one of my previous posts, i shared the following thought of mine:.

unsure

(For the record, I’m agnostic who is earnestly seeking an objective, honest and concrete hope for something greater)

“There is evidence of a Creator if you just look for it”

Many of us have heard similar sentences from believers regarding proof of Creator, proof that their religion is the correct one, proof that their particular sect is the right one, proof that their individual sects interpretation of a certain religious text is the right one, proof that their own personal interpretation of a certain religious text is the right one; the list goes on.

In one of my previous posts, I shared the following thought of mine:

What I find exhausting and disheartening is that even if intelligent design was proven, the very next forum post would be about who's intelligent designer is the true Creator.

If a new electronic device was released and users from around the world interpreted the manual differently and had to debate others to get their personal opinions on how to operate this device, would the manual be very effective? Why would the manufacturers release a product and manual that could be interpreted differently?

Why are there so many religions? Why are there so many denominations within each?

Why does it have to be this complicated?

I want to add to my thoughts above:

Many around the world expend all their mental, emotional and physical energies in just finding what their next meal will be (on top of what is described below for those of us who are more fortunate).

Many of us who are fortunate enough to live in relative comfort still struggle with mental, emotional and physical ailments and limitations where just keeping afloat from the depths of depression and physical challenges is enough to rob us of all our mental, emotional and physical energies.

Many around the world have just enough in them to survive, let alone live a proper life.

Therefore, many around the world do not have the ability to objectively and honestly look for this undeniable, irrefutable proof of a Creator, every point and minute detail presented as evidence for intelligent design (and every point made in argument against evolution), let alone which Creator is the right one, which religion this Creator favours, which sect within that religion this Creator favours, which translation of the religious text of that particular sect of that particular religion this Creator favours or is the right one, what meaning or interpretation of a particular verse in the religious text of the particular sect within the particular religion this Creator favors or is the right one, what meaning or interpretation of a particular word in that particular verse in that particular religious text of that particular sect within that particular religion is the right one, taking into consideration translations across modern languages and ancient languages these texts are derived from; the list goes on. There is also the fact that many around the world are born into areas that favor a certain faith or opinion and may never really come across anything else, and even if they did, may not have the capacity/means/resources to study it.

Even if we all lived within the average human life expectancy and had all the physical, mental, emotional, economical, scholarly/educational time and resources on our sides to spend every waking moment in our search for Creator, we would still not be able to TRULY, HONESTLY and OBJECTIVELY look at every argument for or against a Creator.

Again, it is exhausting and disheartening.

In the end, it is about faith.

Even Mother Teresa doubted her faith (see below):

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-teresa-letters-idUSN2435506020070824

If there is a personal Creator who loves us and wants our salvation, why is it this complicated?

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

unsure

@towerwatchman

Respectfully, you are copying and pasting again and not addressing all my points.

Either you have over extended yourself by starting and replying to multiple topics and therefore only have time to copy and paste or you are trolling me.

Have you ever thought that by doing the above you are doing more to push people away from the notion of God rather than help bring them towards God. You prophess belief in Jesus but instead of emulating his way of teaching, drawing the downtrodden to a greater hope, you are doing the opposite and pushing them away with your lack of humility and genuine effort. You have done this with me.

I will no longer be replying to this post, not because you have genuinely answered my question but because you have pushed me away by ignoring many of my earnest questions and copying and pasting the same explanations which I've stated were confusing me.

Jesus was the epitome of humbleness, humility and care but it has become apparent that you do not extend those same qualities to me or others on these forums.

I remain agnostic but will continue seeking God and pray for you so you may draw others with honey instead of vivegar, so that if God is real, you will work along with his will instead of against it.

All the best.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

unsure

For if it had a beginning it had to have a cause. Ignoring that fact is equivalent to placing our heads in the sand.

Nobody is disputing that the universe had a beginning. I am not disputing that the universe had a beginning. I only asked that you do not use it as an argument because it is not proof that God created the universe.

If the cause was timeless and non-cognitive the effect should be timeless also. But it is not. The only explanation of how a timeless cause brought about a temporal effect was that the timeless cause chose to bring about a temporal effect. Otherwise we [the effect] should be timeless also.

You've repeated this a few times in response to me. Each time I ask what what cognition has to do with it but you repeat the same thing that caused the confusion in the first place.

I'll ask you again; How does the cause being personal explain how a timeless cause can bring about a temporal effect? How does cognition make a difference as opposed to a non-cognitive parallel universe (which may have spawned ours)? PLEASE do not copy and paste the same response, please rephrase.

I have looked into parallel universes. I believe in reading both sides of the issue. Most of it is speculation. Taking a fact and then building on it.

Since we are re-pasting: Scientists have as much proof of parallel universes (please google it) as creationists have of the existence of God if we are being fair. Yes some may argue against it, just like many argue against the existence of God.

In a previous post you described parallel universes as all speculation and metaphysics when others use this same argument against the existence of a God. God is described as being beyond our universe, therefor metaphysical, and belief in him/her is "speculation" (plus even further speculation of which God is the right one). Faith is speculation.

Do you not see the irony in YOU arguing against parallel universes describing them as "speculation" and "metaphysics" when belief in God is described in the EXACT same way?

There is enough evidence for the existence of God.

Respectfully, there is not (and this is coming from person with agnostic, not atheist viewpoints.)

If I were to agree with all your arguments and agree that there is an intelligent designer, what evidence is there to say that this is God? What evidence is there to say that it is God that created the universe and not a group of advanced, cognitive inter-dimensional beings who reside in another universe who had the power to create our universe? Who's to say our universe is not a simulation created by some other advanced alien being? Please google simulation theory and please do not respond saying it is all "speculation" and "metaphysics" without agreeing that belief in God is all "speculation" and "metaphysics".

You are not clearly explaining what cognition has to do with it. Please do not repeat the same response as last time as it is not helping me.

I'll ask again: How does the cause being personal explain how a timeless cause can bring about a temporal effect? How does cognition make a difference as opposed to a non-cognitive parallel universe (which may have spawned ours)?

What I find exhausting and disheartening is that even if intelligent design was proven, the very next forum post would be about who's intelligent designer is the true God.

If a new electronic device was released and users from around the world interpreted the manual differently and had to debate others to get their personal opinions on how to operate this device, would the manual be very effective? Why would the manufacturers release a product and manual that could be interpreted differently?

Why are there so many religions? Why are there so many denominations within each?

Why does it have to be this complicated?

Please address all my points above.

EDIT:

True no one can point directly to God as the first cause. That is the logical conclusion based on the facts. Like it or not, the universe having a beginning is huge in the discussion. For if it had a beginning it had to have a cause.

Please note that much of the wording in your responses is very confusing. Take the first two sentences above.

In the first you agree that no one can point directly to God as the first cause but in the next sentence it seems you are arguing for being able to point directly to God as the first cause because of a logical conclusion based on the facts. Sorry, which is it?

I think many that respond to you are genuinely seeking answers but your responses are lacking.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

unsure

Notice if the parallel is the cause and our universe is the effect, and we have the effect, where is the cause [parallel universe]. No one can point to it

No one can point to God with concrete evidence can they? If so, what is this evidence? (please do not include evolution being an impossibility as evidence EDIT: or the fact that our universe had a beginning)

The cause being personal not the effect. The cause being personal explains how a timeless cause can bring about a temporal effect. The universe coming into existence is the choice the timeless cause made. If the cause is timeless and impersonal the effect should be also. And that is not what we find.

(Sorry, yes I mixed them up.)

How does the cause being personal explain how a timeless cause can bring about a temporal effect? How does cognition make a difference as opposed to a non-cognitive parallel universe (which may have spawned ours)?

We do not have proof of any parallel universe.

Scientists have as much proof of parallel universes (please google it) as creationists have of the existence of God if we are being fair. Yes some may argue against it, just like many argue against the existence of God.

In a previous post you described parallel universes as all speculation and metaphysics when others use this same argument against the existence of a God. God is described as being beyond our universe, therefor metaphysical, and belief in him/her is "speculation" (plus even further speculation of which God is the right one)

I created this account specifically to post in this thread (EDIT: after being a long time lurker) and ask genuine questions because I thought the OP was on to something, but I leave as doubtful as I came in. I was hoping to find the "aha!" moment to base my hope in something greater but if I'm being honest with myself I have not found it, not because I have not tried or because I don't want to find it.

I remain agnostic.

I do appreciate your effort in responding to me.

EDIT:

As I posted in your other thread, What I find exhausting and disheartening is that even if intelligent design was proven, the very next forum post would be about who's intelligent designer is the true God.

Why does it have to be this complicated?

I will continue to pray and hope that God reveals himself/herself to me.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

unsure

If the cause is timeless and non-cognitive then the effect should be timeless also.
Why must it be personal?
It is the only way to explain how a timeless cause can produce a temporal effect with a beginning like the universe.

I proposed that the parallel universe that (could have) spawned ours followed a different set of physical laws and could have not had a beginning and was always there just like God has always there; so this parallel universe would be timeless just like God.

Why is the "effect" being personal the only way to explain this? How is the "effect" being personal the only way to explain this?

The only difference between what I'm proposing vs what you are proposing is cognition. I'm failing to see why cognition is a factor.

I do not believe you have answered this.

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

unsure

Again for the record, I'm agnostic.

What I find exhausting and disheartening is that even if intelligent design was proven, the very next forum post would be about who's intelligent designer is the true God.

Why does it have to be this complicated?

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

unsure

Now the cause of the universe is permanently there [parallel universe], since it is timeless. So why isn't the universe [our] permanently there as well, why did the universe [our] come into being only billions years ago, why isn't it as permanent as its cause [parallel universe]?
In other words if the cause is there [us] why is the effect not there also [parallel universe]? If the effect is eternal [parallel universe] why is the cause not eternal [us]?

You can substitute [God] in place of [parallel universe] in most cases in your quote above.

I will make that substitution and ask you; if the cause is there [us] why is the effect not there also [God]? If the effect is eternal [God] why is the cause not eternal [us]?

The only difference between what I'm proposing vs what you are proposing is congnition. I'm failing to see why cognition is a factor.

I'm genuinely interested in understanding this because I want to believe but as long as there are other plausible answers, I will remain unsure.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

unsure

@towerwatchman

If I understand correctly in the scope of your post, you define a "timeless cause" as God and a "temporal effect" our universe, correct?

It is the only way to explain how a timeless cause can produce a temporal effect with a beginning like the universe.
Here is the problem. If the cause was non cognitive and sufficient to produce the effect then if the cause is there the affect must be there also.
Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn't the universe permanently there as well, why did the universe come into being only billions years ago, why isn't it as permanent as its cause?

Sorry but you lost me there. Could you rephrase?

I'm proposing (based on current scientific theory) that our universe could have spawned from another universe. This "other universe" could have laws of physics unlike our own (a.k.a metaphysics), and this universe could have always existed, two qualities that you used to describe God. Just because our universe had a beginning, why does a parallel universe with different laws have to follow the same rules of having a beginning?

If you agree that God never had a beginning and that God is metaphysical, how is that any different than what I am proposing?