Scientific Argument for a Creator?

[carlosMM]

There cannot be any evidence for God, but you can look at he evidence and make sure that it fits into your theory about God, rather than clash with it.

shouldn't it be the other way round? Shape your view of god (if any) so it fits the evidence?

I'm not making an educated guess. I am making a guess, and I am trying to confirm that it is a sensible one. Sensible doesn't mean supported by evidence, it means that it makes sense.

WHAT sense???? How do you DEFINE sense?

What I am driving at all the time is that you say the coming-inot-existence of the uiverse supports the view that a god exists - when in reality it supports neither that nor the opposite.

Oh, yes, the myth of the march of science, progressing onward and in every battle smashing the darkness and mystery of the priests, destroying their instruments of delusion! Oh, you romantic, I hope your light of truth keeps on shining and destroying every bastion of manmade gods!

doh, you know I do not believe in that BS. nice strawman, read my post again. I was replying to a specific point you made.

Because, you get to the end, and nothing is there.

We don't know.

You must jump to something.

Hu? Who makes you?

You jump to disbelief, and insistence on hard facts, and you find you never reach the finish.

What is the problem with that? I also jump to disbelief if someone says there's grMfM (giant radioactive Monkeys from Mars). And i reacht eh conclusion that there is no evidence for them.[@uote] You find that this is the end, if you insist upon that. I decide, being so close to the finish, I must leap. [/QUOTE] BS, I never said I INSIST on this being the end - who knows what science will find?

What pisses me off is the insistence that we msut jump and start believing in something - there's usually an agenda behind this (not necessarily behind YOUR saying this though).

 

[cgannon64]

shouldn't it be the other way round? Shape your view of god (if any) so it fits the evidence?

You're reversing the order but it means to the same thing. To alter your view of God so it fits the evidence is the same as to shape it so it fits the evidence. The only difference is whether you come into it with a belief in God (as I did), or without one (as you did).

WHAT sense???? How do you DEFINE sense?

Something that is sensible is beleivable, and plausible, to the beleiver.

What I am driving at all the time is that you say the coming-inot-existence of the uiverse supports the view that a god exists - when in reality it supports neither that nor the opposite.

I suppose you can say that it supports neither. But if you already beleive in God, and you are searching for justifications, it fits in quite nicely.

doh, you know I do not believe in that BS. nice strawman, read my post again. I was replying to a specific point you made.

I know, I just felt like speaking like that. I was hoping the made that evident.

What pisses me off is the insistence that we msut jump and start believing in something - there's usually an agenda behind this (not necessarily behind YOUR saying this though).

I insist that you jump and begin to beleive in something - even a theory for creation that does not involve god - because your philosophy is incomplete if you do not. If you beleive in God without evidence, or a wonderful scientific theory without evidence, they are both the same; they are both complete.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The Chinese idea of the universe encompasses everything - heaven and earth. Being and not being are all part of the Chinese idea of the universe. There is no concept of being "outside". Note this idea is flexible enough to encompass multiple universes as can be seen from other Taoist writings so it is not saying there is only one universe. Just that it is all part of the Tao. Multiple realities, multiple universes are all part of the Tao.

I always love it when some else rolls in with the eastern religions. Thanks.Within what is Real (that which is eternal, infinite, unchanging and permanent) by whatever name you call it (god, Tao, energy essence, oversoul, or pink teacup etc.) you have both being and non being and since all finite "systems" like laws of physics and matter are contained within this fundamental existence, multiple universes could be true. The "creator" in this case, is really the source and the process of creation the topic for discussion. Was it willful? Spontaneous? chance?

As I have said before, by most people's definition of god, he/it dwells outside of the universe and its laws, and therefore science cannot prove or disprove his existence.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I suppose you can say that it supports neither. But if you already beleive in God, and you are searching for justifications, it fits in quite nicely.

We all look to find evidence that supports our beliefs. We feel more secure if we can point to some "fact" that corroborates what we "know" but cannot prove. In these cases the belief comes first then we look for evidence so it appears that our belief has some basis in reality, when in most cases it doesn't. We believe it, plain and simple. That's why fundamentalists draw so heavily on the inerrant bible; That's why racists find data to support the "fact" that other races are inferior. That's why the logic and reasoning crowd come down so heavily on the theists. Western society makes us uncomfortable if we claim our beliefs are based on faith and not something tangible. It is apparently not enough to say "I believe in jesus", we have to add "because...."

 

[cgannon64]

We all look to find evidence that supports our beliefs. We feel more secure if we can point to some "fact" that corroborates what we "know" but cannot prove. In these cases the belief comes first then we look for evidence so it appears that our belief has some basis in reality, when in most cases it doesn't. We believe it, plain and simple. That's why fundamentalists draw so heavily on the inerrant bible; That's why racists find data to support the "fact" that other races are inferior. That's why the logic and reasoning crowd come down so heavily on the theists. Western society makes us uncomfortable if we claim our beliefs are based on faith and not something tangible. It is apparently not enough to say "I believe in jesus", we have to add "because...."

You're right, but the difference between me and those fundamentalists is that I accept that the evidence is not integral, and it is not definitive. When I look to scientific facts to see if they support God, it is essientially a fanciful experiment. Its just something to make me smile and say "cool", and move on. But the fundamentalists take their one fact and act as if that is all they need - that it is better than faith.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You're right, but the difference between me and those fundamentalists is that I accept that the evidence is not integral, and it is not definitive. When I look to scientific facts to see if they support God, it is essientially a fanciful experiment. Its just something to make me smile and say "cool", and move on. But the fundamentalists take their one fact and act as if that is all they need - that it is better than faith.

Three cheers for the good guys.

 

[carlosMM]

Something that is sensible is beleivable, and plausible, to the beleiver.

at the risk of boring you - we can't say what is plausible at all!

I suppose you can say that it supports neither. But if you already beleive in God, and you are searching for justifications, it fits in quite nicely.

as we don't know what is plausbile, anything will fit or not fit.

I insist that you jump and begin to beleive in something - even a theory for creation that does not involve god - because your philosophy is incomplete if you do not. If you beleive in God without evidence, or a wonderful scientific theory without evidence, they are both the same; they are both complete.

well I do NOT believe in scientific theories without evidence. Moot point then.

 

[ybbor]

at the risk of boring you - we can't say what is plausible at all!

as we don't know what is plausbile, anything will fit or not fit.

so any thing we observe has no merit? and if you don't believe we can say what is plausible, then evolution cannot be plausible

 

[Perfection]

so any thing we observe has no merit? and if you don't believe we can say what is plausible, then evolution cannot be plausible

He's refering to cases where we have no means of testible observation. Evolution has testible observations.

 

[carlosMM]

so any thing we observe has no merit? and if you don't believe we can say what is plausible, then evolution cannot be plausible

please read what cgannon and I were discussing!

Nothing is plausible in this specific situation - remember we were discussing what was... well, before is the wrong word, but before time, matter, energy.

my point is that given the current knowledge about what things were like then we can't say what is a plausible theory. We do NOT have any oberservation fot that (as opposed to most things afterwards, where we do have observaitons, direct or indirect, and can very well judge plausibility.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

To sum up the atheists:

God must have been created by a more complex god

Um, part of the definition of God is that He is the original Creator. Alpha and Omega. Who was before all things. He created the universe, nobody created Him. Got that?

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

I find all this discussion mildly amusing, but I go back to my original comment:

Faith: firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof. Why try to redefine it? You either have it or not, whether it is faith in God or faith there is no god.

 

[carlosMM]

To sum up the atheists:

Um, part of the definition of God is that He is the original Creator. Alpha and Omega. Who was before all things. He created the universe, nobody created Him. Got that?

hehe, how?

 

[ybbor]

hehe, how?

how did the ball of amtter that was the big bang come into being? it didn't? it always was? Huh, Kinda like God...

 

[Perfection]

To sum up the atheists:

Um, part of the definition of God is that He is the original Creator. Alpha and Omega. Who was before all things. He created the universe, nobody created Him. Got that?

It's not that your idea is internally inconsistant, but to claim that negates the arguement that complex things require a creator.

 

[Blasphemous]

how did the ball of amtter that was the big bang come into being? it didn't? it always was? Huh, Kinda like God...

Nobody knows how it came into being. But I'd still rather say that there just was a first cause and from there everything unfolds, rather than saying that your god guy came into being and then did all kinds of stuff and that he cares about us and is intelligent. It's just more logical that there simply was a primary cause and then everything else followed.

 

[Perfection]

how did the ball of amtter that was the big bang come into being? it didn't? it always was? Huh, Kinda like God...

Well, assuming the big bang was the start of time then time before it would be as meaningless as temperatures below absolute zero. Cuasality broken at this point and there would be no inherent cause.

 

[cgannon64]

It's not that your idea is internally inconsistant, but to claim that negates the arguement that complex things require a creator.

Complex physical things require a creator, yes.

Part of the idea of God is that he is non-physical. And why would something that is non-physical need a creator?

 

[carlosMM]

Complex physical things require a creator, yes.

Part of the idea of God is that he is non-physical. And why would something that is non-physical need a creator?

indeed, and as the entire universe was non-physical before there was the stuff of physcics: time, matter, energy - why does it need a creator?

 

[Birdjaguar]

indeed, and as the entire universe was non-physical before there was the stuff of physcics: time, matter, energy - why does it need a creator?

There was no universe prior to its creation. Without time matter and energy there is no unverse (as we know it). Perhaps all that non physical "stuff" (hmmm....can "stuff" be non physical?) is god and hence eternal, infinite, unchanging and permanent. The universe is merely an expression of that underlying Reality.