Bull Ring Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator. ding vs Soupnazi630

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

The obvious answer is that anything tangible CAN be used as evidence.

Yeap..it CAN be used sure...now where is your evidence?

 

[ding]

The obvious answer is that anything tangible CAN be used as evidence.

Yeap..it CAN be used sure...now where is your evidence?

Thank you. Now let's move to step #2. Mind you this step is not intended to prove that God exists. It is intended to prove that if God does exist and did intend to create beings that know and create through natural processes that his creation would in fact be evidence of his existence.

Think of it this way, you die and meet your maker and you tell him that he didn't give you any evidence to believe in his existence and he responds I gave you creation as evidence for my existence, are you going to argue with the "being" that created space and time?

The point of this step is to open your mind to the possibility. Think of it as Paschal's wager if you like.

If you can agree to this, we can move to the discussion you have wanted to have all along. Fair enough?

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Think of it this way, you die and meet your maker and you tell him that he didn't give you any evidence to believe in his existence and he responds I gave you creation as evidence for my existence, are you going to argue with the "being" that created space and time?

Yes..because if he did create me he also created the aspect which REQUIRES me to process the world around me analytically. How could an omniscient being expect me to stop thinking on one subject? Then penalize me for it? No.

The point of this step is to open your mind to the possibility. Think of it as Paschal's wager if you like.

If you can agree to this, we can move to the discussion you have wanted to have all along. Fair enough?

Ok, sure, why not. I'm an open book.

 

[ding]

Think of it this way, you die and meet your maker and you tell him that he didn't give you any evidence to believe in his existence and he responds I gave you creation as evidence for my existence, are you going to argue with the "being" that created space and time?

Yes..because if he did create me he also created the aspect which REQUIRES me to process the world around me analytically. How could an omniscient being expect me to stop thinking on one subject? Then penalize me for it? No.

No one said anything about being penalized. That is you making an assumption.

Why wouldn't you assume the error was yours and not his?

Why wouldn't you assume he had a reason for doing it the way he did?

Are you telling me that if you met your maker you wouldn't try to understand where you went wrong and why it was the way it was? I mean after all, you would have the proof you were looking for right in front of you, right? Why wouldn't you try to understand the reason for why you failed to see his existence in what he created? And the reason behind his methods?

 

[ding]

The point of this step is to open your mind to the possibility. Think of it as Paschal's wager if you like.

If you can agree to this, we can move to the discussion you have wanted to have all along. Fair enough?

Ok, sure, why not. I'm an open book.

Thank you, but I am not convinced you are an open book because you just admitted that even if you were confronted with God's existence, you would still deny your error and question his methods.

But I am happy enough to go on with the discussion.

 

[ding]

So let's examine the evidence.

1. We live in a deterministic universe governed by rules.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

So you are saying that you would be right and he would be wrong?

Yes...logically speaking...would you disagree? Since he would have created logical thought...it would only stand to reason.

Why wouldn't you assume the error was yours and not his?

Refer to first response

Why wouldn't you assume he had a reason for doing it the way he did?

Because assumption of the unknown often leads to failure. It does not stand to reason for me. Further, if a god created me then it would understand me perfectly and could predict my response. Therefore if he chastised me for not believing then he should probably look inward...however he wouldn't need to look inward because he also created and perfectly understands introspection.
You see the omniscience game works both ways. When a being is omniscient there is nothing to chance.

Are you telling me that if you met your maker you wouldn't try to understand where you went wrong and why it was the way it was?

No...I would be confused for the afore reasons. Plus I would be a bit annoyed that I was being questioned by a being who knows everything already. It's kinda like talking to your cat...not even a cat...a houseplant...this is omniscience we are talking here.

I mean after all, you would have the proof you were looking for right in front of you, right?

Yeap.

Why wouldn't you try to understand the reason for why you failed to see his existence in what he created? And the reason behind his methods?

Aforementioned.

 

[ding]

So you are saying that you would be right and he would be wrong?

Yes...logically speaking...would you disagree? Since he would have created logical thought...it would only stand to reason.

Why wouldn't you assume the error was yours and not his?

Refer to first response

Why wouldn't you assume he had a reason for doing it the way he did?

Because assumption of the unknown often leads to failure. It does not stand to reason for me. Further, if a god created me then it would understand me perfectly and could predict my response. Therefore if he chastised me for not believing then he should probably look inward...however he wouldn't need to look inward because he also created and perfectly understands introspection.
You see the omniscience game works both ways. When a being is omniscient there is nothing to chance.

Are you telling me that if you met your maker you wouldn't try to understand where you went wrong and why it was the way it was?

No...I would be confused for the afore reasons. Plus I would be a bit annoyed that I was being questioned by a being who knows everything already. It's kinda like talking to your cat...not even a cat...a houseplant...this is omniscience we are talking here.

I mean after all, you would have the proof you were looking for right in front of you, right?

Yeap.

Why wouldn't you try to understand the reason for why you failed to see his existence in what he created? And the reason behind his methods?

Aforementioned.

In this hypothetical scenario, the fact that he did exist and did create space and time and the laws of nature which predestined beings that know and create, logic would dictate that YOUR logical thought that he could not be proven to exist by observation and logic would be wrong.

Which means that it would be illogical for you to not try to understand your error.

But in this case you were presented with evidence that proved you were wrong so the assumption would only be about something you knew was wrong and it would be illogical not to try to understand your error.

No one has said anything about you being chastised. Only that you were proven wrong.

You would be upset because he didn't do things the way you would have done? You wouldn't be curious why he did things the way he did?

 

[ding]

So let's examine the evidence.

1. We live in a deterministic universe governed by rules.

Right or wrong?

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

So you are saying that you would be right and he would be wrong?

Yes...logically speaking...would you disagree? Since he would have created logical thought...it would only stand to reason.

Why wouldn't you assume the error was yours and not his?

Refer to first response

Why wouldn't you assume he had a reason for doing it the way he did?

Because assumption of the unknown often leads to failure. It does not stand to reason for me. Further, if a god created me then it would understand me perfectly and could predict my response. Therefore if he chastised me for not believing then he should probably look inward...however he wouldn't need to look inward because he also created and perfectly understands introspection.
You see the omniscience game works both ways. When a being is omniscient there is nothing to chance.

Are you telling me that if you met your maker you wouldn't try to understand where you went wrong and why it was the way it was?

No...I would be confused for the afore reasons. Plus I would be a bit annoyed that I was being questioned by a being who knows everything already. It's kinda like talking to your cat...not even a cat...a houseplant...this is omniscience we are talking here.

I mean after all, you would have the proof you were looking for right in front of you, right?

Yeap.

Why wouldn't you try to understand the reason for why you failed to see his existence in what he created? And the reason behind his methods?

Aforementioned.

In this hypothetical scenario, the fact that he did exist and did create space and time and the laws of nature which predestined beings that know and create, logic would dictate that YOUR logical thought that he could not be proven to exist by observation and logic would be wrong.

Which means that it would be illogical for you to not try to understand your error.

But in this case you were presented with evidence that proved you were wrong so the assumption would only be about something you knew was wrong and it would be illogical not to try to understand your error.

No one has said anything about you being chastised. Only that you were proven wrong.

You would be upset because he didn't do things the way you would have done? You wouldn't be curious why he did things the way he did?

Well if I were given the ability in this scenario to know of an all knowing beings existence then of course I would follow it.
I would not question it and I would do exactly what it said. To do contrary would be ridiculous.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

So let's examine the evidence.

1. We live in a deterministic universe governed by rules.

Right or wrong?

Wrong...scientifically we dont even know what kind of universe we live in. We have laws but even scientific laws can be disproved as they have in the past.
I like to think we live in a physical, causal universe but then science tells us that even this is not so. We however certainly DO NOT live in a deterministic universe.

You know what...for sake of brevity and simplicity...I will agree. We live in a physical world of cause and effect...sure. Those things that I can observe in my world are the result of cause and effect. Yes.

 

[ding]

So let's examine the evidence.

1. We live in a deterministic universe governed by rules.

Right or wrong?

Wrong...scientifically we dont even know what kind of universe we live in. We have laws but even scientific laws can be disproved as they have in the past.
I like to think we live in a physical, causal universe but then science tells us that even this is not so. We however certainly DO NOT live in a deterministic universe.

You know what...for sake of brevity and simplicity...I will agree. We live in a physical world of cause and effect...sure. Those things that I can observe in my world are the result of cause and effect. Yes.

2. We live in a universe where everything happens for a reason according to the rules that govern nature.

Right or wrong?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do we build roads unintentionally?

No...but we make mistakes during the construction of those roads. Those mistakes lead to results which are unintended. Take the pedestrian bridge collapse in Florida for example...cracks formed in the foundation, which led to the collapse of the structure. Those were intentional? Of course they were not. What did we get as a result? A pile of rubble instead of a footbridge, with people under it. There was a creator and the results of that creation were unintentional.
What would be your response with regard to an all knowing creator and that incident? God made the cracks instead of stress? God caused the bridge to collapse into it's own footprint? God placed those people under that bridge?

My response would be that I am only trying to establish that things that are created can be used as evidence. This applies to things that are created intentionally or unintentionally and to perfect creations and imperfect creations. You are trying to skip this step and go straight to the third step which is discussing what this evidence tells us. That's not how a logical systematic process works.

Well I've already discussed this.

You don't know if these things even exist in the manner that you believe they exist.

What is the universe? Until you can answer that question, how are you supposed to know whether the stuff in it is what you think it is.

It's like saying we have this box. We're not sure if the box is a refrigerator, a cupboard, a cardboard box or what.

Inside the box is some stuff, we're not sure what's in the box either. We think we know what the box is, we think we know what's in the box, but we can't tell because we're inside the box, and the box is dark inside.

Until we can see the box from the outside, and open the door and turn the light on, we're not going to know what the box is, or what's in the box to know whether we can use this stuff for evidence.

 

[ding]

Do we build roads unintentionally?

No...but we make mistakes during the construction of those roads. Those mistakes lead to results which are unintended. Take the pedestrian bridge collapse in Florida for example...cracks formed in the foundation, which led to the collapse of the structure. Those were intentional? Of course they were not. What did we get as a result? A pile of rubble instead of a footbridge, with people under it. There was a creator and the results of that creation were unintentional.
What would be your response with regard to an all knowing creator and that incident? God made the cracks instead of stress? God caused the bridge to collapse into it's own footprint? God placed those people under that bridge?

My response would be that I am only trying to establish that things that are created can be used as evidence. This applies to things that are created intentionally or unintentionally and to perfect creations and imperfect creations. You are trying to skip this step and go straight to the third step which is discussing what this evidence tells us. That's not how a logical systematic process works.

Well I've already discussed this.

You don't know if these things even exist in the manner that you believe they exist.

What is the universe? Until you can answer that question, how are you supposed to know whether the stuff in it is what you think it is.

It's like saying we have this box. We're not sure if the box is a refrigerator, a cupboard, a cardboard box or what.

Inside the box is some stuff, we're not sure what's in the box either. We think we know what the box is, we think we know what's in the box, but we can't tell because we're inside the box, and the box is dark inside.

Until we can see the box from the outside, and open the door and turn the light on, we're not going to know what the box is, or what's in the box to know whether we can use this stuff for evidence.

I am examining the evidence before us which is the step one logically makes before forming an opinion.

2. We live in a universe where everything happens for a reason according to the rules that govern nature.

Right or wrong?

 

[ding]

There is still a lot more to go. Right now I am stating self evident facts which can logically be proven.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do we build roads unintentionally?

No...but we make mistakes during the construction of those roads. Those mistakes lead to results which are unintended. Take the pedestrian bridge collapse in Florida for example...cracks formed in the foundation, which led to the collapse of the structure. Those were intentional? Of course they were not. What did we get as a result? A pile of rubble instead of a footbridge, with people under it. There was a creator and the results of that creation were unintentional.
What would be your response with regard to an all knowing creator and that incident? God made the cracks instead of stress? God caused the bridge to collapse into it's own footprint? God placed those people under that bridge?

My response would be that I am only trying to establish that things that are created can be used as evidence. This applies to things that are created intentionally or unintentionally and to perfect creations and imperfect creations. You are trying to skip this step and go straight to the third step which is discussing what this evidence tells us. That's not how a logical systematic process works.

Well I've already discussed this.

You don't know if these things even exist in the manner that you believe they exist.

What is the universe? Until you can answer that question, how are you supposed to know whether the stuff in it is what you think it is.

It's like saying we have this box. We're not sure if the box is a refrigerator, a cupboard, a cardboard box or what.

Inside the box is some stuff, we're not sure what's in the box either. We think we know what the box is, we think we know what's in the box, but we can't tell because we're inside the box, and the box is dark inside.

Until we can see the box from the outside, and open the door and turn the light on, we're not going to know what the box is, or what's in the box to know whether we can use this stuff for evidence.

I am examining the evidence before us which is the step one logically makes before forming an opinion.

2. We live in a universe where everything happens for a reason according to the rules that govern nature.

Right or wrong?

Well, within our universe there are rules, we don't understand all the rules yet.

Everything happens in a certain way, but can something appear out of nothing? We don't know yet.

The evidence in front of you isn't enough... that's the problem.

It's like walking out of your door in the middle of winter with a freezing blizzard and then saying "global warming doesn't exist because I'm freezing cold".

So you've asked the question, can the universe be used as evidence. It can, but it'll never be enough to answer the questions.

 

[miketx]

Gravity is in control of universal expansion. As soon as the size of the universe gets large enough from expansion, Gravity will stop the expansion and we will see that it is flat.

 

[ding]

Do we build roads unintentionally?

No...but we make mistakes during the construction of those roads. Those mistakes lead to results which are unintended. Take the pedestrian bridge collapse in Florida for example...cracks formed in the foundation, which led to the collapse of the structure. Those were intentional? Of course they were not. What did we get as a result? A pile of rubble instead of a footbridge, with people under it. There was a creator and the results of that creation were unintentional.
What would be your response with regard to an all knowing creator and that incident? God made the cracks instead of stress? God caused the bridge to collapse into it's own footprint? God placed those people under that bridge?

My response would be that I am only trying to establish that things that are created can be used as evidence. This applies to things that are created intentionally or unintentionally and to perfect creations and imperfect creations. You are trying to skip this step and go straight to the third step which is discussing what this evidence tells us. That's not how a logical systematic process works.

Well I've already discussed this.

You don't know if these things even exist in the manner that you believe they exist.

What is the universe? Until you can answer that question, how are you supposed to know whether the stuff in it is what you think it is.

It's like saying we have this box. We're not sure if the box is a refrigerator, a cupboard, a cardboard box or what.

Inside the box is some stuff, we're not sure what's in the box either. We think we know what the box is, we think we know what's in the box, but we can't tell because we're inside the box, and the box is dark inside.

Until we can see the box from the outside, and open the door and turn the light on, we're not going to know what the box is, or what's in the box to know whether we can use this stuff for evidence.

I am examining the evidence before us which is the step one logically makes before forming an opinion.

2. We live in a universe where everything happens for a reason according to the rules that govern nature.

Right or wrong?

Well, within our universe there are rules, we don't understand all the rules yet.

Everything happens in a certain way, but can something appear out of nothing? We don't know yet.

The evidence in front of you isn't enough... that's the problem.

It's like walking out of your door in the middle of winter with a freezing blizzard and then saying "global warming doesn't exist because I'm freezing cold".

So you've asked the question, can the universe be used as evidence. It can, but it'll never be enough to answer the questions.

So then you disagree that we live in a deterministic universe governed by rules where every effect had a cause that is governed by the laws of nature which means that everything that has happened has a reason for happening?

You do realize this is the basis for science, right?

 

[frigidweirdo]

No...but we make mistakes during the construction of those roads. Those mistakes lead to results which are unintended. Take the pedestrian bridge collapse in Florida for example...cracks formed in the foundation, which led to the collapse of the structure. Those were intentional? Of course they were not. What did we get as a result? A pile of rubble instead of a footbridge, with people under it. There was a creator and the results of that creation were unintentional.
What would be your response with regard to an all knowing creator and that incident? God made the cracks instead of stress? God caused the bridge to collapse into it's own footprint? God placed those people under that bridge?

My response would be that I am only trying to establish that things that are created can be used as evidence. This applies to things that are created intentionally or unintentionally and to perfect creations and imperfect creations. You are trying to skip this step and go straight to the third step which is discussing what this evidence tells us. That's not how a logical systematic process works.

Well I've already discussed this.

You don't know if these things even exist in the manner that you believe they exist.

What is the universe? Until you can answer that question, how are you supposed to know whether the stuff in it is what you think it is.

It's like saying we have this box. We're not sure if the box is a refrigerator, a cupboard, a cardboard box or what.

Inside the box is some stuff, we're not sure what's in the box either. We think we know what the box is, we think we know what's in the box, but we can't tell because we're inside the box, and the box is dark inside.

Until we can see the box from the outside, and open the door and turn the light on, we're not going to know what the box is, or what's in the box to know whether we can use this stuff for evidence.

I am examining the evidence before us which is the step one logically makes before forming an opinion.

2. We live in a universe where everything happens for a reason according to the rules that govern nature.

Right or wrong?

Well, within our universe there are rules, we don't understand all the rules yet.

Everything happens in a certain way, but can something appear out of nothing? We don't know yet.

The evidence in front of you isn't enough... that's the problem.

It's like walking out of your door in the middle of winter with a freezing blizzard and then saying "global warming doesn't exist because I'm freezing cold".

So you've asked the question, can the universe be used as evidence. It can, but it'll never be enough to answer the questions.

So then you disagree that we live in a deterministic universe governed by rules where every effect had a cause that is governed by the laws of nature which means that everything that has happened has a reason for happening?

You do realize this is the basis for science, right?

No, I don't disagree and nothing I said pointed to that.

 

[ding]

So let's examine the evidence.

1. We live in a deterministic universe governed by rules.

Right or wrong?

Wrong...scientifically we dont even know what kind of universe we live in. We have laws but even scientific laws can be disproved as they have in the past.
I like to think we live in a physical, causal universe but then science tells us that even this is not so. We however certainly DO NOT live in a deterministic universe.

You know what...for sake of brevity and simplicity...I will agree. We live in a physical world of cause and effect...sure. Those things that I can observe in my world are the result of cause and effect. Yes.

3. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy (2nd Law of Thermodynamics).

4. As time approaches infinity the universe will approach thermal equilibrium (consequence of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).

Right or wrong?