CDZ Secular Circumstantial Evidence for Belief in a Creator

[BlackFlag]

Ignoring facts are not just relegated to liberals or any other group, that's just a throw away line.

Of course that's true. In today's climate though we DO see more Democrats simply ignoring facts when discussing politics then any other group.

The problem is with ideology and the blind faith it requires once you go a few degrees past their axiomatic truthiness.

I do believe quite a few liberals treat their political ideology the way one usually treats their religion. Completely infallible and a matter of faith rather than of facts.

“I do think liberals do EXACTLY WHAT WE DO AND AM CONDEMNING IN THIS VERY POST”

We don’t btw

 

[DandyDonovan]

Ignoring facts are not just relegated to liberals or any other group, that's just a throw away line.

Of course that's true. In today's climate though we DO see more Democrats simply ignoring facts when discussing politics then any other group.

The problem is with ideology and the blind faith it requires once you go a few degrees past their axiomatic truthiness.

I do believe quite a few liberals treat their political ideology the way one usually treats their religion. Completely infallible and a matter of faith rather than of facts.

“I do think liberals do EXACTLY WHAT WE DO AND AM CONDEMNING IN THIS VERY POST”

We don’t btw

Of course you do, generally speaking YOU, I'm in a thread right now where one guy is arguing that 8 children are accidentally killed by guns every day in this country, he's insisting that he's right even though FBI statistics only show 500 people a year being killed by accidental discharge each year, that's children AND adults. The poster won't even acknowledge that an FBI statistic is true.

And that's just one example of many I could find within minutes of searching this board. Liberals do not care about facts.

 

[BlackFlag]

Ignoring facts are not just relegated to liberals or any other group, that's just a throw away line.

Of course that's true. In today's climate though we DO see more Democrats simply ignoring facts when discussing politics then any other group.

The problem is with ideology and the blind faith it requires once you go a few degrees past their axiomatic truthiness.

I do believe quite a few liberals treat their political ideology the way one usually treats their religion. Completely infallible and a matter of faith rather than of facts.

“I do think liberals do EXACTLY WHAT WE DO AND AM CONDEMNING IN THIS VERY POST”

We don’t btw

Of course you do, generally speaking YOU, I'm in a thread right now where one guy is arguing that 8 children are accidentally killed by guns every day in this country, he's insisting that he's right even though FBI statistics only show 500 people a year being killed by accidental discharge each year, that's children AND adults. The poster won't even acknowledge that an FBI statistic is true.

And that's just one example of many I could find within minutes of searching this board. Liberals do not care about facts.

Lol you’re in an internet argument with another nutjob, and I’m supposed to accept that as some kind of proof of something? Too dumb.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Ignoring facts are not just relegated to liberals or any other group, that's just a throw away line.

Of course that's true. In today's climate though we DO see more Democrats simply ignoring facts when discussing politics then any other group.

No, that's just your confirmation bias.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Ignoring facts are not just relegated to liberals or any other group, that's just a throw away line.

Of course that's true. In today's climate though we DO see more Democrats simply ignoring facts when discussing politics then any other group.

No, that's just your confirmation bias.

No it's a fact. Sure there are conservatives who ignore facts when arguing , but liberals do it CONSISTENTLY and any honest evaluation shows this. Hell read ANY thread on this message board and you will come up with at least 5 examples of liberals just refusing to admit a fact is a fact.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

No it's a fact.

Nope, again, it's confirmation bias. Your opinion and nothing more.

 

[jwoodie]

I do believe quite a few liberals treat their political ideology the way one usually treats their religion. Completely infallible and a matter of faith rather than of facts.

The proof of this is that "progressives" consider anyone who disagrees with them to be "evil."

 

[RoccoR]

CDZ Secular Circumstantial Evidence for Belief in a Creator
⁜→ jwoodie, DandyDonovan, et al,

◈ "Evidence" (whatever type) suggests some sort of tangible object for factual analysis or an available body of facts such that rational science could deduce a logical outcome or effect on an outcome. Rational science has a methodology that is reproducible.

◈ "Belief in a Creator" is exactly that. A faith-based system has no evidentiary proof. It is associated with the supernatural and faith that there is a Supreme Being.

These lines of inquiry and learning are simply different; not in the same family for comparison.

I do believe quite a few liberals treat their political ideology the way one usually treats their religion. Completely infallible and a matter of faith rather than of facts.

The proof of this is that "progressives" consider anyone who disagrees with them to be "evil."

(COMMENT)

Science (through the scientific method) cannot (at this time and for the foreseeable future) either prove or disprove the existence of a Supreme Being.

By the same token, any faith-based program or set of beliefs, cannot alter the existence of scientific findings.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

CDZ Secular Circumstantial Evidence for Belief in a Creator
⁜→ jwoodie, DandyDonovan, et al,

The concepts of "good" and "evil" are subjective based on society or culture (or both).

I do believe quite a few liberals treat their political ideology the way one usually treats their religion. Completely infallible and a matter of faith rather than of facts.

The proof of this is that "progressives" consider anyone who disagrees with them to be "evil."

(COMMENT)

You have to examine the absence of "good" to determine the nature of "evil."

The absence of good sets the conditions for evil: "Essentially → an action or condition that is wicked or immoral; as judged by society."

The less the atmosphere of actions or conditions that are judged as wicked or immoral, the greater the good (beneficial).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JimBowie1958]

CDZ Secular Circumstantial Evidence for Belief in a Creator
⁜→ jwoodie, DandyDonovan, et al,

◈ "Evidence" (whatever type) suggests some sort of tangible object for factual analysis or an available body of facts such that rational science could deduce a logical outcome or effect on an outcome. Rational science has a methodology that is reproducible.

Is testimony in a trial pertaining to the motives overheard of a murder defendant 'tangible evidence'?

Is the cosine of an angle tangible evidence of something?

When a mother tells her child she loves him, is that tangible evidence?

I agree that they are evidence but not evidence is tangible and not all reliable systems of belief, like science, are subject to scientific investigation.

◈ "Belief in a Creator" is exactly that. A faith-based system has no evidentiary proof. It is associated with the supernatural and faith that there is a Supreme Being.

These lines of inquiry and learning are simply different; not in the same family for comparison.

Was the Big Bang supernatural?
If so then how can science prove it?

If not then where did the energy that caused the universe to suddenly exist come from?

Science (through the scientific method) cannot (at this time and for the foreseeable future) either prove or disprove the existence of a Supreme Being.

By the same token, any faith-based program or set of beliefs, cannot alter the existence of scientific findings.

Most Respectfully,
R

I totally agree with you on thjat matter. While science and faith walk side by side toward all Truth, they do not conflict nor should they be held superior to the other.

 

[RoccoR]

CDZ Secular Circumstantial Evidence for Belief in a Creator
⁜→ JimBowie1958, et al,

I'll try to answer these correctly.

Is testimony in a trial pertaining to the motives overheard of a murder defendant 'tangible evidence'?

(COMMENT)

It is actually intangible circumstantial evidence. If only one witness claims to have overheard the motive pertaining to suspect "A", it is not as powerful as if two witnesses overheard the motive pertaining to suspect "A".

And if more than one witness hears claims to have overheard the motive pertaining to more than one suspect, (ie Suspects "B" and "C") then that also diminish the implication of the motive pertaining to Suspect "A."

The witness statements and other statements under oath are tangible documents. But then it must withstand challenges.

You can see how this runs along the same lines as the scientific method.

Is the cosine of an angle tangible evidence of something?

(COMMENT)

The Law of Cosines developed by François Viète (16th Century) is one of the top 100 Mathematical Theorems. It is neither tangible, or intangible, but a measurement process.

When a mother tells her child she loves him, is that tangible evidence?

(COMMENT)

That is a form of communications. The statement can be either true or false.

I agree that they are evidence but not evidence is tangible and not all reliable systems of belief, like science, are subject to scientific investigation.

(COMMENT)

This depends on (at least) two very important compound factors:

◈ The original knowledge base for the science in question, and the particular science.
◈ The original seminary studies for the particular theology, and the particual religion.​

Was the Big Bang supernatural?
If so then how can science prove it?

(COMMENT)

The Big Bang is a theory. It is a very strong theory at this time in history, but it still is a theory. Currently, the (strongest) evidence for the Big Bang is the Cosmic Background Radiation.

We do not know if science will or will not prove out the Big Bang Theory. Between the time From the time of Issac Newton → that of Albert Einstien, we generally thought that Newtonian Mathematics was the Holy Grail. But since 1905, we have learned about Relativity (the very very fast) and Quantum Theory (the very very small). We know that the Newtonian understanding is missing a lot. Yet we still teach it because it is a very very good approximation of the effects of gravity and the vector addition of speeds.

We do know that neither Relativity or Quantum Theory is perfect. Individually, they each have passed the various scientific processes quite well. Yet they do not merge. We do not know if there is a flaw in one or both theories, or in the mathematics we use to manipulate them.

Thus, again, there are many many things we still do not know.

If not then where did the energy that caused the universe to suddenly exist come from?

(COMMENT)

Again, we do not know. I understand your implication on the "The Argument of Motion" (Thomas Aquinas). Many scientists still today consider that any mathematical solution that is resolved with infinity as an answer must be wrong. We do not understand the application of an indefinite or an infinite series.

But some have theorized that the First Movement (energy) of the universe is evidence of the Supreme Being.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[McRocket]

I do believe quite a few liberals treat their political ideology the way one usually treats their religion. Completely infallible and a matter of faith rather than of facts.

The proof of this is that "progressives" consider anyone who disagrees with them to be "evil."

And where is your link to unbiased, factual proof of this?

 

[jwoodie]

I do believe quite a few liberals treat their political ideology the way one usually treats their religion. Completely infallible and a matter of faith rather than of facts.

The proof of this is that "progressives" consider anyone who disagrees with them to be "evil."

And where is your link to unbiased, factual proof of this?

Do you honestly believe that most progressives do not consider their political opponents to be evil?

Or are you just playing your usual deflective word games?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Is testimony in a trial pertaining to the motives overheard of a murder defendant 'tangible evidence'?

(COMMENT)

It is actually intangible circumstantial evidence. If only one witness claims to have overheard the motive pertaining to suspect "A", it is not as powerful as if two witnesses overheard the motive pertaining to suspect "A".

And if more than one witness hears claims to have overheard the motive pertaining to more than one suspect, (ie Suspects "B" and "C") then that also diminish the implication of the motive pertaining to Suspect "A."

The witness statements and other statements under oath are tangible documents. But then it must withstand challenges.

You can see how this runs along the same lines as the scientific method.

But it is not the Scientific method. It is a different, and yet entirely legitimate means for gathering information and evidence which was my point.

Is the cosine of an angle tangible evidence of something?

(COMMENT)

The Law of Cosines developed by François Viète (16th Century) is one of the top 100 Mathematical Theorems. It is neither tangible, or intangible, but a measurement process.

I dont think that mathematical principles are tangible, and that is a binary quality to evidenc e. It is either tangible or intangible, there is no middle state.

When a mother tells her child she loves him, is that tangible evidence?

(COMMENT)

That is a form of communications. The statement can be either true or false.

A published science paper is a form of communication as well.

I agree that they are evidence but not evidence is tangible and not all reliable systems of belief, like science, are subject to scientific investigation.

(COMMENT)

This depends on (at least) two very important compound factors:

◈ The original knowledge base for the science in question, and the particular science.
◈ The original seminary studies for the particular theology, and the particual religion.​

​

No, I think you are artificially creating a false dichotomy. There are fields of knowledge that are neither religion nor science.

Was the Big Bang supernatural?
If so then how can science prove it?

(COMMENT)

The Big Bang is a theory. It is a very strong theory at this time in history, but it still is a theory. Currently, the (strongest) evidence for the Big Bang is the Cosmic Background Radiation.

We do not know if science will or will not prove out the Big Bang Theory. Between the time From the time of Issac Newton → that of Albert Einstien, we generally thought that Newtonian Mathematics was the Holy Grail. But since 1905, we have learned about Relativity (the very very fast) and Quantum Theory (the very very small). We know that the Newtonian understanding is missing a lot. Yet we still teach it because it is a very very good approximation of the effects of gravity and the vector addition of speeds.

We do know that neither Relativity or Quantum Theory is perfect. Individually, they each have passed the various scientific processes quite well. Yet they do not merge. We do not know if there is a flaw in one or both theories, or in the mathematics we use to manipulate them.

Thus, again, there are many many things we still do not know.

The Big Bang is a theory like Gravity is a theory. These old theories are not false in the sense that they are misleading, they are not, they are only inadequate to describe what is currently known about the subject in question. The model of the Bohr atom is not wrong so much as it is not as descriptive of the atom as the QM model is.

If not then where did the energy that caused the universe to suddenly exist come from?

(COMMENT)

Again, we do not know. I understand your implication on the "The Argument of Motion" (Thomas Aquinas). Many scientists still today consider that any mathematical solution that is resolved with infinity as an answer must be wrong. We do not understand the application of an indefinite or an infinite series.

But some have theorized that the First Movement (energy) of the universe is evidence of the Supreme Being.

Well apparently if the energy that created the universe in the Big Bang is from outside our natural universe then it is Supernatural, is it not?

 

[JoeMoma]

Is testimony in a trial pertaining to the motives overheard of a murder defendant 'tangible evidence'?

(COMMENT)

It is actually intangible circumstantial evidence. If only one witness claims to have overheard the motive pertaining to suspect "A", it is not as powerful as if two witnesses overheard the motive pertaining to suspect "A".

And if more than one witness hears claims to have overheard the motive pertaining to more than one suspect, (ie Suspects "B" and "C") then that also diminish the implication of the motive pertaining to Suspect "A."

The witness statements and other statements under oath are tangible documents. But then it must withstand challenges.

You can see how this runs along the same lines as the scientific method.

But it is not the Scientific method. It is a different, and yet entirely legitimate means for gathering information and evidence which was my point.

Is the cosine of an angle tangible evidence of something?

(COMMENT)

The Law of Cosines developed by François Viète (16th Century) is one of the top 100 Mathematical Theorems. It is neither tangible, or intangible, but a measurement process.

I dont think that mathematical principles are tangible, and that is a binary quality to evidenc e. It is either tangible or intangible, there is no middle state.

When a mother tells her child she loves him, is that tangible evidence?

(COMMENT)

That is a form of communications. The statement can be either true or false.

A published science paper is a form of communication as well.

I agree that they are evidence but not evidence is tangible and not all reliable systems of belief, like science, are subject to scientific investigation.

(COMMENT)

This depends on (at least) two very important compound factors:

◈ The original knowledge base for the science in question, and the particular science.
◈ The original seminary studies for the particular theology, and the particual religion.​

​

No, I think you are artificially creating a false dichotomy. There are fields of knowledge that are neither religion nor science.

Was the Big Bang supernatural?
If so then how can science prove it?

(COMMENT)

The Big Bang is a theory. It is a very strong theory at this time in history, but it still is a theory. Currently, the (strongest) evidence for the Big Bang is the Cosmic Background Radiation.

We do not know if science will or will not prove out the Big Bang Theory. Between the time From the time of Issac Newton → that of Albert Einstien, we generally thought that Newtonian Mathematics was the Holy Grail. But since 1905, we have learned about Relativity (the very very fast) and Quantum Theory (the very very small). We know that the Newtonian understanding is missing a lot. Yet we still teach it because it is a very very good approximation of the effects of gravity and the vector addition of speeds.

We do know that neither Relativity or Quantum Theory is perfect. Individually, they each have passed the various scientific processes quite well. Yet they do not merge. We do not know if there is a flaw in one or both theories, or in the mathematics we use to manipulate them.

Thus, again, there are many many things we still do not know.

The Big Bang is a theory like Gravity is a theory. These old theories are not false in the sense that they are misleading, they are not, they are only inadequate to describe what is currently known about the subject in question. The model of the Bohr atom is not wrong so much as it is not as descriptive of the atom as the QM model is.

If not then where did the energy that caused the universe to suddenly exist come from?

(COMMENT)

Again, we do not know. I understand your implication on the "The Argument of Motion" (Thomas Aquinas). Many scientists still today consider that any mathematical solution that is resolved with infinity as an answer must be wrong. We do not understand the application of an indefinite or an infinite series.

But some have theorized that the First Movement (energy) of the universe is evidence of the Supreme Being.

Well apparently if the energy that created the universe in the Big Bang is from outside our natural universe then it is Supernatural, is it not?

What created the original creator?

 

[RoccoR]

CDZ Secular Circumstantial Evidence for Belief in a Creator
⁜→ JimBowie1958, et al,

This is a question of that must be answered (if possible) by a "theological concept" which is a human construct. It pre-supposes that there is a Supreme Being; and that supernatural → outside the laws of nature, as we understand nature. And it assumes that this manifestation is a force beyond scientific understanding but has some sort of intelligence, not further identified.

What created the original creator?

(COMMENT)

What does all that mean? (Rhetorical)

The question has, within it, it own assumption. The question suggests there is an abstract/theological concept which has the existence without any bounds or limitations. In science, we have a name for this. It is "infinity."

Humanity (our original creator) is a supernatural entity (the Supreme Being). One center of intelligence. How can "humanity?"

• IF we belive in the supernature (beyond science),
• THEN we must entertain the existence of processses that can be manifested by supernatural powers (magic).​

It is virtually impossible for a human to know the qualities and characteristic of a supernatural being. Even the first prayer in the Book of Solomon (Ars Notory) asked for the wisdom to understand.

In the Name of the Holy and undivided Trinity, beginneth this most Holy Art of
Knowledge revealed to Solomon, which the Most High Creator by his Holy Angels
ministered to Solomon upon the Alter of the Temple; that thereby in short time he
knew all Arts and Sciences, both Liberal and Mechanick, with all the Faculties and
Properties thereof: He has suddenly infused into him, and also was filled with all
wisdom, to utter the Sacred Mysteries of most Holy words.

Alpha and Omega! Oh Almighty God, the Beginning of all things, without
Beginning, and without End: Graciously this day hear my Prayers; neither do thou
render unto me according to my sins, nor after mine iniquities, O Lord my God, but
according to thy mercy, which is greater then all things visible and invisible. Have
mercy upon me, O Christ, the Wisdom of the Father, The Light of the Angels, The
Glory of the Saints, The Hope, Refuge, and Support of Sinners, The Creator of all
things, and Redeemer of all humane Frailties, who holdest the Heaven, Earth, and
Sea, and all the whole World, in the palm of thy Hand: I humbly implore and
beseech, that thou wilt mercifully with the Father, illustrate my Minde with the
beams of thy holy Spirit, that I may be able to come and attain to the perfection of
this most holy Art; and that I may be able to gain the knowledge of every Science,
Art, and Wisdom; and of every Faculty of Memory, Intelligences, Understanding,
and Intellect, by the Vertue and Power of thy most holy Spirit, and in thy Name.
And thou, O God my God, who in the Beginning hast created the Heaven and the
Earth, and all things out of nothing; who reformest, and makest all things by thy
own Spirit; compleat, fulfil, restore, and implant a sound understanding in me, that I
may glorify thee and all thy Works, in all my Thoughts, Words, and Deeds. O God
the Father, confirm and grant this my Prayer, and increase my Understanding and
Memory, and strengthen the same, to know and receive the Science, Memory, Eloquence,
and Perseverance in all manner of Learning, who livest and reignest, World
without end. Amen.

Your question is an age-old question. Men and women of the Age of Solomon (≈800 BCE) did believe in Supernatural entities and the art of appearing to perform supernatural Miracles (Magic).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JimBowie1958]

What created the original creator?

OK, grasp the fact that, when something does not exist in the flow of time, there is NO 'BEFORE'.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is a question of that must be answered (if possible) by a "theological concept" which is a human construct. It pre-supposes that there is a Supreme Being; and that supernatural → outside the laws of nature, as we understand nature. And it assumes that this manifestation is a force beyond scientific understanding but has some sort of intelligence, not further identified.

What created the original creator?

Great response Roccor, but please fix the attribution to Joe Moma, please.

Thank you!

 

[JoeMoma]

What created the original creator?

OK, grasp the fact that, when something does not exist in the flow of time, there is NO 'BEFORE'.

Where does the flow of time not exist?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: CDZ Secular Circumstantial Evidence for Belief in a Creator
※→ JimBowie1958,
• • • Post #35 by Joe Moma

I offer my apology to Joe Moma, as I misassigned (see below) your interrogative to JimBowie1958.

v/r
R

This is a question of that must be answered (if possible) by a "theological concept" which is a human construct. It pre-supposes that there is a Supreme Being; and that supernatural → outside the laws of nature, as we understand nature. And it assumes that this manifestation is a force beyond scientific understanding but has some sort of intelligence, not further identified.

What created the original creator?

Great response Roccor, but please fix the attribution to Joe Moma, please.

Thank you!