Proof for an Intelligent Creator of the universe

Remove all ads!

I thought we wouldn't get into Yahweh's favor anyway since our mothers are not Jewish, oh well.

 

We noticed



Think of it as being the digital equivalent of Hoover. There is only one brand of vacuum cleaners called Hoover, but when people say "Hoover" they usually* mean any Hoover-like vacuum cleaner. Same for Kleenex in some places (leading to an unintentionally hilarious advertisement for a brand of wipes called Neenex, where some guy demonstrated customer satisfaction by saying "Neenex make the best Kleenex!"). Tupperware is another one I've seen used to refer to any sealable container similar to the ones made by Tupperware. The French have Frigidaire, which is a brand that makes fridges, but which they sometimes use to talk about any fridge.

Sorry, but I couldn't think of anything to say on topic... considering that the entire thread was started by what is clearly an advertisement plant (though not the typical kind of spam, I'll give it that).

* I'm leaving aside the possibility they could be talking about Herbert Hoover.

 

OK, but these days, saying "wiki" is like using "kleenex" to descibe tissues, or "googliing" as a generic term for internet searching, or "Taluntain" for guys who like to wear pink.

IOW, words evolve.

 

*assumes Tal's voice* You there! A wiki discussion is off topic. Take it outside!

hihihi, Woopee!

*ahem* seriously, here me ten cents :

This debate reminds me of something. The greeks believed lightning was Zeus being angry and throwing is thunder bolts. We now know it's friction between two clouds. There is much (if not all) we don't know about our universe. Just because we can't explain it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Science is not perfect, we are constantly discovering things that contradicts what we earlier believed. I think eventually, we'll know more, and we have to give science time and not jump to any rash conclusions. I know it's not as entertaining as a fun debate of evolution and creation, but then, the universe is not necessarily entertaining..

The question of whether or not God has created the universe is also a debate on whether or not God exists.

I am atheist but with a penchant for agnosticism. I don't believe in God because I do not feel God. I don't feel a divine presence at all. Could there be a God, meh, maybe, stranger things have happened. Does it matter if I don't believe He exists? Not really.

If God is perfect and is love, than He loves all of his children, no matter in they believe in Him or not. The concept of hell, or heaven exclusion is, to me, contrary to His love. If He a being of love, what the hell (haha, pun unintended ) does He care that you believe in Him or not?

I also have a problem with the bible. It says God has created man in His image. Not a literal corporal image, but freedom of thought. That is the difference between us and animals. We are free to do what we want, to construct what we want. Should God interfere, that would take away our freedom and thus destroy the reason of our creation. If God has written a bible for us, doesn't that mean He took away our freedom to develop like we want by presenting us with a set of rules?

 

Not touching any of the religious stuff. Where omnipotence is concerned, you could fit infinity and negative infinity between your two fingers and burp your way to Venus.
And it would actually happen.

IMO present cause and effect is a flawed, biased and too "human" way of trying to explain universe-related stuff anyway. Cause and effect would be hard pressed to explain something like a complicated loop, for example, or something that would take countless human lifetimes to answer. Granted, I'm happy it has helped improve the human way of life by the discovery/invention of more... human-ish things. (like PC games and Baldur's Gate)

Edit:
Based on how these things are defined (which I find flawed and ridiculously convoluted) atheism is basically the religion that believes there is/are no overpower/s. So an atheist who thinks there "could" be one is basically an agnostic from the atheist "school" - the opposite of the typical agnostic who comes from the theist "school" and who believes there might not be one heh.
Anyway "agnosticism" is ill-defined. Others make of it as basically the dumping term for everything completely or partially not acceptable to both atheism and theism and vice versa.

 

At the risk of attracting Triactus's wrath again:

Heh. I was going to say "speak for yourself", and then I read the second part of your post.

Anyway, on topic. It's somewhat odd that the original poster assumes that the laws of cause and effect as they exist in our current 4 dimensional universe would have also existed prior to the Big Bang; various theories have the universe containing more than 4 dimensions, and if there are actually multiple (i.e. >4) dimensions, then prior to the Big Bang, who knows how those many dimensions interacted with each other, or how the laws of physics operated.

 

I will let you off the hook *this* time, because you recognize my wrath! mouahahahaha

Meh, most of the original post was very shaky. Essentially, he says that there has to be a cause, if there is no creator there is no cause and so there is a creator...

 

The classic comparison here is a parent and a child. If a child misbehaves, the parent will (or at least should) discipline the child, even though he loves the child. Likewise, there comes a point (usually in the late teens if ever) where extreme misbehavior must be responded to with final abandonment. That doesn't mean the parent's love stops, just that the parent has given up and recognizes there's nothing he can do to fix it. Remember, God is Love, but He's also Just and Perfect.

As for the second paragraph, again, the parent/child analogy works. Does a parent teaching their child that fire is hot, and that lying is bad limit the child's thought? Maybe, but is that bad?


Aside from that, I agree with the rest of your post. We don't know what science will find in the future. It may well prove that life developed on Earth purely through random chemical reactions. It may also show that no concievable scientific theory explains it. Who knows.

 

It's a typical argument if you're trying to "logically" prove something that cannot be truly proven/disproven (and a Creator is a perfect example). The only way to have any kind of argument is using circular reasoning.

 

Well, insomuch as the 'creator' goes no more defined than 'first cause', it's a solid point. It's the leap from "First Cause" to "Yaweh" that's shaky.

 

What the hell man, what the hell NOG? Where did this come from? Here I have been bashing my head bloody for years arguing with you and others with similar views as you that even if the existence of a "prime mover" a "creator" is very hard to disprove the leap from said being to any deity described in any human religion is as you so eloquently put it "shaky". And now, now you just come out and state this yourself! Who will I argue with now?

 

Alright, who hacked into NOG's account and posted this? Fess up. Now.

 

Hey, I have never (at least that I remember ) said God is proven. Just that cause-and-effect demand a more substantial explanation for the universe than the Big Bang provides. I've never argued that the existence of a First Cause steps logically to the existence of gods of any kind.

 

I understand your comparison. Only, humans are imperfect we do the best we can with what we have. God, on the other hand, is perfect. Exclusion doesn't mean God has given up trying to bring someone around? If he's perfect, he should know how to redeem someone, no matter what the person has done or how he feels. I believe that we are a mass of experiences. Early experiences will dictate how we view life. I then believe that that view can be changed by going through our life experience and looking for the cause of the effect. It would be unthinkable for me that God wouldn't be able to change someone with His infinite love.

I think this comparison would better illustrate what I believe : God is like a high school art teacher. He tells his class "Go do a mural. Paint whatever you want express yourself however you wish". Then, half way through the exercice, the teacher stops the students and says "Oh, you can't put vulgarity, and there can be no nudity. It goes without saying there can't be violence of any kind, etc.". The mural will then not really completely represent the students. The purpose of letting the student express themselves is nul.

I'm not saying the ten commandments and such are bad. I'm just saying that by creating us free (freedom of thought, freedom of action as opposed to other animals), but imposing limits to our freedom renders our freedom nul.

 

First off, the very idea of the Christian God kind of contradicts the idea that we are just a mass of experiences. That then raises the question, could God correct anyone and still preserve that other part of them? At what point does the person loose free will, loose the ability to choose, loose what makes them what they are? God may be omnipotent, but He's still restricted by His goals.

That demonstrates the importance of self-beyond-experience well, but then you loose the senses of love and discipline. Again, no analogy is perfect.

Not so much nul and restricted. You could equally say that binding our spirits to a mortal, material body, not letting us create out of nothing like He can, and destroy into nothing like He can, equally restricts our freedom. They still don't make it nul. I have the Freedom of Speech, but I can't say whatever I like with no consequences. Free will isn't the ability to do whatever we want, but rather the ability to choose: to do what God wants (right) or something else (wrong).

 

Or you can consider that perhaps in the greater laws of the universe having free will is the same as not having free will. Plato was only human. Humans thrive in contradiction. We are dying everyday, and yet we try to live - and we call this living. But is it not dying as well?
Circular arguments may be annoying and may lead nowhere, but only because it is the result of the human attempt at defining everything.

 

Eh, no, not really.

Seriously, though, I only see circular reasoning as a failure to understand the reality of the situation. If there's a choice between circular reasoning and something that's non-circular, I'll usually take non-circular.

 

You say that a lot.