Post Reply
Page 4 of 46  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 46 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Circumstantial evidence for God
4 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2010 - 9:16PM #31
stardustpilgrim
Posts: 5,277

Feb 15, 2010 -- 12:36AM, Blü wrote:


stardust


There is ONE CREATOR. HE gets all the credit.


No, that's just one version and there's no default version.  The question remains.


Whatever the origin is, it is ONE, singular. I like the Kabbalistic understanding of En Sof.
 


some worship as an expression of gratitude.


And it seems some of our fundy friends worship out of fear. I would say that worship out of fear is not really worship.



Why don't you guys show us what Jesus promised?


That's not my meaning.  I meant, why have religions not researched and mastered the theory and practice of performing miracles?  For example, how exactly does one make a universe?  How does one turn water into wine, and get one's preferred grape and vintage as a result?  In other words, how does magic actually work? That's what I meant, exactly (except I don't call it magic). Jesus told us that we could do the things that he did, IOW, miracles. But there are examples. I could give lots of quotes from the monks of The Eastern Orthodox Church, but you would just say we can't take their word for it.....that miracles have been performed in their presence.



The answer must be that the Church isn't what Jesus promised it would be. Is that his fault? No.


Then why did he promise it? Well, I should have said could instead of would. But there are pockets here and there of real-church-activity, mentioned above. But scripture also tells us about what's called the great apostasy........?????? the falling away from faith. Jesus even said, "When the Son of man returns, will he find faith on the earth?" So, what has happened is not unexpected, even predicted. So atheists have many excellent points. Christians should actually be thanking you. 



Almost nobody practices what Jesus taught.


Strictly speaking, that's very hard to know.  It's easier to tell who does or doesn't practice what Paul taught, or what the author of Mark taught, or the author of Matthew &c. My meaning is that if Christians practiced what Jesus taught, we would see the results that Jesus had. Christians are just blind to this fact.


sdpilgrim




The purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk to.
The Way of Chuang Tzu by Thomas Merton

A map is not the territory.                                                                 Alfred Korzybski

God is that function in the world by reason of which our purposes are directed to ends which in our own consciousness are impartial as to our own interests. He is that element in life in virtue of which judgment stretches beyond facts of existence to values of existence.      Alfred North Whitehead
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2010 - 9:41PM #32
stardustpilgrim
Posts: 5,277

Feb 14, 2010 -- 10:33PM, F1fan wrote:


Feb 14, 2010 -- 8:27PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:


Please point out in the OP where I say my beliefs are limited to myself.



You wrote:


I don't need any outer evidence for the existence of God. I have no desire to prove to anyone the existence of what I prefer to call a Supreme Ordering Intelligence. For me, the existence of God has always been self-evident. The journey to an invisible God is also invisible, interior and individual.


You admit "For me ...."  You also state "I have no desire to prove to anyone ...."  How can you take these statements and assume it applies to anyone else?


There are plenty of other people who believe what I stated. How does what I stated negate their belief?


I made a separation between my personal beliefs and the intention of the thread.



 If that was to provide circumstantial evidence, you've provided none. Your sense of logic evades me.


Sorry my intention was not clear after all. I will never offer proof for my beliefs. I understand this is not possible. The direction of the thread is to offer "circumstantial evidence" for the possibility of the existence of God.



You've offered none.


I'm headed in the direction that if it can be shown that life cannot have originated in the manner science describes, intelligence and information must have preceded its origin, and is the cause of it. Dawkins has stated that it's possible life started on another planet. That's no answer at all because we come back to the problem of infinite regress. Life began somewhere, some time. 


I'm making a separation. That means, I intend to keep my personal beliefs out of the picture. Is that clear enough now? 



I would have to think if you you are aware of circumstantial evidence that THAT would have played a large role in why you believe.  If you believe because you believe, then perhaps that is affecting your own assessment of what you think the evidence suggests.  We've seen no evidence from you, so I have to suspect the latter.


I have believed in God from my earliest memories. In my OP I stated that God so designed the universe in such a manner that objective proof will never reveal his existence. If you want to keep inventing your own ideas as to how my mind operates, have at it.


I will be willing to disbelieve in God when scientists can create life. I'm that sure they will never be able to, not in 100,000 years. You have your work cut out for you.


sdpilgrim   


 




The purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk to.
The Way of Chuang Tzu by Thomas Merton

A map is not the territory.                                                                 Alfred Korzybski

God is that function in the world by reason of which our purposes are directed to ends which in our own consciousness are impartial as to our own interests. He is that element in life in virtue of which judgment stretches beyond facts of existence to values of existence.      Alfred North Whitehead
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2010 - 9:54PM #33
stardustpilgrim
Posts: 5,277

Feb 15, 2010 -- 8:38AM, Ken wrote:


Feb 14, 2010 -- 8:36PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

Presenting a solution that makes God unnecessary is not the same as presenting a solution that makes God possible.



How does positing a singularity make God possible?







It doesn't. That wasn't Hawking's intention. I stated his intention.


........................


"Do you mean that you can find out the answer to it?" said the March Hare.


"Exactly so." said Alice.


"Then you should say what you mean." the March Hare went on.


"I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know."


"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "Why, you might just as well say that I see what I eat is the same as I eat what I see!"


................


sdpilgrim




The purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk to.
The Way of Chuang Tzu by Thomas Merton

A map is not the territory.                                                                 Alfred Korzybski

God is that function in the world by reason of which our purposes are directed to ends which in our own consciousness are impartial as to our own interests. He is that element in life in virtue of which judgment stretches beyond facts of existence to values of existence.      Alfred North Whitehead
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2010 - 10:16PM #34
F1fan
Posts: 10,697

Feb 15, 2010 -- 9:41PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:


There are plenty of other people who believe what I stated. How does what I stated negate their belief?



It doesn't matter if you belong to a group that has certain beliefs.  What matters here is if your arguments are sound and assumptions limited and reasonable.


Your sense of logic evades me.



Logic isn't a sense, it's a set of rules.  You either follow the rules or you don't.  You provided no circumstantial evidence, it has nothing to do with me.


I'm headed in the direction that if it can be shown that life cannot have originated in the manner science describes, intelligence and information must have preceded its origin, and is the cause of it.



That would be speculation, not evidence.  And science only explains what CAN be known about nature.  Abiogenesis is a sound hypothesis, and that alone is a pretty good sign that no creator is needed.


Dawkins has stated that it's possible life started on another planet. That's no answer at all because we come back to the problem of infinite regress. Life began somewhere, some time.



It's plausible life started on this planet.  That means it is possible that it may have begun naturally elsewhere, and got transported here on a meteor.  There are strong possibilities since life DOES exist.  It is not plausible that a creator made anything since we have no evidence of any creator.


I have believed in God from my earliest memories. In my OP I stated that God so designed the universe in such a manner that objective proof will never reveal his existence.



How do you know?


If you want to keep inventing your own ideas as to how my mind operates, have at it.



I want to know how you come to your conclusions.  If you don't know, doesn't that strike you as odd?


I will be willing to disbelieve in God when scientists can create life.



Well, that wouldn't mean there is no god.  But it remains that there is no evidence to justify a belief that one does exist.


I'm that sure they will never be able to, not in 100,000 years. You have your work cut out for you.



They suspect that experiments may be able to create the building blocks of life within a few years.  Not sure how that is progressing, but it is plausible.


Your belief is a bit odd here as you admit it is based only on the assumption that a god created life EXCLUSIVELY.  So I have to suspect that you're aware that you have no circumstantial evidence for a god, because even if science can create life, that doesn't demonstrate that a god didn't do it.  Even if abiogenesis demonstrates this, if you had circumstantial evidence that would be something to sway the benefit of the doubt, wouldn't it?



Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2010 - 10:31PM #35
Ken
Posts: 33,860

Feb 15, 2010 -- 9:54PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:


Feb 15, 2010 -- 8:38AM, Ken wrote:


Feb 14, 2010 -- 8:36PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

Presenting a solution that makes God unnecessary is not the same as presenting a solution that makes God possible.



How does positing a singularity make God possible?



It doesn't. That wasn't Hawking's intention. I stated his intention.



Then why bring it up?

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2010 - 11:43PM #36
Cryano
Posts: 2,828

SDP:


You have a really WEIRD way of moving from statement to conclusion.


Try this little experiment. I'll arguendo concede that your SOI created the universe and life. I will even arguendo concede that this SOI is still around.


Now, based on those concessions demonstrate how you make any statements about this thing's personality, its attitude toward the universe, its attitude toward us, or any motive it might have had - even now have - for creating ANYTHING.


Have at it. I am really anxious to see this brilliant display of deductive reasoning at work.

Religion is the longest running most successful con game in history. It works because the victims never realize they have been taken. They die first.

Although certain modern catholics are beginning to see the light.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 16, 2010 - 8:44AM #37
Kwinters
Posts: 18,160

SDP,


You're wrong on a vital point.


The circumstantial evidence you cite actually supports the idea of an infinite number of gods.


There's all the Greek gods, the Roman gods, the Pagan gods, the Nordic gods, the Hindu gods, the African gods, the Tibetan gods, the Chinese gods, the Native American gods.


And those are all the gods just from one species on this planet.


Given there is a probability of life on other planets, and intelligent life on them - or that more forms of intelligence may emerge on this planet in some distant future - there are also ALL the gods that those other species worship.


Therefore if you're going to use what you've presented as your 'evidence', then you really should be a polytheist.


 

Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 16, 2010 - 9:05AM #38
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

So we're back to that wonderful circle, that great conundrum, as to whether there can be more than one empty set in the universe.

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 16, 2010 - 11:46AM #39
Metis
Posts: 423

If any two groups should maybe be able to get closer to what the reality may be it would most likely be the cosmologists and physicists since both groups specialize in attempting to determine what may have been here before the Big Bang and what may have caused it 13.7 billion years ago.  According to a poll I saw last year, 92% of all cosmologists and over 80% of all physicists are atheists or agnostics (mostly the latter). 


This, however, is not concluded by myself as being "the final answer", but it is interesting that most lean against any kind of theistic causation.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 16, 2010 - 11:57AM #40
teilhard
Posts: 48,253

Feb 16, 2010 -- 9:05AM, Christianlib wrote:


So we're back to that wonderful circle, that great conundrum, as to whether there can be more than one empty set in the universe.




 ... and ... How would we know ... ???

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 46  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 46 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook