Evolution vs. Creationism

[EloquentBohemian]

So this is about truth then? I admit I missed your point. The word "truth" itself is a controversial matter. Even in philosophy, very few agree upon a single definition. I myself avoid defining truth. I was thinking about what is more functional and closer to reality, so that in can be used in society. I don't think I can debate with "truth" as a basis, so more or less we can't agree or disagree here. As for whether it's evolution or creationism, that's just a personal choice. Anyone can believe what they want, as long as they do not become a hindrance to social proggress.

I agreee that anyone can believe what they wish, as well as not defining truth. No question there. What I would propose is to cease judging concepts as right or wrong (true or false) merely because they don't fit within the parameters of logic/reasoning/science.
Mystical experience, spirituality, and the foundations of religion cannot be subject to scrutiny only by human logic/reasoning and summarily dismissed as false. Rather human logic/reasoning, and as extention, Science, should consider the probability that the truth of these experiences lies beyond their parameters.

I agree here. But, the fact is, that history has shown that logic seems to be more effective, and that's why I prefer it.

Your choice, and I respect that. In many cases logic/reasoning does, but in some cases, it is not sufficient. Human logic/reasoning/science should allow for for the validity of those experiences and concepts which do not fall within its parameters.

Yes, but you can't actually say that space doesn't exist, for they have brought evidence for it. You could, as you suggested, doudt the astronauts experience, as well as you could doudt the experience of the mystic. But the fact that space is real, cannot be debated. The mystic relies solely on her experience. The astronauts rely on what already is.

I wasn't saying space doesn't exist, I was using the experience of an astronaut's view of Earth from space as an example of an experience which is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to relate to others and which would not fall under the auspicies of human logic/reason/science.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Eloquent - excuse the generalization, but I have only read the posts at a glance, but I get the impression that what you call mystery and mysticism are not in fact related to truths/realites beyond human capacity to grasp (mysteries in the strict sense), but are instead an attempt to impose on those things we can grasp a sense of doubt/fuzziness so that they seem less mundane than they are. Earth mysticism just sounds like a type of romanticism.

Milon - I have a suggestion about proof, but it requires that you at least entertain the notion that God, being so perfect and simple, as to be completely incomprehensible to humans, desires to impart knowledge of himself to those who wish to know him. And that the desire to know him is expressed by faith.

Why faith and not proof? - It is impossible for an object to be held in the intellect as both an object of faith and an object of certain knowledge at the same time (in the same respect). So that if you study a true proof for the existence of God, you can no longer believe that He exists - in other words, there is no longer consent, but simple apprehension. The only way then that desire to know God can be suitably expressed, is by believing (holding as true) what one does not immediately apprehend as true.

So what is a proof - it is not a foggy sense or a coincidence of events, it is that which leads to certain knowledge, which is no longer subject to voluntary/involuntary adhesion, but which is immediately known as true. For example, if I tell you there is a lamp next to my computer, you can either decide to believe (have faith) in what I have said or not. But if you visit my desk and see the lamp, you can no longer believe that there is a lamp there - you have proof (sense knowledge in this case) that it is there and you know it as a fact.



PS - unrelated - someone had better post a reply on the 'enlightening wrong answer word game' soon, or I'll end up as loopy as a corkscrew.

 

[just me]

A lot of religion only fosters these things towards god or fellow believers, the rest of us are forgotten or persecuted.

But you can tell the tree from the fruit it bears. I see few underneath this tree getting hit in the head with tree limbs and such......well, maybe Isaac Newton. :nod:
You are neither forgotten nor persecuted today. As a Christian, I sometimes feel more persecuted in the world than those that choose a different path. It does not make my heart grow weary. It does wear away at me and have me to step aside for the rebuilding of my strength. I think it unfair to label (I did not use judge) people of religion as hypocrites unless the individual is so. If that is the case, then so it is. I still seek mercy for all. Those that spit in the face of that I have no mercy for, though time may change that, too. There were words spoken against the spiritual leaders 2000 some years ago, but He was asking that they have their hearts to be as what they were so concerned that others saw from their outward appearances and actions; same as what you speak.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Eloquent - excuse the generalization, but I have only read the posts at a glance, but I get the impression that what you call mystery and mysticism are not in fact related to truths/realites beyond human capacity to grasp (mysteries in the strict sense), but are instead an attempt to impose on those things we can grasp a sense of doubt/fuzziness so that they seem less mundane than they are.

Your opinion. Mysticism in its pure form, not magic or spiritualism or psychic phenomenona, but the Unio Mystica experienced and spoken of by mystics such as Saint Teresa of Avila and Jalal ad-din Muhmmad Rumi transcends all human logic/reasoning/science. This is beyond all words and concepts and therefore, cannot be measured, experimented on, nor tabulated in any human terms, it can only be alluded to.
The Unio Mystica is a path of love, not a path of knowledge, and logic/reasoning/science seeks knowledge, wants to define it, and compartmentalize it.
All I am saying is that there are experiences which this cannot be done to and that they should not be dismissed merely because they do not fit into any parameters defined by human logic/reasoning/science.

Earth mysticism just sounds like a type of romanticism.

Where did you get this term "Earth mysticism" from? My example of an astronaut concerns the event the astronaut experiences when orbiting Earth and he looks out the window and views Earth from his spacecraft. To relate the impact this experience has had on him cannot be adequately formed into words or logic or reasoning.

Such is the experience of one who traverses a mystical, spiritual, or religious path. Words are inadequate. Logic, reasoning, and science are inadequate.

 

[Duty]

Duty et al, what would consistute logical, rational proof of God? What would be good logical grounds for ascribing to a certain religion or spirituality? You're asking for proof, I'd like to know what proof is.

Proof for this would be:

1. A deductive logical argument (from premises that are already known to be true) that shows God to be a necessary consequence of those premises being true.

2. A very strong inductive argument from very inductively strong premises that shows God to be a very likely thing to exist. Because God is an extraordinary claim, the argument will need extraordinary strength (show that God is 90% or more likely to quantify it).

3. Direct observational evidence of God that isn't anecdotal.

4. Empirical evidence that, when combined with either 1 or 2, arrives at the conditions set forth by them.

 

[Duty]

And that the desire to know him is expressed by faith.

Why faith and not proof? - It is impossible for an object to be held in the intellect as both an object of faith and an object of certain knowledge at the same time (in the same respect). So that if you study a true proof for the existence of God, you can no longer believe that He exists - in other words, there is no longer consent, but simple apprehension. The only way then that desire to know God can be suitably expressed, is by believing (holding as true) what one does not immediately apprehend as true.

Faith is a subjective and inadequate form of information gathering. You can have faith in ANY proposition and claim it to be "knowledge." It is also incommunicable.

If faith were taken as valid, then having faith in Nazism as the correct ethical code of humanity would be just as valid as having Buddhism as the correct ethical code. Having faith that 1+3 = 9 and that IndigoSensor is actually an alien frog is just as valid as 5x3=15 and that frogs are amphibians.

However, the standard of reason, logic, and evidence doesn't allow that. They're objective and based in the real world. You can't escape a conclusion of logic. If you have 2 apples here, and 2 apples there, you have 4 apples. It's inescapable. As long as the premises are true, the conclusion MUST also be true. That's the standard of deductive logic.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Faith is a subjective and inadequate form of information gathering. You can have faith in ANY proposition and claim it to be "knowledge." It is also incommunicable.

I begin to see a clue to clarity here.
Faith/mysticism/spirituality is knowing and is from intuition.
Logic/reasoning/science is knowledge and is from intellect.
The 'facts' of faith/mysticism/spirituality are accumulated by interior experience and are therefore individual and subjective.
The 'facts' of logic/reasoning/science are accumulated by exterior experience and are therefore collective and objective.

The problem lies in attempting to describe or depict a 'fact' obtained by intuition with parameters utilised by intellect. The reverse applies as well. One cannot intuit the solution to a complex mathematical problem.

 

[Duty]

Faith/mysticism/spirituality is knowing and is from intuition.
Logic/reasoning/science is knowledge and is from intellect.

If faith were taken as valid, then having faith in Nazism as the correct ethical code of humanity would be just as valid as having Buddhism as the correct ethical code. Having faith that 1+3 = 9 and that IndigoSensor is actually an alien frog is just as valid as 5x3=15 and that frogs are amphibians.

However, the standard of reason, logic, and evidence doesn't allow that. They're objective and based in the real world. You can't escape a conclusion of logic. If you have 2 apples here, and 2 apples there, you have 4 apples. It's inescapable. As long as the premises are true, the conclusion MUST also be true. That's the standard of deductive logic.

So the Nazi is just "knowing" he's right about his morality, and I can just start knowing that IndigoSensor is an alien frog? It still makes little sense.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

There are different forms of reason. That's why someone who is F can be just as successful as someone who is T. You can reach understandings through different ways.

Science is predominantly ST. Spirituality is more NF in nature.

You can reach understanding using your intellect, your emotions, and/or your spirituality.

A personal explanation:
Intellect, emotion, and spirituality are all ways that we use to react to information or sensory input.
Intellect uses concrete analytical logic to come to a course of action based on impersonal systems; in other words, it doesn't (or shouldn't) deal with how to react to emotional systems (Impersonal systems are things like science, maths, and situations that do not require extensive social knowledge or interaction).
Emotion uses spontaneous, unique perspectives to come to a course of action based on personal systems; it doesn't (or shouldn't) deal with impersonal systems (Emotional systems are events requiring the use of more immediate reactions to people or other emotions and social contexts; it is a more personal approach, and is used in things like the arts, creative writing, social situations, etc.)

Certain areas combine the two ways of reasoning; politics, philosophy, and social sciences are examples of this. Organized religion, actually, is a combination of the two; it's basically taking the framework of intellect and filling it with emotion. It's organized, deliberate, and not spontaneous, but it does not require the concreteness of intellect and appeals to the social side. Likewise, science sometimes requires both if you apply the analytical, concrete logic to the framework emotion; using more spontaneous, creative methods to reach a logical conclusion. However, this happened more during the Renaissance, when science was partially an art; it is more structured now.

And Spirituality is the last. Spirituality is different from the other two because, although it reacts to sensory output like the others, the reactions are focused inwardly. If you use your spiritual reasoning, you allow yourself to trust your base intuition more often, and you control your inner functions. For instance, someone who is very spiritual might describe themselves as very content because they can easily control the other two reasoning sides and their emotions. They do not fight with themselves, and they trust what they believe.

That is why spirituality is harder to explain, when you use it.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

gloomy-optimist...
That was a very well thought-out explanation.

 

[Duty]

There are different forms of reason. That's why someone who is F can be just as successful as someone who is T. You can reach understandings through different ways.

Science is predominantly ST. Spirituality is more NF in nature.

This has nothing to do with MBTI. We all have the same cognitive institutions, MBTI just explains which ones we tend to favor. Every type is perfectly capable of reason and knowledge.

You can reach understanding using your intellect, your emotions, and/or your spirituality.

You reach understanding of the world and how it functions through intellect. You reach understanding in personal relationships and personal psychology through emotion (intellect helps a bit with personal psychology). I don't see what relevant things spirituality helps you understand that the other two are not more adept at doing.

Certain areas combine the two ways of reasoning; politics, philosophy, and social sciences are examples of this.

Politics is supposed to be an intellectual enterprise, not an emotional one. Philosophy has long been an intellectual enterprise. It has spawned logic, it has spawned the sciences. Social sciences take emotions of their subjects into account, but that's not the same as taking the observer's emotions into account. They're supposed to be like other sciences: based on logic and observation.

Philosophy has long recognized that reason is the correct way of understanding propositional knowledge. "God exists" is a proposition...it asserts a fact about the world. Reason is the correct facility to determine if this is true. The evidence for this proposition isn't there. "Fish exist" is a proposition much like the above. However, there is a great body of evidence to prove fish exist. "Polar Bears do not exist" is a proposition as well. Reason is again the correct facility to determine the truth of this statement. The evidence is heavily against this proposition being true, so we claim it false.

Organized religion, actually, is a combination of the two; it's basically taking the framework of intellect and filling it with emotion. It's organized, deliberate, and not spontaneous, but it does not require the concreteness of intellect and appeals to the social side. Likewise, science sometimes requires both if you apply the analytical, concrete logic to the framework emotion; using more spontaneous, creative methods to reach a logical conclusion. However, this happened more during the Renaissance, when science was partially an art; it is more structured now.

Except religion is not intellectual. It has no evidence to support its claims. Different religions claim radically different things. Religion does not follow an objective standard. Religion rarely claims that it is subject to change as new data is gained...it claims to have all the answers yet no evidence for them. Religion is not intellectual...

And Spirituality is the last. Spirituality is different from the other two because, although it reacts to sensory output like the others, the reactions are focused inwardly. If you use your spiritual reasoning, you allow yourself to trust your base intuition more often, and you control your inner functions. For instance, someone who is very spiritual might describe themselves as very content because they can easily control the other two reasoning sides and their emotions. They do not fight with themselves, and they trust what they believe.

This sounds more like understanding of one's emotions and impulses. It sounds like self-awareness. To call it spirituality and bring in the supernatural and the like seems to just be over complicating it if such is the case.

 

[Creon]

Politics is supposed to be an intellectual enterprise, not an emotional one. Philosophy has long been an intellectual enterprise. It has spawned logic, it has spawned the sciences. Social sciences take emotions of their subjects into account, but that's not the same as taking the observer's emotions into account. They're supposed to be like other sciences: based on logic and observation.

Philosophy has long recognized that reason is the correct way of understanding propositional knowledge. "God exists" is a proposition...it asserts a fact about the world. Reason is the correct facility to determine if this is true. The evidence for this proposition isn't there. "Fish exist" is a proposition much like the above. However, there is a great body of evidence to prove fish exist. "Polar Bears do not exist" is a proposition as well. Reason is again the correct facility to determine the truth of this statement. The evidence is heavily against this proposition being true, so we claim it false.

I agree with you, Duty, on most issues. But I believe that this section of your comment is a bit problematic. You refer to philosophy as if it's a single subject. In ethics and political philosophy, reason is not the only way there is. For example, Thomas Hobbs (political philosophy, social contract theories), Arthur Schopenhauer(ethics), Jean-Jack Rousseau(see Hobbs), as well as John Lock and Plato, sometimes propose truths and solutions that have been derived by religious approaches, or (in the case of Plato) imagination. In fact, Descartes had once propposed that human spirit and body are linked throught a specific human organ. So, althought we could say that their philosophies were primarily based on logic (and perhaps we could say that those parts were the ones that were usefull to humanity), and most of their deductions were derived from the principles of logic, we can't exaclty say they never used spirituality as a way to philosophize.

However, if you are referring to 20th century philosophy, for example, existentialism, then yes, that is the case.

 

[Duty]

I agree with you, Duty, on most issues. But I believe that this section of your comment is a bit problematic. You refer to philosophy as if it's a single subject. In ethics and political philosophy, reason is not the only way there is. For example, Thomas Hobbs (political philosophy, social contract theories), Arthur Schopenhauer(ethics), Jean-Jack Rousseau(see Hobbs), as well as John Lock and Plato, sometimes propose truths and solutions that have been derived by religious approaches, or (in the case of Plato) imagination. In fact, Descartes had once propposed that human spirit and body are linked throught a specific human organ. So, althought we could say that their philosophies were primarily based on logic (and perhaps we could say that those parts were the ones that were usefull to humanity), and most of their deductions were derived from the principles of logic, we can't exaclty say they never used spirituality as a way to philosophize.

However, if you are referring to 20th century philosophy, for example, existentialism, then yes, that is the case.

Ever since Hume's naturalized account, philosophy as a whole has become increasingly naturalistic as well...spirit things and Gods have been largely driven out of the equation in the major areas of philosophy (except when they are the actual topic, such as in philosophy of religion) because philosophers largely agree that they are irrelevant to understanding our world and probably don't exist in the first place.

And yes, I must withdraw what I said when ethics is the subject. Ethics always starts with premises that are emotional in origin, but immediately becomes about the conclusions that are drawn from those emotions. However, gods and spirit things still have little to do with it.

Political philosophy is much the same way...you must have a goal or standard already in mind. Political philosophy is about how society can achieve that goal. Typically, the set goal is emotional.

Aesthetic philosophy I barely mention, I don't have a lot of education in the area so I feel little wisdom to share...and don't think my opinion to be educated enough to be valid.

 

[Creon]

Ever since Hume's naturalized account, philosophy as a whole has become increasingly naturalistic as well...spirit things and Gods have been largely driven out of the equation in the major areas of philosophy (except when they are the actual topic, such as in philosophy of religion).

And yes, I must withdraw what I said when ethics is the subject. Ethics always starts with premises that are emotional in origin, but immediately becomes about the conclusions that are drawn from those emotions. However, gods and spirit things still have little to do with it.

Political philosophy is much the same way...you must have a goal or standard already in mind. Political philosophy is about how society can achieve that goal. Typically, the set goal is emotional.

Aesthetic philosophy I barely mention, I don't have a lot of education in the area so I feel little wisdom to share...and don't think my opinion to be educated enough to be valid.

I suppose we could say that the turning point was Hume and Kant. But even after them, refferences to god or spirituality were still made on some cases. But it's definite that after those two those ideas were mostly deemed anachronistic. Plus it reminded the dark ages to the people, so they were avoided.

In fact, they are still avoided in most European countries...

 

[Duty]

I suppose we could say that the turning point was Hume and Kant. But even after them, refferences to god or spirituality were still made on some cases. But it's definite that after those two those ideas were mostly deemed anachronistic. Plus it reminded the dark ages to the people, so they were avoided.

In fact, they are still avoided in most European countries...

Well, western philosophy has since been largely divided into continental and analytical. In the English speaking world analytical (the tradition set by Descartes) has been the dominant tradition, and on continental Europe continental philosophy has largely taken precedence.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

1) This has nothing to do with MBTI. We all have the same cognitive institutions, MBTI just explains which ones we tend to favor. Every type is perfectly capable of reason and knowledge.



2) You reach understanding of the world and how it functions through intellect. You reach understanding in personal relationships and personal psychology through emotion (intellect helps a bit with personal psychology). I don't see what relevant things spirituality helps you understand that the other two are not more adept at doing.



3) Politics is supposed to be an intellectual enterprise, not an emotional one. Philosophy has long been an intellectual enterprise. It has spawned logic, it has spawned the sciences. Social sciences take emotions of their subjects into account, but that's not the same as taking the observer's emotions into account. They're supposed to be like other sciences: based on logic and observation.

4) Philosophy has long recognized that reason is the correct way of understanding propositional knowledge. "God exists" is a proposition...it asserts a fact about the world. Reason is the correct facility to determine if this is true. The evidence for this proposition isn't there. "Fish exist" is a proposition much like the above. However, there is a great body of evidence to prove fish exist. "Polar Bears do not exist" is a proposition as well. Reason is again the correct facility to determine the truth of this statement. The evidence is heavily against this proposition being true, so we claim it false.



5) Except religion is not intellectual. It has no evidence to support its claims. Different religions claim radically different things. Religion does not follow an objective standard. Religion rarely claims that it is subject to change as new data is gained...it claims to have all the answers yet no evidence for them. Religion is not intellectual...



6) This sounds more like understanding of one's emotions and impulses. It sounds like self-awareness. To call it spirituality and bring in the supernatural and the like seems to just be over complicating it if such is the case.

You are almost completely misinterpreting everything I've written. Turn off the over-critcalness for a second
First off, I'd like to remind you that these are my theories and do not necessarily coincide with the dictionary definitions of things. If you don't want to run with them, that's fine, but be willing to give them a try too. It's okay to give some new ideas a go too

1) I know it doesn't have anything to do with MBTI types. I'm not using them to say which types do it better; I'm saying what sort of functions tend to work with more when you're involved in each activity (although science uses both N and S, depending on the branch, but you've been describing more of the S side of it, and compared to religion it is much more based in sensory knowledge, so S fit better here)

2) Which is kind of what I go on to describe. Actually, that's exactly what I go on to describe. I'd really appreciate it if you would go through and read the entire post before trying to disprove each individual part; it's a lot easier to gain an understanding of the other's point of view that way. Plus, you won't look like an ass doing things like this, where it becomes quite obvious you're arguing for the sake of arguing or winning and not to come to any sort of understanding of the other's point of view or the issue as a whole.

3) Remember, I'm using different definitions for each. Politics has to take emotion into account, because they have to take social definitions and personal prospective into account. A politician who does not do this is stoic. All others do at least to a degree, often times much more.
Philosophy covers almost all facets of human nature, and from almost all angles. There are many philosophers that are very analytical; there are many who are much more romantic. Philosophy is kind of a free-for-all when it comes to how people theorize on human nature; often times, it is making emotions into something that can be described or trying to rationalize it, and often times philosophers simply decide they would rather be irrational. The romantic movements reflect this fairly well.
Social sciences have to take emotion into context, because social science is usually very subjective as is. You can only be so objective with that. It's important to try to be rational, but you can't get rational to the point where you write off or no longer truly understand very real emotional causes and effects in the past.
So, according to what I had outlined, they all fit very well.

4) As I said, philosophy is much less formatted than that. There have been philosopher and movements in philosophy all over the board. That's a rather narrow generalization, imo.

5) More proof that you have not listened to anything I have argued at all, unless you happened to agree with it. You can't pick through the parts you want to talk about in the other's argument and discard the rest. And don't even ask me to back this up; I've already backed this up. I've already argued against this.
I'm not that religious and have had trouble with religious zealots in the past. Your attitude is oddly similar to theirs; just on the other side.

6) Spirituality is different than just self-awareness. When you tap into true spirituality, it is not only awareness, but also understand, acceptance, and contentedness all in one. If you've ever felt really in-tune with your spiritual side, then you might describe it, as myself and many others have, as a sort of feeling of joy and sorrow together, and it seems like a sensory overload from the inside out. It's powerful. I've kind of assumed you've never experienced it yourself, or searched to experience, which is kind of a shame. There really is something amazing to it, and you can't really say there's nothing to it until you've felt it -- think of it like a scientific experiment. Unless you accurately set up and recreate an experiment, you can't disprove. Until you accurately and sincerely search for the soul, you can't prove it's not there. Although, the difference lies in the fact that with spirituality, it's more personal; what might be intensely spiritual for me may not be for you. However, I don't feel you're justified to disregard the existence or importance of spirituality until you've been willing to actively disprove that you cannot gain anything from it. And even then, I doubt I'll listen to you about it, because I HAVE felt it and it is a very wonderful thing quite unlike what I can get from outside sources.

 

[just me]

Eloquent - excuse the generalization, but I have only read the posts at a glance, but I get the impression that what you call mystery and mysticism are not in fact related to truths/realites beyond human capacity to grasp (mysteries in the strict sense), but are instead an attempt to impose on those things we can grasp a sense of doubt/fuzziness so that they seem less mundane than they are. Earth mysticism just sounds like a type of romanticism.

Milon - I have a suggestion about proof, but it requires that you at least entertain the notion that God, being so perfect and simple, as to be completely incomprehensible to humans, desires to impart knowledge of himself to those who wish to know him. And that the desire to know him is expressed by faith.

Why faith and not proof? - It is impossible for an object to be held in the intellect as both an object of faith and an object of certain knowledge at the same time (in the same respect). So that if you study a true proof for the existence of God, you can no longer believe that He exists - in other words, there is no longer consent, but simple apprehension. The only way then that desire to know God can be suitably expressed, is by believing (holding as true) what one does not immediately apprehend as true.

So what is a proof - it is not a foggy sense or a coincidence of events, it is that which leads to certain knowledge, which is no longer subject to voluntary/involuntary adhesion, but which is immediately known as true. For example, if I tell you there is a lamp next to my computer, you can either decide to believe (have faith) in what I have said or not. But if you visit my desk and see the lamp, you can no longer believe that there is a lamp there - you have proof (sense knowledge in this case) that it is there and you know it as a fact.

Same as the scripture we can no longer hope for that which we see. Faith is the evidence of all things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen. Agree.

 

[Milon]

Thanks for clarifying, Duty.

Proof for this would be:

1. A deductive logical argument (from premises that are already known to be true) that shows God to be a necessary consequence of those premises being true.

2. A very strong inductive argument from very inductively strong premises that shows God to be a very likely thing to exist. Because God is an extraordinary claim, the argument will need extraordinary strength (show that God is 90% or more likely to quantify it).

3. Direct observational evidence of God that isn't anecdotal.

4. Empirical evidence that, when combined with either 1 or 2, arrives at the conditions set forth by them.

1. Everything that we have empirical experience of has a source. This must include the physical universe. The physical universe has a source. (Note that the Big Bang is the universe, but it can't be the source of itself.)

2. Now you're asking for subjective reasoning! Who's to say what's 90% sure? That's opinion only. However, everything in nature has amazing design. From the chemical reactions necessary for life to the cells that make your body to the way your brain synapses work together and give rise to your conscious thought to the way the planet's ecosystem works together in harmony with itself to the layout of the universe. Chaos is never observed to give rise to information or design. Why should Chaos be credited for Creation? Why not, more logically, give credit to a Creator? And why should a Creator (a God) be an extraordinary claim? Would it not be much more extraordinary for the universe to create itself and then create life to question it?

3. You'll have to define this one more carefully. Many people have had spiritual experiences directly involving God. Are you saying you need to have one yourself? Or are you saying something else?

4. Any empirical evidence that can be provided can also be ignored. I could choose to believe that this 'Duty' character is just an excellent algorithm. Maybe even good enough to pass the Turing Test. But still just an algorithm. Not a person. I could even meet you in person, but I could always fall back on saying you were the programmer, and I wouldn't have to believe anything else. Empirical evidence is only evidence to the believer. I guarantee you'll never find any that you can't explain away. (Honestly, you can explain away or rationalize away anything you want to.)

 

[Duty]

1. Everything that we have empirical experience of has a source. This must include the physical universe. The physical universe has a source. (Note that the Big Bang is the universe, but it can't be the source of itself.)

Cosmological Argument.

Rebuttals:

If everything has a source, then what is the source for God?
If you say that God has no source/nothing caused God, then it would be special pleading.

It is far premature to rule out that the universe created itself or has always existed (if God can be these things, why not the universe?). If you contend that the universe could not have created itself/always existed, but God is one of those 2 things, then you're special pleading.

If you define God as "that force which created the universe," then this does not prove nor is it necessary that God is any of the following: conscious, intelligent, omnipotent, omniscience, benevolent, or anything other then an unknown force which spawned the universe.


Honestly, this is the best attempt in the whole thread yet. We're getting to real arguments with substance.

2. Now you're asking for subjective reasoning! Who's to say what's 90% sure? That's opinion only.

Not really. I can say that a specific gold atom being shot at a corner has a 60% chance to go left, and a 40% chance to go right and that's completely legitimate (and in fact is how things at the quantum level work).

I can say that the sun has a 1 in 5.479452055 x10^11 chance of not rising tomorrow and that's a strong inductive argument. It doesn't mean it's absolutely guaranteed the sun will rise, but that it's extremely likely, and inductively strong.

However, everything in nature has amazing design. From the chemical reactions necessary for life to the cells that make your body to the way your brain synapses work together and give rise to your conscious thought to the way the planet's ecosystem works together in harmony with itself to the layout of the universe. Chaos is never observed to give rise to information or design. Why should Chaos be credited for Creation? Why not, more logically, give credit to a Creator? And why should a Creator (a God) be an extraordinary claim? Would it not be much more extraordinary for the universe to create itself and then create life to question it?

This is unnecessarily complication of the way things are. You're putting human concepts of meaning, complexity, amazingness, and harmony to objects that do not inherently have such properties. You're describing concepts that are completely subjective and trying to tell me that nature has these things as innate properties. Complexity is a human interpretation of raw data...it's a subjective way of seeing a world that is not inherently complex or harmonious or meaningful. The only awe and harmony in the world is present where you've decided to see it.

The world is much simpler then that. It is a mixture of fundamental particles: bosons, leptons, quarks, etc, that interact through a set of 4 fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear, and the weak nuclear force. In certain combinations these particles have certain effects and properties...an enclosed space containing 2 up and 1 down quark is called a proton. An enclosed space containing 1 up and 2 down quarks is called a neutron. 2 protons combined with 2 neutrons with 2 electrons forms a helium atom. Etc Etc...

The concepts you describe here are human conceptions. They're not innate properties of the world. Just my opinion, but they're unnecessary complexity. Sure, these concepts can make life more bearable...easier to understand when the concepts are useful...etc....but when describing what the world actually is made of, one must recognize that concepts such as "harmony" are nothing that nature is made of.

3. You'll have to define this one more carefully. Many people have had spiritual experiences directly involving God. Are you saying you need to have one yourself? Or are you saying something else?

There needs to be documented empirical evidence of an entity that displays the powers that ascribed to it. Saying "I felt a press in my chest at church, it must have been God!" is not very convincing. Neither is, "I saw a white light bounce around outside my window, it must have been an angel!"

4. Any empirical evidence that can be provided can also be ignored. I could choose to believe that this 'Duty' character is just an excellent algorithm. Maybe even good enough to pass the Turing Test. But still just an algorithm. Not a person. I could even meet you in person, but I could always fall back on saying you were the programmer, and I wouldn't have to believe anything else. Empirical evidence is only evidence to the believer. I guarantee you'll never find any that you can't explain away. (Honestly, you can explain away or rationalize away anything you want to.)

Ignoring empirical evidence would just be a fallacy of suppressed evidence. It's not intellectually honest and not a way to strive for truth.

Plus, it's very inductively strong that I'm not an algorithm. Nothing that good to our knowledge has even been invented yet, and so there is little reason to suspect that I am an algorithm until it has been invented. Sure, it's POSSIBLE, but it's inductively very very unlikely.

 

[TenorKite]

It is far premature to rule out that the universe created itself or has always existed (if God can be these things, why not the universe?). If you contend that the universe could not have created itself/always existed, but God is one of those 2 things, then you're special pleading.

...is creating itself.