TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Please try to respond to points made instead of trying to insert your pet-peeve topics into everything.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence for a Creator God Who Likes Creating Things
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Just to be clear here. If there was a creator that likes making a variety of things, then we would observe a variety of things (which is reasonable), doesn't imply that observing a variety of things means that there is a creator that likes making a variety of things. This is a logical error called affirming the consequent.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Actually I am.
But that has nothing to do with the point I made.
You are once again arguing (your pet peeve points) only for the sake of arguing.
And you are misrepresenting what @ChristineM said in order to do so.
Not very nice of you.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Why would you simply assume that there was agency behind it?
Even in a universe full of dimensions that are full of gods... there must simply be some point at which something "just is" without any further explanation forthcoming. Why couldn't that be the space, matter and governing forces of the universe we see in front of us? If you have no good rebuttal to that, then you simply must admit that the jury must remain out until we have more concrete evidence. There is absolutely no reason I can see to attribute any automatic processes we see or experience in the universe as being directed (or set in motion) by some external agency. That claim needs evidence. As would the claim that the universe has simply existed forever.
Messianic Israelite
Active Member
My alternative is that at creation the speed of light was faster than it is today. The speed of light is essentially the speed limit of our universe. If the speed of light was quicker in the past at creation, then light reaching us now from stars is not necessarily light that has travelled billions of years to reach us. It's then more plausible to say that stars are thousands of years old as the Bible teaches - created on the 4th day of creation - than that stars existed before a so-called Big Bang.
You've got to remember that astronomers estimate the age of the universe in two ways: 1) by looking for the oldest stars; and 2) by measuring the rate of expansion of the universe and extrapolating back to the so-called Big Bang. If the oldest stars are older than the Big Bang, you have no theory. It just doesn't work.
Whoever you are talking to it seems i have them on ignore and you comment of "misrepresenting what @ChristineM said " points me in only 1 direction.
Not nice for sure but typical and at least partially the reason he is on ignore
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You say "no", but then you confirm what he said....
So you have no evidence then, just opinion, so no publication... Fair enough.
FYI, the initial rapid inflation stage is taken at being far more than the speed of light.
And of course you are misunderstanding the speed of light which is relative to the observer.
I.e. a particle of light passes an observer at around 300,000 kps, even if the observer is traveling in the same direction at say 200,000kps. That of course must mean that to a second static observer the 1st observer passes at 200,000 kph. So how fast does the particle of light pass?
it also means that to someone on earth observing an object recede at say 3/4 of the speed of light they can see the object. But an observer in precisely the opposite direction, also receding from the 1st observer at 3/4 the speed of light can see the observer but not the first object which is receding from them at 1.5 times the speed of light???
Ain't relitively fun?
Oh and yes, you do have a plausible theory, but some aspects need further investigation
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Is your feeling there is a god from nature (a form of pareidolia) a gut feeling or deep inner feeling that doesn't have logical external proof of your feelings' validity?
If so, than how and why would one take your opinion into consideration if it's an opinion and assumption and not a statement that you can support beyond "it's obvious nature 'points to' a creator (my wording)"?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So if everything is only natural as per objective evidence, then your "uhu, sure" is not objective nor with evidence and thus not natural.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Give evidence for the fact that there is a natural universe. That is what you in the end claim. So deliver!
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So this is not about a natural universe for which your in-group have evidence, knowledge and what not. So you admit that you are nothing but a believer?
Why not? What is the basis for your claim here?
Can you explain how that is?
Do you think that the "wonder of the variety" is the same as "variety"?
We can hear a song. We can see a musician. We can see the musician perform the song. Can you see where I am going with this?
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
\What do you mean by "epistemological realist"?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
How you ever doubted with skepticism what knowledge is and how that leads to this:
"
3. The definition of relativism
There is no general agreed upon definition of cognitive relativism. Here is how it has been described by a few major theorists:
- “Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be”. (Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)
- “The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth.” (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)
- “There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)
- “There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable” (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)
- “There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.)
Nevertheless, a reasonable definition of relativism may be constructed: one that describes the fundamental outlook of thinkers like Rorty, Kuhn, or Foucault while raising the hackles of their critics in the right way.
Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;
(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
..."
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
In other words, if you use skepticism not just on other humans' claims, but also your own, you will learn that there is no knowledge as you use it. It is a belief system just like religion, as there is no evidence in the end for that the word is natural nor from God.
Of if you like, reason, logic and evidence is limited and nobody can show what the world is. That is: "No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others."
So you claim knowledge. To me that is belief system just like religion. And since you made the positive claim of knowledge, you do the job and with reason and logic show that you have knowledge.
What?
I have never met or heard of a person that is as or near the purity of God. As far as I know, all have sinned and come short of God.