Evidence for a Creator God Who Likes Creating Things

[TagliatelliMonster]

you need one only assumption, I think: "a higher force that delights in creating variety exists".

A "force" that "delights" implies quite a bit more then just that.
It implies intent, consciousness, intelligence, a realm where this thing resides, etc.

It's quite an assumption. And an undemonstrable / unsupportable / unfalsifiable one at that.

To ascribe anything to such a thing, is indistinguishable from imagination.
Since you have no means to gauge this force, you by definition have no means to establish any kind of causal link between them. Therefor you can not have any proper hypothesis that makes any kind of predictions at all.

Meaning that by definition, all you have here is a mere blind assertion based on literally nothing.

That's why it's parsimonious, in my opinion.
You don't need extra assumptions, I think.

You assume literally everything about your entire case.
You assume the existence of the source, you assume the capabilities of this source, you assume the causal link between said source and observations in reality.

You cannot demonstrate or support any of this.
Because there is nothing there.

Explanatory power is zero.
Verifiability even less.

It's a cop-out, I think.

No. Asking for evidence for claims is anything but a cop-out.

You claim the existence of the entity. You offer no verifiable evidence.
You claim capabilities of this entity. You offer no verifiable evidence.
You claim a causal link between this assumed entity and certain observations in the real world through the entity's assumed capabilities. You offer no evidence.

You don't get to just invent stuff and declare it to be correct or supported or even valid.
Bare claims are infinite in number.

let me rephrase: lasting variety.
Very falsifiable. Theoretically, it could vanish today.

I have no clue what you are on about or how this would falsify your unfalsifiable claim that god-dun-it.

no, it wasn't.
Nobody explained me that:
It's evidence I think.
If there is a person in a house that loves to eat brownies... and if you find the brownies eaten up... it is evidence that that person in fact ate the brownies. It makes sense, it's not silly.
as a comparison to the story that Y might have killed X... was a bs nonsense short story or whatever you called it.

Here's the thing. The part about there being a person in the house that loves to eat brownies? That's additional data. A verifiably existing person with a known, and demonstrable, appetite for brownies.

If you don't know about such a person, then it wouldn't occur to you as a potential cause for the missing cookies.

Now imagine that the owner of the brownies has an a priori belief in a type of poltergeist that steals brownies. And now imagine that the brownies are missing. What will this person think? He'll think a poltergeist is messing with him. Or at least, he'ld consider it a valid option. And if he's alone in the house with no animals or anything, he'll likely even consider it the most "parsimonious" option............


He'ld be wrong, off course.

The guy who suspects the verifiably existing, known brownies loving, roommate? Yes, he'ld be right about that being the most parsimonious option.

Can you see the difference between the roommate hypothesis and the poltergeist hypothesis?


Given that it remains unknown what happened to the brownies... which of these two hypothesis do YOU find most likely and why? The roommate or the poltergeist?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

that wasn't the point I asked substanciation for.
Let's remember, you wrote:
"The prediction must point exclusively to the hypothesis."
The claimed exclusivity was my point of contention here.
Now we read in your source.
"Note that a causal relationship between the observations and hypothesis does not exist to cause the observation to be taken as evidence,[1] but rather the causal relationship is provided by the person seeking to establish observations as evidence."
It's not about exclusivity.
This quote does not rule out that the person seeking to establish observation as evidence must rule out that the evidence may point to another direction, too.
You would need to provide a source to back up your claim that solely observations pointing exclusively into one direction can be used as evidence.

Let's try explaining with an example. See if you get it then.



Let's say there is a dead body in an apartment. For now, it's all we know.

So the datapoint is: dead body.
What is this evidence of? i'ld say it is evidence of that person having died in some way.

It is not evidence of the person being murdered.
It is not evidence of death by natural causes.
It is consistent with both, but it's not evidence for either. It does not suggest either.

We examine the body more closely.
We see a gunshot wound in the chest.
This is evidence that the person was shot. Is it evidence that the person was killed by shooting? It could.

An autopsy occurs. The autopsy reveals a brain aneurysm and seizure and that this was the cause of death.
The autopsy further reveals that by the time the gunshot happened, the victim had already been dead for a few hours.

The autopsy thus reveals evidence that the person wasn't murdered but died from brain seizure. It further reveals evidence that the gunshot happened after death.

So, as said above, the gunshot was only evidence of someone shooting at the body. It wasn't evidence of the person being murdered. It could have been, but additional data was required for that.

See? When things are "evidence" for rivaling, mutually exclusive, ideas - then they are worthless as evidence. At best, they might narrow things down a little, but the evidence you want, is the evidence that points you to a single explanatory model. That's how you arrive at accurate answers to questions.


And most of all, you don't just assert the causal link... you demonstrate it. And how are you going to do that, if not with evidence that only fits the causal link you are asserting and not every other causal link you can come up with?

 

[thomas t]

It's your own source that goes as far as to claim:
For example, the Earth's apparent lack of motion may be taken as evidence for a geocentric cosmology.
It goes on explaining that there is other information pointing to another direction debunking the claim of a stationary earth.
So when even your own sources contradict you, don't just go ahead presenting a short story of a dead body.

No. Asking for evidence for claims is anything but a cop-out.

no please, don't forget: I asked you to provide sources for your claim that it is mandatory to show the existence of an entity first and show its actions last, if you talk about evidence. It's your presumption.
Instead of providing a decent source that says that the rules of science are exactly how you claim... you delivered a story of why you can't provide and that was a cop-out, in my view,
please present sources now.
No excuses. I want sources. No guesswork, no presumption. The sources please. Back up what you say. Provide evidence.
Don't just pull your assertion out of thin air.

Here's the thing. The part about there being a person in the house that loves to eat brownies? That's additional data. A verifiably existing person with a known, and demonstrable, appetite for brownies.

If you don't know about such a person, then it wouldn't occur to you as a potential cause for the missing cookies.

no, that was part of the story.
The story was intended to be a comparison to the other story with X and Y.
The other story was brought up to me. I did not start with that.
I wanted to bring a point across concerning that story. That's why I came up with the brownies.

Now Potergeist is not parsimonious, the assumptions are:
1) Poltergeist likes cookies.
In the example, the person loving cookies was a given.
So Poltergeist has one assumption. The brownie loving person 0.

In that example. Ok?
Stay in context of this specific example please.

I have no clue what you are on about or how this would falsify your unfalsifiable claim that god-dun-it.

lasting variety is falsifiable.
Tomorrow the variety might vanish.

You don't get to just invent stuff and declare it to be correct or supported or even valid.

I don't just invent stuff.
I claim evidence.

You assume the existence of the source, you assume the capabilities of this source, you assume the causal link between said source and observations in reality.

You cannot demonstrate or support any of this.
Because there is nothing there.

I assume the existence of a creative force.
That's my one assumption.
That's all.
Creative means that they create something, that comes with the territory. If they cannot create anything, it's not creative.

The evidence? The variety.

 

[Kenny]

From what I have read of your posts, you are in dire need of someone to help you out with it. I am glad you are looking.

Did you ever consider there may just be bias in your reading? Regardless... happy to interact a little more deeper with you.

 

[Kenny]

I pulled this definition of critical thinking from the internet and it may help you. It is from the Foundation for Critical Thinking.

"Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action."

This one is simple, but it should help you in your quest to develop critical thinking skills. I found it on Wikipedia.

"Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment."

Good luck.

We will sharpen together.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Did you ever consider there may just be bias in your reading? Regardless... happy to interact a little more deeper with you.

I would not be so great at critical thinking if I did not consider the possibility.

 

[Thief]

In my opinion there exists great evidence for a Creator God who loves creating things:
the great variety of life and landscapes on earth.
Landscapes keep changing and life can be found in all its forms.

but He seems to be .......content

by Genesis......no more will be created
Day Seven was the end of it

but wait.....no
Chapter Two is a story of .......MANIPULATION!!!!!!

 

[Thief]

We will sharpen together.

swordplay?

count me in

 

[Kenny]

I would not be so great at critical thinking if I did not consider the possibility.

I generally go as deep as the poster wants to go. If the poster like ECCO posts so superficially and with non-critical thinking, I don't go very deep either. Next interaction with you will be with much deeper thought.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I'm glad that you are here to help be my overseer to judge my critical thinking.

It is just @Dan From Smithville 's turn. He got lucky. He drew the month of February. I have August

 

[Baroodi]

An empty claim. When we study nature we find no need for a god. There appears to be no evidence for a god. Can you explain that?

so according to your views nature has a genius mind to set the physical, chemical, biological etc .. laws that governs the existence of every single thing in this universe seen or unseen but traceable!? wow!

 

[Subduction Zone]

so according to your views nature has a genius mind to set the physical, chemical, biological etc .. laws that governs the existence of every single thing in this universe seen or unseen but traceable!? wow!

Why would you think that a mind is needed?

I can play the same game. According to your views God is extremely duplicitous and shy. He hides all evidence of his presence and allows countless people to fool themselves through confirmation bias. TLDR: You think that God is a liar, wow!

 

[capumetu]

In my opinion there exists great evidence for a Creator God who loves creating things:
the great variety of life and landscapes on earth.
Landscapes keep changing and life can be found in all its forms.

Yes sir Romans 1:20

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes sir Romans 1:20

Nope. The Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biblical answers
https://youtube.com/c/TheOldPath
https://youtube.com/c/TheOldPath

I guess a video titled "Atheistic answers" would refute that.

If you have real evidence post it. No one has found any yet.

 

[capumetu]

Nope. The Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence.

Scriptural support for Tom's statement. The Bible agrees with what he stated, so do I. So you don't, that is your choice, but one thing is for certain, we are here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scriptural support for Tom's statement. The Bible agrees with what he stated, so do I. So you don't, that is your choice, but one thing is for certain, we are here.

That Is of course not evidence. In fact it is far worse than that. It is only his interpretation of the Bible. And there are countless different personal interpretations, that means any one of them is probably wrong.

This is why it is a good idea for people to learn what is and what is not evidence. Literalistic Christians do not tend to understand the concept.

 

[capumetu]

That Is of course not evidence. In fact it is far worse than that. It is only his interpretation of the Bible. And there are countless different personal interpretations, that means any one of them is probably wrong.

This is why it is a good idea for people to learn what is and what is not evidence. Literalistic Christians do not tend to understand the concept.

It is for Tom and I, and many others as well. As I stated, the fact is, we are here, obviously we came from somewhere. I believe that there is intelligent design in creation, highly unlikely we are just a freak of nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is for Tom and I, and many others as well. As I stated, the fact is, we are here, obviously we came from somewhere. I believe that there is intelligent design in creation, highly unlikely we are just a freak of nature.

If one has to mischaracterize the claims of another it is very close to admitting that one is wrong.
Evolution does not say that we are "just a freak of nature".

There is endless evidence for evolution and quite a it of evidence against almost every version of creationism. And there is no reliable evidence for creationism. In fact, even though they do not know this, most creationists call their version of God a liar.

 

[capumetu]

If one has to mischaracterize the claims of another it is very close to admitting that one is wrong.
Evolution does not say that we are "just a freak of nature".

There is endless evidence for evolution and quite a it of evidence against almost every version of creationism. And there is no reliable evidence for creationism. In fact, even though they do not know this, most creationists call their version of God a liar.

The Bible states we are created according to our kind. History shows we can only repopulate according to our kind, evolution would make all live beings of the same kind.

Apes are supposed to be the next step down, but in all of recorded history, they have not advanced in the least, they have not developed language skills, nor are building houses.

Survival of the fittest? Why are there still fish?

You don't have to believe, but like I stated 3 times now, we are here, and yes if there was no purpose for us through creation then we are simply a freak of nature, with no intelligent creator with a purpose for us. If that is the case, soon we will be gone completely.

I would honestly like to know the truth about the planet mars however, if it is an extinct planet, then likely they were advanced enough to send some here before they became extinct. The sad fact is however, you simply cannot trust the information you are fed. Time alone will reveal if there is a creator or not. I believe we are very near the revelation of the Lord Jesus with his powerful angels spoken of at 2 Thes 1:6-9, when that comes there will be no doubt.