If there are fake galaxies, then God exists

Cause and effect
What could be an ultimate cause.....creation is asked.
Where was the creator before the creator created everything ?
What container was pricked all over to create openings to light.
What energy was emitting light to pass through the holes.
Who created the `energy` that provided the `light` to shine.
And then there was `light`......yahdoooo.....
Geeeesuuuuus.......out of here !

Tumah said:

I think the part you're loosing me is when you say that there's a phenomenon designed to give an illusion as evidence for intelligent design. That's a bit of circular reasoning, because you're describing the phenomenon as designed in the first place, without any evidence that the illusion was intentional.

Click to expand...

Maybe...

But I maintain my belief that if a complex thing wasn't produced by life-forms (e.g. humans) or by natural processes, then it must have been created by by some kind higher power - a creator/designer

And that if such an anomalous thing were to be discovered it would be evidence towards a creator/designer

I'd say are only three ways a thing can come about: 1) produced by life-forms, 2) produced by nature, 3) produced by higher powers

Once you rule out 1 and 2 you are left with 3

Unless there is a 4th option...?

dianaiad said:

Well, it COULD be 'yellow volkswagon syndrome here," (you know, where you never see yellow volkswagons on the free way until you buy one and then they're all over the place?)

However, I've been around a long time, arguing (sometimes on both sides, just to be irritating) and I have honestly found that theists who suddenly find something about the deity they believe in to be comprehensible don't instantly cease to believe in that deity.

However, for some reason I've never quite been able to figure out, non-believers seem to insist that for deity to BE deity, He/She/It MUST BE utterly mysterious, magical and incomprehensible. As soon as something becomes understandable....like why we all don't fall off of a round planet, for instance, then deity CANNOT have been responsible for the creation of gravity or the world, because, well, God wouldn't DO something in a way that we mere fallible and stupid humans could possibly figure out.

It is, I submit, a huge moving of the goalposts by those who accuse THEISTS of doing so.

Click to expand...

I sense some sort fear that they might be wrong. It see it that way: if it is a possible god, I still don't have to believe in it. Even if it is a necessary god, I still don't have worship it.
That's why I love the Simulation Hypothesis. It p*sses both sides off equally. The atheists see a possible god/creator and the creationists see a creator/god that isn't their god. It's challenging to their worldview so it can't be (a god).

Eddi said:

Maybe...

But I maintain my belief that if a complex thing wasn't produced by life-forms (e.g. humans) or by natural processes, then it must have been created by by some kind higher power - a creator/designer

And that if such an anomalous thing were to be discovered it would be evidence towards a creator/designer

I'd say are only three ways a thing can come about: 1) produced by life-forms, 2) produced by nature, 3) produced by higher powers

Once you rule out 1 and 2 you are left with 3

Unless there is a 4th option...?

Click to expand...

But the thing is that you haven't ruled out any of these options yet.

Tumah said:

But the thing is that you haven't ruled out any of these options yet.

Click to expand...

You're quite right

But my claim is that if a thing is not option 1 or option 2 then it would be option 3 - which is what I said in the original post

At the end of the day, that's all I'm claiming in this thread, I'm not even really saying that there is such a thing

I believe this to be true

Eddi said:

Maybe...

But I maintain my belief that if a complex thing wasn't produced by life-forms (e.g. humans) or by natural processes, then it must have been created by by some kind higher power - a creator/designer

Click to expand...

And is this creator/designer more complex than what he/she/it creates or simpler?

If he/she/it is more complex... by your premise, a complex thing must be created by another higher power, which means that your creator must have in turn a creator/designer, which also would require one, which requires one too... ad infinitum.

Or, the creator/designer is less complex than what he/she/it created, which would make your creator/designer a simple construct, perhaps even natural.

Ouroboros said:

And is this creator/designer more complex than what he/she/it creates or simpler?

If he/she/it is more complex... by your premise, a complex thing must be created by another higher power, which means that your creator must have in turn a creator/designer, which also would require one, which requires one too... ad infinitum.

Or, the creator/designer is less complex than what he/she/it created, which would make your creator/designer a simple construct, perhaps even natural.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying and accept much of what you say

Are "creation", and "design" transitive things? I don't think so. A produced B, B produced C, therefore A produced C? I don't think it is, as creation/design involves creativity, free will, concepts, and intelligence - characteristics that B would have acquired, independently of its origin as the product of A

Therefore a cosmic creator/designer's creation can be attributed to Intelligent Design, even if the creator/designer itself were the product of nature

I don't have a problem with infinite regression, that only blows your mind if time is linear and maybe it isn't, maybe we just experience it like that as we're apes? - also, I believe in the idea of an obscure "unmoved mover" although I don't expect others to share this, I know...

ChristineM said:

Has he? Do you have evidence?

Do you have evidence that your god belief has not made many universes?

No, so why bother with the patter?

Click to expand...

Has He what? Made other universes? Why, I don't know. I believe He created THIS one, though, and that makes Him a creator. As for 'evidence,' well, that's a whole 'nuther topic, isn't it? I think there is...you wouldn't accept as evidence those things that I accept as such. Nor am I claiming that you have to.

As to why bother?

Hmnn. Honestly?

I just got home from another round of radiation for yet another tumor, I'm nauseated, weak, dealing with a broken arm (caused by still another tumor and requiring surgery and a 'nail' or rod down my left humorus), and I am just now starting to feel up to bugging people who make silly arguments.

And your argument is just plain silly.

I bother because it's fun to mess with people.

I bother because it looks VERY much as if I'm going to have a thoroughly lovely Christmas, and good news makes me feel like tweaking noses.

My own personal beliefs are that there is a God...I don't know everything about Him and I imagine that a great many things I think I know are probably wrong. I believe that He is my Father both spiritually and in many ways, physically, and that He created the universe. You know, 'everything?"

I believe that the system of beliefs I follow are the 'most true' of all theistic beliefs out there, even if they 'get it wrong' sometimes. I'm OK with that. I also have a problem with lousy logical argumentation, even when I happen to agree with the beliefs of the one doing the arguing.

.....and I love people who just see pure wonder at the universe and do their best to understand it, whether they acknowledge a creator or not. I love poets, which is why i appreciate Carl Sagan AND J. Golden Kimball AND Joseph Smith AND....a whole bunch of others who disagree with each other and with me. I don't have to debunk everybody else's beliefs, pro or con, but I do have problems with those who think they have to debunk mine.

Eddi said:

The Universe appears to be pretty huge – millions of galaxies, billions of stars, over trillions of light-years…

But what if it is not as vast as it seems?

What if it’s really only very tiny?

And what if all the distant stars, galaxies and exo-planets we can observe are all mere illusions?

What if we’re all alone, and our sun is the centre of the Universe and everything outside of our solar system doesn’t really exist in any great detail?

What if all the majesty and awesomeness of the Universe is just a very elaborate background?

I know there’s zero evidence for this...

If I could prove the Sun was at the centre of the Universe and everything outside the solar system was an illusion then would that be evidence for a creator God?

I say it would, as fake galaxies and stars could only have come into being by the hand of God

I think if I can prove everything outside the solar system is fake then I have proof for God

Click to expand...

If God exists, then a vast, vast Universe makes good sense. (I found out that God does exist, to my great shock at one point)

Vast makes sense in a way -- because He is God, not just a man....

It would make sense that His design (physics itself, the Universe merely physics in action) would be amazing, wondrous.

Don't try to put God in a box or make Him small. See?

Eddi said:

The Universe appears to be pretty huge – millions of galaxies, billions of stars, over trillions of light-years…

But what if it is not as vast as it seems?

What if it’s really only very tiny?

And what if all the distant stars, galaxies and exo-planets we can observe are all mere illusions?

What if we’re all alone, and our sun is the centre of the Universe and everything outside of our solar system doesn’t really exist in any great detail?

What if all the majesty and awesomeness of the Universe is just a very elaborate background?

I know there’s zero evidence for this...

If I could prove the Sun was at the centre of the Universe and everything outside the solar system was an illusion then would that be evidence for a creator God?

I say it would, as fake galaxies and stars could only have come into being by the hand of God

I think if I can prove everything outside the solar system is fake then I have proof for God

Click to expand...

Why would God fake it? We'll be going out there.

Isaiah 45:18For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Isaiah9:7Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Eddi said:

If I could prove the Sun was at the centre of the Universe

Click to expand...

That could end up being akin to creating (imagining) your own creation. Sorta putting yourself in the position of God, in a partial way. It's not best. A key part of the wrong Adam and Eve did was thinking to judge things they could not really correctly judge.

But here's an interesting thing from Astrophysics. It's generally understood that essentially everywhere is the 'center' of the Universe.

I know this might seem odd at first. It's because our 'common sense' is merely the result of our own actual experience, here in this place we live.

Eddi said:

I understand what you're saying and accept much of what you say

Are "creation", and "design" transitive things? I don't think so. A produced B, B produced C, therefore A produced C? I don't think it is, as creation/design involves creativity, free will, concepts, and intelligence - characteristics that B would have acquired, independently of its origin as the product of A

Click to expand...

Or in other words, to create or design is to have a preconceived notion, idea, plan for the things that are to become. Now, that requires process, a complex process in itself to plan and think out how a universe would work. Currently in science, some things are better tested than thought out, essentially simulate what you want to create first before you create it. So, perhaps we're not created at all... .yet... but we're just in his/her/its simulation of the design that he/she/it is planning to do. We wouldn't and can't know if it's true if the simulation is perfect.

Therefore a cosmic creator/designer's creation can be attributed to Intelligent Design, even if the creator/designer itself were the product of nature

Click to expand...

Sure.

We can create things of lesser complexity and design as products of nature ourselves. The fascinating thing is that if we use genetic algorithms and other rather advanced mathematical/computer models and simulations, we can produce things that are more complex.

I don't have a problem with infinite regression, that only blows your mind if time is linear and maybe it isn't, maybe we just experience it like that as we're apes? - also, I believe in the idea of an obscure "unmoved mover" although I don't expect others to share this, I know...

Click to expand...

The idea of unmoved mover comes from Greek philosophy, if I'm not mistaken, but didn't really suggest that this mover was something we would pray or worship. Just saying. If you want to call that God, it's your choice.

With that said though, I rather believe in a all-powerful entity that can create this magnificent and infinite space of universe with sixtillions stars. It gives me more sense of awe than to think of God as some rock that only made some computer simulation.

Eddi said:

The Universe appears to be pretty huge – millions of galaxies, billions of stars, over trillions of light-years…

But what if it is not as vast as it seems?

What if it’s really only very tiny?

And what if all the distant stars, galaxies and exo-planets we can observe are all mere illusions?

What if we’re all alone, and our sun is the centre of the Universe and everything outside of our solar system doesn’t really exist in any great detail?

What if all the majesty and awesomeness of the Universe is just a very elaborate background?

I know there’s zero evidence for this...

If I could prove the Sun was at the centre of the Universe and everything outside the solar system was an illusion then would that be evidence for a creator God?

I say it would, as fake galaxies and stars could only have come into being by the hand of God

I think if I can prove everything outside the solar system is fake then I have proof for God

Click to expand...

All of creation must never make it too clear or easily obvious that God exists (!) -- not too easy and clear so that none could deny.

For a very primary reason. For a key primary goal of life here.

As we read in the scriptural account, God wants those that have...the special leap of trust that we call "faith".

But just seeing an obvious, clear evidence would not require "faith".

See? It's like Hebrews chapter 11 -- all the scripture is full, all the way through, every book almost, of faith accounts, and faith is the cause, the goal, the thing God wants.

We are here for it.

So any easy proof would contradict the Bible all the way through, in so many ways.

Every bit of clear evidence for God would need to be removed.

Like maybe an agent would come and remove the easy evidence.

In order to allow for the actual goal: faith, instead of just observation/proof.

Eddi said:

Yes, I would

By it I mean any entity which has power over us and the universe and whose true nature is beyond our comprehension as mere humans

Just like as we are higher powers to an ant

Click to expand...

How do we have "power over ants"? What do you mean by that?

I mean, it's not like we can make them do our will or whatever...
And in australia, ants kill more people then all spiders and snakes combined.

Eddi said:

I understand what you're saying

But if we look at how the continents are arranged on Planet Earth...

Click to expand...

...by plate tectonics. What of it?

A programmer could have decided that, even if the creator him/herself and The Simulation evolved

Click to expand...

A magical unicorn and his pet dragon "could have" decided that to.
And they have the same evidence going for them as your "programmer".

So I maintain there could be an element of Intelligent Design in planet Earth, even if everything is naturalistic in origin

Click to expand...

There "could" also be undetectable pink graviton fairies regulating the mass of particles.
But why would you suggest such, unless you require it to be through because of some...I don't know... a priori belief, perhaps?

Certainly not because of any evidence, because there isn't any.
In fact, it's one of the first things you said in the OP. That there is zero evidence for this nonsense.

So really, it's like fighting a war with action figures. It's all in your imagination.

Also, there's all that stuff about Earth being "just right" for life

Click to expand...

And there's even more very wrong.

- the Goldilocks theory, I believe it's called, or something like that...

Click to expand...

The goldilock zone, is a zone around a star. If a rocky planet orbits its star in that zone, it can have a surface temperature fit for liquid water, universally seen as an important prerequisity for life. Note that this zone is pretty big. It's not like if you move earth a couple km's that we're outside said zone.

More importantly perhaps, astronomy has shown us that it isn't at all rare for rocky planets to orbit in that zone, as we have actually detected many that do already. And our current searcharea is like a grain of salt on all the beaches of the world.

It's pretty safe to say that there are billions upon billions of rocky planets orbitting their star in that zone.

You can call them "fake" without evidence if you want. But nobody will be taking you seriously.

Earth could have been created to be "just right" for life in a simulation

Click to expand...

It's not though.
Most living things on this planet can only survive on a relatively small % of the planet's surface.

Which would be Intelligent Design

Click to expand...

Which would be just an assertion with no evidence.

Eddi said:

What about virtual light coming from a virtual star, in a simulation?

Virtual photons could be simulated without coming from energy

In a simulation one can bend the laws of physics

Click to expand...

You're not getting it.
First, you're just inventing this "virtual light" thing. There's no such thing.

Once more: for us to see it, visible light must travel from the source to our retina. If this doesn't happen, then we don't see it. That IS what seeing is: the capturing of real energetic photons by your retina.
No energy = no photons.
No photons = no light.
No light = no "seeing".



Consider an analogy: holograms.
A hologram is a 3d construction made of lightbeams that we can see but not touch.
If you try to grab a holographic football, your hands will just go through it.

What you are trying to get at with your BS "virtual" light thing, is like claiming that you have a holographic football that you can physically touch and play soccer with.

If it's physical, it can't be a hologram.

Same with this light nonsense.
If you can see it, then there must be an energitic photon.

It's either a real existing energetic photon that you can see, or it's not and you can't see it.

It can't be both.



Even if this is a simulation, a simulation is still bound by the rules by which it operates.

Eddi said:

OK

What if I said that if you could find something that's clearly not natural or man-made then that would be evidence for a designer?

Click to expand...

based on what kind of parameters would you determine a thing to be "clearly not natural" and "clearly not man made"?

OK, you brought up ants, not me...

TagliatelliMonster said:

How do we have "power over ants"? What do you mean by that?

Click to expand...

We can rain down destruction on them and annihilate their colonies

We can trample them underfoot

We can capture them and keep them in artificial ant colonies for our amusement

If you pitted me against a single ant I could exercise power over it by stamping on it

We could leave food out for them, to encourage them

I wonder what the ratio of ants killed by humans to humans killed by ants is?

TagliatelliMonster said:

I mean, it's not like we can make them do our will or whatever...

Click to expand...

No, but if we could communicate with them we could make them obey us, with both the threat of annihilation and by offering them help

I'd say that from their perspective humans are a higher power which they cannot compete against at all

Eddi said:

We can rain down destruction on them and annihilate their colonies

Click to expand...

And they can kill us with their poison.

We can trample them underfoot

Click to expand...

And an elephant can do that with us. Not to mention dino's, if they would still be alive.

We can capture them and keep them in artificial ant colonies for our amusement

Click to expand...

True.

If you pitted me against a single ant I could exercise power over it by stamping on it

Click to expand...

Not so much if it's a few dozen, let alone hundreds or thousands, of poisenous ones.

I wonder what the ratio of ants killed by humans to humans killed by ants is?

Click to expand...

I don't think it matters much, considering how they outnumber us a few billion, if not trillion, to one.

Ants we around long before humans and I expect them to be around long after we're gone.

I'd say that from their perspective humans are a higher power which they cannot compete against at all

Click to expand...

So it's a "might" thing, then.

TagliatelliMonster said:

this "virtual light" thing. There's no such thing.

Click to expand...

I'd say that there is - it's just that it looks like the real thing so we cannot tell it is virtual, i.e. simulated light

TagliatelliMonster said:

Once more: for us to see it, visible light must travel from the source to our retina. If this doesn't happen, then we don't see it. That IS what seeing is: the capturing of real energetic photons by your retina.
No energy = no photons.
No photons = no light.
No light = no "seeing".

Click to expand...

I understand how vision works

simulated energy = simulated photons
simulated photons = simulated light
simulated light interacts with a simulated retina

We have vision, but it's not real, it's simulated

No real energy is involved

TagliatelliMonster said:

It's either a real existing energetic photon that you can see, or it's not and you can't see it.

It can't be both.

Click to expand...

It could be a simulated photon that one can see, that has a real life effect upon a simulated retina