• 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!

For scientific-minded believers, what is God the Creator of?

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
There are no "things" until we identify and label them as such. They have no function until we determine it. Until we humans cognate our experience of existence, existence is just a sea of undifferentiated phenomena; having no label, no significance, and no meaning. How it functions within that sea of undifferentiated phenomena is completely irrelevant to anything, even itself. Yet for some odd reason you seem to think this is it's greatest aspect. And I can see that you are so beholding to that idea that you cannot contemplate any other.

Naming something is not the same as creating it. Stars and galaxies existed long before we discovered them. Quarks, atoms, planets, cells, etc ALL existed before we first detected them.

So, no, things exist and have 'function' before we determine such. The phenomena are differentiated: we simply don't know about it.

Humans are a recent phenomenon in the universe. But the universe existed, had dynamics (function), had interactions, and was incredibly complex (and differentiated) long before humans were on the scene. We discovered these things. We did not bring them into existence.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
The automobile *functions* as a dwelling because it has an enclosed space that can protect creatures like us from the environment it is in. That is one of the automobile's capabilities.

A thing is how it interacts with other things. It is what it does.

That might include how it interacts with us. We then decide if it is *meaningful* to *us*. We don't determine what things *are*. We determine how we can use what they are to do what we want.

Do you consider everything is knowable by its external behavior?

I would say that what something actually is has intrinsic properties, and extrinsic behaviour.

Knowing your own inner experience is intrinsic for example. Observing conscious behavior in others is extrinsic. Without intrinsic experience of consciousness we would never recognize it in others. So I leave open the idea that there is inner workings vs. external behavior. I draw a distinction.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Do you consider everything is knowable by its external behavior?

I would say that what something actually is has intrinsic properties, and extrinsic behaviour.

Knowing your own inner experience is intrinsic for example. Observing conscious behavior in others is extrinsic. Without intrinsic experience of consciousness we would never recognize it in others. So I leave open the idea that there is inner workings vs. external behavior. I draw a distinction.

Given appropriate devices, we can look at internal behavior from the outside. That is what MRI and CT scans do, after all.

I think it will eventually be possible to 'read minds' using brain scans. And, in fact, we are doing such in limited ways already.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Given appropriate devices, we can look at internal behavior from the outside. That is what MRI and CT scans do, after all.

I think it will eventually be possible to 'read minds' using brain scans. And, in fact, we are doing such in limited ways already.

That would mean that consciousness could be created by duplicating an exact purely physical process. That's a worthy exploration. I just doubt that it can be done. I'd still question if consciousness/life stuff actually forms the brain itself.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Of course one needs reliable sources. Tell me, is my picture proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If not why not?

I put it to you that someone has Photoshopped this monster onto a painting on the Sistine Chapel.
Tell me - the finding of the biblical altar and tablet on the 'mountain of cursing' in Joshua's day, is that evidence for the story of Joshua?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I put it to you that someone has Photoshopped this monster onto a painting on the Sistine Chapel.
Tell me - the finding of the biblical altar and tablet on the 'mountain of cursing' in Joshua's day, is that evidence for the story of Joshua?
I have no idea what they found. Right now your altar is no different than the picture that I posted. In fact the picture is stronger evidence than your altar since I at least posted something. You only made an unsupported claim.

So if you don't mind losing to a picture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster <Ramen> then that is fine with me.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
I have no idea what they found. Right now your altar is no different than the picture that I posted. In fact the picture is stronger evidence than your altar since I at least posted something. You only made an unsupported claim.

So if you don't mind losing to a picture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster <Ramen> then that is fine with me.

Ah, a deflection.
Yes, we have some evidence for Joshua now - despite there being only one percent of archaelogical sites in Israel excavated.
There's no evidence for the spaghetti monster.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ah, a deflection.
Yes, we have some evidence for Joshua now - despite there being only one percent of archaelogical sites in Israel excavated.
There's no evidence for the spaghetti monster.
No! That is what you have been doing. You made a claim. I asked for evidence. You could not provide any. That is the same as you admitting that you were wrong.

To try to demonstrate your error I used an image. One that you had to accept by your poor reasoning.

I have seen claims of "they have found this . . ." before. Either they did not find what was claimed a gross exaggeration of what was found was made. You need to provide evidence for your claims.

And since you have posted no evidence your beliefs are on an equal footing with the Flying Spaghetti Monster <Ramen> Do you understand how you have demoted your beliefs?
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
No! That is what you have been doing. You made a claim. I asked for evidence. You could not provide any. That is the same as you admitting that you were wrong.

To try to demonstrate your error I used an image. One that you had to accept by your poor reasoning.

I have seen claims of "they have found this . . ." before. Either they did not find what was claimed a gross exaggeration of what was found was made. You need to provide evidence for your claims.

And since you have posted no evidence your beliefs are on an equal footing with the Flying Spaghetti Monster <Ramen> Do you understand how you have demoted your beliefs?

Googled 'Joshua curse tablet' and got 4.9 million hits. Isn't that amazing?
Ancient 'curse tablet' may show earliest Hebrew name of God | Live Science

But if I Google the 'spaghetti monster' I get 11.3 million hits. But these aren't valid news items or science reports.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Googled 'Joshua curse tablet' and got 4.9 million hits. Isn't that amazing?
Ancient 'curse tablet' may show earliest Hebrew name of God | Live Science

But if I Google the 'spaghetti monster' I get 11.3 million hits. But these aren't valid news items or science reports.
No, the number of hits is quite often meaningless. The more specific a search is the fewer hits one gets. It only shows how often those words are used, and not necessarily all of them. I just googled banana and got 2.7 Billion hits.

But let me check out your link and see if it helps you. That is your job too. Just finding a link is meaningless in a debate.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Nope. No help for you there. Just a folded sheet of lead with some curses on it. It has nothing to do with the Ark of the Covenant, Gideon, or even Joshua. The stone blocks it is found by is called "Joshua's altar" but there is no evidence that Joshua ever used it. And this find does not support that belief either.

Finding an ancient altar in land with religious beliefs never points to just one religious leader without a whole lot more evidence than that.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
That would mean that consciousness could be created by duplicating an exact purely physical process. That's a worthy exploration. I just doubt that it can be done. I'd still question if consciousness/life stuff actually forms the brain itself.


Yes, I think that something physically identical to a conscious being will also be conscious. I don't believe in philosophical zombies.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
The human review today.

Consciousness is fast disappearing.

As everyone once was a healers life. By natural terms.

Natural innate survival. Basic psychic human. Loving nurturing caring.

Today humans look at their physical bio genitals and no longer recognise their physical brain notified by body type... natural conditions.

A huge warning.

So men following data calculus of review codes by number factor Jesus nuclear dust reactions say I predict. Yet they haven't yet activated a four day sky burning I think we're going to all die.

Catastrophe they built. Carpenter man. Plate tectonics.

Where so called cloud string filament angel hair it's called burn falling from the sky.

Satan's angels gone. Spaghetti.

Exact warning.

So everyday the men who said science is banned awaiting catastrophe...on an earth they don't control God prediction.

Ice the saviour body is disappearing Sacrificed so they own no prediction. As earth event four day attack wasn't predicted either.

You don't own a reactive earth. Brother your machine isn't planet earth.

A long time ago however he compared a container a machine to act reactive in. Machine. Just like his God he said the earth. It reacts safely inside itself. Yet it also erupts out of containment. Wrong brother really wrong.

As he taught heavens isn't in any container so don't pretend you act like a heavens.

Yet he had. Has.

Claiming it a sun metal base not yet melted fused into a contained machine. Above us. Sealing in our heavens mass fuel.

So he can own the heavens reactiins inside a container. What invention causes means. He's expressing his intent. You certainly aren't listening to what he says he'll cause in science.

He wants to control our heavens.

Is his own actual satanic warning about sun...light...sacrificed story he ignores.

He wants to place then control a calculated above particle mass that isn't equated as natural light in a void. As just a gas burning status. Origin.

Why men of old typify that suddenly above us metal objects began to fall in. Fused star mass by melt. Not light. Above us warning.

Below he already has AI.

So everyday not predicted but he predicted a new but old reaction is button pushed reacted
Men's movie warning.

Codes

Codes to push buttons

Codes to push buttons to end life on earth.

First and everyday a new button pushing.

Why it's not predictable as he hasn't done it yet.

So any healer is about all you consciously have left to warn you. Your minds are gone. Physically and observable. What you See hypocrite is what you caused hypocrite.

Said so yourself rich man.

You live the proof.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Nope. No help for you there. Just a folded sheet of lead with some curses on it. It has nothing to do with the Ark of the Covenant, Gideon, or even Joshua. The stone blocks it is found by is called "Joshua's altar" but there is no evidence that Joshua ever used it. And this find does not support that belief either.

Finding an ancient altar in land with religious beliefs never points to just one religious leader without a whole lot more evidence than that.

The issue here is there was only ONE point of cursing in the bible.
To later Jews the whole story of the mountain of blessing and mountain of cursing would have seemed quite strange.
People could deposit their curses upon the curse mountain. And we have evidence for that.
So that's relevant - but what is MORE relevant is this - we have proof that the Bronze Aged Jews could read and write, something academics disputed for decades. And having Jehovah on this tablet proves it's Hebrew, and this links to other ancient texts. So one big 'argument' was that the early stories of Abraham and Moses could not have been recorded as Jews couldn't read and write. I call this 'Skeptics of the gaps'
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The issue here is there was only ONE point of cursing in the bible.
To later Jews the whole story of the mountain of blessing and mountain of cursing would have seemed quite strange.
People could deposit their curses upon the curse mountain. And we have evidence for that.
So that's relevant - but what is MORE relevant is this - we have proof that the Bronze Aged Jews could read and write, something academics disputed for decades. And having Jehovah on this tablet proves it's Hebrew, and this links to other ancient texts. So one big 'argument' was that the early stories of Abraham and Moses could not have been recorded as Jews couldn't read and write. I call this 'Skeptics of the gaps'
But we have no idea why that is there. It could have even have fallen out of a "pocket". You are assuming facts not in evidence. In other words you appear to be making **** up.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
But we have no idea why that is there. It could have even have fallen out of a "pocket". You are assuming facts not in evidence. In other words you appear to be making **** up.

Joshua was the general to Moses. So when you read people were laying curses on Joshua's 'mountain of cursing' you can believe that, yes, people could read and write back then. And if Joshua could do it, so could Moses. But could Abraham? Sure, that 'proto-alphabetic' script goes back BEFORE the patriarchs. So that's the real issue - the age of Hebrew writing.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Naming something is not the same as creating it. Stars and galaxies existed long before we discovered them. Quarks, atoms, planets, cells, etc ALL existed before we first detected them.
Undifferentiated phenomena existed. We chose to differentiate it into stars and galaxies, and we labeled them, and we chose to understand them as we do. Without us, existence is just a lot of undifferentiated phenomena.

But your aren't going to grasp this, I think.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
If the diversity of life is the product of evolution, life itself is the product of abiogenesis, the earth formed naturally from space dust, and matter traces its origins to the Big Bang, then what did God create?

Most creator deities that are now referred to in English as "God" are given as the explanation for the existence of the land and of living things, but this explanation no longer seems relevant in the light of scientific discovery to me.

If you believe in evolution and the Big Bang, then what is God responsible for?

An additional question. If you no longer take your creation myths literally, then why do you take God's existence and role as a creator literally? The two seem to go hand-in-hand to me.

When I was a child there was a board game called Mouse Trap. The object of the game was to set up a sequence of connected mechanical steps, which when triggered by the mouse, would start a chain reaction of connected events, leading to a trap falling on the mouse.

The game was a derivative of setting up dominos, but with each pair of dominos, analogous to connected mechanical steps. For example, a ball bearing might roll down a ramp and would hit a lever, that would release a brake, that would then will cause a pendulum to swing, that hits the net step, etc., etc, all the way to the mouse trap falling and trapping the mouse.

This game is is a good analogy for creation. As God brooded over the deep, the mouse trap game of the universe was all set up, ready to unfold in time, leading to some end game. Let there be light, was like the mouse that triggers the sequence of events that leads to the trap falling.

Science is composed of specialists, who know a lot about one thing area of science. However, as they move away from that area of specialty, they become more and more like a layman. The science that results is composed of disjointed steps, that cannot fully see that a mouse trap game was set up. For example, Quarks are important in Physics, and although Chemistry is the next adjacent science, Chemist do not even use this, even if we intuitively sense these are both connected. There is nobody to make a bridge who can see both sides of two specialties.

In terms of the mouse trap game called the universe, the fusion reactions of stars have populated the universe with atoms. The five more common atoms in the universe are hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen. While the four most abundant atoms in the human body are hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen. This is not a coincidence. Hydrogen gas; H2, water; H2O and carbon monoxide; CO, are the most common molecules in the universe. Water based life was part of the mouse trap game.

The ball bearing of stellar fusion rolls down the ramp, hits the lever, that releases the pendulum that swings to set the stage for life to appear. The game is already set up. However, science is not set up to see it. That would required a more generalist science path for education instead of just specialists.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
"Subpar"? Not necessarily. There can be intelligent fundamentalists. But the problem is that most, like you, refuse to learn what evidence is. They have to. If they learned what qualifies as evidence then they would have to admit that they do not have any. Also cognitive dissonance is a HUGE problem with fundamentalists that argue against evolution. They simply cannot deal with being wrong.

But just for fun, let's go over what you need to have evidence in the sciences. The first thing that you need is a testable hypothesis or theory. Do you have one? What reasonable test could possibly refute it? If you cannot answer that question you do not have hypothesis or a theory, you have an ad hoc explanation. And by definition have no evidence.

I am open to creationists having evidence, but I have never seen them post any.

Interesting, you remained silent regarding the Oort cloud, an elegant hypothesis:

1) We accept only naturalistic explanations for the abundance of remaining comets in an old solar system

2) We conjecture a sizable cloud of distant objects that generates nearby, observed comets, due to solar system gravitation and other gravity and momentum forces

3) No one has ever observed even one Oort cloud object (too far, too faint, too small) but we accept as naturalists it must exist as a mathematical possibility

One reason I trust in Bible is because Israel has demonstrably fulfilled dozens of specific prophecies since 1948, observably, without possibility of self-fulfillment -- mathematically the Bible's prescience is probable, and the odds of the prophecies fulfilled by chance almost nil.

Therefore, you believe in never-seen conjectured objects because they might exist, and because the alternative, a young solar system, causes you severe cognitive dissonance. I trust the Bible because of massive, observed evidence.

That's why it's hard to talk to atheists--they constantly make faith-based claims they cannot perceive as logical fallacies because it causes cognitive dissonance to think they themselves are faith-based, their very definition of irrationality.

Or perhaps instead you may someday visit an asylum and tell the psychiatrists "Everyone is born atheist, but then due to worldwide delusion, almost everyone becomes a theist or deist, and only the few initiated superior beings known as adult atheists are hip to the truth", then they will lock you away and discard the key for you llunatic conspiracy theory that "everyone except the chosen initiated are under a supreme delusion".
 
Top