What gives you the idea that a deity is real?

[Jim]

(edited for typos)
@nPeace We’ve learned all our lives to distinguish between man made things and other things. I think that’s where the reflex comes from, when we see a painting or a sculpture, a paved road or some litter on a beach, to imagine that that some people made them, rather than thinking that they grew on some tree or vine. I think that it would benefit anyone to learn to think of their relationship with other people and the world around them as part of personal relationship with a person who created us and the world around us for that purpose. I don’t see any of that as a reason to say that some God exists or is real. However that may, it appalls me to see the name of God being associated with vilifying people, and depreciating their character and capacities, just because they don’t agree with that.

 

[Audie]

Your desire has obviously not ripened enough. That's ok, there are bilions of people and animals in the world like that.
One cannot force these things, it has to evolve naturally.

Yes, fish, in particular, do ripen.

Mature people do not believe in magic,
or cultivate self deception.

 

[Audie]

@nPeace We’ve learned all our lives to distinguish between man made things and other things. I that’s where the reflex comes from, when we see a painting or a sculpture, a paved road or some litter on a beach, to imagine that that some people made them, rather than thinking that they grew on some tree or vine. I think that it would benefit any to learn to think of their relationship with other people and the world around them as part of personal relationship with a person who created us and the world around us for that purpose. I don’t see any of that as a reason to say that some God exists or is real. However that may, it appalls me to see the name of God being associated with vilifying people, and depreciating their character and capacities, just because they don’t agree with that.

Archaeologists do have an interesting time of it
trying to determine if paleo items are artifacts
or of natural origin. What general principle do you
propose to apply, to determine if a thing is of
natural origin, or a product of intelligent design?

What would you make of this, should you come
across it? Random chance, design, -?
stump cut by beaver - Google Search:

 

[Polymath257]

I do not have explanation, it just happens, things that you did not have a nanosecond ago suddenly firmly placed in your consciousness and you absolutely sure that they are true. This all of explanation I can master, The second part is human response.

Consciousness doesn't work at the nanosecond scale. It tends to operate at the hundreds of millisecond scale.

 

[Audie]

No - it's a daft "argument". Can you tell the difference between something that has been created by a person (intelligence) and a rock or a tree? Unless there has been some deliberate attempt to mimic, the difference is obvious.

It is also an argument from personal incredulity or ignorance (a fallacy): you don't personally see how the world could have come about without a designer, so it couldn't.

Then, it's not actually an explanation for the existence of the world, it's a childish just-so story that actually leaves you with more to explain than you started with. If the world is complex, amazing, and in need of a designer, so too would anything that created and designed it. We would then have to arbitrarily decide that the designer was magically free from the need of any explanation to avoid an infinite regress.

Even if we ignore all that, it is not an argument for a god (singular), or even gods, let alone one particular god. The world could have been designed by Kevin, the extra-dimensional equivalent of a spotty teenager, who had a new physics set for his birthday.

is it always? paleolithic artifacts - Google Search:

On what bases would you decide?

 

[Polymath257]

You right, but there is a side show here: Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality
And question pops up; how much do we really know?

From the article you linked:
"To demonstrate this, Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it."

Consciousness is irrelevant to quantum effects. What *is* relevant is interaction with other devices. In this case, that little electronic detector.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you know why it is not?
maybe there is no 'objective' thing at all.

Well, that is clearly not true. It is objectively true, for example, that electrons exist. It is objectively true that if you measure something, you affect it.

 

[Polymath257]

You would know better, would you?
https://nypost.com/2017/01/31/reality-might-just-be-a-gigantic-hologram/

Such dimension reduction is common for elliptic partial differential equations, which are the type relevant for this subject. It means that there is more than one equivalent way to do the calculations, but doesn't change the end results of those calculations.

Good try, but don't rely on popular accounts of technical topics.

 

[Marcion]

Yes, fish, in particular, do ripen.

Mature people do not believe in magic,
or cultivate self deception.

If that satisfies your view on reality, then that is just fine, for you.

 

[Audie]

Such dimension reduction is common for elliptic partial differential equations, which are the type relevant for this subject. It means that there is more than one equivalent way to do the calculations, but doesn't change the end results of those calculations.

Good try, but don't rely on popular accounts of technical topics.

Nothing quite like a snarky delivery of ignorance, is there?

 

[Audie]

If that satisfies your view on reality, then that is just fine, for you.

You will recall that I pointed out the simple
and rather well known fact that the greater
the desire, the easier it is to fool self or
others.

Actually, intellectual honesty requires that
one not choose and hope for any specific
outcome, when venturing into the unknown.

If that falls outside your "reality" you are
"ripe" indeed.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What am I assuming? There are no objective proofs of supernatural entities.

Some would say the universe, based on the law of conservation and matter and energy, is physical proof of a creator. Can you cite evidence demonstrating they are wrong or do you have an argument from silence, perhaps?

 

[Sand Dancer]

I code. I paint. I sculpt.
If you can show me a program like Windows 10, that did not require a programmer...


So I guess that means you are not ready for #2.
Atheism Busted.
Agreed?

Nature evolves and lives. The things you mentioned do not. Anyway, your view does not limit which creator deity caused creation. I do like some creator deities, there are so many good ones to choose from.

People believe various things for various reasons, and we form various ideas based on our background, culture, and other reasons, which Atheist will deny.

I guess it depends on the atheist. I think belief is great, as long as one does not pretend that deities were involved in literal history.

I think it would make more sense for them to claim Agnosticism.

Ding ding, winner winner, chicken dinner!

 

[Sand Dancer]

Some would say the universe, based on the law of conservation and matter and energy, is physical proof of a creator. Can you cite evidence demonstrating they are wrong or do you have an argument from silence, perhaps?

Right now we have an idea about how the universe happened, and we can keep learning. Things we don't know are just that. We do not need to have a god of the gaps, but since nature abhors a vacuum, humans do it anyway. It feels good I guess. But when people start pretending a creator is a personage, it gets a little weird.

 

[Audie]

Right now we have an idea about how the universe happened, and we can keep learning. Things we don't know are just that. We do not need to have a god of the gaps, but since nature abhors a vacuum, humans do it anyway. It feels good I guess. But when people start pretending a creator is a personage, it gets a little weird.

We note that science is right, laws are absolute only
when they can be interpreted to mean there is a god.

The 2LOT is a popular fav for facile proof that evolution
is impossible. Of course, it does not apply to god-poof.

 

[leov]

Consciousness doesn't work at the nanosecond scale. It tends to operate at the hundreds of millisecond scale.

information concerning certain questions came momentarily. just appeared.

 

[Jim]

What general principle do you propose to apply, to determine if a thing is of natural origin, or a product of intelligent design?

I don’t know of any principle. I’ve never heard of anyone being taught explicitly to distinguish between man made things and other things it’s just a reflex that evolves from our experiences and what people tell us. We think of some things as being made by humans, and some things not.

 

[leov]

From the article you linked:
"To demonstrate this, Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it."

Consciousness is irrelevant to quantum effects. What *is* relevant is interaction with other devices. In this case, that little electronic detector.

you really miss my point, observation was just outward fact, there is no any proof that
"Consciousness is irrelevant to quantum effects. " from the sxperinent.

 

[ratiocinator]

Some would say the universe, based on the law of conservation and matter and energy, is physical proof of a creator.

They'd be spectacularly wrong, not only because "matter" isn't even a well defined term, let alone a conserved quantity. The conservation of energy is due to the time translation symmetry of the laws of physics, it isn't about some eternal "stuff".

Can you cite evidence demonstrating they are wrong or do you have an argument from silence, perhaps?

What's evidence got to do with it? Quite apart from the scientific illiteracy of it, it's a logical non-starter. Say there was conservation of something called "matter and energy" in the observable universe, why would that imply a creator?

This is of the order of "cats don't like water - therefore god!" - can you cite evidence demonstrating that this is wrong?

 

[leov]

Such dimension reduction is common for elliptic partial differential equations, which are the type relevant for this subject. It means that there is more than one equivalent way to do the calculations, but doesn't change the end results of those calculations.

Good try, but don't rely on popular accounts of technical topics.

lol, it was just a joke...if that was true it would put everything we know (5%) in question.