Wild idea?

[Twilight Hue]

Let’s say the universe was created. Why then would it be so far fetched to believe that people were a part of that creation?

Why would it be far-fetched then if it was proved the universe was created?


Of course there's a matter of thinking it might be advanced civilization rather than a being reminiscent of a creative Hogwarts graduate.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Well our senses (and perception) so often can deceive us, just as our thinking and feelings can. I suggest you do some research on this before you carry on insisting that what we see is what we get - obvious answers. It is simply foolish to take anything at face value - especially something as complex as the universe and/or its origins or life.

Oh the deeper you look, the more obvious it becomes that this complex universe didn't just happen by chance.
And that life is designed.

 

[ratiocinator]

Oh the deeper you look, the more obvious it becomes that this complex universe didn't just happen by chance.
And that life is designed.

Okay, well that settles it then. Assertions, without any attempt at evidence or reasoning, are soooo convincing.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Oh the deeper you look, the more obvious it becomes that this complex universe didn't just happen by chance.
And that life is designed.

I'd believe you meant that if you had delved deeply but by your comments I doubt you have - based on your views of non-human life.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I'd believe you meant that if you had delved deeply but by your comments I doubt you have - based on your views of non-human life.

What comments are those?
Animals are here for our use and enjoyment. They are fascinating in their own right, but not spiritual beings.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What comments are those?
Animals are here for our use and enjoyment. They are fascinating in their own right, but not spiritual beings.

Well those will do, but more about your views as to non-human life being just instinctive and not possessing any of the qualities or abilities that we assume for humans - which is just not true.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Well those will do, but more about your views as to non-human life being just instinctive and not possessing any of the qualities or abilities that we assume for humans - which is just not true.

What does that have to do with the topic?
I've got lots of experience with animals. Still looking for one that can write poetry.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What does that have to do with the topic?
I've got lots of experience with animals. Still looking for one that can write poetry.

I'm suggesting you do some research into animal behaviour - which might change your mind as to how you seem to see such - and which might then lead you away from the notion that anything needs to be designed. Given that if we share so much with other non-human life it's quite likely we shared a history. But I doubt you will, since you seem to think that observing animals through the sights of a rifle is adequate for studying them.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I'm suggesting you do some research into animal behaviour - which might change your mind as to how you seem to see such - and which might then lead you away from the notion that anything needs to be designed. Given that if we share so much with other non-human life it's quite likely we shared a history. But I doubt you will, since you seem to think that observing animals through the sights of a rifle is adequate for studying them.

Lol, I have studied animals much more extensively than that. I have researched animal behavior far more than the average individual, not only reading about it, which is what most people mean when they say "research".
No sign of human traits...

 

[Mock Turtle]

Lol, I have studied animals much more extensively than that. I have researched animal behavior far more than the average individual, not only reading about it, which is what most people mean when they say "research".
No sign of human traits...

I don't think you have learnt much then - is this natural behaviour, and just one of many similar examples of an animal solving a problem that wouldn't generally occur in their natural environment - and not just the bird solving this problem but others learning too:

https://phys.org/news/2021-07-clever-cockatoos-social-interaction.html

 

[Wildswanderer]

I don't think you have learnt much then - is this natural behaviour, and just one of many similar examples of an animal solving a problem that wouldn't generally occur in their natural environment - and not just the bird solving this problem but others learning too:

https://phys.org/news/2021-07-clever-cockatoos-social-interaction.html

Um, that's human behavior? I don't think so. An animal can be clever or intelligent. A trash panda ( raccoon) has that degree of reasoning.
I think you are not understanding what I'm talking about.
Show me an animal who understands philosophy or religion or plans his week out.
I'm not talking about the ability to do some basic reasoning. Not animal see, animal do. Learned behaviors are a given.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Um, that's human behavior? I don't think so. An animal can be clever or intelligent. A trash panda ( raccoon) has that degree of reasoning.
I think you are not understanding what I'm talking about.
Show me an animal who understands philosophy or religion or plans his week out.
I'm not talking about the ability to do some basic reasoning. Not animal see, animal do. Learned behaviors are a given.

Well your bar is impossibly high I suspect. WTF do you expect from other animals that don't have the ability to use language as we do, but often have so many of the abilities we assume. Like to know what a human infant is capable of?

But you said - so long ago - that animals just act on instinct, and which you appear to have gone back on. How is novel behaviour compatible with 'just instinctual'?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Well your bar is impossibly high I suspect. WTF do you expect from other animals that don't have the ability to use language as we do, but often have so many of the abilities we assume. Like to know what a human infant is capable of?

But you said - so long ago - that animals just act on instinct, and which you appear to have gone back on. How is novel behaviour compatible with 'just instinctual'?

What " novel" about learning that a certain action equals reward? That's part of thier programming. You can teach your dog to roll over by offering him a treat each time he does.
A coyote learns if he walks the brush while his mate walks the field they kill more game together. Same thing.

 

[Brian2]

Can you break the evidence you speak of down for me.

Let's take a baby forming on the womb. If four people watched the wonders of creation, what part of the babies conception, growth, to birth that shows us a creator did it, whose creator, and the thoughts and behaviors of a creator?

The life, design, whole process of growth, act of conception. It all shows a creator.
God is alive and is not less than we are. He communicates and loves and hates and sees beauty and makes beauty for us and allows suffering and helps us in our suffering.

Whats the evidence?

Intellectual evidence is in the Bible and in philosophy and in the creation, but intellectual evidence is not good enough. The Bible is attacked from all angles. For every philosophical argument for God there is someone to say it is wrong and make up an argument against God. The wonderful intricacies of creation which we see and there is someone who says they cannot see God's hand in it, it is all chemistry and physics.
Feelings are not good enough, for every sunset and beautiful flower and loving moment we have there is someone who says they know how these things evolved.
Any intellectual argument can be broken easily and so change our mind.
It is only through humble acceptance of the reality of God, faith, that we can say we are convinced.
Faith can protect us from the arguments to the contrary even if our intellect cannot answer them.
Which God? Hmmm. Why worry about which God when you don't believe in any. Let God lead you.

 

[Brian2]

The bible is a contradictory mess; I've no idea how people can claim it as evidence. The 'wonders of creation' is a vague term, what do you mean and why do you thing they are evidence for a god? In what sense would a god not be even more 'wondrous' and therefore, by the same 'logic', just as in need of explanation/a creator?

How can God be explained? We can however get to know God.

 

[Brian2]

That's only part of it. If a god had an important message, was good, just, fair, and omnipotent, then why isn't the message clear to everybody? Why would such a god play childish and cruel games of hide-and-seek?

We turned from God and God calls us back.
Matt 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
We think we are wise and knowledgeable and God wants us to accept Him in humility.

Not and very nice kind of god, then.

Just like our earthly father when he disciplined us I guess.
God gives everyone sun and rain and etc no matter if they are good or bad and does not make promises about what will happen to us in this life, but does promise a judgement after it.

 

[ratiocinator]

How can God be explained?

You seem to have missed the point. You claimed that the "wonders of creation" would be evidence for a god that created them (and explanation) but when I ask why the same didn't apply to god (why wouldn't the "wonders of god" be evidence for a meta-god) I just get this.

It's typical theist special pleading. "The universe must be created but the creator, well, that's just a mystery / magically doesn't need explaining / don't ask / god 'just is' / ...".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understand personal biases and experiences shapes what people believe is evidence and what they do not. It's human.

The life, design, whole process of growth, act of conception. It all shows a creator.
God is alive and is not less than we are. He communicates and loves and hates and sees beauty and makes beauty for us and allows suffering and helps us in our suffering.

"Shows" How so? When I see a sunset, pagan sees a sunset, and a christian does we see totally separate things.... so you'd have to be more specific of how the sunset (birth, etc) show a creator without dependence on one's belief system.

How do you know this, though? You speak of god as if he is a human being. I honestly and genuinely never got how any person can speak for god, know what he knows, what he does, whether he loves or hates, etc.

Can you break down how you know god loves or hates?

Intellectual evidence is in the Bible and in philosophy and in the creation, but intellectual evidence is not good enough. The Bible is attacked from all angles. For every philosophical argument for God there is someone to say it is wrong and make up an argument against God. The wonderful intricacies of creation which we see and there is someone who says they cannot see God's hand in it, it is all chemistry and physics.

Feelings are not good enough, for every sunset and beautiful flower and loving moment we have there is someone who says they know how these things evolved.
Any intellectual argument can be broken easily and so change our mind.

It is only through humble acceptance of the reality of God, faith, that we can say we are convinced.
Faith can protect us from the arguments to the contrary even if our intellect cannot answer them.
Which God? Hmmm. Why worry about which God when you don't believe in any. Let God lead you.

It's not intellectual but anecdotal.

Intellect and knowledge and facts doesn't depend on

1. What one believes or doesn't believe
2. Which scripture one choose to believe
3. One's experiences, feelings, and thoughts
4. Any logical fallacies
5. Whether one accepts or not
6. Whether you believe god would lead someone or not

(Turning it on me, though, doesn't address the question. It's a fallacy of ignorance)

 

[Brian2]

Yes, that is apparent.

But even if we assume the witnesses are real and were speaking truthfully (and that the written version of their testimony is accurate, without any alterations or mistranslations), it's also possible that they may have mistook what they saw. Even in this day and age of video surveillance and instant communication, a lot of events and reports can be wildly inaccurate.

Everyone knew Jesus had been killed. Some saw and heard Him after He had risen. That is not a detail.

 

[ratiocinator]

We turned from God and God calls us back.

You ignored the question. Who has turned from god? Many people have done no such thing. If god is calling, why can't everybody hear it?

Matt 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

So god has something against the "wise and prudent". As I said, this god of yours seems to be rather nasty.

We think we are wise and knowledgeable and God wants us to accept Him in humility.

So it should stop playing silly games of hide-and-seek....