Wild idea?

[Brian2]

Well I'll put this to you - as long as you accept the timescales involved and how humans have evolved from the primate line, as according to science. Some time back (say 200,000 years ago), when we were mostly just hunter-gatherers, do you think they had any concept of a creator? I would very much doubt it, and it's unlikely they would have had any concept of what stars were or the extent of the universe. I doubt their language would have enabled such. Moving on, we have various religions coming into being, but again these formed when they too had little knowledge as to what stars actually were (and regards the universe), even if some might have guessed that they were mostly just like our sun. We know better now, but if the religions did just form as explanations of reality (and coming from humans), are we any better off than those living 200,000 years ago, when these religions too formed not knowing the extent of the universe as we mostly do know now? It seems to me that there is a good chance for either - creator/creative force or not - given the universe as we now know it.

People would have heard the stories of what happened. They would have been handed on in Adam's family.
People started seeking God and calling on Him. God answered when they did.
God showed Himself to people in history and told us what is going on and why.
That seems to be evidence for a creator to me.
I don't know why people think there is a good chance of no creator.
It doesn't matter what science says, science will never know and always comes up with a natural answer. God is ruled out of science and there is only speculation about the origins and it will never be real science.

 

[Brian2]

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' / ...".

The first cause has no cause, but we know this universe had a beginning.

 

[Brian2]

"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?

The Bible tells me things about God.
But maybe you are right and it is my bias/faith that sees God in things where a non believer does not. And of course this goes the other way for non believers also.

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)

Our beliefs and attitudes do affect how we see things. I have found that what we call knowledge and facts can be dependant on our mind set about it.
I'm not sure what is a fallacy of ignorance and what you mean by turning it on you.

 

[ratiocinator]

The first cause has no cause, but we know this universe had a beginning.

You seem to be just jumping from argument to argument, each time I raise an objection. We don't know that the universe had a beginning, even if it did, time is part of the universe, and a cause for time itself doesn't really make sense. Even if there had to be a causeless cause, how do we know there was only one? There are actually things in the universe that don't appear to have causes.

In short, your 'argument' is full of holes. More hole than argument really.

 

[Brian2]

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?

There are loud voices against God. Maybe you hear those voices instead.

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

Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and Jesus was not talking about that sort of wisdom.
It isn't being knowledgeable that is the problem either, but knowledge can make us think we know a lot when we actually know very little as humans. God hates pride and it is an attitude of humility towards God that He wants.

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

What do you look for when you look for God?

 

[ratiocinator]

There are loud voices against God. Maybe you hear those voices instead.

Doesn't answer the question. If god is good and omnipotent, it should have no trouble making itself known.

Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom...

If god wants to be feared, that's another reason to think it's nasty.

It isn't being knowledgeable that is the problem either, but knowledge can make us think we know a lot when we actually know very little as humans. God hates pride and it is an attitude of humility towards God that He wants.

Which still doesn't explain the silly hide-and-seek.

What do you look for when you look for God?

Why should I have to look? If god is good, just, omnipotent, and has an important message, why should anybody need to go looking for it? Hiding it away, would be unjust and cruel.

 

[Brian2]

You seem to be just jumping from argument to argument, each time I raise an objection. We don't know that the universe had a beginning, even if it did, time is part of the universe, and a cause for time itself doesn't really make sense. Even if there had to be a causeless cause, how do we know there was only one? There are actually things in the universe that don't appear to have causes.

In short, your 'argument' is full of holes. More hole than argument really.

We do know that the universe had a beginning. It started from something small and grew into this. That is what science knows.
We also know that time slows down and so at some point could stop, no time. Isn't this what would happen at a singularity?
What we don't know is about time before this universe and whether the universe started as a singularity.
But as I have said, time cannot have been infinite into the past or we would not be here, or time could have been infinite and God instead of being outside of time is actually everywhere in time and could have started this universe anywhere in infinity that He chose.
Many things I believe by faith in the Bible and so I believe there is one God, one causeless cause.
When it comes to things in the universe that don't appear to have causes, that would probably be because of our ignorance of the cause imo.

 

[ratiocinator]

We do know that the universe had a beginning. It started from something small and grew into this. That is what science knows.

We know that it was in a very dense hot state some 13.5 billion years ago, we don't know that we can't extend time infinitely backwards through that state or not. We currently don't have an adequate theory to draw that conclusion.

But as I have said, time cannot have been infinite into the past or we would not be here...

And several people have explained to you why this is wrong.

Many things I believe by faith in the Bible and so I believe there is one God, one causeless cause.
When it comes to things in the universe that don't appear to have causes, that would probably be because of our ignorance of the cause imo.

So, basically, you have nothing but baseless faith. No actual reasoning or evidence?

 

[Mock Turtle]

People would have heard the stories of what happened. They would have been handed on in Adam's family.
People started seeking God and calling on Him. God answered when they did.
God showed Himself to people in history and told us what is going on and why.
That seems to be evidence for a creator to me.
I don't know why people think there is a good chance of no creator.
It doesn't matter what science says, science will never know and always comes up with a natural answer. God is ruled out of science and there is only speculation about the origins and it will never be real science.

Well you are welcome to believe such. I just don't. The texts just smack of humans writing such.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

I think you are just being obstinate. What do you think of chimpanzees who breaks off twigs (fashion them to the correct size) to fish out ants from a hole so they can eat them? They weren't born to do this, they worked it out at some stage. The same with another species of primate who like to eat sweet potatoes (growing wild) and where they took them to the river to wash them first. Born to do that? There are loads of examples of invention, including solving puzzles, that require intelligence, but to you they just don't have such. Children learn by reward, are you going to decry their intelligence for doing so?

 

[Wildswanderer]

I think you are just being obstinate. What do you think of chimpanzees who breaks off twigs (fashion them to the correct size) to fish out ants from a hole so they can eat them? They weren't born to do this, they worked it out at some stage. The same with another species of primate who like to eat sweet potatoes (growing wild) and where they took them to the river to wash them first. Born to do that? There are loads of examples of invention, including solving puzzles, that require intelligence, but to you they just don't have such. Children learn by reward, are you going to decry their intelligence for doing so?

Obviously you think intelligence equals humanity? Or intelligent animals show we are animals?

A raccoon is capable of picking basic locks. Does that make him like humans or humans like him?
I think not.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Obviously you think intelligence equals humanity? Or intelligent animals show we are animals?

A raccoon is capable of picking basic locks. Does that make him like humans or humans like him?
I think not.

I just think you are basing your views on what your religious belief might say rather than looking at the issue impartially.

How different is it between the scenarios I mentioned and that of our earlier ancestors who chipped away at rocks to form a cutting edge, to use as a weapon or implement? How long were they using such before they developed the bow and arrow? It's mostly a matter of degree as to how we use our intelligence, and language has given humans an enormous advantage over most other species, and we should recognise such.

It often seems to me that the disparities (and perhaps alienness) so many see between humans and other animal species might come down to their not appreciating how we become what we are - it perhaps being too obvious. If left to our own devices, and alone apart from what physically sustains us (food, shelter, and such), how exactly would we be compared to any other species? We gain so much from our past gathered and handed-down knowledge, caring from our parents and others, and the long amount of time we spend in our learning establishments. Otherwise we might not be at the Top of Creation as many seem to think we are. And if we ever came to the disaster scenario where we took a long step back, losing all such, then where exactly would we be compared to all other life? The few feral children that have existed seem to show how we depend so much on our parents, education, culture, and social environment - all of which have gained from the past. If the chain was broken would it show how delicate this continuity actually is and how we are not so special as a species? Given that we lost any connection with what humans have produced over the lifetime of the species in the way of artifacts and knowledge.

Feral child - Wikipedia
Humans are nowhere near as special as we like to think

It seems to me that it is mainly language that has given humans the edge, given that out material brains haven't changed so much whilst our behaviour has. Such that all the necessary requirements were in place for us to achieve what we have whilst for all other species such has not occurred, and never might occur - apart from some species perhaps. Our language has been a necessity, and since we know that other species do use some form of expression to communicate, it is quite possible that advances in AI will discover such - just as AI has made other discoveries possible (in the news recently about proteins, for example).

 

[Wildswanderer]

How different is it between the scenarios I mentioned and that of our earlier ancestors who chipped away at rocks to form a cutting edge, to use as a weapon or implement? How long were they using such before they developed the bow and arrow?

That depends on your view of history. I believe we were fully human and intelligent from the beginning, not some half ape, half man creature. Yes we have lived in primitive ways off and on. Some still do, but I'm quite familiar with primitive technology and it's anything but crude. We need technology to hunt partly because we don't have fangs and claws...we aren't that fast, etc, but we are smart. We took down animals like wooly mammoths because we used our brains to figure out how.
An atlatl is a brilliant invention that takes a lot of skill to use accurately. And we have always worshiped. There are night and day differences between humans and animals.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That depends on your view of history. I believe we were fully human and intelligent from the beginning, not some half ape, half man creature. Yes we have lived in primitive ways off and on. Some still do, but I'm quite familiar with primitive technology and it's anything but crude. We need technology to hunt partly because we don't have fangs and claws...we aren't that fast, etc, but we are smart. We took down animals like wooly mammoths because we used our brains to figure out how.
An atlatl is a brilliant invention that takes a lot of skill to use accurately. And we have always worshiped. There are night and day differences between humans and animals.

Well if we disagree on the timescales of our past, when most scientists would tend to agree, it's not going to be easy to convince you. But I don't know why you see such a difference between what any animal species might do with regards intelligent behaviour and what we as humans do, particularly when there is not a lot of difference.

 

[Brian2]

Doesn't answer the question. If god is good and omnipotent, it should have no trouble making itself known.

I don't know what being good has to do with it.

If god wants to be feared, that's another reason to think it's nasty.

We should fear what God could do to us. God is the judge after all.

Which still doesn't explain the silly hide-and-seek.

God shows Himself to humanity. There is no doubt good reason for not proving Himself to humanity.

Why should I have to look? If god is good, just, omnipotent, and has an important message, why should anybody need to go looking for it? Hiding it away, would be unjust and cruel.

God has shown His message to us also, in how we should be acting towards each other. Most people in the world even have some idea of the gospel message.

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't know what being good has to do with it.

If it has an important message, it would not be good, just, or fair, to not make it clear to everybody.

We should fear what God could do to us. God is the judge after all.

Is god going to judge fairly and proportionately? Many versions of the Christian message suggest not.

God shows Himself to humanity.

Where? I can't see 'him'.

There is no doubt good reason for not proving Himself to humanity.

Such as...?

God has shown His message to us also, in how we should be acting towards each other. Most people in the world even have some idea of the gospel message.

And no reason at all to think that one of the versions said message is true and from a real god. There is no clear message, just lots and lots of different religions, cults, denominations, and sects, all telling people that they know the truth. Most of them must be wrong. I see no reason to take any of them seriously.

 

[Brian2]

We know that it was in a very dense hot state some 13.5 billion years ago, we don't know that we can't extend time infinitely backwards through that state or not. We currently don't have an adequate theory to draw that conclusion.


And several people have explained to you why this is wrong.


So, basically, you have nothing but baseless faith. No actual reasoning or evidence?

All you have is "we don't know but we're working on it and have some really cool hypotheses".
But even when a satisfactory one is found that is nothing but speculation based on a naturalist assumption of science. IOWs it does not matter what science says about origins.
What matters is that God has revealed Himself to us and people have trodden all over His book and said it is rubbish and others have believed them.
My faith is not baseless but yours does not lead anywhere and is no more than speculation and assumption without evidence even thought that is what you want from me.

 

[ratiocinator]

All you have is "we don't know but we're working on it and have some really cool hypotheses".
But even when a satisfactory one is found that is nothing but speculation based on a naturalist assumption of science. IOWs it does not matter what science says about origins.

I'm perfectly content with not knowing and I agree that what science says about origins is not relevant to the question of the existence of any god(s).

What matters is that God has revealed Himself to us...

No, 'he' hasn't. At least not in anything like a clear and unambiguous way. If there is a message from a god somewhere in the religions of the world, it's well camouflaged and looks just like baseless superstition.

...and people have trodden all over His book and said it is rubbish and others have believed them.

If you mean the bible, I've read it myself - I don't need to believe anybody else to know it's rubbish. It's a contradictory mess. You could also deduce that from the countless groups that all claim to follow it but have come to different conclusions.

My faith is not baseless but yours does not lead anywhere...

I don't have a faith.

...and is no more than speculation and assumption without evidence even thought that is what you want from me.

What is speculation and assumption? I'm not making claims about origins, I was pointing out what we don't know.

 

[Brian2]

No, 'he' hasn't. At least not in anything like a clear and unambiguous way. If there is a message from a god somewhere in the religions of the world, it's well camouflaged and looks just like baseless superstition.

God has given miracles to show who He is and what He can do.
God's ways of dealing with the world and it's problems is different to what we might think it should be and so some might call it baseless superstition but the basis is in the trusting of this God to do what He has promised.
Loving one another seems to be clear in most religions and unambiguous.

If you mean the bible, I've read it myself - I don't need to believe anybody else to know it's rubbish. It's a contradictory mess. You could also deduce that from the countless groups that all claim to follow it but have come to different conclusions.

The claim of countless groups is highly exaggerated and misrepresented.
The claim of different conclusions is also highly exaggerated and misrepresented.

I don't have a faith.

What is speculation and assumption? I'm not making claims about origins, I was pointing out what we don't know.

Your worldview is your faith and your assumption is that the answer lies in the realm of a natural explanation, which is and cannot be anything but speculation.

 

[ratiocinator]

God has given miracles to show who He is and what He can do.

Where? You mean stories about miracles, surely?

The claim of countless groups is highly exaggerated and misrepresented.
The claim of different conclusions is also highly exaggerated and misrepresented.

People have died because of those differences.

Your worldview is your faith...

My world view doesn't involve faith (in the sense used in religion).

...and your assumption is that the answer lies in the realm of a natural explanation, which is and cannot be anything but speculation.

I don't really see this natural / supernatural distinction. If there is a god (or gods) surely it (or they) would be the most natural thing(s) in existence.

I don't know why things exist and are the way they are and neither do you or anybody else. Thinking there is a god (or gods) don't change that one jot.