Bull Ring Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator. ding vs Soupnazi630

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

I don't know. I have never examined intentional v. unintentional with regard to human action. Although, for sake of progress I will say unintentional.
My reasoning will be that my mental population of humans make an inordinate amount of mistakes on a daily basis.

 

[xband]

Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator?

ding versus Soupnazi630

ding will take the position that the universe and everything in it since space and time were created can be used as evidence for a creator.

Soupnazi630 will take the position that the universe and everything in it since space and time were created can NOT be used as evidence for a creator.

I will make my opening statement once Soupnazi accepts this challenge.

I don't believe he will show up.

Did the chicken or egg come first, the chicken is God and the egg is a random quantum mechanical event. I never saw a random quantum mechanical event but have seen a chicken.

 

[ding]

Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator?

ding versus Soupnazi630

ding will take the position that the universe and everything in it since space and time were created can be used as evidence for a creator.

Soupnazi630 will take the position that the universe and everything in it since space and time were created can NOT be used as evidence for a creator.

I will make my opening statement once Soupnazi accepts this challenge.

I don't believe he will show up.

Did the chicken or egg come first, the chicken is God and the egg is a random quantum mechanical event. I never saw a random quantum mechanical event but have seen a chicken.

I don't believe it was a random event at all. I believe it was intentional. Why? Because that is what the analysis of the evidence shows. We live in a deterministic universe which follows rules where every cause has an effect which means that everything has happened for a reason.

 

[ding]

I don't know. I have never examined intentional v. unintentional with regard to human action. Although, for sake of progress I will say unintentional.
My reasoning will be that my mental population of humans make an inordinate amount of mistakes on a daily basis.

All you have to do is examine what you did yesterday?

Did you do things randomly or with purpose?

 

[ding]

I don't know. I have never examined intentional v. unintentional with regard to human action. Although, for sake of progress I will say unintentional.
My reasoning will be that my mental population of humans make an inordinate amount of mistakes on a daily basis.

Do we build roads unintentionally?

Do we build schools unintentionally?

 

[xband]

Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator?

ding versus Soupnazi630

ding will take the position that the universe and everything in it since space and time were created can be used as evidence for a creator.

Soupnazi630 will take the position that the universe and everything in it since space and time were created can NOT be used as evidence for a creator.

I will make my opening statement once Soupnazi accepts this challenge.

I don't believe he will show up.

Did the chicken or egg come first, the chicken is God and the egg is a random quantum mechanical event. I never saw a random quantum mechanical event but have seen a chicken.

I don't believe it was a random event at all. I believe it was intentional. Why? Because that is what the analysis of the evidence shows. We live in a deterministic universe which follows rules where every cause has an effect which means that everything has happened for a reason.

You are intelligent beyond your years.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'll take you on if he doesn't.

OK, you can take his place.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I don't know who created it?

Did I ask too difficult of a question?

Not at all. It just happens you're on my ignore list and therefore it doesn't come up on my alerts. I've just unignored you, so I'll get alerts from you.

You can use whatever evidence you like.

I can determine whether your evidence is valid in my opinion or not.

Here's my argument.

First, we don't know what the universe is. It could be anything. It could be a computer simulation, it could be the equivalent of an atom for other beings, it could be what we think it is. There are billions of possibilities.

Imagine an atom, and imagine that within that atom there are small parts that are spinning around and around with a great for of energy, and so small we'd never be able to see or comprehend, there are little creatures, like us.

When they look out from their planet, they see their own little universe, which to them is huge, made up of billions of stars and with so much energy.

Imagine on one of those little planets someone asks the question "Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator?"

From our perspective we'd probably say no, from their perspective, where EVERYTHING beyond that small atom is unknown to them, they might say yes.



Second is this.

People point to a creator because they say that nothing can appear out of nothing. So where did the creator come from?

If a creator can come from nothing, then the universe can come from nothing. If the universe can come from nothing then you can't argue that the universe is evidence of a creator.

So.... the only way you can realistically argue that the universe is made by a creator is if there isn't a creator, in which case your argument is wrong. Either way it's wrong.

 

[ding]

Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator?

ding versus Soupnazi630

ding will take the position that the universe and everything in it since space and time were created can be used as evidence for a creator.

Soupnazi630 will take the position that the universe and everything in it since space and time were created can NOT be used as evidence for a creator.

I will make my opening statement once Soupnazi accepts this challenge.

I don't believe he will show up.

Did the chicken or egg come first, the chicken is God and the egg is a random quantum mechanical event. I never saw a random quantum mechanical event but have seen a chicken.

I don't believe it was a random event at all. I believe it was intentional. Why? Because that is what the analysis of the evidence shows. We live in a deterministic universe which follows rules where every cause has an effect which means that everything has happened for a reason.

You are intelligent beyond your years.

That's not good for me to hear.

 

[ding]

I'll take you on if he doesn't.

OK, you can take his place.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I don't know who created it?

Did I ask too difficult of a question?

Not at all. It just happens you're on my ignore list and therefore it doesn't come up on my alerts. I've just unignored you, so I'll get alerts from you.

You can use whatever evidence you like.

I can determine whether your evidence is valid in my opinion or not.

Here's my argument.

First, we don't know what the universe is. It could be anything. It could be a computer simulation, it could be the equivalent of an atom for other beings, it could be what we think it is. There are billions of possibilities.

Imagine an atom, and imagine that within that atom there are small parts that are spinning around and around with a great for of energy, and so small we'd never be able to see or comprehend, there are little creatures, like us.

When they look out from their planet, they see their own little universe, which to them is huge, made up of billions of stars and with so much energy.

Imagine on one of those little planets someone asks the question "Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator?"

From our perspective we'd probably say no, from their perspective, where EVERYTHING beyond that small atom is unknown to them, they might say yes.



Second is this.

People point to a creator because they say that nothing can appear out of nothing. So where did the creator come from?

If a creator can come from nothing, then the universe can come from nothing. If the universe can come from nothing then you can't argue that the universe is evidence of a creator.

So.... the only way you can realistically argue that the universe is made by a creator is if there isn't a creator, in which case your argument is wrong. Either way it's wrong.

But regardless of what we know it is, it does exist and can be examined as evidence to learn things about it and its origin.

 

[xband]

I'll take you on if he doesn't.

OK, you can take his place.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I don't know who created it?

Did I ask too difficult of a question?

The Universe is Saddleback making it closed and not open.

Is the Universe closed or open, the Universe is Saddleback making it closed. If I walk on a neutron star and drop a feather it hits the surface from one meter altitude and the feather hits the star at four million miles per hour but which does not bother the neutron star even with an explosion bigger than Little Boy. I can't walk on the surface of a neutron star and only a thought experiment.

Not at all. It just happens you're on my ignore list and therefore it doesn't come up on my alerts. I've just unignored you, so I'll get alerts from you.

You can use whatever evidence you like.

I can determine whether your evidence is valid in my opinion or not.

Here's my argument.

First, we don't know what the universe is. It could be anything. It could be a computer simulation, it could be the equivalent of an atom for other beings, it could be what we think it is. There are billions of possibilities.

Imagine an atom, and imagine that within that atom there are small parts that are spinning around and around with a great for of energy, and so small we'd never be able to see or comprehend, there are little creatures, like us.

When they look out from their planet, they see their own little universe, which to them is huge, made up of billions of stars and with so much energy.

Imagine on one of those little planets someone asks the question "Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator?"

From our perspective we'd probably say no, from their perspective, where EVERYTHING beyond that small atom is unknown to them, they might say yes.



Second is this.

People point to a creator because they say that nothing can appear out of nothing. So where did the creator come from?

If a creator can come from nothing, then the universe can come from nothing. If the universe can come from nothing then you can't argue that the universe is evidence of a creator.

So.... the only way you can realistically argue that the universe is made by a creator is if there isn't a creator, in which case your argument is wrong. Either way it's wrong.

 

[xband]

I'll take you on if he doesn't.

OK, you can take his place.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I don't know who created it?

Did I ask too difficult of a question?

The Universe is Saddleback making it closed and not open.

Is the Universe closed or open, the Universe is Saddleback making it closed. If I walk on a neutron star and drop a feather it hits the surface from one meter altitude and the feather hits the star at four million miles per hour but which does not bother the neutron star even with an explosion bigger than Little Boy. I can't walk on the surface of a neutron star and only a thought experiment.

Not at all. It just happens you're on my ignore list and therefore it doesn't come up on my alerts. I've just unignored you, so I'll get alerts from you.

You can use whatever evidence you like.

I can determine whether your evidence is valid in my opinion or not.

Here's my argument.

First, we don't know what the universe is. It could be anything. It could be a computer simulation, it could be the equivalent of an atom for other beings, it could be what we think it is. There are billions of possibilities.

Imagine an atom, and imagine that within that atom there are small parts that are spinning around and around with a great for of energy, and so small we'd never be able to see or comprehend, there are little creatures, like us.

When they look out from their planet, they see their own little universe, which to them is huge, made up of billions of stars and with so much energy.

Imagine on one of those little planets someone asks the question "Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator?"

From our perspective we'd probably say no, from their perspective, where EVERYTHING beyond that small atom is unknown to them, they might say yes.



Second is this.

People point to a creator because they say that nothing can appear out of nothing. So where did the creator come from?

If a creator can come from nothing, then the universe can come from nothing. If the universe can come from nothing then you can't argue that the universe is evidence of a creator.

So.... the only way you can realistically argue that the universe is made by a creator is if there isn't a creator, in which case your argument is wrong. Either way it's wrong.

The Universe is Saddleback making it closed and not open.

edit: M-Theory can never be disproved or proved which kicks multi-verse to the curb. God did it! Alan Guth said anyone who does not believe in the Big Bang is a crackpot. From one crackpot to another, Guth needs mental therapy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'll take you on if he doesn't.

OK, you can take his place.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I don't know who created it?

Did I ask too difficult of a question?

Not at all. It just happens you're on my ignore list and therefore it doesn't come up on my alerts. I've just unignored you, so I'll get alerts from you.

You can use whatever evidence you like.

I can determine whether your evidence is valid in my opinion or not.

Here's my argument.

First, we don't know what the universe is. It could be anything. It could be a computer simulation, it could be the equivalent of an atom for other beings, it could be what we think it is. There are billions of possibilities.

Imagine an atom, and imagine that within that atom there are small parts that are spinning around and around with a great for of energy, and so small we'd never be able to see or comprehend, there are little creatures, like us.

When they look out from their planet, they see their own little universe, which to them is huge, made up of billions of stars and with so much energy.

Imagine on one of those little planets someone asks the question "Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator?"

From our perspective we'd probably say no, from their perspective, where EVERYTHING beyond that small atom is unknown to them, they might say yes.



Second is this.

People point to a creator because they say that nothing can appear out of nothing. So where did the creator come from?

If a creator can come from nothing, then the universe can come from nothing. If the universe can come from nothing then you can't argue that the universe is evidence of a creator.

So.... the only way you can realistically argue that the universe is made by a creator is if there isn't a creator, in which case your argument is wrong. Either way it's wrong.

But regardless of what we know it is, it does exist and can be examined as evidence to learn things about it and its origin.

It might exist, in some kind of form, potentially not a physical form, we could just be 1s and 0s.

But then you've not actually discussed either point I made.

 

[xband]

I'll take you on if he doesn't.

OK, you can take his place.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I don't know who created it?

Did I ask too difficult of a question?

Not at all. It just happens you're on my ignore list and therefore it doesn't come up on my alerts. I've just unignored you, so I'll get alerts from you.

You can use whatever evidence you like.

I can determine whether your evidence is valid in my opinion or not.

Here's my argument.

First, we don't know what the universe is. It could be anything. It could be a computer simulation, it could be the equivalent of an atom for other beings, it could be what we think it is. There are billions of possibilities.

Imagine an atom, and imagine that within that atom there are small parts that are spinning around and around with a great for of energy, and so small we'd never be able to see or comprehend, there are little creatures, like us.

When they look out from their planet, they see their own little universe, which to them is huge, made up of billions of stars and with so much energy.

Imagine on one of those little planets someone asks the question "Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator?"

From our perspective we'd probably say no, from their perspective, where EVERYTHING beyond that small atom is unknown to them, they might say yes.



Second is this.

People point to a creator because they say that nothing can appear out of nothing. So where did the creator come from?

If a creator can come from nothing, then the universe can come from nothing. If the universe can come from nothing then you can't argue that the universe is evidence of a creator.

So.... the only way you can realistically argue that the universe is made by a creator is if there isn't a creator, in which case your argument is wrong. Either way it's wrong.

But regardless of what we know it is, it does exist and can be examined as evidence to learn things about it and its origin.

It might exist, in some kind of form, potentially not a physical form, we could just be 1s and 0s.

But then you've not actually discussed either point I made.

Elementary my dear Dr. Watson, the Lady in Green did it.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Do we build roads unintentionally?

No...but we make mistakes during the construction of those roads. Those mistakes lead to results which are unintended. Take the pedestrian bridge collapse in Florida for example...cracks formed in the foundation, which led to the collapse of the structure. Those were intentional? Of course they were not. What did we get as a result? A pile of rubble instead of a footbridge, with people under it. There was a creator and the results of that creation were unintentional.
What would be your response with regard to an all knowing creator and that incident? God made the cracks instead of stress? God caused the bridge to collapse into it's own footprint? God placed those people under that bridge?

 

[ding]

Do we build roads unintentionally?

No...but we make mistakes during the construction of those roads. Those mistakes lead to results which are unintended. Take the pedestrian bridge collapse in Florida for example...cracks formed in the foundation, which led to the collapse of the structure. Those were intentional? Of course they were not. What did we get as a result? A pile of rubble instead of a footbridge, with people under it. There was a creator and the results of that creation were unintentional.
What would be your response with regard to an all knowing creator and that incident? God made the cracks instead of stress? God caused the bridge to collapse into it's own footprint? God placed those people under that bridge?

My response would be that I am only trying to establish that things that are created can be used as evidence. This applies to things that are created intentionally or unintentionally and to perfect creations and imperfect creations. You are trying to skip this step and go straight to the third step which is discussing what this evidence tells us. That's not how a logical systematic process works.

 

[harmonica]

we can't even come anywhere near to scraping the edge of barely comprehending the universe, god, etc --so there is no answer

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

My response would be that I am only trying to establish that things that are created can be used as evidence.

Of what? Your OP says this:

Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator?

To which I have clearly stated "No" and responded providing examples and my line of reasoning.
You followed up with more questions to which I responded to re hammering my initial premise.
to which YOU responded...two different ways:
Here:

All you have to do is examine what you did yesterday?

Did you do things randomly or with purpose?

and here:

Do we build roads unintentionally?

Do we build schools unintentionally?

So I chose one

Yet I am the one skipping around?

This is how you debate; you establish a question...you did...then you state your premise and your reasoning for such...which you have not.
I then follow in kind...which I am trying to do.
You then counter my points and either reestablish yours with facts and/or you introduce new evidence that disputes my claims.

You sir have never established step one. You have initiated and have continued to play a game of gotcha with a continuous line of questions.

So...state YOUR PREMISE and the facts which defend that premise. Or don't and then we can be done with this game of "Yoda asks"

 

[ding]

My response would be that I am only trying to establish that things that are created can be used as evidence.

Of what? Your OP says this:

Can the universe be used as evidence for a creator?

To which I have clearly stated "No" and responded providing examples and my line of reasoning.
You followed up with more questions to which I responded to re hammering my initial premise.
to which YOU responded...two different ways:
Here:

All you have to do is examine what you did yesterday?

Did you do things randomly or with purpose?

and here:

Do we build roads unintentionally?

Do we build schools unintentionally?

So I chose one

Yet I am the one skipping around?

This is how you debate; you establish a question...you did...then you state your premise and your reasoning for such...which you have not.
I then follow in kind...which I am trying to do.
You then counter my points and either reestablish yours with facts and/or you introduce new evidence that disputes my claims.

You sir have never established step one. You have initiated and have continued to play a game of gotcha with a continuous line of questions.

So...state YOUR PREMISE and the facts which defend that premise. Or don't and then we can be done with this game of "Yoda asks"

The OP asks the question CAN the universe be used as evidence for a Creator, not IS the universe evidence of a Creator.

The obvious answer is that anything tangible CAN be used as evidence.

The OP does not imply the universe is evidence of a Creator. That would be step #3.

Apparently, you do not believe tangible items can be used as evidence of anything unless you know it was created intentionally and perfectly.

 

[ding]

There are four general types of evidence:

1. Real evidence (tangible things, such as a weapon)
2. Demonstrative (a model of what likely happened at a given time and place)
3. Documentary (a letter, blog post, or other document)
4. Testimonial (witness testimony)

 

[ding]

So the question CAN the universe be used as evidence for a Creator is obviously yes because the universe and everything in it and everything that has happened since time and space were created CAN be used as evidence because it is tangible.

The question IS the universe evidence of a Creator is a different question and is the third step in a systematic approach to understanding the possible existence of a Creator.