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

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
67,767
Reaction score
3,308
Points
1,855
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.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
67,767
Reaction score
3,308
Points
1,855
I'll take you on if he doesn't. :1peleas:
OK, you can take his place.

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

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
67,767
Reaction score
3,308
Points
1,855
Did I ask too difficult of a question?
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
67,767
Reaction score
3,308
Points
1,855
"Evidence"?

As in our own puny concept and interpretation of it?
The concept of evidence per se is not beyond the comprehension of man.

If you created something what you created would be the realization of your intention. What you created would have been created for a purpose. What you created would have been created in steps. What you created would have required intelligence. The more complex your creation the more steps and greater intelligence required.

So I could determine many of your attributes from studying the EVIDENCE of your tangible creation; your intention, the purpose of it, the steps required to accomplish it and the level of intelligence required to do it.

Where am I wrong about this?
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
67,767
Reaction score
3,308
Points
1,855
"Evidence"?

As in our own puny concept and interpretation of it?
Basically what I am telling you is that nature of anything that is tangible is that it can be used as evidence for something and that we can figure these things out by using our own experiences as a proxy. It actually isn't that hard to do.
 

Mindful

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
36,458
Reaction score
8,122
Points
1,470
Location
Here, there, and everywhere.
"Evidence"?

As in our own puny concept and interpretation of it?
The concept of evidence per se is not beyond the comprehension of man.

If you created something what you created would be the realization of your intention. What you created would have been created for a purpose. What you created would have been created in steps. What you created would have required intelligence. The more complex your creation the more steps and greater intelligence required.

So I could determine many of your attributes from studying the EVIDENCE of your tangible creation; your intention, the purpose of it, the steps required to accomplish it and the level of intelligence required to do it.

Where am I wrong about this?
The middle paragraph sounds like you are anthropomorphising something.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
67,767
Reaction score
3,308
Points
1,855
"Evidence"?

As in our own puny concept and interpretation of it?
The concept of evidence per se is not beyond the comprehension of man.

If you created something what you created would be the realization of your intention. What you created would have been created for a purpose. What you created would have been created in steps. What you created would have required intelligence. The more complex your creation the more steps and greater intelligence required.

So I could determine many of your attributes from studying the EVIDENCE of your tangible creation; your intention, the purpose of it, the steps required to accomplish it and the level of intelligence required to do it.

Where am I wrong about this?
The middle paragraph sounds like you are anthropomorphising something.
What does that even mean?
 

Mindful

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
36,458
Reaction score
8,122
Points
1,470
Location
Here, there, and everywhere.
"Evidence"?

As in our own puny concept and interpretation of it?
The concept of evidence per se is not beyond the comprehension of man.

If you created something what you created would be the realization of your intention. What you created would have been created for a purpose. What you created would have been created in steps. What you created would have required intelligence. The more complex your creation the more steps and greater intelligence required.

So I could determine many of your attributes from studying the EVIDENCE of your tangible creation; your intention, the purpose of it, the steps required to accomplish it and the level of intelligence required to do it.

Where am I wrong about this?
The middle paragraph sounds like you are anthropomorphising something.
What does that even mean?
I should never have thought you'd ask me a question like that.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
67,767
Reaction score
3,308
Points
1,855
Science is the study of nature to better understand nature and make predictions about nature.

Within science proxies are routinely used to study nature. In fact most measurements in science are indirect measurements (i.e. proxies) because it is not possible to directly measure the natural phenomenon being investigated. Eienstein's General Theory of Relativity being a good example.

My point here is that using our own experiences in creating things is a valid example of using a proxy to understand what the evidence of creation can tell us.

In this regard, the list of attributes I have mentioned is self evident and unquestionable.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
67,767
Reaction score
3,308
Points
1,855
"Evidence"?

As in our own puny concept and interpretation of it?
The concept of evidence per se is not beyond the comprehension of man.

If you created something what you created would be the realization of your intention. What you created would have been created for a purpose. What you created would have been created in steps. What you created would have required intelligence. The more complex your creation the more steps and greater intelligence required.

So I could determine many of your attributes from studying the EVIDENCE of your tangible creation; your intention, the purpose of it, the steps required to accomplish it and the level of intelligence required to do it.

Where am I wrong about this?
The middle paragraph sounds like you are anthropomorphising something.
What does that even mean?
I should never have thought you'd ask me a question like that.
Why?
 

Mindful

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
36,458
Reaction score
8,122
Points
1,470
Location
Here, there, and everywhere.
"Evidence"?

As in our own puny concept and interpretation of it?
The concept of evidence per se is not beyond the comprehension of man.

If you created something what you created would be the realization of your intention. What you created would have been created for a purpose. What you created would have been created in steps. What you created would have required intelligence. The more complex your creation the more steps and greater intelligence required.

So I could determine many of your attributes from studying the EVIDENCE of your tangible creation; your intention, the purpose of it, the steps required to accomplish it and the level of intelligence required to do it.

Where am I wrong about this?
The middle paragraph sounds like you are anthropomorphising something.
What does that even mean?
I should never have thought you'd ask me a question like that.
Why?

Because I was beginning to think you had an extensive intellect.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
67,767
Reaction score
3,308
Points
1,855
The concept of evidence per se is not beyond the comprehension of man.

If you created something what you created would be the realization of your intention. What you created would have been created for a purpose. What you created would have been created in steps. What you created would have required intelligence. The more complex your creation the more steps and greater intelligence required.

So I could determine many of your attributes from studying the EVIDENCE of your tangible creation; your intention, the purpose of it, the steps required to accomplish it and the level of intelligence required to do it.

Where am I wrong about this?
The middle paragraph sounds like you are anthropomorphising something.
What does that even mean?
I should never have thought you'd ask me a question like that.
Why?

Because I was beginning to think you had an extensive intellect.
I'm not that well read. But I am good at solving puzzles.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
67,767
Reaction score
3,308
Points
1,855
If there is creation, there has to be a creator?
That's not how I made my leap to believing in a Creator.

But that is the question I was trying to answer when I started my investigation.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
67,767
Reaction score
3,308
Points
1,855
If there is creation, there has to be a creator?
What did you mean when you said the middle paragraph sounded like you are anthropomorphising something?

I am also a very curious person and ask a lot of questions. I hope you don't mind.
 

Mindful

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
36,458
Reaction score
8,122
Points
1,470
Location
Here, there, and everywhere.
If there is creation, there has to be a creator?
What did you mean when you said the middle paragraph sounded like you are anthropomorphising something?

I am also a very curious person and ask a lot of questions. I hope you don't mind.
It is usually used to ascribe human form or attributes to (an animal, plant, material object, etc.).

We also do it to God. Impose our thinking on to His thinking.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
67,767
Reaction score
3,308
Points
1,855
If there is creation, there has to be a creator?
What did you mean when you said the middle paragraph sounded like you are anthropomorphising something?

I am also a very curious person and ask a lot of questions. I hope you don't mind.
It is usually used to ascribe human form or attributes to (an animal, plant, material object, etc.).

We also do it to God. Impose our thinking on to His thinking.
Ok, but that's not what I was doing. I was talking about the nature of evidence.

Or do you see that differently? And if so, can you explain why?
 

Mindful

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
36,458
Reaction score
8,122
Points
1,470
Location
Here, there, and everywhere.
If there is creation, there has to be a creator?
What did you mean when you said the middle paragraph sounded like you are anthropomorphising something?

I am also a very curious person and ask a lot of questions. I hope you don't mind.
It is usually used to ascribe human form or attributes to (an animal, plant, material object, etc.).

We also do it to God. Impose our thinking on to His thinking.
Ok, but that's not what I was doing. I was talking about the nature of evidence.

Or do you see that differently? And if so, can you explain why?
One has to do it when searching evidence. Because we only have our own limited context in which to do it.

Have you ever tried to get your head round the nature of the universe? I mean really round it? Something never ending?

I tried it once......Science didn't help.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top