Reason and Experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator

[PK1]

No. I don't need to prove any religion is wrong. You have to prove all religions are wrong. You best get busy.

Huh??
In epistemology, it's the opposite.
If you make a (one) claim, it's up to you to prove it.

 

[Czernobog]

With posts. Were I so inclined. I'm not.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You mean with an equal amount of posts, right?

I couldn't say. If pressed, I'd have to say that I am more likely to be mocking Christians, then Muslims. But, that's because there tend to be more of you guys posting on these forums, than Muslims. And you're easier to wind up.

My experience has been that Muslims are more likely not tell you to **** off, let you know how dead you're soon gonna be, and then toddle off.

You guys just keep going, and get so wound up, that the conversations last longer.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

If he could a Muslim would cut your head off.

Yeah, and that's generally where conversations with Muslims - particularly the more aggressive ones - rather digress to. Makes conversations with them rather limited, and boring.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

This is the 2nd time you have amended statements in our conversations.

I didn't amend shit. You asked if there are just as many converstaions with Muslims as there are with Christians. You know who else I don't mock nearly as often? Hindus. Ya know why? I can't remember the last time i saw a Hindu come into one of these forums proselytising. So, if you are asking do I make fun of Christians more than anyone else, the answer is, yes. Why? Because there are more of you morons coming into these forums spewing your bullshit than there are any of the rest.

It's not about hating them less, or believing in their bullshit more. It is simply a matter of opportunity. You Christian nutcakes give me more opportunity than anyone else to mock you. Frankly that says a lot more about your lot, than it does me. maybe you should be more like the Muslims, or Hindus, or any of the other theistic religions, and just keep your moronic opinions to yourselves. Then there would be no opportunity to mock you.

 

[sealybobo]

Reason and experience tells us that there is evidence of a creator.

What experience?
What reason based on that "experience"?
Fantasy does not count, no matter how well you engineer it.

" faith and experience tell us God exists" sounds like something a preacher would say in a sermon. Sounds good but like a lot of things they say, what does that even mean?

 

[sealybobo]

No. I don't need to prove any religion is wrong. You have to prove all religions are wrong. You best get busy.

Huh??
In epistemology, it's the opposite.
If you make a (one) claim, it's up to you to prove it.

Notice theists don't argue with each other that their God or religion is the one true religion? Seems any God will do just pick one.

 

[there4eyeM]

The way we have learned to think leads us to wonder if, and easily believe that, something like 'God' exists.

Of course, any serious examination of the concept of such a 'One' would have us realize there is no way we could ever define it. Also, because of how perceptions function, we could never see this 'One' separate from the background of 'creation'.

 

[sealybobo]

The way we have learned to think leads us to wonder if, and easily believe that, some like 'God' exists.

Of course, any serious examination of the concept of such a 'One' would have us realize there is no way we could ever define it. Also, because of how perceptions function, we could never see this 'One' separate from the background of 'creation'.

Ok,so the God you are referring to is fine. Maybe that generic creator exists. But the one that came and visited and is in all our ancient holy books?

We see why people fell and still fall for the "must be a creator" argument. Seems insane to think all this happens by itself. Or that we are just one of infinite universes.

Why does a god have to be involved for the universe(s) to exist? And if you can't explain how God got here, why can god be eternal but the universe can't? We are because if we weren't what would be? Call the universe god.

 

[ding]

You mean with an equal amount of posts, right?

I couldn't say. If pressed, I'd have to say that I am more likely to be mocking Christians, then Muslims. But, that's because there tend to be more of you guys posting on these forums, than Muslims. And you're easier to wind up.

My experience has been that Muslims are more likely not tell you to **** off, let you know how dead you're soon gonna be, and then toddle off.

You guys just keep going, and get so wound up, that the conversations last longer.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

If he could a Muslim would cut your head off.

Yeah, and that's generally where conversations with Muslims - particularly the more aggressive ones - rather digress to. Makes conversations with them rather limited, and boring.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

This is the 2nd time you have amended statements in our conversations.

I didn't amend shit. You asked if there are just as many converstaions with Muslims as there are with Christians. You know who else I don't mock nearly as often? Hindus. Ya know why? I can't remember the last time i saw a Hindu come into one of these forums proselytising. So, if you are asking do I make fun of Christians more than anyone else, the answer is, yes. Why? Because there are more of you morons coming into these forums spewing your bullshit than there are any of the rest.

It's not about hating them less, or believing in their bullshit more. It is simply a matter of opportunity. You Christian nutcakes give me more opportunity than anyone else to mock you. Frankly that says a lot more about your lot, than it does me. maybe you should be more like the Muslims, or Hindus, or any of the other theistic religions, and just keep your moronic opinions to yourselves. Then there would be no opportunity to mock you.

I don't. I equally mock Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and any other religion that makes claim to an invisible magic skyman. Christianity is just getting my attention, at this point, because you happen to be Christian. If a Muslim came into the discussion, trying to convince us that his version was absolutely true, I'd be mocking him.

If pressed, I'd have to say that I am more likely to be mocking Christians, then Muslims. But, that's because there tend to be more of you guys posting on these forums, than Muslims.

 

[ding]

You mean with an equal amount of posts, right?

I couldn't say. If pressed, I'd have to say that I am more likely to be mocking Christians, then Muslims. But, that's because there tend to be more of you guys posting on these forums, than Muslims. And you're easier to wind up.

My experience has been that Muslims are more likely not tell you to **** off, let you know how dead you're soon gonna be, and then toddle off.

You guys just keep going, and get so wound up, that the conversations last longer.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

If he could a Muslim would cut your head off.

Yeah, and that's generally where conversations with Muslims - particularly the more aggressive ones - rather digress to. Makes conversations with them rather limited, and boring.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

This is the 2nd time you have amended statements in our conversations.

I didn't amend shit. You asked if there are just as many converstaions with Muslims as there are with Christians. You know who else I don't mock nearly as often? Hindus. Ya know why? I can't remember the last time i saw a Hindu come into one of these forums proselytising. So, if you are asking do I make fun of Christians more than anyone else, the answer is, yes. Why? Because there are more of you morons coming into these forums spewing your bullshit than there are any of the rest.

It's not about hating them less, or believing in their bullshit more. It is simply a matter of opportunity. You Christian nutcakes give me more opportunity than anyone else to mock you. Frankly that says a lot more about your lot, than it does me. maybe you should be more like the Muslims, or Hindus, or any of the other theistic religions, and just keep your moronic opinions to yourselves. Then there would be no opportunity to mock you.

So getting back to your ability to prove that you mock other religions. I'm not seeing it. I believe you are lying.

 

[MisterBeale]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

 

[ding]

No. I don't need to prove any religion is wrong. You have to prove all religions are wrong. You best get busy.

Huh??
In epistemology, it's the opposite.
If you make a (one) claim, it's up to you to prove it.

I have proven that evidence exists I have not attempted to prove that God exists.

 

[ding]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

You should tell science that. Sure... reason might be fallible and experience might be limited. Reason also might not be fallible and experience might not be limited. The reality is that using proxies are common in science. So are using experiences. They are called observations. There is zero doubt in my mind that evidence for a Creator does exist. Just as a painting can be used as evidence for a painter, Creation can be used as evidence for a Creator. I believe the mistake that many are making is confusing the concept of evidence for the concept of proof. Evidence is a physical tangible item. Proof is an intangible determination of evidence.

 

[MisterBeale]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

You should tell science that.

"Science" is not much better than a religion. When the ultimate truth is finally understood, we will find that the source, what ever you want to call it, God, Allah etc. and what Science worships, are one and the same.

 

[there4eyeM]

The only thing proven here has been that perceptions function.
'God' is a word. Words are metaphors, and no other word is as metaphorical. When, inside one, there is the intimate conviction that Something is Happening in the universe, we have the oh-so-human compulsion to attach a name. Even 'Nameless' serves. The 'danger' is in mistaking the map for the territory. As long as, at that deep inner point, we hold on to the fact that even our very thoughts about such a Nameless One corrupt the concept, we are safe.
The total absurdity, of course, is not only trying to share the most intimate thing we could have, but insisting that others profess having the identical experience.

 

[MisterBeale]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

You should tell science that. Sure... reason might be fallible and experience might be limited. Reason also might not be fallible and experience might not be limited. The reality is that using proxies are common in science. So are using experiences. They are called observations. There is zero doubt in my mind that evidence for a Creator does exist. Just as a painting can be used as evidence for a painter, Creation can be used as evidence for a Creator. I believe the mistake that many are making is confusing the concept of evidence for the concept of proof. Evidence is a physical tangible item. Proof is an intangible determination of evidence.

If you are interested in this line of inquiry, I recommend Søren Kierkegaard's, Fear and Trembling.


I have always liked Kieregaard's thinking about using "logic" or "reasoning" when it comes to parsing out the existence of god.

Kierkegaard believed "each generation has its own task and need not trouble itself unduly by being everything to previous and succeeding generations".[81] In an earlier book he had said, "to a certain degree every generation and every individual begins his life from the beginning",[82] and in another, "no generation has learned to love from another, no generation is able to begin at any other point than the beginning", "no generation learns the essentially human from a previous one."[83] He was against the Hegelian idea of mediation[84] because it introduces a "third term"[85] that comes between the single individual and the object of desire. Kierkegaard asked if logic ends in actuality, can a person logically prove God's existence? Logic says no. Then he turns from logic to ethics and finds that Hegelian philosophy is negative[86][87] rather than positive.[88] This "third term" isn't mediation, it's the choice to love or not, to hope or not. It's the choice between the possibility of the "temporal and the eternal", "mistrust and belief, and deception and truth",[89] "subjective and objective".[90] These are the "magnitudes" of choice. He always stressed deliberation and choice in his writings and wrote against comparison.[91] This is how Kant put it in 1786 and Kierkegaard put it in 1847:


Thinking for one’s self is to seek the chief touchstone of truth in one’s self (id est, in one’s own reason); and the maxim, to think for one’s self at all times is Enlightening. Thereto belongs not just so much, as those may imagine who take knowledge, to be enlightening; as it is rather a negative principle in the use of one’s cognoscitive faculty, and he, who is very rich in knowledge, is often the least enlightened in the use of it. To exercise one’s own reason, means nothing more, than, relatively to every thing which one is to suppose, to question one’s self. Immanuel Kant, What it Means to Orient One’s Self In Thinking 1786


Worldly worry always seeks to lead a human being into the small-minded unrest of comparisons, away from the lofty calmness of simple thoughts. To be clothed, then, means to be a human being-and therefore to be well clothed. Worldly worry is preoccupied with clothes and dissimilarity of clothes. Should not the invitation to learn from the lilies be welcome to everyone just as the reminder is useful to him! Alas, those great, uplifting, simple thoughts, those first thoughts, are more and more forgotten, perhaps entirely forgotten in the weekday and worldly life of comparisons. The one human being compares himself with others, the one generation compares itself with the other, and thus the heaped up pile of comparisons overwhelms a person. As the ingenuity and busyness increase, there come to be more and more in each generation who slavishly work a whole lifetime far down in the low underground regions of comparisons. Indeed, just as miners never see the light of day, so these unhappy people never come to see the light: those uplifting, simple thoughts, those first thoughts about how glorious it is to be a human being. And up there in the higher regions of comparison, smiling vanity plays its false game and deceives the happy ones so that they receive no impression from those lofty, simple thoughts, those first thoughts.

• Søren Kierkegaard, (1847) Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits, Hong 188-189

 

[sealybobo]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

You should tell science that. Sure... reason might be fallible and experience might be limited. Reason also might not be fallible and experience might not be limited. The reality is that using proxies are common in science. So are using experiences. They are called observations. There is zero doubt in my mind that evidence for a Creator does exist. Just as a painting can be used as evidence for a painter, Creation can be used as evidence for a Creator. I believe the mistake that many are making is confusing the concept of evidence for the concept of proof. Evidence is a physical tangible item. Proof is an intangible determination of evidence.

If you are interested in this line of inquiry, I recommend Søren Kierkegaard's, Fear and Trembling.


I have always liked Kieregaard's thinking about using "logic" or "reasoning" when it comes to parsing out the existence of god.

Kierkegaard believed "each generation has its own task and need not trouble itself unduly by being everything to previous and succeeding generations".[81] In an earlier book he had said, "to a certain degree every generation and every individual begins his life from the beginning",[82] and in another, "no generation has learned to love from another, no generation is able to begin at any other point than the beginning", "no generation learns the essentially human from a previous one."[83] He was against the Hegelian idea of mediation[84] because it introduces a "third term"[85] that comes between the single individual and the object of desire. Kierkegaard asked if logic ends in actuality, can a person logically prove God's existence? Logic says no. Then he turns from logic to ethics and finds that Hegelian philosophy is negative[86][87] rather than positive.[88] This "third term" isn't mediation, it's the choice to love or not, to hope or not. It's the choice between the possibility of the "temporal and the eternal", "mistrust and belief, and deception and truth",[89] "subjective and objective".[90] These are the "magnitudes" of choice. He always stressed deliberation and choice in his writings and wrote against comparison.[91] This is how Kant put it in 1786 and Kierkegaard put it in 1847:


Thinking for one’s self is to seek the chief touchstone of truth in one’s self (id est, in one’s own reason); and the maxim, to think for one’s self at all times is Enlightening. Thereto belongs not just so much, as those may imagine who take knowledge, to be enlightening; as it is rather a negative principle in the use of one’s cognoscitive faculty, and he, who is very rich in knowledge, is often the least enlightened in the use of it. To exercise one’s own reason, means nothing more, than, relatively to every thing which one is to suppose, to question one’s self. Immanuel Kant, What it Means to Orient One’s Self In Thinking 1786


Worldly worry always seeks to lead a human being into the small-minded unrest of comparisons, away from the lofty calmness of simple thoughts. To be clothed, then, means to be a human being-and therefore to be well clothed. Worldly worry is preoccupied with clothes and dissimilarity of clothes. Should not the invitation to learn from the lilies be welcome to everyone just as the reminder is useful to him! Alas, those great, uplifting, simple thoughts, those first thoughts, are more and more forgotten, perhaps entirely forgotten in the weekday and worldly life of comparisons. The one human being compares himself with others, the one generation compares itself with the other, and thus the heaped up pile of comparisons overwhelms a person. As the ingenuity and busyness increase, there come to be more and more in each generation who slavishly work a whole lifetime far down in the low underground regions of comparisons. Indeed, just as miners never see the light of day, so these unhappy people never come to see the light: those uplifting, simple thoughts, those first thoughts about how glorious it is to be a human being. And up there in the higher regions of comparison, smiling vanity plays its false game and deceives the happy ones so that they receive no impression from those lofty, simple thoughts, those first thoughts.

• Søren Kierkegaard, (1847) Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits, Hong 188-189

We shouldn't disrespect the generation that came before us as we hope the generation after us doesn't disrespect us but I am very skeptical of what ancient holy men tell us especially when they tell me about talking snakes and

Noah died 350 years after the flood, at the age of 950, the last of the extremely long-lived antediluvian Patriarchs. The maximum human lifespan, as depicted by the Bible, diminishes rapidly thereafter, from almost 1,000 years to the 120 years of Moses.

 

[MisterBeale]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

You should tell science that. Sure... reason might be fallible and experience might be limited. Reason also might not be fallible and experience might not be limited. The reality is that using proxies are common in science. So are using experiences. They are called observations. There is zero doubt in my mind that evidence for a Creator does exist. Just as a painting can be used as evidence for a painter, Creation can be used as evidence for a Creator. I believe the mistake that many are making is confusing the concept of evidence for the concept of proof. Evidence is a physical tangible item. Proof is an intangible determination of evidence.

If you are interested in this line of inquiry, I recommend Søren Kierkegaard's, Fear and Trembling.


I have always liked Kieregaard's thinking about using "logic" or "reasoning" when it comes to parsing out the existence of god.

Kierkegaard believed "each generation has its own task and need not trouble itself unduly by being everything to previous and succeeding generations".[81] In an earlier book he had said, "to a certain degree every generation and every individual begins his life from the beginning",[82] and in another, "no generation has learned to love from another, no generation is able to begin at any other point than the beginning", "no generation learns the essentially human from a previous one."[83] He was against the Hegelian idea of mediation[84] because it introduces a "third term"[85] that comes between the single individual and the object of desire. Kierkegaard asked if logic ends in actuality, can a person logically prove God's existence? Logic says no. Then he turns from logic to ethics and finds that Hegelian philosophy is negative[86][87] rather than positive.[88] This "third term" isn't mediation, it's the choice to love or not, to hope or not. It's the choice between the possibility of the "temporal and the eternal", "mistrust and belief, and deception and truth",[89] "subjective and objective".[90] These are the "magnitudes" of choice. He always stressed deliberation and choice in his writings and wrote against comparison.[91] This is how Kant put it in 1786 and Kierkegaard put it in 1847:


Thinking for one’s self is to seek the chief touchstone of truth in one’s self (id est, in one’s own reason); and the maxim, to think for one’s self at all times is Enlightening. Thereto belongs not just so much, as those may imagine who take knowledge, to be enlightening; as it is rather a negative principle in the use of one’s cognoscitive faculty, and he, who is very rich in knowledge, is often the least enlightened in the use of it. To exercise one’s own reason, means nothing more, than, relatively to every thing which one is to suppose, to question one’s self. Immanuel Kant, What it Means to Orient One’s Self In Thinking 1786


Worldly worry always seeks to lead a human being into the small-minded unrest of comparisons, away from the lofty calmness of simple thoughts. To be clothed, then, means to be a human being-and therefore to be well clothed. Worldly worry is preoccupied with clothes and dissimilarity of clothes. Should not the invitation to learn from the lilies be welcome to everyone just as the reminder is useful to him! Alas, those great, uplifting, simple thoughts, those first thoughts, are more and more forgotten, perhaps entirely forgotten in the weekday and worldly life of comparisons. The one human being compares himself with others, the one generation compares itself with the other, and thus the heaped up pile of comparisons overwhelms a person. As the ingenuity and busyness increase, there come to be more and more in each generation who slavishly work a whole lifetime far down in the low underground regions of comparisons. Indeed, just as miners never see the light of day, so these unhappy people never come to see the light: those uplifting, simple thoughts, those first thoughts about how glorious it is to be a human being. And up there in the higher regions of comparison, smiling vanity plays its false game and deceives the happy ones so that they receive no impression from those lofty, simple thoughts, those first thoughts.

• Søren Kierkegaard, (1847) Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits, Hong 188-189

We shouldn't disrespect the generation that came before us as we hope the generation after us doesn't disrespect us but I am very skeptical of what ancient holy men tell us especially when they tell me about talking snakes and

Noah died 350 years after the flood, at the age of 950, the last of the extremely long-lived antediluvian Patriarchs. The maximum human lifespan, as depicted by the Bible, diminishes rapidly thereafter, from almost 1,000 years to the 120 years of Moses.

 

[MisterBeale]

Biblical literalism - Wikipedia

 

[PK1]

No. I don't need to prove any religion is wrong. You have to prove all religions are wrong. You best get busy.

Huh??
In epistemology, it's the opposite.
If you make a (one) claim, it's up to you to prove it.

I have proven that evidence exists I have not attempted to prove that God exists.

What evidence? You have not proven anything.
The teleological argument is primitive in today's intellectual world of modern philosophy & science.

 

[PK1]

"Science" is not much better than a religion. When the ultimate truth is finally understood, we will find that the source, what ever you want to call it, God, Allah etc. and what Science worships, are one and the same.

You also do not understand modern science.
Science does not worship, but it respects hard evidence and rational explanations leading to additional objective investigations.

 

[PK1]

Why does a god have to be involved for the universe(s) to exist? And if you can't explain how God got here, why can god be eternal but the universe can't?

That is the crux of the philosophical problem about "God" the creator.
The "first cause" argument is illogical, but religion inventors since or before the Greek primordial deities have to address that as if they know. LOL.
Who created "God"? That's a legitimate question if one wants to fantasize about "creation".