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

[Czernobog]

Science "worships" nothing, so I would agree. your "source" will turn out to be exactly what science worships - nothing.

Science is the study of nature. Science effectively worships nature. You worship science when it suits your arguments but are the first to reject it when it doesn't.

Study is not worship. And I don't worship science. Science is not a religion any more than atheism is a religion. You really do have a hard time understanding this "worship" thing, don't you?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I didn't say that science is a religion, but some idiots do act like it is. I suspect you are one of them. When I say that science "effectively" worships nature that is mean to say that science is "devoted" to the study of nature and natural phenomenon. I am almost certain that is what misterbeale meant too. If you would ask clarifying questions, you would end up looking much less stupid if than making assumptions that are false.

The only ones looking stupid are the ones trying to turn science into a religion. Having the sole purpose (the definition of devoted) of studying something, does not make a field a "religion". It doesn't even make it like a religion. It only makes it a field of study. Period.

Like most things, this has sailed over your head.

No, it didn't. You're just mad because I am not willing to let you get away with making false claims about what science is, and isn't.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

No they're not. Using analogies are common. But proxies are not. Just because "a" does not indicate "b". Fish have gills. That does not prove that all animal s have gills just by using fish as a proxy for kangaroos, because they are both animals.

Your "evidence" is only evidence of your confirmation bias.

A proxy is anything that is used to represent something else. In this case we are using our experience in creating tangible items as a proxy for God creating the universe. From our experiences we can use our reasoning ability to determine what kind of information we can gather from what we created. So whether or not you call it an analog or a proxy does not change the intent, observations and findings from this exercise. All it really does is show your lack of objectivity in examining the nature of evidence and its uses. Given your analog, it is clear to me that your still don't understand the difference between evidence and findings. Evidence is used to inform the finding. Evidence is not the finding. The fact that you still don't get this (i.e. evidence) proves (i.e. finding) that this is still over your head too.

I understand the concept of evidence just fine. The problem is not in my understanding, it is in your misuse of the concept. Let's go back to your original question. Can you name something that you have built, or created?

No thanks. Been there and done that.

What? suddenly you don't trust your own position? What a surprise.

 

[ding]

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.

No they're not. Using analogies are common. But proxies are not. Just because "a" does not indicate "b". Fish have gills. That does not prove that all animal s have gills just by using fish as a proxy for kangaroos, because they are both animals.

Your "evidence" is only evidence of your confirmation bias.

A proxy is anything that is used to represent something else. In this case we are using our experience in creating tangible items as a proxy for God creating the universe. From our experiences we can use our reasoning ability to determine what kind of information we can gather from what we created. So whether or not you call it an analog or a proxy does not change the intent, observations and findings from this exercise. All it really does is show your lack of objectivity in examining the nature of evidence and its uses. Given your analog, it is clear to me that your still don't understand the difference between evidence and findings. Evidence is used to inform the finding. Evidence is not the finding. The fact that you still don't get this (i.e. evidence) proves (i.e. finding) that this is still over your head too.

I understand the concept of evidence just fine. The problem is not in my understanding, it is in your misuse of the concept. Let's go back to your original question. Can you name something that you have built, or created?

No thanks. Been there and done that.

What? suddenly you don't trust your own position? What a surprise.

I'm ok with you seeing it that way. I've accomplished what I set out to do.

 

[ding]

No

Science is the study of nature. Science effectively worships nature. You worship science when it suits your arguments but are the first to reject it when it doesn't.

Study is not worship. And I don't worship science. Science is not a religion any more than atheism is a religion. You really do have a hard time understanding this "worship" thing, don't you?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I didn't say that science is a religion, but some idiots do act like it is. I suspect you are one of them. When I say that science "effectively" worships nature that is mean to say that science is "devoted" to the study of nature and natural phenomenon. I am almost certain that is what misterbeale meant too. If you would ask clarifying questions, you would end up looking much less stupid if than making assumptions that are false.

The only ones looking stupid are the ones trying to turn science into a religion. Having the sole purpose (the definition of devoted) of studying something, does not make a field a "religion". It doesn't even make it like a religion. It only makes it a field of study. Period.

Like most things, this has sailed over your head.

No, it didn't. You're just mad because I am not willing to let you get away with making false claims about what science is, and isn't.

I'm not mad at all. You didn't get what misterbeale was saying and I'm not inclined to explain it to you.

 

[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.

Science "worships" nothing, so I would agree. your "source" will turn out to be exactly what science worships - nothing.

That's a load of shit.

Folks that are obsessed with science are obsessed with the material world.


However, folks stuck worshiping science, believing the material world is the whole of existence will come to understand what under-girds reality.

Eventually they will find out that the material world is based on energy, and energy on consciousness, IOW, thought.

 

[Czernobog]

No they're not. Using analogies are common. But proxies are not. Just because "a" does not indicate "b". Fish have gills. That does not prove that all animal s have gills just by using fish as a proxy for kangaroos, because they are both animals.

Your "evidence" is only evidence of your confirmation bias.

A proxy is anything that is used to represent something else. In this case we are using our experience in creating tangible items as a proxy for God creating the universe. From our experiences we can use our reasoning ability to determine what kind of information we can gather from what we created. So whether or not you call it an analog or a proxy does not change the intent, observations and findings from this exercise. All it really does is show your lack of objectivity in examining the nature of evidence and its uses. Given your analog, it is clear to me that your still don't understand the difference between evidence and findings. Evidence is used to inform the finding. Evidence is not the finding. The fact that you still don't get this (i.e. evidence) proves (i.e. finding) that this is still over your head too.

I understand the concept of evidence just fine. The problem is not in my understanding, it is in your misuse of the concept. Let's go back to your original question. Can you name something that you have built, or created?

No thanks. Been there and done that.

What? suddenly you don't trust your own position? What a surprise.

I'm ok with you seeing it that way. I've accomplished what I set out to do.

Huh. You set out to fail? Congratulations. Personally, I like to set my own sights a little higher.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Science "worships" nothing, so I would agree. your "source" will turn out to be exactly what science worships - nothing.

That's a load of shit.

Folks that are obsessed with science are obsessed with the material world.


However, folks stuck worshiping science, believing the material world is the whole of existence will come to understand what under-girds reality.

Eventually they will find out that the material world is based on energy, and energy on consciousness, IOW, thought.

You mean that we are obsessed with reality? Yes. Yes, we are.

 

[MisterBeale]

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.

Science "worships" nothing, so I would agree. your "source" will turn out to be exactly what science worships - nothing.

Science is the study of nature. Science effectively worships nature. You worship science when it suits your arguments but are the first to reject it when it doesn't.

Study is not worship. And I don't worship science. Science is not a religion any more than atheism is a religion. You really do have a hard time understanding this "worship" thing, don't you?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your thoughts, your beliefs, your actions. . .

The way you live your life, the very fabric of your being reflects your gods. We all have them, whether you admit to them or not.

 

[MisterBeale]

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.

Science "worships" nothing, so I would agree. your "source" will turn out to be exactly what science worships - nothing.

That's a load of shit.

Folks that are obsessed with science are obsessed with the material world.


However, folks stuck worshiping science, believing the material world is the whole of existence will come to understand what under-girds reality.

Eventually they will find out that the material world is based on energy, and energy on consciousness, IOW, thought.

You mean that we are obsessed with reality? Yes. Yes, we are.

So, you are under the delusion that your reality is the same as every other creature in the universe eh?

Is your reality the same as someone who is blind, deaf and dumb?

Is it the same as that of an ant? How about for a dolphin which has more sensory organs and a much larger brain than you?


Your perspective on the universe is so very limited. You probably cannot even conceive of the fact that the ground you stand on, or the seat you sit upon has an awareness of it's own, can you?

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Science "worships" nothing, so I would agree. your "source" will turn out to be exactly what science worships - nothing.

That's a load of shit.

Folks that are obsessed with science are obsessed with the material world.


However, folks stuck worshiping science, believing the material world is the whole of existence will come to understand what under-girds reality.

Eventually they will find out that the material world is based on energy, and energy on consciousness, IOW, thought.

You mean that we are obsessed with reality? Yes. Yes, we are.

So, you are under the delusion that your reality is the same as every other creature in the universe eh?

Is your reality the same as someone who is blind, deaf and dumb?

Is it the same as that of an ant? How about for a dolphin which has more sensory organs and a much larger brain than you?


Your perspective on the universe is so very limited. You probably cannot even conceive of the fact that the ground you stand on, or the seat you sit upon has an awareness of it's own, can you?

Are you under the illusion that reality is subjective? Yell you what. Pray to your God to let you fly, believe with all your heart that gravity is not real, then step off your roof. Then come on back at let us all know how many times you were able to control that subjective reality of yours.

 

[ding]

A proxy is anything that is used to represent something else. In this case we are using our experience in creating tangible items as a proxy for God creating the universe. From our experiences we can use our reasoning ability to determine what kind of information we can gather from what we created. So whether or not you call it an analog or a proxy does not change the intent, observations and findings from this exercise. All it really does is show your lack of objectivity in examining the nature of evidence and its uses. Given your analog, it is clear to me that your still don't understand the difference between evidence and findings. Evidence is used to inform the finding. Evidence is not the finding. The fact that you still don't get this (i.e. evidence) proves (i.e. finding) that this is still over your head too.

I understand the concept of evidence just fine. The problem is not in my understanding, it is in your misuse of the concept. Let's go back to your original question. Can you name something that you have built, or created?

No thanks. Been there and done that.

What? suddenly you don't trust your own position? What a surprise.

I'm ok with you seeing it that way. I've accomplished what I set out to do.

Huh. You set out to fail? Congratulations. Personally, I like to set my own sights a little higher.

Anything else?

 

[Czernobog]

I understand the concept of evidence just fine. The problem is not in my understanding, it is in your misuse of the concept. Let's go back to your original question. Can you name something that you have built, or created?

No thanks. Been there and done that.

What? suddenly you don't trust your own position? What a surprise.

I'm ok with you seeing it that way. I've accomplished what I set out to do.

Huh. You set out to fail? Congratulations. Personally, I like to set my own sights a little higher.

Anything else?

Well, since you';re content with failure, I guess that would be up to you?

 

[MisterBeale]

To be honest, at the end of the day, neither side of the issue will be able to "prove" anything at all thus the argument will remain an argument. There exists many different scientific arguments as to how any event happened therefore scientists argue among themselves over what was the cause. Christians live by faith.

The mathematics of probabilities pretty much goes against sheer happenstance and flies in the face of almost any scientific explanation. Indeed, the mathematical probability of even a single cell evolving into a four celled organism is a virtual impossibility.
The mathematical probability of a big bang propelling the earth to exactly the very location whereby it could sustain life as we know it much less that rock possessing the requirements to provide genesis for life is certainly stretching the limits of possibility. Mathematics is the thorn in the side of those scientists who attempt to explain a natural evolution of life on earth.

That is agreed.

For science to work, much like religion, it requires faith.


Nothing irritates me more, than when they teach "constants" in high school physics, w/o telling the kids that these are localized phenomenon that stay roughly the same in human terms, but do fluctuate. Through out the universe? Who the hell knows? Probably not constant at all.

SO many folks are so dumb, the idolize science and believe that those things they learned in school, like the speed of light, the coefficient of gravity, ect. are "constant." What a bunch of hooey.

 

[ding]

"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.

Science "worships" nothing, so I would agree. your "source" will turn out to be exactly what science worships - nothing.

That's a load of shit.

Folks that are obsessed with science are obsessed with the material world.


However, folks stuck worshiping science, believing the material world is the whole of existence will come to understand what under-girds reality.

Eventually they will find out that the material world is based on energy, and energy on consciousness, IOW, thought.

You mean that we are obsessed with reality? Yes. Yes, we are.

So, you are under the delusion that your reality is the same as every other creature in the universe eh?

Is your reality the same as someone who is blind, deaf and dumb?

Is it the same as that of an ant? How about for a dolphin which has more sensory organs and a much larger brain than you?


Your perspective on the universe is so very limited. You probably cannot even conceive of the fact that the ground you stand on, or the seat you sit upon has an awareness of it's own, can you?

Are you under the illusion that reality is subjective? Yell you what. Pray to your God to let you fly, believe with all your heart that gravity is not real, then step off your roof. Then come on back at let us all know how many times you were able to control that subjective reality of yours.

The consequences of breaking physical laws of nature are immediate. Not so for the consequences of violating moral laws of nature. Often times the consequences are not immediately felt. But rest assured that predictable surprises will eventually happen when a deviance is normalized. For instance someone who goes around trolling religious forums, like yourself, for the express purpose of actively seeking out Christians to mock their beliefs will inevitably suffer consequences of normalizing failed behaviors.

 

[ding]

No thanks. Been there and done that.

What? suddenly you don't trust your own position? What a surprise.

I'm ok with you seeing it that way. I've accomplished what I set out to do.

Huh. You set out to fail? Congratulations. Personally, I like to set my own sights a little higher.

Anything else?

Well, since you';re content with failure, I guess that would be up to you?

Is that it, or do you have something else to add?

 

[MisterBeale]

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.

No they're not. Using analogies are common. But proxies are not. Just because "a" does not indicate "b". Fish have gills. That does not prove that all animal s have gills just by using fish as a proxy for kangaroos, because they are both animals.

Your "evidence" is only evidence of your confirmation bias.

A proxy is anything that is used to represent something else. In this case we are using our experience in creating tangible items as a proxy for God creating the universe. From our experiences we can use our reasoning ability to determine what kind of information we can gather from what we created. So whether or not you call it an analog or a proxy does not change the intent, observations and findings from this exercise. All it really does is show your lack of objectivity in examining the nature of evidence and its uses. Given your analog, it is clear to me that your still don't understand the difference between evidence and findings. Evidence is used to inform the finding. Evidence is not the finding. The fact that you still don't get this (i.e. evidence) proves (i.e. finding) that this is still over your head too.

Huh?

You ever go to court? Evidence is presented. Then each side argues what it means. Then the judge or jury decides. Regardless of the ruling the evidence is still the evidence. Evidence and finding are two different things. You were trying to disprove God. I was just trying to prove that evidence could be used to make that argument. For some odd reason you guys are scared of me discussing the physical evidence.

Its your kind who denies evidence. Great example is evolution. You ignore the mountains of scientific evidence because it conflicts with your creation stories.

Or are you a theist who believes God planted the life seed and let nature take its course? I have a little respect for that hypothesis because it doesn't deny evolution.

Science doesn't disprove God but it does disprove any creation stories

For me at least, evolution is evidence of the universal source code. Quantum consciousness if you will.

 

[Czernobog]

Science "worships" nothing, so I would agree. your "source" will turn out to be exactly what science worships - nothing.

That's a load of shit.

Folks that are obsessed with science are obsessed with the material world.


However, folks stuck worshiping science, believing the material world is the whole of existence will come to understand what under-girds reality.

Eventually they will find out that the material world is based on energy, and energy on consciousness, IOW, thought.

You mean that we are obsessed with reality? Yes. Yes, we are.

So, you are under the delusion that your reality is the same as every other creature in the universe eh?

Is your reality the same as someone who is blind, deaf and dumb?

Is it the same as that of an ant? How about for a dolphin which has more sensory organs and a much larger brain than you?


Your perspective on the universe is so very limited. You probably cannot even conceive of the fact that the ground you stand on, or the seat you sit upon has an awareness of it's own, can you?

Are you under the illusion that reality is subjective? Yell you what. Pray to your God to let you fly, believe with all your heart that gravity is not real, then step off your roof. Then come on back at let us all know how many times you were able to control that subjective reality of yours.

The consequences of breaking physical laws of nature are immediate. Not so for the consequences of violating moral laws of nature. Often times the consequences are not immediately felt. But rest assured that predictable surprises will eventually happen when a deviance is normalized. For instance someone who goes around trolling religious forums, like yourself, for the express purpose of actively seeking out Christians to mock them for their beliefs will inevitably suffer consequences of normalizing failed behaviors.

Your post has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making in response to misterbeale. Either reality is objective, or subjective. My experiment is meant to demonstrate which.

 

[Czernobog]

What? suddenly you don't trust your own position? What a surprise.

I'm ok with you seeing it that way. I've accomplished what I set out to do.

Huh. You set out to fail? Congratulations. Personally, I like to set my own sights a little higher.

Anything else?

Well, since you';re content with failure, I guess that would be up to you?

Is that it, or do you have something else to add?

LOL. You just need to feel like you got the last word in, don't you? Go ahead, prove me right by replying again.

 

[ding]

No they're not. Using analogies are common. But proxies are not. Just because "a" does not indicate "b". Fish have gills. That does not prove that all animal s have gills just by using fish as a proxy for kangaroos, because they are both animals.

Your "evidence" is only evidence of your confirmation bias.

A proxy is anything that is used to represent something else. In this case we are using our experience in creating tangible items as a proxy for God creating the universe. From our experiences we can use our reasoning ability to determine what kind of information we can gather from what we created. So whether or not you call it an analog or a proxy does not change the intent, observations and findings from this exercise. All it really does is show your lack of objectivity in examining the nature of evidence and its uses. Given your analog, it is clear to me that your still don't understand the difference between evidence and findings. Evidence is used to inform the finding. Evidence is not the finding. The fact that you still don't get this (i.e. evidence) proves (i.e. finding) that this is still over your head too.

Huh?

You ever go to court? Evidence is presented. Then each side argues what it means. Then the judge or jury decides. Regardless of the ruling the evidence is still the evidence. Evidence and finding are two different things. You were trying to disprove God. I was just trying to prove that evidence could be used to make that argument. For some odd reason you guys are scared of me discussing the physical evidence.

Its your kind who denies evidence. Great example is evolution. You ignore the mountains of scientific evidence because it conflicts with your creation stories.

Or are you a theist who believes God planted the life seed and let nature take its course? I have a little respect for that hypothesis because it doesn't deny evolution.

Science doesn't disprove God but it does disprove any creation stories

For me at least, evolution is evidence of the universal source code. Quantum consciousness if you will.

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.


The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.


The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?


It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

 

[ding]

That's a load of shit.

Folks that are obsessed with science are obsessed with the material world.


However, folks stuck worshiping science, believing the material world is the whole of existence will come to understand what under-girds reality.

Eventually they will find out that the material world is based on energy, and energy on consciousness, IOW, thought.

You mean that we are obsessed with reality? Yes. Yes, we are.

So, you are under the delusion that your reality is the same as every other creature in the universe eh?

Is your reality the same as someone who is blind, deaf and dumb?

Is it the same as that of an ant? How about for a dolphin which has more sensory organs and a much larger brain than you?


Your perspective on the universe is so very limited. You probably cannot even conceive of the fact that the ground you stand on, or the seat you sit upon has an awareness of it's own, can you?

Are you under the illusion that reality is subjective? Yell you what. Pray to your God to let you fly, believe with all your heart that gravity is not real, then step off your roof. Then come on back at let us all know how many times you were able to control that subjective reality of yours.

The consequences of breaking physical laws of nature are immediate. Not so for the consequences of violating moral laws of nature. Often times the consequences are not immediately felt. But rest assured that predictable surprises will eventually happen when a deviance is normalized. For instance someone who goes around trolling religious forums, like yourself, for the express purpose of actively seeking out Christians to mock them for their beliefs will inevitably suffer consequences of normalizing failed behaviors.

Your post has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making in response to misterbeale. Either reality is objective, or subjective. My experiment is meant to demonstrate which.

Sure it did, it addressed your breaking physical laws argument and contrasted that with your breaking moral laws as an example. Breaking both laws have consequences. It's just that one is immediate and the other isn't.