|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 3, 2022 0:47:32 GMT
I try to avoid responding to posts that are all about the poster and literally nothing about the topic. Like the one I'm ironically responding to right now. At any rate... Without nature, there is no "natural." Therefore, nature could not have come to exist in a natural way.If you have something to say about that, then yes, we can have a conversation. We'll try it once more and find out. Before I respond, I want to make sure I understand your meaning ... Natural means of nature. Without nature, nature could not come to exist naturally? So nature could not produce itself? Do I understand correctly? Nothing can bring itself into existence, and nature is no exception. If all we can do is "pick a turtle," does it matter which one?
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 560
|
Post by gw on Apr 3, 2022 4:43:39 GMT
Maybe a theist can clarify this for me: If god is all powerful and has been around forever, why hasn't it done everything there is to do already?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 3, 2022 6:16:19 GMT
Maybe a theist can clarify this for me: If god is all powerful and has been around forever, why hasn't it done everything there is to do already? Before I presume that it hasn't, you would need to clarify a few things about the question, like what you mean by "god" and what it means to be "all-powerful." This is not semantics; if this "god" you're asking about has the power to do literally anything - even the impossible - then it's fair to say it has the ability to simultaneously and without conflict do everything there is to do as well as nothing at all. It's always the whys. If you can't speak for anyone's true intentions but your own, why should God be an exception? In any case, I could ask the same about the universe. After all, you did jump into the middle of a discussion regarding infinite regression...
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 3, 2022 6:34:14 GMT
We'll try it once more and find out. Before I respond, I want to make sure I understand your meaning ... Natural means of nature. Without nature, nature could not come to exist naturally? So nature could not produce itself? Do I understand correctly? Nothing can bring itself into existence, and nature is no exception. If all we can do is "pick a turtle," 2) does it matter which one? 1) Insisting on a creator begs the question, who created the Creator? Most assume God would be supernatural but I believe that's a lazy excuse for something that can't be demonstrated to exist. Can't prove ghosts exist, must be supernatural. ditto angels, ditto God, ditto souls. If God created all that is natural then why wouldn't God be a higher order of the natural world? If God can interact with and influence the natural world, it is fair game for science. God or the universe popped into existence or always was, there is no difference to the arguments so why add something extra and unnecessary like a Creator? 2) Yes and no. We could live as wild animals, never learn anything and we would get along as well as we did when we were cavemen, which was not very well because humans came close to extinction a few times. But that is not in our nature or we would still be cavemen, so we move on to today. I believe it matters because some choices are irrational and further obscure reality. Humans observe a phenomenon and try to explain how it works. God/s is not a phenomenon, it was a primitive explanation for phenomena. Humans weren't satisfied with the god answer and as we learned, we produced works. What we have achieved is fantastic and we did it through rational thought. Religion produced some amazing architecture but mostly ignorance, bigotry, and suppression of intellect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 3, 2022 7:07:22 GMT
1) Nothing can bring itself into existence, and nature is no exception. If all we can do is "pick a turtle," 2) does it matter which one? 1) Insisting on a creator begs the question, who created the Creator? Most assume God would be supernatural but I believe that's a lazy excuse for something that can't be demonstrated to exist. Can't prove ghosts exist, must be supernatural. ditto angels, ditto God, ditto souls. If God created all that is natural then why wouldn't God be a higher order of the natural world? If God can interact with and influence the natural world, it is fair game for science. God or the universe popped into existence or always was, there is no difference to the arguments so why add something extra and unnecessary like a Creator? 2) Yes and no. We could live as wild animals, never learn anything and we would get along as well as we did when we were cavemen, which was not very well because humans came close to extinction a few times. But that is not in our nature or we would still be cavemen, so we move on to today. I believe it matters because some choices are irrational and further obscure reality. Humans observe a phenomenon and try to explain how it works. God/s is not a phenomenon, it was a primitive explanation for phenomena. Humans weren't satisfied with the god answer and as we learned, we produced works. What we have achieved is fantastic and we did it through rational thought. Religion produced some amazing architecture but mostly ignorance, bigotry, and suppression of intellect. If something is created, it's not unreasonable to insist that something created it, ie. a creator. If the creator was itself created (as the question presumes), it wouldn't be "the Creator." I said nothing can bring itself into existence. Before diving into the deep end of the pool, is your response a disagreement? I honestly can't tell, so please don't tell me that you've already answered and imply that I'm too stupid to understand. I know that already.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 3, 2022 18:59:48 GMT
If something is created, it's not unreasonable to insist that something created it, ie. a creator. If the creator was itself created (as the question presumes), it wouldn't be "the Creator." I said nothing can bring itself into existence There is no logical reason though why something cannot always have existed, whether it be a deliberate supernatural or just something wholly natural which, given enough time and opportunity, can provoke something more. The difference being that one presupposes a whole extra realm of existence to explain things.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Apr 3, 2022 19:14:25 GMT
If something is created, it's not unreasonable to insist that something created it, ie. a creator. If the creator was itself created (as the question presumes), it wouldn't be "the Creator." I said nothing can bring itself into existence There is no logical reason though why something cannot always have existed, whether it be a deliberate supernatural or just something wholly natural which, given enough time and opportunity, can provoke something more. The difference being that one presupposes a whole extra realm of existence to explain things. Hey, FilmFlaneur, where have you been? It has been a long time since I have seen any posts by you! Good to have you back!
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 3, 2022 19:22:55 GMT
if there is a God who decides humans have value and....exactly how much value they have.
I have attached a video below. He says the atheist view reduces 'us to cosmic junk.' But what does he say? Presumably he goes on to say humans have value because....God. But, if we take his view at face value, we are just 'God's junk.' We have no real intrinsic value, except that God created us and arbitrarily decides we are of value.
Such a view ignores the very many sceptics and unbelievers et al who have cared about (and for) their fellow men and women. It is also worth reminding oneself of the apologists for the vengeful jealous and angry god of the OT who at times supposedly kills in vast numbers or orders his followers to murder, rape, mutilate and torture , when such inconvenient actions are deemed 'justified'. Indeed our value can be arbitrary.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 3, 2022 19:23:43 GMT
There is no logical reason though why something cannot always have existed, whether it be a deliberate supernatural or just something wholly natural which, given enough time and opportunity, can provoke something more. The difference being that one presupposes a whole extra realm of existence to explain things. Hey, FilmFlaneur , where have you been? It has been a long time since I have seen any posts by you! Good to have you back! I like pop in now and again in case anything fresh has turned up! Hope you are well.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 3, 2022 19:43:25 GMT
you would need to clarify a few things about the question, like what you mean by "god" and what it means to be "all-powerful." This is not semantics; if this "god" you're asking about has the power to do literally anything - even the impossible - then it's fair to say it has the ability to simultaneously and without conflict do everything there is to do as well as nothing at all. If the impossible is done then, by definition, it is not the impossible. So a god has not done the impossible, or that which cannot be done but the possible, even if very rare and difficult. To put it another way, to argue that god can do the impossible you are changing the definition of what cannot be done to something which can - which is why any such claim is inherently illogical, even if one puts asides the common views of philosophers on the matter of a supposed Maximal God, discussed before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 3, 2022 20:24:43 GMT
1) Insisting on a creator begs the question, who created the Creator? Most assume God would be supernatural but I believe that's a lazy excuse for something that can't be demonstrated to exist. Can't prove ghosts exist, must be supernatural. ditto angels, ditto God, ditto souls. If God created all that is natural then why wouldn't God be a higher order of the natural world? If God can interact with and influence the natural world, it is fair game for science. God or the universe popped into existence or always was, there is no difference to the arguments so why add something extra and unnecessary like a Creator? 2) Yes and no. We could live as wild animals, never learn anything and we would get along as well as we did when we were cavemen, which was not very well because humans came close to extinction a few times. But that is not in our nature or we would still be cavemen, so we move on to today. I believe it matters because some choices are irrational and further obscure reality. Humans observe a phenomenon and try to explain how it works. God/s is not a phenomenon, it was a primitive explanation for phenomena. Humans weren't satisfied with the god answer and as we learned, we produced works. What we have achieved is fantastic and we did it through rational thought. Religion produced some amazing architecture but mostly ignorance, bigotry, and suppression of intellect. If something is created, it's not unreasonable to insist that something created it, ie. a creator. If the creator was itself created (as the question presumes), it wouldn't be "the Creator." I said nothing can bring itself into existence. Before diving into the deep end of the pool, is your response a disagreement? I honestly can't tell, so please don't tell me that you've already answered and imply that I'm too stupid to understand. I know that already. The universe being a "creation" is a religious teaching that reinforces the idea of a creator or architect. I wrote that the universe or god always was, or popped into existence, neither are a creation. There is no evidence the universe was "created," in a way that we understand creating something. Smarter men have explained it better, but the universe seems tailored to us because we evolved to exist within it. The universe isn't tailored to us, we are tailored to it through evolution. Some physicists are now applying the theory of evolution to include the universe which makes sense. Some believe the universe is a simulation and I poorly understand the physics that make this attractive but even if that were true, the simulation didn't create us, because we definitely evolved to exist within this universe. Everything we know evolved from the moment time began so it is all a byproduct of whatever happened that started it. You probably don't want to read this but YOU brought it up so don't blame me for going off topic! As for that last remark, in that conversation I had explained as simply as I possibly could more than once and the person just kept asking the same question. They were replying without thinking about what I said, or were passive aggressively disagreeing and trying to undermine my posts by pretending they didn't make sense. How many ways am I obligated to explain something to someone too lazy to stop and think about it? If you don't want to talk about posters, then don't bring it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 3, 2022 21:37:58 GMT
you would need to clarify a few things about the question, like what you mean by "god" and what it means to be "all-powerful." This is not semantics; if this "god" you're asking about has the power to do literally anything - even the impossible - then it's fair to say it has the ability to simultaneously and without conflict do everything there is to do as well as nothing at all. If the impossible is done then, by definition, it is not the impossible. So a god has not done the impossible, or that which cannot be done but the possible, even if very rare and difficult. To put it another way, to argue that god can do the impossible you are changing the definition of what cannot be done to something which can - which is why any such claim is inherently illogical, even if one puts asides the common views of philosophers on the matter of a supposed Maximal God, discussed before. If something (in this case, "a god") can't do the impossible without rendering it possible, it would not be "all powerful." Unless, of course, it means something else, which is why I asked for clarification. Yes, we have indeed discussed this before, and the song continues to remain the same: The problem is in the question itself; it presumes an unlimited entity while attempting to determine its limits. It's not unlike asking what precedes the first, for if it has a predecessor, it isn't the first.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Apr 3, 2022 21:38:57 GMT
Hey, FilmFlaneur , where have you been? It has been a long time since I have seen any posts by you! Good to have you back! I like pop in now and again in case anything fresh has turned up! Hope you are well. I am, I hope you are, too!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 3, 2022 21:47:11 GMT
If something is created, it's not unreasonable to insist that something created it, ie. a creator. If the creator was itself created (as the question presumes), it wouldn't be "the Creator." I said nothing can bring itself into existence. Before diving into the deep end of the pool, is your response a disagreement? I honestly can't tell, so please don't tell me that you've already answered and imply that I'm too stupid to understand. I know that already. The universe being a "creation" is a religious teaching that reinforces the idea of a creator or architect. I wrote that the universe or god always was, or popped into existence, neither are a creation. There is no evidence the universe was "created," in a way that we understand creating something. Smarter men have explained it better, but the universe seems tailored to us because we evolved to exist within it. The universe isn't tailored to us, we are tailored to it through evolution. Some physicists are now applying the theory of evolution to include the universe which makes sense. Some believe the universe is a simulation and I poorly understand the physics that make this attractive but even if that were true, the simulation didn't create us, because we definitely evolved to exist within this universe. Everything we know evolved from the moment time began so it is all a byproduct of whatever happened that started it. You probably don't want to read this but YOU brought it up so don't blame me for going off topic! As for that last remark, in that conversation I had explained as simply as I possibly could more than once and the person just kept asking the same question. They were replying without thinking about what I said, or were passive aggressively disagreeing and trying to undermine my posts by pretending they didn't make sense. How many ways am I obligated to explain something to someone too lazy to stop and think about it? If you don't want to talk about posters, then don't bring it up. I'm going to address your spoiler first so hopefully we can move past it. I was referring to this little exchange we had not so very long ago: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/5324223/thread"If you don't want to talk about posters, then don't bring it up."See my response to this post: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/5376456/threadWith that out of the way... Saying the universe wasn't created doesn't negate the fact that nothing can bring itself into existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 4, 2022 1:16:17 GMT
The universe being a "creation" is a religious teaching that reinforces the idea of a creator or architect. I wrote that the universe or god always was, or popped into existence, neither are a creation. There is no evidence the universe was "created," in a way that we understand creating something. Smarter men have explained it better, but the universe seems tailored to us because we evolved to exist within it. The universe isn't tailored to us, we are tailored to it through evolution. Some physicists are now applying the theory of evolution to include the universe which makes sense. Some believe the universe is a simulation and I poorly understand the physics that make this attractive but even if that were true, the simulation didn't create us, because we definitely evolved to exist within this universe. Everything we know evolved from the moment time began so it is all a byproduct of whatever happened that started it. You probably don't want to read this but YOU brought it up so don't blame me for going off topic! As for that last remark, in that conversation I had explained as simply as I possibly could more than once and the person just kept asking the same question. They were replying without thinking about what I said, or were passive aggressively disagreeing and trying to undermine my posts by pretending they didn't make sense. How many ways am I obligated to explain something to someone too lazy to stop and think about it? If you don't want to talk about posters, then don't bring it up. I'm going to address your spoiler first so hopefully we can move past it. I was referring to this little exchange we had not so very long ago: IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/5324223/thread"If you don't want to talk about posters, then don't bring it up."See my response to this post: IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/5376456/threadWith that out of the way... Saying the universe wasn't created doesn't negate the fact that nothing can bring itself into existence. Facts can be proven, so prove it. Convince me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 4, 2022 1:20:32 GMT
Saying the universe wasn't created doesn't negate the fact that nothing can bring itself into existence. Facts can be proven, so prove it. Convince me. Because in order to do so, it must exist before it exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 4, 2022 1:23:53 GMT
Facts can be proven, so prove it. Convince me. Because in order to do so, it must exist before it exists. Assumes a creator. Who created the creator?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 4, 2022 1:30:13 GMT
Because in order to do so, it must exist before it exists. Assumes a creator. Who created the creator? If something doesn't exist, it can't do anything at all. Because it doesn't exist. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. What is "the creator"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 4, 2022 1:40:16 GMT
Assumes a creator. Who created the creator? If something doesn't exist, it can't do anything at all. Because it doesn't exist. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. What is "the creator"? I believe I am. I believe the universe exists. Can you explain how that happened?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 4, 2022 1:43:12 GMT
If something doesn't exist, it can't do anything at all. Because it doesn't exist. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. What is "the creator"? I believe I am. I believe the universe exists. Can you explain how that happened? Are you not going to acknowledge the fact that nothing can bring itself into existence? Or are you doing so by glossing over it? I'm not sure what you're asking now. Can I explain how what happened?
|
|
