God Created The World

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:04 pm

From Post 12 here:

AquinasD wrote: God created the world.

For debate:

I challenge folks to show the above claim is true.

EduChris · Post by **EduChris** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:22 am

ThatGirlAgain wrote:...It took 13.7 billion years and upwards of 100 billion billion stars to evolve intelligent life, in a universe allegedly designed from utter scratch for that purpose, by an entity that can volitionally create whatever laws it wishes?...

Correct.

ThatGirlAgain wrote:...the world as we see it...seems to be at bottom â€œthe churning waves of unobservable quarks and gluonsâ€�. Volition, reason and consciousness are subjective and the result of physical circumstances...

We don't really know what quarks and gluons are, since we can't observe them. We posit such entities because of a particular framework we adopt for the purpose of explaining the small set of observations we can make. However, we do have direct, unmediated access to our own inner mental thought life, which is the most real thing we can ever know. If we make this "most real thing" the basis for knowing everything else, then a volitional God seems unavoidable.

ThatGirlAgain wrote:...The issues are not at all beyond the scope of this forum...

If you find someone will to discuss such matters in scholarly detail, you'd better find them quick before they decide to leave here because of all the childish antics of certain non-theists here. Theopoesis would have gladly discussed this with you, but he left because of the nonsense. Keef might have been willing to discuss, but again he seems to have left on account of the nonsense. Numerous others could be mentioned, but the reality is the same: many non-theists here seem to have made it their life's ambition to shut down rational discourse, and their actions are tolerated by the moderators. This is obviously not conducive to detailed discussions, which are difficult even in the best of circumstances.

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:32 am

From Post 31:

EduChris wrote: ...As the (apparently) only intelligent life in the universe, we are the most significant aspect of the universe...

Argument from personal or species-specific pride.

EduChris wrote: ...which appears designed for life...

"appears" and "danged if it ain't" are two different things.

EduChris wrote: ...to the point that non-theists must posit an infinitude of unobservable universes just to get around the appearance of design.

This non-theist does nothing of the sort. I observe a single universe and note I ain't observing no god in it, or outside of it.

EduChris wrote: I suppose reasonable people can and will disagree about such matters. Suffice it to say that reading ancient texts with comprehension is not an easy thing to do. Dismissing them lightly says more about the dismisser than the dismissed.

Nor would it seem easy to show one has the "proper understanding" of said text.

I point out for the observer's consideration this entire string of posts. Notice that the argument, in its 'string' does nothing to help us confirm the veracity of the claim mentioned in the OP. Notice it has now become one of whether or not a notion not directly related to the OP is of worthy consideration.

Notice the potential species bias in proclaiming that "we are the most significant aspect of the universe...".

According to? According to criteria set forth by that species itself?

I contend that this is an otherwise normal product of a species being proud about its place in a universe of which little is known. "Little is known" you ask? Lack of confirmable knowledge.

Notice also the statement "...to the point that non-theists must posit...". See how there's no mention that this is not the position of all non-theists. I contend the non-use of any qualifier such as "some", "a good bit", or various iterations thereof indicates for us that the poster in question fails to understand why non-theists are not of one mind on the issue. "Fails to understand" you ask? Lack of confirmable knowledge.

So, as we look at the OP, ask yourself, what has EduChris done to show the claim presented in the OP is true or false. Ask yourself if the posting of comments not related to the OP may, might, could be an effort to avoid an "internal conflict" regarding deeply held, but unsupportable belief. Notice that when the poster first started commenting, ostensibly in relation to the OP, we go from...

EduChris, in Post 3 wrote: The claim will be true for those who view the world through theistic lenses. The claim will be false or undetermined for those who view the world through some other lens.
...

Read the rest of that post and see that all we are getting is a reason for belief, and no actual comments that can help us to determine the veracity of the claim laid out in the OP.

Continuing, we find...

EduChris, in Post 9 wrote: The interpretive framework provided by the theistic lens justifies our intuitive sense...

Read the rest of the post and ask yourself, where has EduChris offered any means by which we can confirm the veracity of the claim laid out in the OP.

I'll offer one more example, so we have three separate posts that I contend support what I'm getting at...

EduChris, in Post 10 wrote: Well, it sounds like atheists can't all agree on whether their inner mental lives are real or not...

Ask yourself, where in this post does EduChris offer us any means by which we can confirm the claim laid out in the OP.

Then read through the rest of EduChris' posts in this thread and try your best to find the spot that actually does address the OP. Find the spot that actually offers some means of confirming the claim laid out in the OP.

Now, what I'm getting at, tired as y'all are of hearin' it, is that the god concept is specifically a place where we put that which we can not confirm.

Notice EduChris, a highly intelligent, highly capable debater, is fully able to debate that which he himself has confirmed. Such confirming is 'in place' regardless of whether it is true and factual. It is in place through no fault, no nefarity, no anything other'n EduChris has accepted it.

But what of the actual claim presented in the OP? I contend this claim is unconfirmed, and I contend that when we see a poster debate "all around" the OP, while offering anything but a direct, forward response to the claim presented in the OP, this is where the "internal conflict" comes in.

Ask yourself, why all this other stuff, but no direct, unambiguous response to the challenge presented in the OP. I contend our "internal conflicts", which we all possess, is where the god concept starts to take hold. This conflict "must" be of some measure to the individual that it causes real stress, sub/consciously or otherwise. So what happens? The conflict is diverted by moving the conversation - internal or otherwise - away from the notion that causes this internal grief. I present EduChris' posts within this thread as evidence for my assertion.

ThatGirlAgain · Post by **ThatGirlAgain** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:46 pm

EduChris wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:...It took 13.7 billion years and upwards of 100 billion billion stars to evolve intelligent life, in a universe allegedly designed from utter scratch for that purpose, by an entity that can volitionally create whatever laws it wishes?...
Correct.

Pardon me if I express incredulity. The alleged creator either has negligible interest in us or is not much of a craftsman.

EduChris wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:...the world as we see it...seems to be at bottom â€œthe churning waves of unobservable quarks and gluonsâ€�. Volition, reason and consciousness are subjective and the result of physical circumstances...
We don't really know what quarks and gluons are, since we can't observe them. We posit such entities because of a particular framework we adopt for the purpose of explaining the small set of observations we can make. However, we do have direct, unmediated access to our own inner mental thought life, which is the most real thing we can ever know. If we make this "most real thing" the basis for knowing everything else, then a volitional God seems unavoidable.

Quarks and gluons are elaborate metaphors for explaining a highly non-linear reality that ultimately cannot be perfectly described by anything short of itself. What we call reason is our talent for ignoring the great majority of reality to concentrate on certain aspects of interest. What we call volition is based ultimately on the complex inputs we have historically received and bounced back and forth in our neurological connections. What we call consciousness is the ongoing interplay of memory with current input. They all are physical processes that vanish when the physical substrate is removed. They are only real to ourselves, not in any absolute sense.

EduChris wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:...The issues are not at all beyond the scope of this forum...
If you find someone will to discuss such matters in scholarly detail, you'd better find them quick before they decide to leave here because of all the childish antics of certain non-theists here. Theopoesis would have gladly discussed this with you, but he left because of the nonsense. Keef might have been willing to discuss, but again he seems to have left on account of the nonsense. Numerous others could be mentioned, but the reality is the same: many non-theists here seem to have made it their life's ambition to shut down rational discourse, and their actions are tolerated by the moderators. This is obviously not conducive to detailed discussions, which are difficult even in the best of circumstances.

I have already had some elaborate discussions on scriptural subjects with a variety of knowledgeable people from a fairly broad spectrum of belief. I am rather more optimistic than you about the outcome. And Keef is online as I type this. theopoesis has only been away for a couple of weeks. There are others here who might jump in on a parousia thread who are very much active.

AquinasD · Post by **AquinasD** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:57 pm

JoeyKnothead wrote:
AquinasD wrote: 3) God exists
Please offer some means to confirm this claim is true.

I leave the remainder of the post as it's predicated on the above unevidenced claim.

Then we're back to where we always go; whether God exists. However, you would accept that, if God exists, then it would follow God is the creator of our world?

If so, then I have provided (what you consider, surprisingly) a sufficient demonstration of something which goes into the theistic framework.

AquinasD · Post by **AquinasD** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:03 pm

ThatGirlAgain wrote:Pardon me if I express incredulity. The alleged creator either has negligible interest in us or is not much of a craftsman.

Or else God was interested in the existence of the particular individuals which are unique to this particular world, which includes its 13.7 billion prologue.

Which, for all we know, is a very short prologue; how do you know God doesn't intend for man to be around for trillions of years?

EduChris · Post by **EduChris** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:27 pm

ThatGirlAgain wrote:...The alleged creator either has negligible interest in us or is not much of a craftsman...

Non-sequitur.

ThatGirlAgain wrote:...What we call reason is our talent for ignoring the great majority of reality to concentrate on certain aspects of interest. What we call volition is based ultimately on the complex inputs we have historically received and bounced back and forth in our neurological connections. What we call consciousness is the ongoing interplay of memory with current input. They all are physical processes that vanish when the physical substrate is removed. They are only real to ourselves, not in any absolute sense...

Unprovable, reductionary hypothesis.

ThatGirlAgain wrote:...I have already had some elaborate discussions on scriptural subjects with a variety of knowledgeable people from a fairly broad spectrum of belief...

Specifically regarding the interpretation and reliability of the New Testament? Where? With whom?

Autodidact · Post by **Autodidact** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:35 pm

Then we're back to where we always go; whether God exists. However, you would accept that, if God exists, then it would follow God is the creator of our world?

Isn't that part of the definition? So yeah, if a supernatural creator exists, then It created. Yeah. Do you have any evidence that It does?

Autodidact · Post by **Autodidact** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:37 pm

AquinasD wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:Pardon me if I express incredulity. The alleged creator either has negligible interest in us or is not much of a craftsman.
Or else God was interested in the existence of the particular individuals which are unique to this particular world, which includes its 13.7 billion prologue.

Which, for all we know, is a very short prologue; how do you know God doesn't intend for man to be around for trillions of years?

Or just until 2013. No way of knowing.

ThatGirlAgain · Post by **ThatGirlAgain** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:57 pm

EduChris wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:...The alleged creator either has negligible interest in us or is not much of a craftsman...
Non-sequitur.

If you cannot see that, there is no point in talking about it. Especially since we seem to be back to one-liner responses with no elaboration.

EduChris wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:...What we call reason is our talent for ignoring the great majority of reality to concentrate on certain aspects of interest. What we call volition is based ultimately on the complex inputs we have historically received and bounced back and forth in our neurological connections. What we call consciousness is the ongoing interplay of memory with current input. They all are physical processes that vanish when the physical substrate is removed. They are only real to ourselves, not in any absolute sense...
Unprovable, reductionary hypothesis.

Lots of scientific research that I have repeatedly linked to and been ignored. Butâ€¦see above.

EduChris wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:...I have already had some elaborate discussions on scriptural subjects with a variety of knowledgeable people from a fairly broad spectrum of belief...
Where? With whom?

Oldfarmhouse · Post by **Oldfarmhouse** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:20 pm

The discussion about the extreme size of the universe compared to the tiny micron in both size and duration our species occupies has come up as long as I can remember.

At one time in the distant past the concept was not relevant because we (collectively) had no idea how enormous a space beyond our third stone from the sun actually is. Without this knowledge it is certainly much easier to see us as playing the leading role in the cosmic play in which the whole plot revolves around us.

Bit by bit our increasing knowledge about the greater reality that exists far beyond us renders our species less and less significant in the larger scheme of things.

I really don't think it at all a realistic point of view to assume that there is a creator who built this entire universe for the benefit of such a miniscule part of it. It would be like building a city the size of Tokyo in order to house your pet hamster. It simply does not resemble a rational. sensible, or efficient design concept no matter how you look at it.

This would make Rube Goldberg's looniest contraption look like a reasonable and efficient solution by comparison.

So -- if we are the main point to the entire universe then the rest of it is what? Wasted space?