Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581:1781]

[Frank Apisa]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

Only if it is conscious, knows what it is doing and does (did?) it with intent. Otherwise it is just a force of nature, an as to yet undefined force of nature.

If you feel you want to add that to what YOU mean when you say "god"...fine. I have no problem with that.

I've said what I mean when I use "god"...which is what I was asked to do.

Which is probably more realistic than the concept of gods floating around scripting everything out like a Shakespearean play.

You are the one talking about what is more realistic or what is more likely or what is more probable.

I try to stay away from doing that, because I see no way of logically coming up with estimates of those things.

 

[Chagos]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

Man made the laws, nature created the patterns...which man recognized because his brain likes to make patterns.

As far as "laws" are concerned (here of nature), the name was chosen by mankind as a denominator for the relation of cause to effect that mankind came to understand.

Just saying before duplicity once again enters with one of the usual sophistry gish gallops (and I don't mean Frank).

 

[RAMOSS]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

There is the possibility that what we humans call "this universe" is actually a creation of some thing.

IF what we call "this universe" actually is a creation of some thing...that thing is what I consider a god.

I want to go on record as saying that I do not know that "this universe" is a creation. It may always have existed as is...or as it was before what we call "the Big Bang"...and that NOTHING exists other than it...whatever it IS.

That does not answer the question. That is defining God by an assumed action, not about what God is. THat seems to be 'defining god into place'.. but does not answer 'What is God'.

 

[calamity]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

If you feel you want to add that to what YOU mean when you say "god"...fine. I have no problem with that.

I've said what I mean when I use "god"...which is what I was asked to do.

That's fine. I just thought I'd play too.

You are the one talking about what is more realistic or what is more likely or what is more probable.

I try to stay away from doing that, because I see no way of logically coming up with estimates of those things.

I like going out on limbs with a saw blade :2razz:

 

[Frank Apisa]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

That does not answer the question. That is defining God by an assumed action, not about what God is. THat seems to be 'defining god into place'.. but does not answer 'What is God'.

It does not answer the question???

Your question was:

"What DO you mean when you say "God'?"

My answer was that when I say "god"...I mean something that created this thing we humans call a universe.

The only thing I, PERSONALLY, mean when I say "god"...is a creator god...a thing with whatever qualities that it happens to have...that created what we humans call "this universe."

 

[tosca1]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

:roll:
Christ!
And all his ****ing disciples.

Well, those are legitimate questions. What kind of an answer is that? Seriously?

How do you know there isn't a giant spaghetti monster flying between Jupiter and Mars?

Easy.

1. Because we know what spaghetti is. It's pasta.

2. Pasta is MAN-MADE! It's made with flour.

3. W know there isn't any such thing as a pasta monster - nothing documented about it all. At all. At all.

4. We know that the term "spaghetti monster" was coined by some anti-God person. That's documented. Maybe someone possessed by a demon!
The latter, undocumented.

5. Science never said anything about any objects remotely resembling any pasta (whether cooked or raw), flying or floating between, or
anywhere near Mars and Jupiter! Nothing mentioned about anything resembling dough or batter, either.

Some things really are what they seem.

Exactly.

That's why it's all the more only logical to think that the universe is created since it really look like someone's in total control!

 

[Frank Apisa]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

That's fine. I just thought I'd play too.

Good. I truly enjoy your comments...even the ones I am not completely in agreement with.

I like going out on limbs with a saw blade :2razz:

I've done plenty of that in my life, Calamity. Amazing that I made it to 79!

 

[tosca1]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

Man made the laws, nature created the patterns...which man recognized because his brain likes to make patterns.

Patterns.


1. a decorative design, as for wallpaper, china, or textile fabrics, etc.
2. decoration or ornament having such a design.
3. a natural or chance marking, configuration, or designatterns of frost on the window.
4. a distinctive style, model, or form:a new pattern of army helmet.
5. a combination of qualities, acts, tendencies, etc., forming a consistent or characteristic arrangement:


Pattern | Define Pattern at Dictionary.com



So now you're talking, DESIGN! Thank you.

 

[tosca1]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

Originally Posted by calamity View Post
Man made the laws, nature created the patterns...which man recognized because his brain likes to make patterns.

Of course I didn't mean to say that those "laws" were written on a slab as, LAWS of PHYSICS, and handed down to mankind in a binder.
It came with the understanding of the physical universe by astronomers, physicist and and cosmologists.



The observation that there are underlying regularities in nature dates to prehistoric times, since the recognition of cause-and-effect relationships is an implicit recognition that there are laws of nature. The recognition of such regularities as independent scientific laws per se, though, was limited by their entanglement in animism, and by the attribution of many effects that do not have readily obvious causes—such as meteorological, astronomical and biological phenomena—to the actions of various gods, spirits, supernatural beings, etc. Observation and speculation about nature were intimately bound up with metaphysics and morality.

In Europe, systematic theorizing about nature (physis) began with the early Greek philosophers and scientists and continued into the Hellenistic and Roman imperial periods, during which times the intellectual influence of Roman law increasingly became paramount.

The formula "law of nature" first appears as "a live metaphor" favored by Latin poets Lucretius, Virgil, Ovid, Manilius, in time gaining a firm theoretical presence in the prose treatises of Seneca and Pliny. Why this Roman origin? According to [historian and classicist Daryn] Lehoux's persuasive narrative,[3] the idea was made possible by the pivotal role of codified law and forensic argument in Roman life and culture.

For the Romans . . . the place par excellence where ethics, law, nature, religion and politics overlap is the law court. When we read Seneca's Natural Questions, and watch again and again just how he applies standards of evidence, witness evaluation, argument and proof, we can recognize that we are reading one of the great Roman rhetoricians of the age, thoroughly immersed in forensic method. And not Seneca alone. Legal models of scientific judgment turn up all over the place, and for example prove equally integral to Ptolemy's approach to verification, where the mind is assigned the role of magistrate, the senses that of disclosure of evidence, and dialectical reason that of the law itself.[4]

The precise formulation of what are now recognized as modern and valid statements of the laws of nature dates from the 17th century in Europe, with the beginning of accurate experimentation and development of advanced form of mathematics.. The modern scientific method which took shape at this time (with Francis Bacon and Galileo) aimed at total separation of science from theology, with minimal speculation about metaphysics and ethics. Natural law in the political sense, conceived as universal (i.e., divorced from sectarian religion and accidents of place), was also elaborated in this period (by Grotius, Spinoza, and Hobbes, to name a few).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law

 

[Dittohead not!]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

Good. I truly enjoy your comments...even the ones I am not completely in agreement with.



I've done plenty of that in my life, Calamity. Amazing that I made it to 79!

You don't look too bad for 79.
And, there is someone on this board who is actually older than my 72! Wow, congrats on a long life!

Now, for the edification of the youth, here's what gods are: There is, in a parallel universe, an advanced civilization. We are the small children of that civilization, and have been sent to this universe as a kind of kindergarten where it is hoped we will learn kindergarten lessons: How to get along, how to share, and how to take care of this little planet we've been given to play on.

When we die, we either flunk kindergarten and get sent back, or we are allowed to enter first grade, where we can learn a bit more.

In another couple of million years or so, some of us will be able to join that civilization ourselves and become fully fledged adults. First, of course, we must learn to get along, to share, and to take care of our playground.

How do I know this is so? The gods told me, of course, and there is no way to prove that they didn't.

 

[radioman]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

You don't look too bad for 79.
And, there is someone on this board who is actually older than my 72! Wow, congrats on a long life!

Congrats, indeed.
However, I must say this......you're older than me, you're older than me, you're older than me!!!....ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!

When we die, we either flunk kindergarten and get sent back, or we are allowed to enter first grade, where we can learn a bit more.

In another couple of million years or so, some of us will be able to join that civilization ourselves and become fully fledged adults. First, of course, we must learn to get along, to share, and to take care of our playground.

Learn to get along....share....take care of stuff.......all in a couple million years?
I think your time frame is too short.....think tens of millions.

 

[Dittohead not!]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

Congrats, indeed.
However, I must say this......you're older than me, you're older than me, you're older than me!!!....ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!




Learn to get along....share....take care of stuff.......all in a couple million years?
I think your time frame is too short.....think tens of millions.

Well, some of us will no doubt flunk Kindergarten a few times, but given eternity, it won't matter how long it takes.

 

[RAMOSS]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

It does not answer the question???

Your question was:

"What DO you mean when you say "God'?"

My answer was that when I say "god"...I mean something that created this thing we humans call a universe.

The only thing I, PERSONALLY, mean when I say "god"...is a creator god...a thing with whatever qualities that it happens to have...that created what we humans call "this universe."

But, you can not define god except by an alledged action. That is the point. That is 'what god did', not 'what is god'.

 

[radioman]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

Well, some of us will no doubt flunk Kindergarten a few times, but given eternity, it won't matter how long it takes.

This is true.
Actually, my kindergarten teacher was really great, but my third grade teacher, Miss Bead, was a real bitch.
I'd hate to have to spend any of my precious eternal life with someone like her.
On the positive side, I'll bet this advanced civilization has really understanding teachers and guidance counselors.
They would probably have the patience of....well.......a saint.
I'll bet even they yelled at Miss Bead, though.

 

[Frank Apisa]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

You don't look too bad for 79.
And, there is someone on this board who is actually older than my 72! Wow, congrats on a long life!

Now, for the edification of the youth, here's what gods are: There is, in a parallel universe, an advanced civilization. We are the small children of that civilization, and have been sent to this universe as a kind of kindergarten where it is hoped we will learn kindergarten lessons: How to get along, how to share, and how to take care of this little planet we've been given to play on.

When we die, we either flunk kindergarten and get sent back, or we are allowed to enter first grade, where we can learn a bit more.

In another couple of million years or so, some of us will be able to join that civilization ourselves and become fully fledged adults. First, of course, we must learn to get along, to share, and to take care of our playground.

How do I know this is so? The gods told me, of course, and there is no way to prove that they didn't.

I kinda like that speculation, Ditto. It certainly is as reasonable as "there are no gods" or "there definitely is a GOD."

But it has a LOT more panache...and panache is important.

 

[Frank Apisa]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

But, you can not define god except by an alledged action. That is the point. That is 'what god did', not 'what is god'.

If you can do better, Ramoss...do it.

I cannot...but I acknowledge that I am not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Under any circumstance, when I am using the word "god"...that is what I am talking about.

 

[RAMOSS]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

If you can do better, Ramoss...do it.

I cannot...but I acknowledge that I am not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Under any circumstance, when I am using the word "god"...that is what I am talking about.

My position is that I am an ignostic to a large extent. I do not know what it means when people claim GOD.

I have to consider without a good definition of what God is, and defined in something other than terms that do not correspond to objective facts, or by 'what god did', then the question of 'does God exist or not' is a meaningless question. The question itself has no semantic content.

 

[Frank Apisa]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

My position is that I am an ignostic to a large extent. I do not know what it means when people claim GOD.

I have to consider without a good definition of what God is, and defined in something other than terms that do not correspond to objective facts, or by 'what god did', then the question of 'does God exist or not' is a meaningless question. The question itself has no semantic content.

I understand...and I accept that you consider discussion of it meaningless.

All I can say is that I can inform discussions partners of what I mean when I use the word...and have interesting discussions on the subject. I have them all the time...very interesting discussions...which have been going on for 15 plus years on the Internet.

We just have different sensibilities on the issue, Ramoss, and I guess you and I are not going to discuss gods.

 

[Riveroaks]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

You don't look too bad for 79.
And, there is someone on this board who is actually older than my 72! Wow, congrats on a long life!

Now, for the edification of the youth, here's what gods are: There is, in a parallel universe, an advanced civilization. We are the small children of that civilization, and have been sent to this universe as a kind of kindergarten where it is hoped we will learn kindergarten lessons: How to get along, how to share, and how to take care of this little planet we've been given to play on.

When we die, we either flunk kindergarten and get sent back, or we are allowed to enter first grade, where we can learn a bit more.

In another couple of million years or so, some of us will be able to join that civilization ourselves and become fully fledged adults. First, of course, we must learn to get along, to share, and to take care of our playground.

How do I know this is so? The gods told me, of course, and there is no way to prove that they didn't.

Interesting comments.

You are of course assuming there are no modern prophets here who have seen and spoken with God(s).

 

[Riveroaks]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

I understand...and I accept that you consider discussion of it meaningless.

All I can say is that I can inform discussions partners of what I mean when I use the word...and have interesting discussions on the subject. I have them all the time...very interesting discussions...which have been going on for 15 plus years on the Internet.

We just have different sensibilities on the issue, Ramoss, and I guess you and I are not going to discuss gods.

We still love you Frank !!!

Don't worry about what anyone else says !!!

 

[Frank Apisa]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

We still love you Frank !!!

Don't worry about what anyone else says !!!

I love youse all. We're all in this together...whether we wanna be or not.

 

[Dittohead not!]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

Interesting comments.

You are of course assuming there are no modern prophets here who have seen and spoken with God(s).

Assuming that there are no modern prophets?
I just claimed to be one.

 

[calamity]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

Well, those are legitimate questions. What kind of an answer is that? Seriously?





Easy.

1. Because we know what spaghetti is. It's pasta.

2. Pasta is MAN-MADE! It's made with flour.

3. W know there isn't any such thing as a pasta monster - nothing documented about it all. At all. At all.

4. We know that the term "spaghetti monster" was coined by some anti-God person. That's documented. Maybe someone possessed by a demon!
The latter, undocumented.

5. Science never said anything about any objects remotely resembling any pasta (whether cooked or raw), flying or floating between, or
anywhere near Mars and Jupiter! Nothing mentioned about anything resembling dough or batter, either.






Exactly.

That's why it's all the more only logical to think that the universe is created since it really look like someone's in total control!

It looks exactly opposite of what one would expect if the universe was under some god's control.

For example:

 

[calamity]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

Patterns.


1. a decorative design, as for wallpaper, china, or textile fabrics, etc.
2. decoration or ornament having such a design.
3. a natural or chance marking, configuration, or designatterns of frost on the window.
4. a distinctive style, model, or form:a new pattern of army helmet.
5. a combination of qualities, acts, tendencies, etc., forming a consistent or characteristic arrangement:


Pattern | Define Pattern at Dictionary.com



So now you're talking, DESIGN! Thank you.

So, when someone sees a teapot in a cloud formation, that was by design?

Another design?

 

[Frank Apisa]

re: Why Not Believe The Universe Was Created?[W:1581]

It looks exactly opposite of what one would expect if the universe was under some god's control.

For example:

Why?

Why are you discounting the possibility of a creator god who simply will stay out of things...and let what happens happen?

Are you the kind of person who thinks that if there is a god...it must "love us" and that kind of thing?

Really.

Perhaps there is a god who treats "the universe" as a human might treat an ant farm.