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

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

Logicman said:

Morphological similarities of ancient species to humans does not equate as probable ancestry.

You'll need conclusive DNA evidence to make that case, and you don't have it for Australopithecus or any other hominid. All you have is your faith that that's what happened.

Click to expand...

There seems to be evidence that we have a common ancestor with just about everything else that lives on this planet, Logicman. I think the question of how we got to be what we are is still in question, but if you want to suppose that I have solidified into a position and my solidification is based on faith...knock yourself out.

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

Frank Apisa said:

The charge that I am unwilling to respond to any post...is false.
There are some posts I give short shrift...mostly because they deserve it.
I most assuredly am not a troll.
The question I mostly deal with is: What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence?
I do not know the answer to that question...nor to the subtext question of whether or not gods are involved.
I do KNOW that some people suppose (assert) a god or gods exist...and that "the REALITY" is that this god (or these gods) brought what we refer to as "the universe" into existence.
I also KNOW that some people suppose (assert) that no gods exist...and the "the REALITY" is that what we refer to as "the universe" either came into existence of its own accord...or that it has ALWAYS existed.
I do not know which, or if either, of these groups are correct.
And I acknowledge that I do not know...and that I have no unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.
Not sure why you hold that suspect...or in contempt, Mach...but I am willing to discuss it from right now until you cry "uncle."
So start it...by telling me what you see as suspect or contemptuous about what I have said.

Click to expand...

You did it again! You claim to be willing to respond, but you DID NOT RESPOND TO MY POST #2147 (which is a response to your post #2146)

# 2146 Frank claims: "Gods are possible"
# 2147 Mach asks:
1. Define "gods" as used above.
2. Also confirm that this statement above also means: "Gods can exist". Or longer "I know that gods can exist".

I have no doubt its' clear that I already asked you these, and you did not respond. But I am nothing if not forgiving.

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

Mach said:

You did it again! You claim to be willing to respond, but you DID NOT RESPOND TO MY POST #2147 (which is a response to your post #2146)

# 2146 Frank claims: "Gods are possible"
# 2147 Mach asks:
1. Define "gods" as used above.
2. Also confirm that this statement above also means: "Gods can exist". Or longer "I know that gods can exist".

I have no doubt its' clear that I already asked you these, and you did not respond. But I am nothing if not forgiving.

Click to expand...

I did RESPOND...you just do not like my response.

GODS are possible.

If you are asking me to define "god"...I feel comfortable asking you to define "define"...and then picking out anything you say and asking you to define it.

I am talking about what is commonly thought of as a god.

When this question comes to me...it is one of those kind that I give short shrift...because it truly is not a question...it is a delaying tactic.

I am willing to continue to discuss this if you want...but we probably will not get much past what I have already offered.

But I will continue to RESPOND for as long as is necessary...and for as often as is necessary.

I NEVER dodge any question.

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

Frank Apisa said:

I did RESPOND...you just do not like my response.
If you are asking me to define "god"...I feel comfortable asking you to define "define"...and then picking out anything you say and asking you to define it.
When this question comes to me...it is one of those kind that I give short shrift...because it truly is not a question...it is a delaying tactic.
I NEVER dodge any question.

Click to expand...

YOU JUST DID. FOR THE SECOND TIME IN A ROW.


Why don't you just wiki it Frank? It HAS TO COME FROM YOU. If I argue against MY definition of god, it's strawman.

Once again, Frank claims:
"GOD IS POSSIBLE".

But Frank refuses to define the word "GOD". That's called forfeiture, on your part.

If you were honest, you might start by proposing I don't know, let's say, Wikipedia!

The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

Click to expand...

So do you want to use that definition? Or do you want to hold to your forfeiture?

The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

Click to expand...

If you can't tell us what you mean, you either do not know, or are unwilling to inform us, either way, it's non-responsive.

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

Mach said:

When this question comes to me...it is one of those kind that I give short shrift...because it truly is not a question...it is a delaying tactic.
I NEVER dodge any question.

Click to expand...

Since you have dodged again, and cannot define the word you are using, you have no idea what you are writing about, literally.

Click to expand...

You seem to be having trouble mastering the quote function, Mach.

And you are lecturing me on whether or not I responded to a question???

Why don't you just wiki it Frank? It HAS TO COME FROM YOU. If I argue against MY definition of god, it's strawman.

Click to expand...

I responded, Mach. You seem not to like my response.

Tell me what you want to respond...and I'll consider it.

Then you can argue against my revision.

ONce again, Frank claims:
"GOD IS POSSIBLE".

Click to expand...

I did not say "GOD IS POSSIBLE." THAT is a strawman...and I know you do not like strawmen.

And you are lecturing me on whether or not I responded to a question???

But Frank refuses to define the word "GOD". That's called forfeiture, on your part.

Click to expand...

Kinda twisting up your third person and second person references here, Mach.

And you are lecturing me on whether or not I responded to a question????

If you were honest, you might start by proposing I don't know, let's say, Wikipedia!

Click to expand...

I'm sure you intended that sentence to mean something.

I wish you better luck next time you try it.

So do you want to use that definition? Or do you want to hold to your forfeiture?

Click to expand...

There is no "forfeiture" except in your mind.

I most assuredly do not want to use a definition of gods that includes "attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

Sounds like garbage written by an atheist who doesn't have much finesse when trying to set traps.

And I certainly do not want to include anything that has to do with obligations on the part of humans to love, honor, and worship it.

Anyway...if that is what you would offer...I would offer in return:

My definition for the purposes of this conversation would be: Something that caused what we humans refer to as "the universe" to come into the existence in which we perceive it to be...without regard to how it, itself, came into existence.

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

Mach said:

We just established above that a self described agnostic used the concept of a deity to make a claim i.e. the concept is accepted as true if used that way (self-evident). The "i don't know" was whether or not this concept EXISTS (or presumably corresponds to an existing entity". See the difference? I have no idea how your response actually responds to my post, but you still hit on a good point. There is a real difference between these two claims: 1. I don't know what "god" means. 2. I don't know if gods exists #1 is a syntax error, which is a correct position to take in this case. The concept of god is contradictory with respect to reality (the most common definitions of it anyway). #2 accepts the concept of god, then claims to have no knowledge of its existence. The question is, if #2 accepts this concept of "god", then how did they define that concept? They used it to make a claim, it's necessary that if the statement is reasoned that the word used has a definition...else it's gibberish. As soon as an agnostic truthfully defines "god", they will likely end up being categorized as religious or atheist. But we'd need to find a coherent, honest agnostic to demonstrate that. Alas.

Click to expand...

No, it can be acknowledge that the concept exists.. that does not mean that the concept is true. That is what being agnostic is about 'Is the concept of God true or false'. Agnostics say 'I dont' know'.

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

Frank Apisa said:

There seems to be evidence that we have a common ancestor with just about everything else that lives on this planet, Logicman. I think the question of how we got to be what we are is still in question, but if you want to suppose that I have solidified into a position and my solidification is based on faith...knock yourself out.

Click to expand...

Well, I hope your standard for making claims like that is conclusive DNA evidence in lieu of morphological similarities. Because the Neanderthal 'looks' like a direct-line ancestor to man but he isn't.

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

#2146 Frank claims: "Gods are possible"
#2147 Mach asks:1. Define "gods" as used above so it can be debated.
#2150 Frank doesn't respond with a definition, or explanation of why he doesn't.
#2152 Mach asks again: Define "gods"
#2153 Frank claims the request is a "delaying tactic".
BUT gives us a hint of answer with this statement: I am talking about what is commonly thought of as a god.
#2154 Mach provides the wikipedia, first page, second sentence definition commonly held by theologians of the concept of "god"

The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

Click to expand...

#2155 Frank rejects this common concept of god(!!), despite pose #2153 above, claiming the contrary.
Frank proposes a defnition (hooray!):
Something that caused what we humans refer to as "the universe" to come into the existence in which we perceive it to be...without regard to how it, itself, came into existence.

Be reasonable, that was a crap load of work to get you to define one word. And, it's not the commonly used definition of god, despite your claim that you would accept the common definition.

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

So we have the common definition, and your definition. We can do both, no harm in that.

A. God(a) is possible.
The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

B. God(b) is possible
Something that caused what we humans refer to as "the universe" to come into the existence in which we perceive it to be...without regard to how it, itself, came into existence.

We agree that you claimed B.
What about the common definition A. Do you believe claim A above is true or false?

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

Frank Apisa said:

...here is a recitation of my personal agnosticism:...

Click to expand...

Your personal anything is irrelevant to the universe.

The only way we can comprehend reality is by applying reason and logic. Anything else has to be discarded as worthless - by definition - which is what your personal whatever is.

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

RAMOSS said:

How does 'I dont' know' translate you to 'there is a god' who created nature, but then left it alone'? That is going against all logic,

Click to expand...

You answered your own question.

"I don't know" is actually the same as "There is a god who created nature - the universe - and then left it alone" -- but why leave it alone?

Any allowance for the existence of a deity is blatant acceptance of that deity, therefore religion. That's why agnostics are religious.

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

Logicman said:

Well, I hope your standard for making claims like that is conclusive DNA evidence in lieu of morphological similarities. Because the Neanderthal 'looks' like a direct-line ancestor to man but he isn't.

Click to expand...

Hey...I've had my DNA checked (through the NatGeo Project)...and I have over 3% Neanderthal markers.

In any case, I did not speak to direct-line ancestors...but to a common ancestor.

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

Mach said:

#2146 Frank claims: "Gods are possible"
#2147 Mach asks:1. Define "gods" as used above so it can be debated.
#2150 Frank doesn't respond with a definition, or explanation of why he doesn't.
#2152 Mach asks again: Define "gods"
#2153 Frank claims the request is a "delaying tactic".
BUT gives us a hint of answer with this statement: I am talking about what is commonly thought of as a god.
#2154 Mach provides the wikipedia, first page, second sentence definition commonly held by theologians of the concept of "god"

#2155 Frank rejects this common concept of god(!!), despite pose #2153 above, claiming the contrary.
Frank proposes a defnition (hooray!):
Something that caused what we humans refer to as "the universe" to come into the existence in which we perceive it to be...without regard to how it, itself, came into existence.

Be reasonable, that was a crap load of work to get you to define one word. And, it's not the commonly used definition of god, despite your claim that you would accept the common definition.

Click to expand...

You sound to me like an atheist with a problem.

Too bad that.

In any case, I stand by what I have said so far.

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

Mach said:

So we have the common definition, and your definition. We can do both, no harm in that.

A. God(a) is possible.
The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

B. God(b) is possible
Something that caused what we humans refer to as "the universe" to come into the existence in which we perceive it to be...without regard to how it, itself, came into existence.

We agree that you claimed B.
What about the common definition A. Do you believe claim A above is true or false?

Click to expand...

Why do you continue to use the word "god"...when you know I have almost always used the word "gods" in my comments?

Would it do any "harm" if you actually address what I have been saying...rather than creating a strawman to argue against?

If the answer to that second question is "no"...please rephrase your questions and I will respond.

If it is "yes"...you have my sympathies.

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

Paralogic said:

Your personal anything is irrelevant to the universe.

The only way we can comprehend reality is by applying reason and logic. Anything else has to be discarded as worthless - by definition - which is what your personal whatever is.

Click to expand...

What I said in my recitation...IS reason and logic.

Actually give it a try, Paralogic. You will see that it is as beneficial to use reason and logic as you are supposing.

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

Paralogic said:

You answered your own question.

"I don't know" is actually the same as "There is a god who created nature - the universe - and then left it alone" -- but why leave it alone?

Any allowance for the existence of a deity is blatant acceptance of that deity, therefore religion. That's why agnostics are religious.

Click to expand...

Agnostics, for the most part, are not "religious."

Actually, agnostics are the true "non-believers"...as opposed to atheists who almost all are actually "believers" (albeit in a direction opposite to theists.)

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

Frank Apisa said:

Hey...I've had my DNA checked (through the NatGeo Project)...and I have over 3% Neanderthal markers.

In any case, I did not speak to direct-line ancestors...but to a common ancestor.

Click to expand...

That's quite the leap of faith. It's also possible that any resemblance with modern man is due to common design features used by God to create modern man and other hominids. It doesn't have to conclude that there's common ancestry.

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

Logicman said:

That's quite the leap of faith.

Click to expand...

Not really. Not at all, in fact. The analysis indicates a Neanderthal marker contribution of a bit over 3%. That seems to be about the standard.

It's also possible that any resemblance with modern man is due to common design features used by God to create modern man and other hominids.

Click to expand...

True...if there is a GOD...and if the GOD decided to "create" hominoids rather than simply create a system whereby the dynamics of the system would create whatever it creates.

But we do not know which it is...and I do have those markers.

It doesn't have to conclude that there's common ancestry.

Click to expand...

There are indicators of a common ancestry.

There are NO indicators that there is a GOD that designed humans.

So???

Pozessed said:

Setting aside any religious dogma. Why is it easier for some of us to consider this universe and its entirety happened by chance rather than conscious calculation? I don't think its fair to try and justify the psychology of a creator of the universe in this post. (i.e: Why is there evil?)
I'm honestly curious why it is easier to assume chaotic randomness as opposed to a calculated design.

Click to expand...

Because ease of assumption is a horrible metric if one is trying to define what in fact exists.

When one is trying to define what in fact exists, the only sensible thing to rely upon is provable objective reality and the provable laws governing it. If that leads to results that are hard to understand, then by all means continue testing your theories.