The true structure of the universe not only proves the existence of the Creator.........it advertises it.

But Someone is conducting a symphony on this rock.

My opinion.

What is your definition of "the Creator" and how did you determine it was a "someone"?

 

What is your definition of "the Creator" and how did you determine it was a "someone"?

In the spirit of the post, would you mind sharing your thoughts/beliefs on the matter being discussed?

 

In the spirit of the post, would you mind sharing your thoughts/beliefs on the matter being discussed?

I'm interested in determining, as far as is possible, what is true. I have no religious or other beliefs in the supernatural and I'm not trying to criticise anyone or say that their beliefs are wrong.

When we're talking about the unknown or possibly the unknowable, to go from the default position of "I don't know" to "an intelligent agent did it" is an enormous leap. We can all speculate on the origins of the universe but to hold one particular hypothesis above all others implies some additional knowledge so if someone accepts a particular "explanation" it is only reasonable to enquire as to how they arrived at that conclusion.

 

blocco........I see the problem. The word entity in my post does not refer to God. It refers to charge. This one mirrored entity makes up all physical reality. Without any randomness and/or any slip. To me this is physical evidence of a Designer. That's my leap.

 

When we're talking about the unknown or possibly the unknowable, to go from the default position of "I don't know" to "an intelligent agent did it" is an enormous leap. We can all speculate on the origins of the universe but to hold one particular hypothesis above all others implies some additional knowledge so if someone accepts a particular "explanation" it is only reasonable to enquire as to how they arrived at that conclusion.

That's largely what I am after when I call someone out for a highly unlikely or outrightly incorrect claim. How did they come to that conclusion and can they explain it an any rational logical way other than they just <snip> and proclaimed it to be true so that they could then claim they are an authority on the subject (so they can claim the perks of being an authority figure) even when they are clearly not (and deserve nothing of reward for their actions).

Mod edit: watch your language.

 

When we're talking about the unknown or possibly the unknowable, to go from the default position of "I don't know" to "an intelligent agent did it" is an enormous leap. We can all speculate on the origins of the universe but to hold one particular hypothesis above all others implies some additional knowledge so if someone accepts a particular "explanation" it is only reasonable to enquire as to how they arrived at that conclusion.

I like this reply, very well put. I know you weren't addressing me, but here's my answer:

On the logical side of my brain I don't hold any one hypothesis above all others and I have no additional knowledge (wish I did). All I have is a feeling.

When I look at the world around me, I feel as though I'm looking at a sophisticated engineered system. It does not feel random. Everything from how my intestines work to how bees pollinate to how dead carcasses fertilize new life. It screams to me on a primal level that it was created with intent.

I cannot rationalize that feeling and I guess that's why it's called a feeling. I wish (like all men before me I'm sure) to one day either have that feeling proven wrong or right, so I can get over it. Until then, if I absolutely must choose an explanation it would be evolution, but I am not happy about it. It brings me no satisfaction because it does not answer WHY.

 

I like this reply, very well put. I know you weren't addressing me, but here's my answer:

On the logical side of my brain I don't hold any one hypothesis above all others and I have no additional knowledge (wish I did). All I have is a feeling.

When I look at the world around me, I feel as though I'm looking at a sophisticated engineered system. It does not feel random. Everything from how my intestines work to how bees pollinate to how dead carcasses fertilize new life. It screams to me on a primal level that it was created with intent.

I cannot rationalize that feeling and I guess that's why it's called a feeling. I wish (like all men before me I'm sure) to one day either have that feeling proven wrong or right, so I can get over it. Until then, if I absolutely must choose an explanation it would be evolution, but I am not happy about it. It brings me no satisfaction because it does not answer WHY.

You are asking WHY life evolved. This question itself assumes that some kind of power is behind it.

The question is faulty. There is no WHY, only HOW. It was like winning a lottery. The scientists have been able to create RNA out of its buliding blocks and even observed the "survival of the fittest" in real time. What wr have now is products of all combined evolutionary pressures. We dont even know all of them and as humans we are extremely lucky to be here. I do not believe for a second that all of our theories are correct, but they are the best we have.

To get a little philosophical - there is a trend now to say that death is the greatest plague on himanity. What would be the purpose of life without death?

 

You are asking WHY life evolved.[...]The question is faulty. There is no WHY, only HOW. [...]What would be the purpose of life without death?

You say there is no Why, and then go on to talk about purpose. Are "why" and "for what purpose" not synonymous?

I didn't ask science to explain why. I don't think it can. But I still would like to know if there is a reason for my existence, wouldn't you? It would be depressing to find out the answer really is that we are all just forgotten playthings of an all-powerful entity.

 

You say there is no Why, and then go on to talk about purpose. Are "why" and "for what purpose" not synonymous?

I didn't ask science to explain why. I don't think it can. But I still would like to know if there is a reason for my existence, wouldn't you? It would be depressing to find out the answer really is that we are all just forgotten playthings of an all-powerful entity.

I did try to use "philosophical" as a qualifier... I don't think there is a reason for my existence, neither do I think I am anybody's play thing. For myself, I think everything is based on changing energy states and as such we collectively are all a part of the primordial mover and shaker... But, yes it would be nice to find out for example of the theory is that it was first just vacuum, well, where did the vacuum come from? I do not see how a question like this can be answered...

 

You say there is no Why, and then go on to talk about purpose. Are "why" and "for what purpose" not synonymous?

I didn't ask science to explain why. I don't think it can. But I still would like to know if there is a reason for my existence, wouldn't you? It would be depressing to find out the answer really is that we are all just forgotten playthings of an all-powerful entity.

What I think you're looking for, is called purpose. And purpose has no meaning in an atheist reasoning. For them there's only existance.

Funny thing is, anthropologically speaking, all humans are born primed to search for the power that they believe brought them to existance.

 

What I think you're looking for, is called purpose. And purpose has no meaning in an atheist reasoning. For them there's only existance.

Funny thing is, anthropologically speaking, all humans are born primed to search for the power that they believe brought them to existance.

Hmm... there is plenty of purpose in existance, are you refering to "higher purpose"? I believe most people are primed to help one another... my mother brought me to existance

 

blocco........I see the problem. The word entity in my post does not refer to God. It refers to charge. This one mirrored entity makes up all physical reality. Without any randomness and/or any slip. To me this is physical evidence of a Designer. That's my leap.

I understand that feeling but don't agree.

The world as humans understand it is fundamentally random and filled with Chaos from that fundamentally randomness. The alternative with a Designer is a static (super)deterministic 'blockworld' that we just move in time as set pieces of matter or if you believe in a supernatual 'Designer' our possible 'free will/we have choice' enabled supernatural souls move in the 'blockworld' according to the Designers plan.

https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/do-you-believe-in-free-will.91705/page-7#post-671376

 

Hmm... there is plenty of purpose in existance, are you refering to "higher purpose"? I believe most people are primed to help one another... my mother brought me to existance

I meant purpose external to you and me. To me, there was already purpose in existance way before life emerged in the universe.

 

I meant purpose external to you and me. To me, there was already purpose in existance way before life emerged in the universe.

Right, St. Augustine speaks to this quite a bit. I cannot accept it infortunately. I also think it would be much better for humanity if life here as it is was finally accepted as all there was to it, maybe people would treat each other with some respect instead of serving a mysterious greater power hoping to buy their way into heaven... (see Mother Teresa video above)

 

Right, St. Augustine speaks to this quite a bit. I cannot accept it infortunately. I also think it would be much better for humanity if life here as it is was finally accepted as all there was to it, maybe people would treat each other with some respect instead of serving a mysterious greater power hoping to buy their way into heaven... (see Mother Teresa video above)

Sorry, but I beg to differ. Although religious conflicts have existed since the dawn of civilization, they have not been by far the primary source of violence. In fact, most wars have been fought rather for political and economic interests. And the worst have been in the name of "reason" and the "common good", such as the French Terror, the Soviet purges and China's cultural revolution, to name a few.

It is my belief that if religion were to disappear all of a sudden, humanity would lose its sense of right and wrong. There would be no moral compass to guide us, and therefore any act that played to our advantage would be justified as "good", regardless of the harm done to others. And the only "sin" that existed would be getting caught or not. ... and now that I think of it, most politicians think (and act) that way already.

 

Sorry, but I beg to differ. Although religious conflicts have existed since the dawn of civilization, they have not been by far the primary source of violence. In fact, most wars have been fought rather for political and economic interests. And the worst have been in the name of "reason" and the "common good", such as the French Terror, the Soviet purges and China's cultural revolution, to name a few.

It is my belief that if religion were to disappear all of a sudden, humanity would lose its sense of right and wrong. There would be no moral compass to guide us, and therefore any act that played to our advantage would be justified as "good", regardless of the harm done to others. And the only "sin" that existed would be getting caught or not. ... and now that I think of it, most politicians think (and act) that way already.

Of course all conflicts are political in nature. As far as morality is concerned, I happen to still have a bit more faith in humanity than to put it all in the hands of religion. This is a lazy way out because most people want quick answers. Good and bad, and morality are to me concepts that are basic in some ways to our nature. Unfortunately in our society today, people get rewarded for amoral and unethical behavior because money rules. We have a world being ruled by psycopaths and sociopaths... Just as there are advocates of "selfish gene", i put my stakes onto the altruistic gene...

If religion is there to guide you to what is moral, then I think Church, the official representative have done quite an aweful job of it... Is it good and moral to destroy other cultures? In their view of course it is, because they bring salvation, right? Or was it politics? I do believe at least Columbus specifically thought he was on a mission with a higher purpose, not just to get more land.

 

It is my belief that if religion were to disappear all of a sudden, humanity would lose its sense of right and wrong. There would be no moral compass to guide us, and therefore any act that played to our advantage would be justified as "good", regardless of the harm done to others. And the only "sin" that existed would be getting caught or not. ... and now that I think of it, most politicians think (and act) that way already.

Where is the evidence that we need religion in order to act morally? Look at the most religious countries and compare those with the least religious, if god makes people good then the most religious countries should have the least crime but this is not the case. Are atheists more likely to commit crimes or behave immorally? Does the US have lower homicide rates than northern Europe?

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-a...americas-scientists-and-07-percent-its-prison

Sin is a religious concept and has nothing to do with what most rational people would regard as right and wrong e.g the bible says "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” but it condones genocide, slavery and rape as well as condemning non-believers to eternal torture, does this sound like a good basis for morality to you?

Religion doesn't encourage morality it encourages amorality i.e.do whatever god says is moral regardless of your own thoughts on the matter. There are lots of good ideas in religions but also lots of very bad ones and people use their own sense of morality to cherrypick the ones that match their existing beliefs about right and wrong.

 

What I think you're looking for, is called purpose.

Maybe. The further I get into this discussion the less I understand what it is that I want to understand.

It is my belief that if religion were to disappear all of a sudden, humanity would lose its sense of right and wrong. There would be no moral compass to guide us, and therefore any act that played to our advantage would be justified as "good", regardless of the harm done to others. And the only "sin" that existed would be getting caught or not. ... and now that I think of it, most politicians think (and act) that way already.

My initial response is that this is wrong, but I have a hard time finding a way to argue it. Religion (specifically the various branches of Christianity, incl Catholicism) has been losing it's grip on America. According to a poll posted earlier in this thread, <50% of Americans believe in the creationist view. And the result is an increase in things which are viewed as immoral through a Christian lens. Divorce is up, marriage is down. Homosexuality is up, and pedophiles are starting to speak out about their "rights" as well. Feminism has entrained itself across the board. From a Christian standpoint, it's "going to hell in a handbasket." So there is the proof of your argument, and these examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

But if we remove the Christian lens, what do we see? Growing acceptance, more freedom.

I think most people have a moral code, whether or not it is grounded in religion. I think most people can agree on "The Golden Rule" - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But this comes from Christ. So in the strictest sense "if all religion were to disappear all of the sudden" then this would disappear also. But I think even if Jesus hadn't said it, someone else would have, and we could all agree that it's a good idea.

But there are certain scenarios that I find challenging for the Golden Rule. For example pedophilia. It was not always taboo to make love to little boys, and even today If you look at what NAMBLA has to say, they think it's beneficial to boys to be mounted by grown men. I think it's absolutely foul and my "acceptance" would never stretch that far. I could never accept it because I wouldn't want it done to me - the golden rule. But some boys might (and who decides when you're old enough to know what is good for you?). So what about that? I don't know. What sets the limits of how far acceptance should go, if not religion? I don't think it necessarily has to be religion. Can we all agree that pedophilia is bad? Apparently not.

So I guess I'm undecided.

 

And the only "sin" that existed would be getting caught or not. ... and now that I think of it, most politicians think (and act) that way already.

We have an expression here: "Vergüenza no es robar sino que te agarren" . Jokes aside it seems to transpire a real belief of many.

I do believe at least Columbus specifically thought he was on a mission with a higher purpose, not just to get more land.

Bringing with him one or more friars on board cannot change the fact of all that being a intentional move to promete more and big businesses. It was organized upfront like that.

@blocco a spirale

Additional comments: religious institutions are frequently imbricated in the power scheme or constitute the scheme themselves. And there is at least one country whose official religion is stated as such in the Constitution. Go figure.

Galilleo, no matter how poor theoretician (not my words) could have been, got it light when judged by the Inquisiton. Others, many (most) had not the luck of being confined at home until dying. That inquisition, supposed to protect the faith, served well to the political needs of the top guy there in Spain. We can warmly commend it as an efficient organization that even managed to bring into trial one of its former CEOs.

Civilizations along history seem to come and go. So religions; just give time...

@strantor thanks for the thread. Some enlightening comments got me thinking.

Stopping here. I am done.

 

That inquisition, supposed to protect the faith, served well to the political needs of the top guy there in Spain.

Agustín, you may find the book I listed in this post very interesting.