Do You Believe In God?

[Barn]

Ofcourse there is a God, think about how intricately everything has been created. There is no way, even through evolution, that we could have turned out how we are today.

What make you think this? Intelligent Design?

Anyway I'm unsure, kind of I just keep an open mind.

[HumptyHump]

Nice response piggy
I will admit that your answer was great. The thing I did notice is that you generally swept the problem of the constants under the rug.
Sure our laws such as the boiling temperature are constant under normal atmospheric conditions, and when you change the atmospheric conditions, the constants change....so the laws itself arent changing, they are just different laws (unbreakable laws) for different conditions. That goes for all variables you can throw into the mix. All things considered, water will boil at 100 degrees under normal conditions 10 times out of 10.
Your response to that is that thats just the way laws happen to be. Thats no answer, its just sweeping the issue under the rug. Thats intellectual dishonesty, acting as if that magnicificant fact isnt a big deal, when you know it is. There must be an answer to that, and im simply saying its the way the universal laws were designed. It makes more sense to think that fixed laws were designed fixed instead of saying, as you did, that they just happened to form this way. Saying it just happened to be this way, again, as you did, isnt answering the question.....its the same as when you accused me of saying oh, god did it so we dont have to think about it.....your saying oh the laws just happened to form that way so we dont have to think about it.

[squealpiggy]

Nice response piggy
I will admit that your answer was great. The thing I did notice is that you generally swept the problem of the constants under the rug.
Sure our laws such as the boiling temperature are constant under normal atmospheric conditions, and when you change the atmospheric conditions, the constants change....so the laws itself arent changing, they are just different laws (unbreakable laws) for different conditions. That goes for all variables you can throw into the mix. All things considered, water will boil at 100 degrees under normal conditions 10 times out of 10.

Observed universal constants such as the speed of light (in a vacuum) don't actually need explaining. And if they do need explaining (for example by positing a deity) then the explanation also needs explaining. If you really insist that the question "why does water boil at 100 C" is answered by "god makes it like that" then all you're doing is deferring the answer: Why does god make it that way?

So you said that the universe has "laws" because the creator made them that way. Why did the creator make them that way? And of equal import... how do you know?

Your response to that is that thats just the way laws happen to be. Thats no answer, its just sweeping the issue under the rug. Thats intellectual dishonesty, acting as if that magnicificant fact isnt a big deal, when you know it is. There must be an answer to that, and im simply saying its the way the universal laws were designed.

Why were they designed that way?

It makes more sense to think that fixed laws were designed fixed instead of saying, as you did, that they just happened to form this way.

There's a much more complicated answer of course. There are infinite possibilities for how various aspects of the universe fit together. We just happen to live in one stable enough for us to evolve. I'm no physicist but in a nutshell that's the answer - we make the observations of a universe that makes it possible for us to exist and make observations about. It seems to be a circular argument but it really isn't - If things didn't form in such a manner as to allow us to observe them we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Furthermore you seem to take the stance that the universe is somehow finely balanced in order to allow life to exist. Unfortunately that rather overlooks the fact that statistically speaking 100% of the universe is completely uninhabitable. The amount of inhabitable space in the universe is so small that assigning it a percentage is essentially meaningless.

Saying it just happened to be this way, again, as you did, isnt answering the question.....its the same as when you accused me of saying oh, god did it so we dont have to think about it.....your saying oh the laws just happened to form that way so we dont have to think about it.

I think it's a fascinating subject to think about. But there's a difference between saying "Why does observable reality appear to be as we observe it?" and "Observable reality is the way it is because god made it that way!".

Essentially your design argument is just a way of admitting that you don't know the answer but you're determined to pretend that you do.

[HumptyHump]

Observed universal constants such as the speed of light (in a vacuum) don't actually need explaining. And if they do need explaining (for example by positing a deity) then the explanation also needs explaining. If you really insist that the question "why does water boil at 100 C" is answered by "god makes it like that" then all you're doing is deferring the answer: Why does god make it that way?

So you said that the universe has "laws" because the creator made them that way. Why did the creator make them that way? And of equal import... how do you know?



Why were they designed that way?



There's a much more complicated answer of course. There are infinite possibilities for how various aspects of the universe fit together. We just happen to live in one stable enough for us to evolve. I'm no physicist but in a nutshell that's the answer - we make the observations of a universe that makes it possible for us to exist and make observations about. It seems to be a circular argument but it really isn't - If things didn't form in such a manner as to allow us to observe them we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Furthermore you seem to take the stance that the universe is somehow finely balanced in order to allow life to exist. Unfortunately that rather overlooks the fact that statistically speaking 100% of the universe is completely uninhabitable. The amount of inhabitable space in the universe is so small that assigning it a percentage is essentially meaningless.



I think it's a fascinating subject to think about. But there's a difference between saying "Why does observable reality appear to be as we observe it?" and "Observable reality is the way it is because god made it that way!".

Essentially your design argument is just a way of admitting that you don't know the answer but you're determined to pretend that you do.

You envoked the anthropic principle, which seemse like a good explanation, but it really doesnt answer anything....it just says well it had to be this way or we wouldnt be here. Thats just really making a non issue out of the fact that our universe and all its laws and constants are the way they are; namely intelligible. The anthropic principle doesnt answer anything.
I dont have to really say anything about the designer of this universe in order to say that it was designed. Say if we were to go to another planet and we stumble across a television. We can look at that tv, and with no knowledge of who made it or how it got there, we can say well that was obviously designed. Squealpuggy cant then show up and say "nah uh! you cant tell me about the designers of that tv so you cant therefore say it was designed! It just happened to be here or else we wouldnt be talking about it!" Thats what your doing with regard to the universe. I dont have to know anything about the designer to assert that somethings designed.
Moreover, the only way th anthropic principle works is off the assumption that the multiverse theory is true. That is in no way backed by any empirical evidence yet, and yet you are here defending it. Your going off of faith if you believe in the multiverse theory, and if your not where is your empirical evidence in favor of that theory?

[r ! z]

i can't believe how often people get drawn into atheists vs god discussions.

wow

people, get it through your heads - you either believe or not, NOTHING gets accomplished by this.

you can tell squealpiggy or any other atheist on here whatever Bible verses, whatever testimonies that you might have and that's not going to change their minds. i think that's been well established. vice versa, the atheists can tell us and give us whatever 'logical' explanations they might have and that's not going to change a thing either. however, to be fair, squeal is usually replying to people questioning him so whatever.

[squealpiggy]

You envoked the anthropic principle, which seemse like a good explanation, but it really doesnt answer anything....it just says well it had to be this way or we wouldnt be here. Thats just really making a non issue out of the fact that our universe and all its laws and constants are the way they are; namely intelligible. The anthropic principle doesnt answer anything.

Neither does insisting, bereft of evidence, that the answer is "magic". Science is exploring the big questions while you are insisting that we already no.

I dont have to really say anything about the designer of this universe in order to say that it was designed.

But you're insisting that I have to explain the makeup of the universe or I have to accept your premise. What makes you think it's designed? For what purpose was is designed? By whom? Those are legitimate questions, far more legitimate than "Well why does water boil at 100 C at sea level under a single atmosphere of pressure?".

Science, as I mentioned, is a series of observations that can be used to make predictions. It's a powerful method for learning about the world we live in. It's a method of interpreting reality, so when you're asking why water boils at a specific temperature you're asking a different question to the one I'm hearing. Essentially you're asking a philosophical question to which your answer is "because god likes it at that temperature (in that specific part of that specific galaxy under those particular conditions)".

Say if we were to go to another planet and we stumble across a television. We can look at that tv, and with no knowledge of who made it or how it got there, we can say well that was obviously designed.

You're repeating the watchmaker fallacy and it;s tiresome. Why can we infer that the television is designed? Because we know that televisions are not a byproduct of naturalistic functions. Just as you wouldn't find a television and winder what kind of egg it came out of, neither would you find a human baby and wonder what factory it was manufactured at.

Squealpuggy cant then show up and say "nah uh! you cant tell me about the designers of that tv so you cant therefore say it was designed! It just happened to be here or else we wouldnt be talking about it!" Thats what your doing with regard to the universe. I dont have to know anything about the designer to assert that somethings designed.

Sure you do. What's the difference between an arrowhead and a pointy rock? One has been deliberately shaped to fulfill a particular purpose. The other is just pointy. The process of shaping the rock leaves clues as to its design allowing you to infer that one group or another designed it. A pointy rock is just pointy.

The arrowhead and the rock are both pointy rocks, one has been shaped however to fulfill a purpose. How do we know? Because we can make inferences from what we know about the designer.

What you're doing is insisting on answers from other people that you're not prepared to consider for your own arguments. "Why is the speed of light constant in a vacuum!? If you can't answer that, it means that god did it!" OK so let's accept your premise that god did it. Why did god do it?

Moreover, the only way th anthropic principle works is off the assumption that the multiverse theory is true.

No it doesn't. The anthropic principle is that we are here and have observed the universe to be the way it is, and if the universe were unable to support us then we wouldn't be here to make the observation. In no way does this require more than one universe.

That is in no way backed by any empirical evidence yet, and yet you are here defending it. Your going off of faith if you believe in the multiverse theory, and if your not where is your empirical evidence in favor of that theory?

Empirical evidence of the anthropic principle: We are observing it right now.

[Prime 407]

What make you think this? Intelligent Design?

Anyway I'm unsure, kind of I just keep an open mind.

Saying that life was created through a random event like the big bang is like saying a masterful piece of art was created by accident. That just doesn't make sense, the way every human is put together is like a masterpiece of art, the same can be said of everything in the universe. Science can try to explain all it wants but science for the most part is theories and minor understanding and not much else.

[winky's right]

Why is it that light travels at a fixed speed unless it changes mediums?
Why is it impossible to travel faster than the speed of light.
Why is it that water will always freeze at 32 degrees?
Why is it that electrons all behave the same way?
Why is it that any slight change in the forces of the universe and a life bearing universe wouldnt be able to exist?

Science operates off the principle that the universe has patterns that cannot be broken, and the laws apply everywhere. We cannot have proper science without that assumption. Why is it that the universe is this way? I submit that it is that way because it was created by an intelligence, who programmed that intelligence into the universe. What do you think the reason behind it is?

I don't think you fully recognise the (many) assumptions you are blindly asserting. Firstly, you fail to distinguish between different types of "knowledge". The Laws of Nature are derived from empirical findings. There is no logical truth behind their validity. Even if we grant the full-proof truth of the uniformity of nature (I will grant this assumption), it is dangerous just to follow empirical findings blindly. Secondly, I will reject your claims on two philosophical doctrines; a) Occam's razor, and b) Hume's fallacy of deriving "ought" from "is".

Occam's razor states that simpler, less elaborate hypotheses are more accurate than ones that rely on a supernatural basis. As science has an empirical basis for its derived conclusions on the Laws of Nature, it has more plausibility than your argument; that is: the laws of nature are uniform, therefore, an omnipotent, supernatural being must be behind it. This brings me to my second criticism.

Just because the Laws of Nature “is”, on what basis should it “ought” be different? Also, just because there is uniformity of nature, it does not imply that there ought to be an omnipotent creator, and/or architect. I could have elaborated my arguments in much greater depths, but I think they are better short.

I don't think you fully recognise the (many) assumptions you are blindly asserting. Firstly, you fail to distinguish between different types of "knowledge". The Laws of Nature are derived from empirical findings, and there is no logical truth behind their validity. Even if we grant the full-proof truth of the uniformity of nature (I will grant this assumption), it is dangerous just to follow empirical findings blindly. Secondly, I will reject your claims on two philosophical doctrines; a) Occam's razor, and b) Hume's fallacy of deriving "ought" from "is".

Occam's razor is the hypothesis that we should derive

[MindBat]

Among so many other questions that get swept away with "God works in mysterious ways", are:

Why would the god of the bible order Abraham to tie up and kill his son, and then say "Psyche! I was only kidding. I was just testing you to see if you really believed in me."???

Who are the 144,000 who are supposedly the chosen ones to be saved from among the billions of his own creation???

[Bretty Poy32]

i believe when it rains, God is crying