Question for those who are willing to ponder the possibility that we and the universe were created

originally posted by: cooperton
You're trying to use logic to prove that the world came to be illogically. Its a self-defeating argument.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm saying your argument isn't convincing to me.

That's another topic.

It isn't another topic when the bible is used to make the argument in the OP.

I could also show you why Jesus was the firstborn of the God that created the Universe. But if you think the world came to be without logic, then there's no point in trying to explain things with logic.

There it is, you don't have proof, you have an explanation that convinced you but doesn't convince me and some other people in this thread.

a reply to: cooperton


Why do you rely on logic which isn't an empirical science of observation? Logic is the science of reasoning, as you said. However, if the premise is wrong, then the logic is wrong. In the case of a "logical" universe or creator, you would need empirical evidence to provide your premise. Then you can carry out your inductive or deductive reasoning from that point.

So I'm just curious why logic proves your points.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


Why do you rely on logic which isn't an empirical science of observation?

There's no empirical evidence that a population of organisms can evolve into something distinctly new over time. There was a lab that did 73,000+ generations of E. Coli, and it still remained E. Coli.

Evolution has never been empirically proven.

In the case of a "logical" universe or creator, you would need empirical evidence to provide your premise. Then you can carry out your inductive or deductive reasoning from that point.

So I'm just curious why logic proves your points.

The fact that logic exists insists that logic was required for it to be created. Let's say you see a car. What are the odds it could have been created by random chance? It is much more likely to assume it was created by someone intelligent. The human body is far more complex than a car, so I apply the same logic to the necessity of encephalized organic supercomputers (humans) being created by a hyper-intelligence.

a reply to: Kreeate

Well, unique doesn't mean perfect, so to respond to a statement that the earth is unique by pointing out that it's not perfect is a bit irrelevant. It also reminds me of a straw man argument or perhaps the term red herring (or combination of both), to argue that it's not unique because it's not perfect (or uniquely perfect as you say now).

Maybe Cooperton said it was "uniquely perfect", can't remember. Don't think he did. No need to argue against the statement that the earth is unique if you already agree. It's a little weird. Especially if you first make a statement to the contrary, and then say that the earth is "certainly unique". That's a contradiction.

1 Timothy 6:20

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.”* [Latin: scientia; KJV: “science”]

a reply to: TerraLiga

For more than half my life I have not been a member of or adherent to any religion. Most of that time I have spent avoiding the subject of God's existence or the Bible containing his sayings, instructions to mankind, accurate history and reliable prophecy, the truth from the God of truth who created mankind. In that time I have mimicked the attitude and behaviour of agnostics, without expressing or agreeing with their preferred philosophy that we can't know with certainty if God exists or not. But recognizing that atttitude as apathy, and being apathetic about the presence of my own apathy, rather than denying its presence as some agnostics might feel about their agnosticism.

In that time I have simply ignored the evidence for God's existence and the Bible's truthfulness and divine inspiration. Perhaps even thinking to myself like the agnostic that the evidence is not good enough, not conclusive enough (can't remember that exactly, but on occasion that may have happened).

But enough about me, my past is not relevant to the question in the OP or the topic of God's existence (the latter topic seemingly preferred in this thread, the question in the OP being somewhat born out of thinking about that topic in relation to the Bible's claims and statements of history).

originally posted by: daskakik
...
It isn't another topic when the bible is used to make the argument in the OP.

I may have made an argument somewhere towards the end of the OP but it was my intention to focus on the question. Wasn't really trying to argue anything in the OP basically (or convince anyone of anything). Was just trying to figure out if there could be a good or sensible reason for someone who created all these things not to tell us, or if someone could think of a good one.

You see, when watching movies like Prometheus (I'm into Sci-Fi), they present the notion of panspermia, that alien lifeforms from another planet had a hand in the formation or design of mankind (or at least the endresult, they also promote evolutionary philosophies in that movie), but what I don't see those movies addressing is that question about:

'Why wouldn't they just tell us in that scenario?'

And then I got to thinking about Spock as discussed in the OP. And the reality that Jehovah God did tell us he created us (and the universe, the earth and the life on it). By reason of the fact that the creation of these things is so impressive, I can't really think of a good reason not to tell your intelligent creation (mankind in this case) that you did it. Or to keep that information hidden somehow (keep them in the dark about it, as in the movie Prometheus).

And when I'm saying 'tell us', I'm not thinking about a clue here or there, but similar to the way Jehovah God told us by means of the book of Genesis, just plainly stating who did it (and Genesis 1 also tells us why, which is then further elaborated on in other parts of the Bible, for convenience sake, first a summary or synopsis of Creation).

a reply to: whereislogic
Not too far in you say:

After all, the individual who I believe 'did it', did tell us He did so, and why.

That is the basic premise and then you go on to cite your stories. The problem is that there are many creation myths so people who believe/believed in them could claim the same thing you did there and then cite their stories.

The "that is another topic" comment I was replying to came from me saying:

Also, you have missed the main part of the argument: even if a logical being created the universe you can't prove it was "your god" and that it happened like it says in "your book".

Which is pretty much what you were saying in what I quoted above. If that isn't the topic then what is?

a reply to: cooperton

That's a lot of word salad just to admit you don't have a workable premise for your logic. You have no starting point to base your logical conclusions on. Without a premise, your logic can be true or false, but not knowable.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

That's a lot of word salad just to admit you don't have a workable premise for your logic. You have no starting point to base your logical conclusions on. Without a premise, your logic can be true or false, but not knowable.

Without empirical proof that evolution is possible, it's not science.. 73,000+ generations and E. Coli is still E. Coli. Its hard to prove a negative but that about does it.

a reply to: cooperton

There is empirical data for evolution - over 200,000 peer-reviewed research papers. With the premise established, following through on the logic is an easy task.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Kreeate

Well, unique doesn't mean perfect, so to respond to a statement that the earth is unique by pointing out that it's not perfect is a bit irrelevant. It also reminds me of a straw man argument or perhaps the term red herring (or combination of both), to argue that it's not unique because it's not perfect (or uniquely perfect as you say now).

Maybe Cooperton said it was "uniquely perfect", can't remember. Don't think he did. No need to argue against the statement that the earth is unique if you already agree. It's a little weird. Especially if you first make a statement to the contrary, and then say that the earth is "certainly unique". That's a contradiction.

1 Timothy 6:20

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.”* [Latin: scientia; KJV: “science”]

It's not a contradiction. I already explained the context I used in my examples.

"Unique" is not absolute.

A ball may be uniquely round in a box of cubes.
It may also be uniquely made of plastic if all the cubes are made of wood.
Both of those qualities are "unique" but aren't necessarily related.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kreeate

For human beings perhaps. Methane breathing, silicon based life forms might not be so impressed with our planet's format.

Irrelevant. This planet is perfect for the biological organisms that inhabit it. It was designed this way.
Biological, not illogical

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

There is empirical data for evolution - over 200,000 peer-reviewed research papers. With the premise established, following through on the logic is an easy task.

None of which show a population of organisms evolving into something distinctly new.

a reply to: cooperton

I have posted multiple papers which demonstrate biological evolution. You've got it wrong again. Biological evolution means we have a common ancestor. Genetic data from chimpanzees and other lifeforms confirm that. Thousands of intermediate species have been discovered.
Your interpretation is that an E Coli should turn into a rat or a dog in the lab. You deliberately misinterpret the data to fit your model. It doesn't work. Never has, never will. Over 500 peer-reviewed journals and 200,000 research papers prove you're wrong.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

I have posted multiple papers which demonstrate biological evolution. You've got it wrong again. Biological evolution means we have a common ancestor. Genetic data from chimpanzees and other lifeforms confirm that. Thousands of intermediate species have been discovered.
Your interpretation is that an E Coli should turn into a rat or a dog in the lab. You deliberately misinterpret the data to fit your model. It doesn't work. Never has, never will. Over 500 peer-reviewed journals and 200,000 research papers prove you're wrong.

E. Coli remains E. Coli, there's no proof that it's possible for it to gradually change into anything else.

Your Unintelligent design theory is by its own definition the most illogical supposition in regards to the origins of the diversity of organisms. You resort to making appeals to majority because you can't actually show definitive proof that the diversity of orgamisms is due to random mutations.

You shouldn't even be in this thread because it's for people who could consider the possibility that a logical Creator was involved in the creation of the logical world.

a reply to: cooperton

My original question was about your "logic". You conveniently side-stepped that question and moved on to something totally unrelated.
You have no premise or evidence for your "logic". It makes absolutely no sense. Any rational person reading this would see right through you.
Anyway, I'll take the side-stepping as a concession on your part. The rest is just the same garbage you've posted a thousand times.

originally posted by: cooperton
E. Coli remains E. Coli, there's no proof that it's possible for it to gradually change into anything else.

Your Unintelligent design theory is by its own definition the most illogical supposition in regards to the origins of the diversity of organisms. You resort to making appeals to majority because you can't actually show definitive proof that the diversity of orgamisms is due to random mutations.

You shouldn't even be in this thread because it's for people who could consider the possibility that a logical Creator was involved in the creation of the logical world.

Speciation happens when environment, habitat or competition changes, often drastically as in mass extinctions. Look at any mass extinction event and soon after you'll see a wealth of new species filling voids left by the extinct. It is much less likely to happen in stable conditions, so E. Coli (or anything else) will almost certainly remain as such for many thousands of generations without some other factor. I'm pretty sure I've mention this to you before, but cloth ears and all that...

Also, unintelligent design is not a thing - nobody believes in that. You and your cult have creation, and educated people have abiogenesis, speciation and evolution - all distinct from each other.

a reply to: daskakik

I was responding to the impression you seem to have gotten that I was making an argument for the claims in the Bible concerning Creation and our Creator, God.

I was merely curious about the question:

Would this individual have any reason to hide the fact that he created us (for a purpose)? Or perhaps, could you think of a reason?

Which I later realized I should have phrased as 'not tell us' rather than use the verb "hide". The rest below that question was just elaboration as to where the question was coming from, what I was thinking about when that question popped up for me, why I started wondering about possible reasons not to tell us in that scenario and why I found it difficult to come up with any good reasons not to tell us.

The introduction was setting up the question as a hypothetical, or in regards to a hypothetical scenario (which I now elaborated on was related to the notion of panspermia and the movie Prometheus, that hypothetical scenario, where the only main difference with the theistic scenario from the Bible is that God doesn't come from another planet, he's still technically an alien, an intelligent lifeform with a reason or motive and the technological know-how to create the things listed in the OP, with a focus on us specifically in the question, since there's little point in telling the earth or even animals that could not understand what you are talking about anyway, nor do animals ever wonder where they came from or how they came to be; the latter being discussed on page 8 and page 9).

originally posted by: cooperton
You're trying to use logic to prove that the world came to be illogically. Its a self-defeating argument.

originally posted by: daskakik
I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm saying your argument isn't convincing to me.

Cooperton, have you seen this video I posted a while back in this thread (page 8; note what he mentions at 2:31-2:37, further discussed in the last video with TJ Kirk):

Most of what he says about atheism also counts for agnosticism (especially combined with philosophical naturalism, cause that's the overlapping basis or foundation of the way of thinking involved with atheism, most of agnosticism and evolutionary philosophies).

The video with TJ Kirk relates to the notion that 'there is no evidence of God' mentioned in the video above (as a claim or assertion):

I find those 2 videos quite telling. Especially the following parts: 2:10 - 4:24, 7:44 - 9:00.

a reply to: whereislogic

The "special person" in the first video clearly has a fundamental misunderstanding regarding atheism.

Atheism is not a stance that requires "proof"

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.
While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Source

originally posted by: whereislogic

I find those 2 videos quite telling. Especially the following parts: 2:10 - 4:24, 7:44 - 9:00.

Yeah thats spot on. I've never seen more blind fervor than with atheist dogma. No intelligence allowed. Cue phantom's appeal to unintelligence:

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You have no premise or evidence for your "logic". It makes absolutely no sense.

Supposing logical systems need a logical Creator makes no sense to you? A child would be more suited to comprehend the obvious.

Logical systems must be created by something logical.