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

Currently watching The Truman Show. a reply to: whereislogic

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: whereislogic

No, it's called history, and anthropology.

That would still be information that you have taken into your mind, right? By means of reading, watching and listening?

Isn't that how the mind and knowledge and ideas obtained works most of the times? Sure, at some point one may build an idea upon something earlier received or obtained in that manner, and if you want you can only focus on that aspect of how an idea was formed (by your own thinking processes), but the groundwork, the foundations of this idea, and the means these were obtained don't change because of that, do they?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

... Furthermore, I have already provided my own list of facts and observed that absolutely no one on this forum has refuted those facts. The age of the earth, initial life, the birth of the homo genus, the eventual rise of modern man, the invention of language and the subsequent creation of animism and theology and finally Judaism. This is a documented chronology that no one has disproven and so the topic has been answered.

Huh? My question wasn't about any of these subjects. The thread title says: "Question for those who are willing to ponder the possibility that we and the universe were created". Repeated with a bit more elaboration at the start of the OP. The question was:

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?

I merely asked people to approach that question from my perspective (for just a moment) in order to answer or respond to it in a manner that might be of interest to me. You are kinda fond of the term "gish galloping" aren't you? Am I gish galloping now as well? Or does that chatbot-like response only trigger when my comment reaches a certain threshold in terms of number of words and sentences used, like a chatbot would check for certain criteria and then choose a response from a database. That eventually may come across as being a little repetitive when those criteria are reached regularly and the database doesn't have a lot of variation. Which reminds me of an article about AI I recently quoted in response to the erronuous notion that certain AI programs or chatbots have passed a Turing test (as per the one talking about it as such in that thread). This part in particular:

...
The Myth of Artificial Intelligence is not just insightful and timely, but it is also funny. Larson, with an insider’s knowledge, describes how the sausage of AI is made, and it’s not pretty — it can even be ridiculous. Larson retells with enjoyable irony the story of Eugene Goostman, the Ukranian 13-year-old chatbot, who/which through sarcasm and misdirection convinced a third of judges in a Turing test, over a five-minute interaction, that it was an actual human being. No, argues Larson, Goostman did not legitimately pass the Turing test and computers are still nowhere near passing it, especially if people and computers need to answer rather than evade questions.

Source: Artificial Intelligence: Unseating the Inevitability Narrative | Evolution News

To be frank, I've read most of your commentary on the first 2 pages but I couldn't find an answer or response to my question in the OP in them, as of now, I'm none the wiser as to your answer or response to this question. Possible answers that I've alluded to: "yes", "no", "maybe/possibly" (to the first question), the 2nd question is for elaboration as I explained before. The 2nd question can also be answered with similar answers, but it encourages one to elaborate on that reason by giving some options that I might have overlooked when I was thinking about Spock, as explained at the end of the OP. The more reasonable they are, or the more sense they make (these possible reasons or motives for not telling us), the more interested I am.

a reply to: whereislogic

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?

Nobody hides their work unless they are dangerous or created a dangerous situation they are hiding from. Either of those scenarios heavily implies that they have lost control and that's why they are now hiding. Lots of reasons to question and mistrust their motives until they fully disclose their agenda and logic.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic
...
Nobody hides their work unless they are dangerous or created a dangerous situation they are hiding from.

That sounds like something someone might be ashamed of, making shame the main motive or reason. Or self-protection from any repercussions for what they did (for example, as in being blamed for the dangerous situation they've created).

Do you think the creation of the universe and everything in it, our solar system, the earth (habitable specifically for the form of life seen on earth), life on earth and humankind, is something to be ashamed of? For example because it has created a dangerous situation, has the creation of these things created a dangerous situation?

Would an almighty God, or an individual capable of creating such things, have to worry about any repercussions for doing it 'wrong'* according to (a portion of) his intelligent creations? *: 'wrong' as in creating a "dangerous situation" (possibly over which they have lost control).

a reply to: whereislogic

In the hypothetical question you posed, the reaction of hiding does strongly suggest fear or shame. That's the reason you asked about and my interpretation of such behavior without the full disclosure of their agenda and logic.

I want to add that the psychological angle to this creative thought exercise resorts from a lack of physical evidence supporting supernatural phenomena or explicit divine interaction that has been measured and quantified in a meaningful fashion. None of the facts I have provided regarding the timeline of terrestrial accretion, geological development, biological evolution, sociological engineering or theological experimentation exhibit any actual concrete traces to indicate genuine cosmic influence apart from standard astrophysics that likewise lacks any sentient trademark or footprint.

Thus the character profile is all we have left to realistically examine given a remarkable absence of any practical materials to actively test and observe.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: whereislogic

Yes the fossil record can be consistent with a great designer as is it fits perfectly together with how evolution works.
...

I couldn't be sure how to understand that sentence, perhaps there is an error in it in the part "as is it". I could also be missing a comma. Did you mean: 'Yes the fossil record can be consistent with a great designer, as it is, it fits perfectly together with how evolution works'? Or 'Yes the fossil record can be consistent with a great designer as it fits perfectly together with how evolution works'?

Regarding the latter, the entire article discusses what kind of evidence one would expect from the fossil record in either scenario (creation or evolution), and they do not match. Actually, they stand directly in opposition to one another. This can also be noticed if one reads Darwin's commentary about the missing fossil evidence for his "theory", along with the promise and expectation that these fossils would be found later (which they haven't as acknowledged by many paleontologists, evolutionists, zoologists and anthropologists that are willing to be honest about this subject, at least on rare occasions since then but often without literally spelling it out for ye cause it's a little embarassing for them; some of which are quoted in that article, even in the part I used, such as evolutionist Edmund Samuel in his book Order: In Life and zoologist Coffin).

...
How Complete Is the Record?

However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was “wrong” with the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the transitional links required to support his theory. This situation caused him to say: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”⁠7

The fossil record in Darwin’s day proved disappointing to him in another way. He explained: “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.” He added: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.”⁠8

Darwin attempted to explain these huge problems by attacking the fossil record. He said: “I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, . . . imperfect to an extreme degree.”⁠9 It was assumed by him and others that as time passed the missing fossil links surely would be found.

Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. Is the record still so “imperfect”? The book Processes of Organic Evolution comments: “The record of past forms of life is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness as paleontologists find, describe, and compare new fossils.”⁠10 And Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier adds: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.”⁠11 Hence, A Guide to Earth History declares: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”⁠12

After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? Evolutionist Steven Stanley states that these fossils “reveal new and surprising things about our biological origins.”⁠13 The book A View of Life, written by three evolutionists, adds: “The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain.”⁠14 What is it that these evolutionary scientists have found to be so “surprising” and are “unable to explain”?

What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin’s day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected. [whereislogic: but fits the Creation record in Genesis perfectly, which is that opposite, as discussed earlier in the article under the paragraph "What to Look For"]

Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”⁠15

Life Appears Suddenly

...

Source: same as before, I also used a separate link for the references (the numbers at the end)

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yes, I got that from your comment. Would you be willing to further develop this line of thinking by considering the questions I now raised about your response, perhaps even respond to them and share that with us? No need to worry, I won't bite (you) or say something mean or untactful in response if I think it doesn't make a whole lot of sense (unless perhaps unintentionally, not realizing I'm doing so). Although I may express that feeling if it doesn't, but I'll try to season that with salt if I can find a way to do that. I.e. being gentle about it (in case you don't know where that expression comes from about salt, in an effort to make something more palatable to someone else).

“Let your words always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should answer each person.”​—COLOSSIANS 4:6

When Paul wrote that a Christian’s words/utterances should be “seasoned with salt,” he was saying that our speech should be upbuilding, as well as acceptable and appealing. I consider this sound advice for upbuilding useful conversations. I don't always find this easy though, things like frustration and impatience often get the better of me. As well as the notion, 'how could someone possibly find this reasonable, or believe this (to be the case)'. Which, on ATS, quite often makes me think about notions of trolling and ridicule for the sake of ridicule, and a strong unwillingness to consider alternatives that are incompatible with one's preferred beliefs, arguments and ways of thinking. A certain closed mindedness, also regarding seeing for oneself that something doesn't make much sense.

a reply to: whereislogic

It's hard to discuss why someone would have a certain regard for their actions without that person being present to personally describe their thought process. That's the crux of this topic: why is there no god to stand up and publicly say what they think? Why do we have to depend on you to explain their behavior and logic?

a reply to: whereislogic

It doesn't matter if there is or isn't a great designer evolution and the fossil record are real, natural things that occur and we can gather either data or physical specimens.

You're using fallacy arguments and sources that don't prove anything, and it's dishonest. Stop lying to yourself.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: whereislogic
... Did you bother to listen to Sagans responses in the video or even read what I wrote alongside it?

I got to the part in the video where I was reminded of the last sentence in the part of the article about AI that I just quoted in response to Tzarchasm (in particular the bolded part):

No, argues Larson, Goostman did not legitimately pass the Turing test and computers are still nowhere near passing it, especially if people and computers need to answer rather than evade questions.

Would you care to take a guess which part in the Sagan video that approx. was?

Yes, I read what you wrote, the whole comment. It reminded me of the atheistic argument or response addressed in the article I used in the OP, here it is in videoformat (and what it reminded me of is at the start of part 2, but please do watch part 1 first if you're going to watch at all to see the context of this particular somewhat agnostic response, or motivated by a love of, infatuation or fascination with, or attraction to agnosticism; edit: and what seems to me as an effort to evade the evidence, the related arguments of induction and conclusions by induction discussed or alluded to in part 1, as well as the related questions, whether rhetorical or not, found in both parts***):


The intent of sharing this article in the OP was to address these ways of thinking and type of responses before anyone decided to respond with it in this thread. To sort of skip a few steps and not fall back into the usual patterns in ATS commentary. It would have been really nice if people of your persuasion had actually read the article, and considered it seriously, so that one doesn't have to repeat things that have already been said, argued or pointed out so many times (on ATS or elsewhere), that some people can even put it in an article as a standard argument, response or way of thinking in response to the evidence discussed in part 1.

Of course, I didn't actually expect that, which is why I focused on the question in the OP instead of starting a debate about God's existence (or arguing for God's existence*; that's all covered in the articles, books, websites and commentary I referred to at the start of my OP, 2nd paragraph). I could have added a hint in the OP that it has been my experience that people commenting on ATS of your persuasion are unwilling to look at these in any sort of serious attentive manner, i.e. the case for Creation and the evidence that supports it**, when articulated by anyone other than those who refer to themselves as "creationists" (referring to the idea of young earth creationism, which I wasn't talking about in the OP), but I wasn't sure how helpful that would be. I also don't think that information will make it any more likely that people of your persuasion here would change their attitude towards that case, and do so (seriously investigate with an open mind, not merely looking for something to object to and argue or reason against, looking for flaws, possibly twisting it to make it sound like a flaw in reasoning to themselves, and ignoring everything else that is not so easily twisted that way).

*: That's not to say that I wasn't going to do that at all in this thread if the situation presented itself or if I felt like it. As I've now done a little bit concerning the evidence from the fossil record. But that wasn't the original intent of this thread (I did expect it would happen though, because it's standard M.O. on this subforum, and there's no harm done with it, i.e. I don't have a problem with it, as mentioned before, not everything has to be so super on-topic in my opinion; and the topic is definitely related).

**: as often demonstrated by the way they respond to straw man versions of the related arguments, or in the way they talk about it appear to be rather unfamiliar with both the evidence and related arguments and conclusions (at the very least, the details and the right way of phrasing this case before any possible twisting has occurred as described earlier, so that not much is left of the original case in their minds, or at least not in their responses about it)

***: “Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.” (or the type of evasion I was talking about where I placed this footnote, which doesn't even offer an alternative argument, hypothesis or even a 'maybe-so' or 'just-so' story)

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

An example from Newton:

"were men and beast made by fortuitous jumblings of the atoms, there would be many parts useless in them. Here a lump of flesh, there a member too much. Some kinds of beasts might have had but one eye, some more than two. Atoms, mechanical laws, are nothing compared to the knowledge and wisdom of the Creator."

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: whereislogic
the fossil record are real, natural things that occur and we can gather either data or physical specimens.

Yeah and it disproves the evolutionary narrative time and time again.






I know this is heresy and your eyes are incapable of digesting these few of many examples that disprove the evolutionary timeline. To suppose random chance could generate the supercomputer-like complexity of the human body is absolutely naive. Due diligence regarding biological mechanisms and structures would make you realize random chance could not have designed it.



Here's a basic bacterial flagellum, similar to a boat motor, this micromolecular machinery is very precisely designed. Imagine a boat motor coming to be by random chance... it's absurd to even think it... it obviously requires precise design and engineering.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh, I don't blame them. I cannot blame my vacuum cleaner for not working. I simply get rid of it. And buy a new one.
In biblical terms I would phrase it as this: I will wipe you out of the face of my planet, for many and hideous are your sins.

Which actually translates as: authorization to proceed with the removal of the terraformers in Sol-3, Alpha Mensae-4, and Tauri-2.

God makes complex universe and all life forms but need man to write controversial and inaccurate book to prove his existence...makes perfect sense.

a reply to: cooperton

Assuming for the moment that your data is accurate, how is this construed as being evidence of supernatural or divine activity directly interacting with our world?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

Assuming for the moment that your data is accurate, how is this construed as being evidence of supernatural or divine activity directly interacting with our world?

Falsifying the current paradigm (random chance mutation somehow generating intelligent organisms) is the first step to realizing that consciousness originated matter rather than the other way around.

a reply to: cooperton

Is this a joke?

a reply to: cooperton

Ah, but it doesn't work like that. Exploring the idea that at some point humans and dinosaurs may have briefly coexisted is a fascinating study I'm sure, but there is zero connection between that concept and the hypothesis you just proposed. I should say zero connection that you can realistically illustrate with practical examples.

originally posted by: cooperton
Falsifying the current paradigm (random chance mutation somehow generating intelligent organisms) is the first step to realizing that consciousness originated matter rather than the other way around.

Is consciousness a form of energy? Yes/No.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

Ah, but it doesn't work like that. Exploring the idea that at some point humans and dinosaurs may have briefly coexisted is a fascinating study I'm sure, but there is zero connection between that concept and the hypothesis you just proposed. I should say zero connection that you can realistically illustrate with practical examples.

Eliminating the theory that matter creating consciousness is actually a worthwhile step in demonstrating that consciousness organized matter (i.e. Copenhagen Interpretation)

originally posted by: peck420
Is consciousness a form of energy? Yes/No.

Yes. This is where I think Einstein's energy - mass equivalence comes into play. All mass is super-densified energy. Of that mass, it's not even mass itself that renders matter impassable, instead its energetic electrical repulsion of electron clouds. This idea of mass reigning supreme as the generator of all things is therefore about as silly as it gets as a theory in light of all the recent scientific development on the quantum scale.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

Ah, but it doesn't work like that. Exploring the idea that at some point humans and dinosaurs may have briefly coexisted is a fascinating study I'm sure, but there is zero connection between that concept and the hypothesis you just proposed. I should say zero connection that you can realistically illustrate with practical examples.

Eliminating the theory that matter creating consciousness is actually a worthwhile step in demonstrating that consciousness organized matter (i.e. Copenhagen Interpretation)

I see. Good luck with that.