What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[Mashuna]

I don't normally, it seems to be a convention on this forum to call position 1 God and 2 the no God position.

You don't? I thought that's exactly what you were doing here:

God is the word used to refer to the collection or set of;

1, The unknown basis of existence(as we know and experience it).

 

[DC]

theism is not a theory, its a brainfart.

 

[Pup]

Its a realistic starting point from which to discuss existence.

The problem is that when god is defined as "The unknown basis of existence," there's nothing to discuss, other than pure fantasy for entertainment. By definition, it's whatever is unknown, a god of the gaps.

 

[marplots]

Its a realistic starting point from which to discuss existence.

1, From the theistic standpoint there is an intelligent basis for existence.

2, From the atheistic standpoint there is an unknown physical process as a basis for existence.

I have a leaning towards 1, atheists have a leaning towards 2.

Their is no proof of either being exclusive of the other. There are beliefs, but I don't care much for beliefs, they are irrational.

When you say "basis for existence" do you mean a kind of one-off pre-big bang thing or some continuing process that is ongoing... or something else?

 

[DC]

how can something allegedly existing and intelligent be the basis of existence itself?

 

[punshhh]

You don't? I thought that's exactly what you were doing here:

Well I started in this thread using the phrase "intelligent creator", after a while it is easier to revert to God as everyone else uses this phrase

 

[punshhh]

The problem is that when god is defined as "The unknown basis of existence," there's nothing to discuss, other than pure fantasy for entertainment. By definition, it's whatever is unknown, a god of the gaps.

Yes I have thought about this "God of the gaps", I see a fallacy. The bit about God being in unknown gaps makes sense, but I see no evidence or explanation of whats between the gaps, existence is one big gap.

 

[punshhh]

When you say "basis for existence" do you mean a kind of one-off pre-big bang thing or some continuing process that is ongoing... or something else?

What I am considering is an ongoing cyclical process of creation and destruction or birth and death.

 

[punshhh]

how can something allegedly existing and intelligent be the basis of existence itself?

This is an age old conundrum, the way humans work things out assumes a cause and effect. If existence is the result of something, then there was presumably something from which it came.

Another way of viewing this is that something does not just appear out of nothing, it must always have been.

I have been concerned with this question for many years and I have not come across an answer from the western philosophy or scientific thinking.

It is only when studying theological thinking that such questions are addressed.

The gods I am referring to here would have evolved in existence and become creators as a result of evolution(in the broader sense).

 

[DC]

This is an age old conundrum, the way humans work things out assumes a cause and effect. If existence is the result of something, then there was presumably something from which it came.

Another way of viewing this is that something does not just appear out of nothing, it must always have been.

I have been concerned with this question for many years and I have not come across an answer from the western philosophy or scientific thinking.

It is only when studying theological thinking that such questions are addressed.

The gods I am referring to here would have evolved in existence and become creators as a result of evolution(in the broader sense).

and you call such fantasies a theory? laughable.

 

[punshhh]

and you call such fantasies a theory? laughable.

I don't, I am pointing out that there is evidence of intelligent creators, arising naturally in this existence of ours. Perhaps there are other creators in existence, or do you subscribe to the fantasy that humanity is alone in existence and the pinnacle of intelligent evolution?

 

[excaza]

I don't, I am pointing out that there is evidence of intelligent creators, arising naturally in this existence of ours.

There was no answer for your question of where we came from, so you made up an answer (a creator). This is not evidence.

Perhaps there are other creators in existence, or do you subscribe to the fantasy that humanity is alone in existence and the pinnacle of intelligent evolution?

How on earth does that strawman follow from anything in this thread?

 

[DC]

I don't, I am pointing out that there is evidence of intelligent creators, arising naturally in this existence of ours. Perhaps there are other creators in existence, or do you subscribe to the fantasy that humanity is alone in existence and the pinnacle of intelligent evolution?

you compare our creations to the alleged creation of the universe?
that god allegedly spoke the whole universe into existence.

and you compare that to our creations? wow.

so there is no evidence at all for a creator as described in the torah, bible or koran,

 

[3point14]

There was no answer for your question of where we came from, so you made up an answer (a creator). This is not evidence.


How on earth does that strawman follow from anything in this thread?

It's simple.

There may be alien life forms somewhere in the universe, therefore, god exists.

It's locktight.

 

[PixyMisa]

What is energy Pixy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

 

[Nonpareil]

There are two things going on here:

1) Your explanation is not incompatible with theism. A theist could easily say there is a biochemical and theistic foundation for spiritual experience. They are not mutually exclusive.

No one said they were. We have stated, however, that theism posits the existence of an entity for which there is neither need nor evidence.

Theists will tell you that god is easily detectable, when they pray and whenever they experience god's presence.

And yet they have no evidence that they are actually experiencing God's presence rather than simply believing that they do.

You're already assuming such experiences are not evidence because you've adopted the scientific atheistic viewpoint

No. We're assuming that they aren't evidence because they aren't evidence.

A man on an acid trip claims to have spoken with John Lennon. Without further evidence, the only rational conclusion is that he did not speak with John Lennon. He simply hallucinated doing so.

Is it technically possible that Lennon talks to people while they're tripping? Yes. Is it supported by the evidence? No. It's the same thing for your argument about personal experiences.

but that's the very thing you're trying to show is "more likely".

We've been over this. More rational.

3) You're claiming there is no evidence for god. Again, this reveals an assumption on your part: that reality is materialistic. If reality is a projection of God's mind (Berkeley's idealism), then there is copius amounts of evidence for god.

No. Do you know what "evidence" means?

Even if reality is a "projection of God's mind" (whatever that gibberish means), the existence of reality would not be evidence for God. You would still need some way to show that the idea is true. The mere existence of a universe does not support that idea.

And so on and so on. The rest of your posts thus far have largely been a repeat of the above points.

 

[punshhh]

It's simple.

There may be alien life forms somewhere in the universe, therefore, god exists.

It's locktight.

I'm not claiming that gods exist, I'm claiming that a rational person can arrive at the position that intelligent creators may be involved in creating existence as we know it.

Please suggest an alternative theory or explanation of the basis of our existence?

 

[punshhh]

There was no answer for your question of where we came from, so you made up an answer (a creator). This is not evidence.

I can provide evidence of intelligent creators evolving through natural processes.

Can you provide evidence of any other mechanism by which existence takes the form it appears to?

How on earth does that strawman follow from anything in this thread?

It is one rational conclusion drawn from the above mentioned evidence.

 

[excaza]

I can provide evidence of intelligent creators evolving through natural processes.

Really? I would love to see your evidence for an intelligent creator.

Can you provide evidence of any other mechanism by which existence takes the form it appears to?

No, and neither can you. Maybe it was magical unicorn-pixies. I have equal evidence for that as you do for an intelligent creator. Speculation is not evidence.

It is one rational conclusion drawn from the above mentioned evidence.

No, it's not a rational conclusion from what he said. Try again.

 

[punshhh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

If you aren't prepaired to explain it yourself, there is no obligation for you to continue posting.

I read this reference the last time you linked to it, it did not explain what energy is, only what it does.

Let me recap for you where the discussion on this issue had got to the last time I asked what energy is.

Energy = forces/influences acting between atoms/subatomic particles.

Atoms/subatomic particles = energy.

Energy is that which acts on itself.

Existence is forces acting on themselves, resulting in the appearance of something rather than nothing.

So if the energy stopped acting on itself, what would exist? nothing?