Is There Evidence for a Creator of the Universe?

[DaveC426913]

"a creator isn't needed in nature"
"nothing suggests a conscious influence in the creation of the universe"

...those statements are false for the reason that conscious humans exist and influence the universe.

Your rationale does not falsify the claims. It is non sequitur (...one does not follow from the other...).

The universe got along just fine before humans (or any life) came along, so it is still true that
- a creator isn't needed in nature
- nothing suggests a conscious influence in the creation of the universe

 

[pftest]

Your rationale does not falsify the claims. It is non sequitur (...one does not follow from the other...).

The universe got along just fine before humans (or any life) came along, so it is still true that
- a creator isn't needed in nature
- nothing suggests a conscious influence in the creation of the universe

That depends on how one defines "to create". If we look at it as "consciously influencing" we can see that humans create/consciously influence the universe. We may think of ourselves as small insignificant late arrivals, but even so, a single conscious entity falsifies the claim that the universe does not need it.

 

[stevenb]

... so it is still true that
- a creator isn't needed in nature
- nothing suggests a conscious influence in the creation of the universe

I accept your second statement. [EDIT: sorry, not "your statement", but "the statement" based on your response below]

However, your [EDIT: the] first statement is very bold. How do you [EDIT: does one] prove that a creator isn't needed to the extent that you [EDIT: one] can say "it is still true" with certainty? I have never seen a proof that it was true, never mind that it is still true. Can you [EDIT: anyone] offer a proof?

If we really understand our present science, we see that it is a description of nature, not an explanation of it. There are still too many assumptions about universal constants and starting conditions in our theories to claim that we have explained the origin of the universe. Yes, many mysteries have been explained in terms of fundamental laws, but those laws are still a mystery. Even if the final supertheory is developed to explain everything, we have to ask, "why and how does that supertheory exist?".

If science can ever produce universal laws of nature that, not only explain why the universe exists, but also explain why those universal laws also must exist, it will have done something it never did before. That this is possible has not been proven, and hence to believe in it with certainty requires faith.

 

[DaveC426913]

I accept your second statement.

However, your first statement is very bold.

It is not my statement. pftest quoted it from earlier. All I'm doing is pointing that his argument does not falsify anything.

 

[DaveC426913]

a single conscious entity falsifies the claim that the universe does not need it.

No it doesn't. It got along for 9.2 billion years without needing us.

The fact that we came along doesn't mean the universe needs us, any more than the fact that Mars captured two stray asteroids (thus changing the universe) means the universe needs Mars.

 

[GeorgCantor]

So, what we are left with is that God is still redundant. It solves nothing.

...except the essence of everything -- 'Existence'.

- nothing suggests a conscious influence in the creation of the universe

That's the atheist viewpoint. There are others.

No it doesn't. It got along for 9.2 billion years without needing us.

The fact that we came along doesn't mean the universe needs us, any more than the fact that Mars captured two stray asteroids (thus changing the universe) means the universe needs Mars.

"Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous" - AE

 

[xxChrisxx]

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/1350-30PCFLOORPUZZLE-KITTEN.jpg

This thread is now about kittens.

 

[stevenb]

It is not my statement. pftest quoted it from earlier. All I'm doing is pointing that his argument does not falsify anything.

Sorry, I got confused. I edited the post to make it clear that you are not saying that.

I'll leave the post as a general statement about this type of viewpoint that some people have.

 

[DaveC426913]

...except the essence of everything -- 'Existence'.

You're missing what I'm saying. Please read https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2779069&postcount=48".

We can't comprehend God any more than we can comprehend some as-yet-undiscovered all-encompassing equation that explains all existence. An equation (albeit a fabulously-advanced one, well beyond our current understanding) could explain all existence too.

That's the atheist viewpoint. There are others.

Again, not my claim. You've jumped in a little late and are taking these comments out of context. Please read pftest's https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2779150&postcount=50".

 

[Evo]

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/1350-30PCFLOORPUZZLE-KITTEN.jpg

This thread is now about kittens.

I'll second that motion!

 

[GeorgCantor]

You're missing what I'm saying. Please read https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2779069&postcount=48".

We can't comprehend God any more than we can comprehend some as-yet-undiscovered all-encompassing equation that explains all existence. An equation (albeit a fabulously-advanced one, well beyond our current understanding) could explain all existence too.

This is a religious belief. What makes you think an advanced equation will ever be able to explain existence? Is that equation really SO powerful that it demands its own coming into existence?

Again, not my claim. You've jumped in a little late and are taking these comments out of context. Read pftest's posts starting a few back.

Sorry. And sorry for being late.

 

[pftest]

No it doesn't. It got along for 9.2 billion years without needing us.

If by "us" you mean conscious influences, then we don't know if it needed them back then. But our current universe does need them. It establishes the principle that there is nothing unnatural about conscious influences acting on the fundamental physical ingredients and the laws of physics.

The fact that we came along doesn't mean the universe needs us, any more than the fact that Mars captured two stray asteroids (thus changing the universe) means the universe needs Mars.

Is the universe the same without mars? No, so the universe needs Mars to be the way it is. Put differently: Mars is part of the universe.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is a religious belief. What makes you think an advanced equation will ever be able to explain existence? Is that equation really SO powerful that it demands its own coming into existence?

The point is, it could. Those questions you just asked apply equally well to God as they could to this (hypothetical) equation.

The point being: claiming "God did it" gets us no further than "this equation defines it".

Thus, Occams' Razor: no need to multiply entities unnecessarily.



Now... kittens!

 

[Evo]

If by "us" you mean conscious influences, then we don't know if it needed them back then. But our current universe does need them.

I'm afraid you'll have to post valid scientific data that backs up a statement like that.

Is the universe the same without mars? No, so the universe needs Mars to be the way it is. Put differently: Mars is part of the universe.

You do realize that the universe is in constant change? I have no idea where your line of thinking is coming from.

 

[stevenb]

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/1350-30PCFLOORPUZZLE-KITTEN.jpg

This thread is now about kittens.

Oh boy, now you brought the origin of species into the discussion. Now there will be a raging debate on how both God and natural selection are capable of producing something very cute and cuddly. I'm going to get a head start and run for cover now.

 

[DaveC426913]

Is the universe the same without mars? No, so the universe needs Mars to be the way it is. Put differently: Mars is part of the universe.

This is simply word-play.

"The universe needs every molecule in it to be the place it is because otherwise it would not be the universe."

It yields us nothing.

Except kittens.

 

[GeorgCantor]

'everything is so obvious, God exists!'

vs

'everything is so obvious, God doesn't exist!'.

 

[HeLiXe]

Like when they used to believe that demons and evil spirits caused illness.

They don't?!

 

[HeLiXe]

It yields us nothing.

Except kittens.

All hail the universe!

 

[GeorgCantor]

They don't?!

Nah, that was the Satan.

 

[DaveC426913]

Nah, that was the Satan.

That's what Medieval parents used to say to their teenaged kids:

"What's wrong with you?? Are you on the Satan?"

 

[HeLiXe]

you guys are killing me!...*thinks* If you guys are killing me does that mean I'm on the satan?

 

[HeLiXe]

Relena I was following your reasoning up until this:

if we assumed that god exist for a moment, we can't make any questions we want about it, you have to answer first if god is created or not before asking who created him.
this doesn't proof the existence of God, but it shows that the question who created god is total absurdness.

Considering this:

I think they say that the universe requires a creator, a creator is not required independently of the case, the main difference between God and universe that the universe follows certain rules, if god created those rules it is not necessary to obey them.
in order to create doesn't mean you have to be created, being created is not one of God's properties, you can't ask about the taste of vacuum because taste is not a property of vacuum, and you can't imagine how it feels to be dead because death ceases perception, no one can create God because he is the creator of everything.

If God exists outside of the rules of the universe how can any questions about it from creatures within the universe be absurd? It could only be absurd if the rules outside of the universe were common sense, and also if the nature of God was common sense.

 

[mynameinc]

you guys are killing me!...*thinks* If you guys are killing me does that mean I'm on the satan?

No, that means you're both on the Satan, and therefore must be placed on the racks!

 

[Angry Citizen]

Hence why Margaret Atwood said (I'm paraphrasing) that the only supportable scientific position on this is agnosticism.

I think this is absurd. We shouldn't even be asking this question, this question about the God Myth. Seriously, think about it. In physics, did we try to ascertain the existence of quarks before we knew there were even atoms? There is nothing to suggest the existence of God or any type of god whatsoever. Until there is, the only rational position is atheism.

At the moment, deities are an abstract concept developed from the mind of men. At most, there can only be two billion people who have gotten the 'divine question' correct, because each and every religion is wholly different from one another, and the biggest religion contains two billion people. This fact is beyond question. Another fact that is beyond question is that over four billion people are absolutely, unequivocally wrong. This second fact establishes the precedent that deities can be fictional works of the mind of men. With this second fact established, and the aforementioned lack of proof, how is even agnosticism logical?

 

[HeLiXe]

No, that means you're both on the Satan, and therefore must be placed on the racks!

 

[DaveC426913]

There is nothing to suggest the existence of God or any type of god whatsoever. Until there is, the only rational position is atheism.

This is quite simply not true.

There is lots of evidence.

There is lots of evidence of UFOs too. It's just not irrefutable evidence.

Atheists refute the veracity of all of the evidence of God (reports of phenomena, recorded eyewitness accounts, etc.) We don't trust the source, but that isn't by any means unanimous.

Don't confuse lack of compelling evidence with lack of evidence.

At the moment, deities are an abstract concept developed from the mind of men. At most, there can only be two billion people who have gotten the 'divine question' correct, because each and every religion is wholly different from one another, and the biggest religion contains two billion people. This fact is beyond question. Another fact that is beyond question is that over four billion people are absolutely, unequivocally wrong. This second fact establishes the precedent that deities can be fictional works of the mind of men. With this second fact established, and the aforementioned lack of proof, how is even agnosticism logical?

You have demonstrated that 2/3rds of the population are delusional. So what? That says nothing about the other third.

If you were in a classroom and the prof asked a question that everyone got wrong up till you, would you be happy if he concluded that you must be wrong too?

 

[Math Is Hard]

There is nothing to suggest the existence of God or any type of god whatsoever.

Except kittens.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/1350-30PCFLOORPUZZLE-KITTEN.jpg

:!)

 

[Academic]

In physics, did we try to ascertain the existence of quarks before we knew there were even atoms?

If somebody did make a claim about quarks before any evidence was in then the only rational position would be agnostic on quarks. For any two state system, in lieu of evidence there is a 50/50 chance that it could be in either state. That number can only be changed by evidence.

 

[Angry Citizen]

There is lots of evidence.

By all means, show me 'lots' of evidence for deities. If you're referring to such texts as the Bible... perhaps you'd like to tell me what Jesus' last words were?

You have demonstrated that 2/3rds of the population are delusional. So what? That says nothing about the other third.

It says a lot. It sets a precedent that people can and will lie and/or misinterpret events, and that these people will gain immense followings in spite of their lack of truth.

If you were in a classroom and the prof asked a question that everyone got wrong up till you, would you be happy if he concluded that you must be wrong too?

Only if the question was, "Elucidate upon the equations which govern the quantum theory of gravity." -- especially if it took place in the 19th century. Again, nothing suggests God or gods. There is no evidence, let alone compelling evidence; the rubbish which is offered is extremely self-contradictory and contains no information value whatsoever. Gods are the result of human imagination. That should be the opinion of any rational individual, until such time as evidence is offered which can be verified as having actually occurred. It is only after evidence is offered that one can become an agnostic. And as you say, it's only after compelling evidence that some hypothesis can be called viable.

Lets put this another way. Say you're investigating the Battle of Verdun as part of a gen-ed history class. The usual WW I players were the suspects -- Germans, French, etc, no supernatural events, just mundane war. Now I ask you: In your term paper, do you extol upon the possibility that hordes of ninja warriors slaughtered all the Germans, or do you discuss the key points of the battle, the reason for the battle, and the eventual outcome of the battle and its larger effect on the war? The point is, nothing suggests ninja warriors were present in the battle, just as there is nothing to suggest a sky fairy sits in heaven hitting ctrl-alt-smite on anyone who upsets him.

 

[Evo]

Lets' remember to remain respectful of people belief's.

No one here can say with 100% certainty that there are not supernatural beings that cannot be detected.

 

[DaveC426913]

Again, nothing suggests God or gods. There is no evidence, let alone compelling evidence; the rubbish which is offered is extremely self-contradictory and contains no information value whatsoever. Gods are the result of human imagination. That should be the opinion of any rational individual, until such time as evidence is offered which can be verified as having actually occurred. It is only after evidence is offered that one can become an agnostic. And as you say, it's only after compelling evidence that some hypothesis can be called viable.

Lets put this another way. Say you're investigating the Battle of Verdun as part of a gen-ed history class. The usual WW I players were the suspects -- Germans, French, etc, no supernatural events, just mundane war. Now I ask you: In your term paper, do you extol upon the possibility that hordes of ninja warriors slaughtered all the Germans, or do you discuss the key points of the battle, the reason for the battle, and the eventual outcome of the battle and its larger effect on the war? The point is, nothing suggests ninja warriors were present in the battle, just as there is nothing to suggest a sky fairy sits in heaven hitting ctrl-alt-smite on anyone who upsets him.

You are welcome to voice your opinion, but I see nothing in there that warrants being addressed. It all sounds pretty rhetorical.

 

[stevenb]

... Again, nothing suggests God or gods. There is no evidence, let alone compelling evidence; the rubbish which is offered is extremely self-contradictory and contains no information value whatsoever. Gods are the result of human imagination. That should be the opinion of any rational individual, until such time as evidence is offered which can be verified as having actually occurred. It is only after evidence is offered that one can become an agnostic. And as you say, it's only after compelling evidence that some hypothesis can be called viable.

I follow your logic here, but there is one aspect that bothers me a little. That is, we are talking about the "big question" here. The fact that we exist and the fact that we observe that there is a universe is evidence of something. As humans we want to answer that question, no matter how difficult (or even impossible) it is to answer. So we have an observation and at least two possibilities to explain it as follows:

1. We can explain everything with scientific laws. Note that I said explain, not describe. Science has yet to explain anything. It simply describes observations in terms of simple rules. The origin of these rules is still a mystery.

2. We can attribute all mysteries to a supreme being that is not bound by rules or ideas that we can comprehend.

As scientists we are not allowed to think about option 2, but as humans we have that right. As I alluded to before, agnosticism is a rational point of view, since we have no proof that science is even capable of answering the big question. We also have no proof that god exists. So, acknowledging that we don't know is not irrational.

If you want to claim that atheism (as defined by the statement that god does not exist) is rational, then you have to have proof that science is capable of answering the big question. Note, that you don't need the actual scientific explanation, but you do need to know, with absolute certainty, that a scientific answer can be found. I've never seen a convincing proof of this. If I had such proof, I would be an atheist, at the front of the line.

 

[Angry Citizen]

1. We can explain everything with scientific laws. Note that I said explain, not describe. Science has yet to explain anything. It simply describes observations in terms of simple rules. The origin of these rules is still a mystery.

2. We can attribute all mysteries to a supreme being that is not bound by rules or ideas that we can comprehend.

I would like to offer a third option, and that is that we simply don't know yet. But god-of-the-gaps arguments just don't cut it. Maybe science can't explain first cause. Maybe it can. If it can't, though, that doesn't automatically mean God did it.

If you want to claim that atheism (as defined by the statement that god does not exist) is rational, then you have to have proof that science is capable of answering the big question.

I would amend that definition as follows: "God does not exist, based on the evidence (and lack thereof)." No self-respecting atheist would say God does not exist without that qualifier. An atheist would look at the evidence and conclude that there's a precedent for false reports, and that no single religion can really say it has any more evidence than another religion.

Note, that you don't need the actual scientific explanation, but you do need to know, with absolute certainty, that a scientific answer can be found. I've never seen a convincing proof of this.

Unfortunately, I cannot provide such a proof. And that's why I'm not a theist. I know when to sit back and say, "I really don't know. Sorry mate." Perhaps neither God nor science will ever be able to adequately explain such mysteries as First Cause. But again, until such time as evidence for God comes to light, considering God at all is abstract and useless. And that's why I'm an atheist.

 

[stevenb]

I would like to offer a third option, and that is that we simply don't know yet. But god-of-the-gaps arguments just don't cut it. Maybe science can't explain first cause. Maybe it can. If it can't, though, that doesn't automatically mean God did it.



I would amend that definition as follows: "God does not exist, based on the evidence (and lack thereof)." No self-respecting atheist would say God does not exist without that qualifier. An atheist would look at the evidence and conclude that there's a precedent for false reports, and that no single religion can really say it has any more evidence than another religion.



Unfortunately, I cannot provide such a proof. And that's why I'm not a theist. I know when to sit back and say, "I really don't know. Sorry mate." Perhaps neither God nor science will ever be able to adequately explain such mysteries as First Cause. But again, until such time as evidence for God comes to light, considering God at all is abstract and useless. And that's why I'm an atheist.

Interesting comments. I mentioned earlier on that I need to be careful when defining atheism. The "big question" is difficult enough without adding semantic confusion. Many comments you make would lead me to call you more of an agnostic than an atheist, but perhaps my definitions are too severe. There is of course a wide range of grey if we go from 100% belief in a God to 100% belief that there is not, and can not be, a God. I'm actually happy to hear that no self-respecting atheist would say God does not exist without your qualifier, or at least some type of qualifier. Although, I have managed to run across a number of self-disrespecting atheists, for lack of a better term.

 

[pftest]

If by "us" you mean conscious influences, then we don't know if it needed them back then. But our current universe does need them.

I'm afraid you'll have to post valid scientific data that backs up a statement like that.

Conscious humans influence the universe don't they?

You do realize that the universe is in constant change? I have no idea where your line of thinking is coming from.

Mars is part of the universe. A universe without Mars is just not the same universe as ours.

 

[n.karthick]

Whoever speaks about God or Science, how they know it? It is from literature right?
After birth, if a person is abandoned, in a desert and the child still survives, can he realize God or science for that matter?
He will be living just like an animal. This itself shows that the ideas of science and religion are just inherited by us from our ancestors. As a human being we are nothing. It is because of our association with human society, we learned these things. Thinking in this way both religion and science are concepts developed for centuries which are necessary to make our life better.
The correct question should be "Is the idea of God required for human prosperity?"
Can Science do all the job what religion is doing all these days? Or can religion do all that science does? If yes we can keep either one of them which is superior.
Only time can answer this question (and we have infinite time luckily)

 

[pftest]

This is simply word-play.

"The universe needs every molecule in it to be the place it is because otherwise it would not be the universe."

It yields us nothing.

Except kittens.

If you are talking about a different kind of "needing", then please clarify. Does the universe need the sun? Any planets? Does it need 99% of its space? Or 99% of its matter?

One could argue that the universe doesn't need the sun for example. But then where would the rest of the planets in our "solar" system be? Maybe there would be a different planet with giant aliens that have colonised the whole milky way? We end up with a hypothetical fictional universe. I prefer to stick with the universe we are actually in.

 

[HeLiXe]

Whoever speaks about God or Science, how they know it? It is from literature right?
After birth, if a person is abandoned, in a desert and the child still survives, can he realize God or science for that matter?
He will be living just like an animal. This itself shows that the ideas of science and religion are just inherited by us from our ancestors. As a human being we are nothing. It is because of our association with human society, we learned these things. Thinking in this way both religion and science are concepts developed for centuries which are necessary to make our life better.
The correct question should be "Is the idea of God required for human prosperity?"
Can Science do all the job what religion is doing all these days? Or can religion do all that science does? If yes we can keep either one of them which is superior.
Only time can answer this question (and we have infinite time luckily)

But discoveries in science and religion were not at once collectively discovered, nor did they always exist to be passed down through our ancestors. In both science and religion it is historic that humans made independent discoveries, I think that is the base of human potential...the main thing that makes us different from other animals is our intelligence or reasoning capacity.

I'm not sure if the human race has infinite time, but there are many possibilities between religion and science not limited to the questions you presented. It is historical that once scientific understanding changes and becomes generally accepted, the stance or understanding of religion changes as well...for example flat Earth vs round Earth and geocentricity vs heliocentricity (are those even words? man I need to sleep!) hence we must consider that science may uncover profoundly detailed things about our origins and the origin of the universe...like if God exists as a creator, what would happen if science discovered it? Would science then become a religion?

Reminds me of this quote:

If [impossible hypothetical] then [unpredictable result].

Plug in your favorites. It matters not.

Although I'm not saying science discovering a creator god is impossible. It is simply unknown.

 

[Relena]

But wanting existence to not be "absurd and goalless" does not make it so.

Wanting there to be an objective meaning to life does not mean there is any.

Which is why so many see Believers as wishful thinkers.

Whether the ultimate answer is a self-referencing Grand Unified Equation that explains First Cause, or whether it is a conscious entity that explains First Cause makes no difference in the solution to the conundrum of how all existence pulled itself up by its own bootstraps.

I agree believers are fearful/wishful thinkers, the point is that I don't find it a shame.

the God solution or whatever is called doesn't make any sense not because I want a goal for existence, but because it doesn't provide any additional explanation as you mentioned.

just thinking that there is a creator is not useful in science, our "what we see is what exists" science, we just keep building theories about his consciousness and existence, if we can reduce God's consciousness into brain waves or quantum functions it is not God, it can be any supernatural or advanced creature, but it remains a creature, it may have the ability to create, but that's not God at all.

That's why religions are for, to let God to speak about himself, but because there are so many religions the problem is doubled, we will have to compare to find which one provides the most ultimate and irreducible, it's areal test just as the whole life would be.

The big problem here that being atheist is the same as believing in a false God, which makes the idea of God look so fooling and deceiving, however, if one asked if only one true God exists why are there so many different beliefs ?
well, if God truly exists, it would be for the same reason he created all the non believers, and the same reasons he created all these opposites in the universe.

whatever, I have entered the discussion to point out to the difference between searching for real God, and fabricating a God theory, which doesn't provide science with anything.

If God exists outside of the rules of the universe how can any questions about it from creatures within the universe be absurd? It could only be absurd if the rules outside of the universe were common sense, and also if the nature of God was common sense.

well, because I believe there is an uncommon sense, which is beyond our language abilities.
you can ask whatever you want about God, where can=able, however, the answers you get from your own mind will probably be false (not totally, as some questions do have answers in our common sense).

like paradoxes, I can say them, I can understand them grammatically, but I can't deduce any results from thinking about them.

besides, when I criticized the question "who created God?" I was only pointing to that we didn't agree in assumption if he was created or not, most of these questions are made to cause paralysis.

 

[Academic]

Lets put this another way. Say you're investigating the Battle of Verdun as part of a gen-ed history class. The usual WW I players were the suspects -- Germans, French, etc, no supernatural events, just mundane war. Now I ask you: In your term paper, do you extol upon the possibility that hordes of ninja warriors slaughtered all the Germans, or do you discuss the key points of the battle, the reason for the battle, and the eventual outcome of the battle and its larger effect on the war? The point is, nothing suggests ninja warriors were present in the battle, just as there is nothing to suggest a sky fairy sits in heaven hitting ctrl-alt-smite on anyone who upsets him.

There is a big difference between nothing suggesting they are present, and evidence suggesting they arnt present. In the ninja warriors case there is copious amounts of evidence suggesting they were not present, and thats why we believe they were not present.

 

[Evo]

I agree believers are fearful/wishful thinkers, the point is that I don't find it a shame.

the God solution or whatever is called doesn't make any sense not because I want a goal for existence, but because it doesn't provide any additional explanation as you mentioned.

just thinking that there is a creator is not useful in science, our "what we see is what exists" science, we just keep building theories about his consciousness and existence, if we can reduce God's consciousness into brain waves or quantum functions it is not God, it can be any supernatural or advanced creature, but it remains a creature, it may have the ability to create, but that's not God at all.

That's why religions are for, to let God to speak about himself, but because there are so many religions the problem is doubled, we will have to compare to find which one provides the most ultimate and irreducible, it's areal test just as the whole life would be.

The big problem here that being atheist is the same as believing in a false God, which makes the idea of God look so fooling and deceiving, however, if one asked if only one true God exists why are there so many different beliefs ?
well, if God truly exists, it would be for the same reason he created all the non believers, and the same reasons he created all these opposites in the universe.

whatever, I have entered the discussion to point out to the difference between searching for real God, and fabricating a God theory, which doesn't provide science with anything.



well, because I believe there is an uncommon sense, which is beyond our language abilities.
you can ask whatever you want about God, where can=able, however, the answers you get from your own mind will probably be false (not totally, as some questions do have answers in our common sense).

like paradoxes, I can say them, I can understand them grammatically, but I can't deduce any results from thinking about them.

besides, when I criticized the question "who created God?" I was only pointing to that we didn't agree in assumption if he was created or not, most of these questions are made to cause paralysis.

Relena, you're getting too close to the edge with the religious aspect. We have rules against discussing religion. I suggest you refrain from getting too deep into a christian/Judeo/Muslim version of god, and stick with "dieties" and a generic "creator". You are pre-supposing a christian type god as being true and other religions don't count and that's a no-no.

The big problem here that being atheist is the same as believing in a false God, which makes the idea of God look so fooling and deceiving, however, if one asked if only one true God exists why are there so many different beliefs ?

The statement about atheists is false, and now you are starting to preach.

 

[Relena]

Relena, you're getting too close to the edge with the religious aspect. We have rules against discussing religion. I suggest you refrain from getting too deep into a christian/Judeo/Muslim version of god, and stick with "dieties" and a generic "creator". You are pre-supposing a christian type god as being true and other religions don't count and that's a no-no.

please !
I've been here for years and I do respect the forum rules (after being warned due to crack pottery), besides, I'm not christian.

I said

whatever, I have entered the discussion to point out to the difference between searching for real God, and fabricating a God theory, which doesn't provide science with anything.

I have no other hidden intentions.

The statement about atheists is false, and now you are starting to preach.

well yes it is false if based on "there is no evidence for God", however, it was a conclusion based on the correctness of my previous assumption that one true God exists, in that case, they will have the same destiny, not behavior or knowledge.

Again, I fully respect everyone here, and I expect the same.

 

[Evo]

Again, I fully respect everyone here, and I expect the same.

I expect you to follow the guidelines, which I kindly pointed out to you. Posting here is a privilege for those that follow the rules.

 

[Gokul43201]

From a scientific point of view, how do we know that there is no need for a creator? Given that we as yet are unable to provide a complete description of physics, how can the need for a creator be logically excluded?

Scientists have no need to exclude things, except when they are models that make falsified predictions. Science does not also waste it's time on trying to logically exclude the possibility that High Tc Superconductivity is the work of pink unicorns.

Hence why Margaret Atwood said (I'm paraphrasing) that the only supportable scientific position on this is agnosticism.

Does Margaret Atwood has much of an idea about what science is? Does she also propose that agnosticism is the only supportable scientific position on leprechauns, elves, centaurs, and invisible tortoises holding up the earth?

 

[pftest]

When talking about evidence of god, it is important to realize that conscious influences are invisible (unless from our first person perspective). This is the case for consciousness in the brain, but also for a hypothetical larger conscious entity aka god. If one is going to reject god on the basis of lack of visible evidence, and one is consistent, one would reject that other people are conscious aswell. But we don't do that.

We can infer conscious behaviour in others by comparing their behaviour to our own, but this also ultimately doesn't enable us to see where conscious behaviour starts and where it ends, since our human body isn't just similar to other humans, but also to apes, ducks, plants, rocks, electrons, space, etc. Where to stop inferring consciousness?

 

[Academic]

Does Margaret Atwood has much of an idea about what science is? Does she also propose that agnosticism is the only supportable scientific position on leprechauns, elves, centaurs, and invisible tortoises holding up the earth?

Why would she? There is evidence against the existence of all of those things. There is also evidence that pink unicorns do not cause high Tc superconductors. Dont fool yourself into thinking you have a default stance of atheism on these topics - the reason you (and I) don believe in invisible tortoises holding up the Earth is the copious amount of evidence against such a hypothesis.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I'd say the most scientific answer to the question "Does God exist?" would be "Who is God?"

 

[Evo]

When talking about evidence of god, it is important to realize that conscious influences are invisible (unless from our first person perspective). This is the case for consciousness in the brain, but also for a hypothetical larger conscious entity aka god. If one is going to reject god on the basis of lack of visible evidence, and one is consistent, one would reject that other people are conscious aswell. But we don't do that.

We can infer conscious behaviour in others by comparing their behaviour to our own, but this also ultimately doesn't enable us to see where conscious behaviour starts and where it ends, since our human body isn't just similar to other humans, but also to apes, ducks, plants, rocks, electrons, space, etc. Where to stop inferring consciousness?

What does anything you said have to do with creating and believing myths? We're in skepticism and debunking. We're looking at this from a straightforward, logical position.

The OP's question is

Ultimately my questioning comes down to, "what is junk about the junk science that follows a universal designer".

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Oh, like Intelligent Design? The most easy way to put it is that it works from faulty premises. A common example is "An eye doesn't function if you remove any component, such as the lens." They call this irreducible complexity. Of course, the truth (or scientific position, if you will) is that the components present do not neccesarily correspond to the components that existed during evolution; In fact the eye has become a common example of how evolution of organs can occur.