I've Lost My Faith

[Bob652]

Quote by: Marconius Adding superpowered beings solves the 'all things need a cause', problem how? Until you can explain where this creator is, how it came to be, and why we cannot detect it it fails, because it just adds more questions than answers. To the OP I recommend staying away from religion but if you really want one I suggest Buddism even though it is more of a philosophy than a religion.

No one has all the answers; but I can be sure that nothing exists without a cause. Science is very clear about that, for all that's worth. Perhaps you might consider the idea that the Creator always was, and through intelligence and power that we cannot fathom as humans He created all that lives and the the incredible design of the universe.This, to me, makes more sense than to dismiss Intelligence or deny the evidence of it simply because we weren't there when the universe was created. I wasn't present when my PC was created, I don't understand all the principles involved in its creation, but I don't doubt that it exists and that it was created by a person or persons other than myself in my absence.

[Jack]

I can be sure that nothing exists without a cause. Science is very clear about that, for all that's worth.

Causation does not equate with purpose. Science may discuss causes but it doesn't try to address the purpose or meaning of nature. That is philosophy, of which religion is a part.

[Bob652]

Quote by: Isherwood Causation does not equate with purpose. Science may discuss causes but it doesn't try to address the purpose or meaning of nature. That is philosophy, of which religion is a part.

Causation doesn't need a purpose. It needs a cause whether or not you can determine the purpose.

[rez]

Quote by: Bob652 No one has all the answers; but I can be sure that nothing exists without a cause. Science is very clear about that, for all that's worth. Perhaps you might consider the idea that the Creator always was, and through intelligence and power that we cannot fathom as humans He created all that lives and the the incredible design of the universe.This, to me, makes more sense than to dismiss Intelligence or deny the evidence of it simply because we weren't there when the universe was created. I wasn't present when my PC was created, I don't understand all the principles involved in its creation, but I don't doubt that it exists and that it was created by a person or persons other than myself in my absence.

A computer and a universe are not the same things.

If you think something designed the universe, then you should give us a workable method on how to distinguish between what is designed and what is not designed.

[Bob652]

[quote=rez;372535]A computer and a universe are not the same things.

If you think something designed the universe, then you should give us a workable method on how to distinguish between what is designed and what is not designed.[/


OK What is designed has design. What is not designed does not exist.]

[rez]

Quote by: Bob652 OK What is designed has design. What is not designed does not exist.]

Can your conjecture carry out a useful investigation that expands the human understanding of the universe? If there is no results from such tests, then how can one determine which teleological explanation is better then other? I am trying to figure out what counts as good conjecture and bad conjecture because there is so many different creation stories.

[Jack]

What is designed has design

You shouldn't use a term to describe itself. Besides, the appreciation of design is a matter of perception. It is neither absolute nor precise. We humans invented the concept of design. Different cultures, even different individuals, interpret the presence and meanings of design uniquely. A simple series of swirls may appear to be a pattern to one person and random to another. Which one's interpretation is correct? Perhaps they both are, because design is not a single, absolute quality.

What is not designed does not exist.

And yet here we are. Against all odds and occurring because conditions were exactly right to permit life to begin. That's not so impossible to comprehend.

But one must be willing to. Enlightenment of any kind has to be voluntary and desired. Enlightenment isn't answers, it's understanding, understanding that some questions don't have answers. There is no absolute knowledge we'll ever attain. There will always be questions. Belief in gods is an answer. If it suits you, cease questioning. Belief in gods ends the need to ask anything, since gods are the answer to everything.

[Bob652]

Quote by: rez Can your conjecture carry out a useful investigation that expands the human understanding of the universe? If there is no results from such tests, then how can one determine which teleological explanation is better then other? I am trying to figure out what counts as good conjecture and bad conjecture because there is so many different creation stories.

You are mixing apples and oranges. My starting point is no less capable of leading to the understanding the universe than yours. I think that was a silly question. I am telling you how I logically think the universe was created. You can neither prove otherwise, nor does your point of view lead us to any greater potential for human understanding.

[Bob652]

Quote by: Isherwood You shouldn't use a term to describe itself. Besides, the appreciation of design is a matter of perception. It is neither absolute nor precise. We humans invented the concept of design. Different cultures, even different individuals, interpret the presence and meanings of design uniquely. A simple series of swirls may appear to be a pattern to one person and random to another. Which one's interpretation is correct? Perhaps they both are, because design is not a single, absolute quality. And yet here we are. Against all odds and occurring because conditions were exactly right to permit life to begin. That's not so impossible to comprehend. But one must be willing to. Enlightenment of any kind has to be voluntary and desired. Enlightenment isn't answers, it's understanding, understanding that some questions don't have answers. There is no absolute knowledge we'll ever attain. There will always be questions. Belief in gods is an answer. If it suits you, cease questioning. Belief in gods ends the need to ask anything, since gods are the answer to everything.

I have taken the liberty of using the word design as I saw fit. Often one must be capable of considering the context in which a word is spoken in order to comprehend the intended nuance or meaning. The unnecessary rhetoric about swirls and random patterns is neither here nor there..
I hope that this doesn't come as too much as a surprise to you but I do agree with your definition of enlightenment in the context of what you are trying to say; but your effort to equate belief in God with the illusion of absolute knowlegge is nonsensicle and unfair. Please be assured that there are millions of intelligent people who believe in God, admittedly without any more absolute knowledge than you, and are not at all inclined to cease questioning or asking intelligent questions. Often these include scientists, philosophers, and other great intellectuals.
We who believe in a Creator don't claim to be able to provide you with 100% proof. We do, however, consider the weight of the evidence, and at times attempt to bring it to close minded ,antagonistic, offensive and often sarcastic individuals who will not be frank enough to admit that thay can in no way prove us wrong.

[rez]

Quote by: Bob652 You are mixing apples and oranges. My starting point is no less capable of leading to the understanding the universe than yours. I think that was a silly question. I am telling you how I logically think the universe was created. You can neither prove otherwise, nor does your point of view lead us to any greater potential for human understanding.

The way you logically think the universe was created leads to a dead end. Explaining nature with nature has been doing a great job at explaining reality. Why would anybody think your explanation is any better when it doesn't even produce any results?

[Bob652]

Quote by: rez The way you logically think the universe was created leads to a dead end. Explaining nature with nature has been doing a great job at explaining reality. Why would anybody think your explanation is any better when it doesn't even produce any results?

Because yours has never been able to answer the question any better. At least mine makes sense. Can you tell me how the universe was created? Absolutely not. You can give me theories; but very often there's not much difference between theory and bullshit. You can not prove that the idea that I presented on creation is wrong. When you get down to the nitty gritty where did it all come from? Who created life? Who created the elements? Science can't even hope to get that far down the line. That however doesn't stop some people from totally dismissing the distinct possibility, if not probability, that there is a Creator. In this particular topic, if you don't know what the answer is you won't know for sure what it is not. The weight of the evidence, however, tells me there is a creator because I have witnessed the result and live among the created.

[Marconius]

Quote by: Bob652 We do, however, consider the weight of the evidence, and at times attempt to bring it to close minded ,antagonistic, offensive and often sarcastic individuals who will not be frank enough to admit that thay can in no way prove us wrong.

Prove I am not Jesus, or Santa, or a multiple personality of yourself. No one would expect you to have to disprove the above. Why would you expect us to disprove your unproven claims?

[Bob652]

Quote by: Marconius Prove I am not Jesus, or Santa, or a multiple personality of yourself. No one would expect you to have to disprove the above. Why would you expect us to disprove your unproven claims?

Well, Marconius, that may take a little more time than I am willing to give you; but I can nevertheless assist you in the very important task of determining if you are or aren't Jesus.
Follow these steps.
1. Go to the top of the tallest mountain you can find.
2. Find the nearest cliff.
3.jump off.
If you are Jesus command the angels to rescue your ass as you are as gravity freely propells you at absolutely no charge at all, and without any need for fuel. If they do than you are Jesus. If they don't your ass is grass.
If this test of divinity does not suit your fancy. Try this other one.
Take a cruise out to sea on the best luxury liner you can afford. When you get so far out that you can no longer see land, jump off. If you can walk back, then you are Jesus. If you can't, you better hope someone who really is is still willing to carry you water weary ass past the pearly gates.
It's worth a try.
I wish you the best of luck.
God bless

[Bob652]

Quote by: Bob652 Well, Marconius, that may take a little more time than I am willing to give you; but I can nevertheless assist you in the very important task of determining if you are or aren't Jesus. Follow these steps. 1. Go to the top of the tallest mountain you can find. 2. Find the nearest cliff. 3.jump off. If you are Jesus command the angels to rescue your ass as you are as gravity freely propells you at absolutely no charge at all, and without any need for fuel. If they do than you are Jesus. If they don't your ass is grass. If this test of divinity does not suit your fancy. Try this other one. Take a cruise out to sea on the best luxury liner you can afford. When you get so far out that you can no longer see land, jump off. If you can walk back, then you are Jesus. If you can't, you better hope someone who really is is still willing to carry you water weary ass past the pearly gates. It's worth a try. I wish you the best of luck. God bless

That was great advise Bob.

[Bob652]

Quote by: Bob652 That was great advise Bob.

Thank you

[rez]

Quote by: Bob652 Because yours has never been able to answer the question any better.

The hypothesis that life occurs naturally has paid off. This hypothesis has lead to many new discoveries and knowledge.

At least mine makes sense.

Not according to progress that has been made over the past 100 years in the field of science.

Can you tell me how the universe was created?

Nope, but that doesnt mean I throw away any natural explanations that can answer that question.

You can not prove that the idea that I presented on creation is wrong.

I don't feel like informing you why this sentence is wrong. Another poster already informed you.

When you get down to the nitty gritty where did it all come from? Who created life? Who created the elements? Science can't even hope to get that far down the line.

That sounds like a giant leap of faith on your part. Biologists are continuing the study on how to create life and what the conditions are to do this. Please note that these scientists are not figuring out how to create life based on the fact that a creator designed life, but that natural conditions created life.

That however doesn't stop some people from totally dismissing the distinct possibility, if not probability, that there is a Creator. In this particular topic, if you don't know what the answer is you won't know for sure what it is not. The weight of the evidence, however, tells me there is a creator because I have witnessed the result and live among the created.

This is purely superstition and not worth a cent in a philosophical debate. You sound selfish and not interested at all in explaining how reality works.

[Bob652]

Quote by: rez The hypothesis that life occurs naturally has paid off. This hypothesis has lead to many new discoveries and knowledge. Not according to progress that has been made over the past 100 years in the field of science. Nope, but that doesnt mean I throw away any natural explanations that can answer that question. I don't feel like informing you why this sentence is wrong. Another poster already informed you. That sounds like a giant leap of faith on your part. Biologists are continuing the study on how to create life and what the conditions are to do this. Please note that these scientists are not figuring out how to create life based on the fact that a creator designed life, but that natural conditions created life. This is purely superstition and not worth a cent in a philosophical debate. You sound selfish and not interested at all in explaining how reality works.

I may sound selfish but you sound ignorant to me.

[rez]

Quote by: Bob652 I may sound selfish but you sound ignorant to me.

Care to refute my stance? Show me that you want to explain reality in the most honest way. What kind of evidence would it take for you to see that the universe was not designed?

[Marconius]

Quote by: Bob652 Well, Marconius, that may take a little more time than I am willing to give you; but I can nevertheless assist you in the very important task of determining if you are or aren't Jesus. Follow these steps. 1. Go to the top of the tallest mountain you can find. 2. Find the nearest cliff. 3.jump off. If you are Jesus command the angels to rescue your ass as you are as gravity freely propells you at absolutely no charge at all, and without any need for fuel. If they do than you are Jesus. If they don't your ass is grass. If this test of divinity does not suit your fancy. Try this other one. Take a cruise out to sea on the best luxury liner you can afford. When you get so far out that you can no longer see land, jump off. If you can walk back, then you are Jesus. If you can't, you better hope someone who really is is still willing to carry you water weary ass past the pearly gates. It's worth a try. I wish you the best of luck. God bless

I did as you suggested and died but being Jesus I was resurrected. Now it is your turn to prove I wasn't, go.

Do you see what I did here? I can come up with thousands of reasons why I really am Jesus and if we go by the 'can you prove me wrong?', system it will be very improbable that you will ever succeed. That is why I wouldn't expect someone to believe this unless I had something to show beside text.

I am not really Jesus, I am just showing how stupid things would get if we subjected everything to this method. A better method would require me to show evidence and for everyone to disregard my claim until I do.

Science shows evidence for why it is correct, religion expects people to bring evidence to show it is incorrect. That is why it is worse than science for describing the world around us, its methodology is flawed.

[Jack]

The unnecessary rhetoric about swirls and random patterns is neither here nor there

You claim to see designs in nature that lead you to believe in a designer. Design is a perception. What is a design to you is randomness to another. If design were an indication of a designer, shouldn't the concept be more concrete, more universally understood and consistent?

your effort to equate belief in God with the illusion of absolute knowlegge is nonsensicle and unfair

Do you not believe your god is the ultimate truth, the alpha and omega, all that is and ever was? Do you mean that Christians don't believe that god has all the answers, that god is all the answers?

Please be assured that there are millions of intelligent people who believe in God, admittedly without any more absolute knowledge than you, and are not at all inclined to cease questioning or asking intelligent questions.

And there are plenty of intelligent people who don't believe. No one is perfectly intelligent. Even geniuses are subject to the influence of memes.

We do, however, consider the weight of the evidence, and at times attempt to bring it to close minded ,antagonistic, offensive and often sarcastic individuals who will not be frank enough to admit that thay can in no way prove us wrong.

Being offended by those with contrary opinions to yours is an issue of perception I can't help you with. I do think it's nonsensical to call those who have considered your opinion and dismissed it as close-minded. As long as believers cannot prove they're right, I don't have to bother proving them wrong. The lack of evidence for theistic belief is sufficient as an indictment.