I can understand the hostility to religious people who get in your face and tell you to turn or burn. Those people drive me nuts. In my case I'm not offering any salvation or condemnation. I'm not preaching to anyone, I'm not quoting scripture. I haven't been involved in any organized religion in close to 20 years. All I'm doing is defending why I claim the universe was intentionally caused to exist by a Creator. I have pointed to known facts which support my claim. Interesting I get virtually no responses detailing the facts and reasons why atheists believe the universe and life came about without the aid of a Creator. Mostly they defend their claim by relentlessly bashing any theist ideas. It always sounds so personal. Often animus and rancor is involved. I tend to throw it back. 

Isn't it true that neither theists or atheists know for a fact what they think is true, is true? Isn't it a bit goofy to be getting our hackles up over an issue both sides concede is unknown? Is it plausible the universe came about unwittingly like all the natural things we see around us? Sure. Is it ironclad fool proof that happened? No because no one actually knows how the universe came into existence. No one knows what it takes to cause a universe or exactly what it takes to cause life. 
 
I don't declare its a fact our existence was intentionally caused. I certainly could be wrong. Its an opinion not based on faith, but on the known facts. It could be true we live in a multiverse and if some direct confirmation comes forth, I would have to tip my hat to those who claimed as much. It would explain the most puzzling fact we know about the universe. That it takes a lot of just so properties, conditions just for stars, solar systems, planets and galaxies to obtain. It seems most atheists I run into don't care for multiverse theory despite the impressive number of reputable scientists who often talk about it as a matter of fact. I'm guessing two reasons. One, they don't concede (or don't want to concede) that the universe is on the absolute razors edge of being life friendly. Not just life friendly but having stars, galaxies and planets. They don't want to believe in something minus direct evidence. 

Likewise few atheists give the simulation hypothesis much attention after all it too would involve intelligent design. I'm not onboard either but I can't flat out reject it. Our own simulations get closer to mimicking reality that they can't be distinguished from reality. With the exponential power in computing in another 50-100 years scientists will probably be able to create virtual people who aren't aware they are virtual and live in a virtual habitat. Amusingly enough those virtual people will no doubt question if there existence was intentionally caused or was unintentionally caused by 'natural forces'. If that happens would atheists concede that reality was intentionally caused to exist?

Speaking for myself, I’m not ‘hostile’ to the idea. I simply reject it because there are better explanations and arguments for a non-deliberately created universe.

I do, however, admit to being hostile to you. Your argument seems to be based on misrepresentation of what science and scientists have to say, you make up your own definitions for words, you deflect when asked questions, and you reject the facts presented to you. Your arguments are weak, logically flawed, and poorly presented.

Since one of my colleagues asked that we refrain from name-calling, I’ll leave it at that.

Boru

So after failing for over 60 pages on one thread you decide to essentially repeat the same nonsense on a separate thread so you can fail all over again 

This is what we call the backpedal. We've seen it before too.

Frankly, I don’t really care too much about the issue of a creator in and of itself. If there’s a better explanation for a given issue, it’s not really worth a much more than a rebuttal and maybe a few laughs. The real problem comes when people use that belief in a creator and use it to hurt people. And we’ve got LOADS of examples of that happening.

Why are you hostile to accepting FSM as your lord and savior?

RAmen

I'm not hostile to the idea of a creator. I disagree with your conclusion based on your many errors of reasoning. I feel a distinct antipathy towards you based on your rudeness and lack of integrity.

Don't worry, you'll live.

(April 14, 2025 at 2:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I can understand the hostility to religious people who get in your face and tell you to turn or burn. Those people drive me nuts. In my case I'm not offering any salvation or condemnation. I'm not preaching to anyone, I'm not quoting scripture. I haven't been involved in any organized religion in close to 20 years. All I'm doing is defending why I claim the universe was intentionally caused to exist by a Creator. I have pointed to known facts which support my claim. Interesting I get virtually no responses detailing the facts and reasons why atheists believe the universe and life came about without the aid of a Creator. Mostly they defend their claim by relentlessly bashing any theist ideas. It always sounds so personal. Often animus and rancor is involved. I tend to throw it back. 

First, religious ideas have a very bad track record when it comes to science.

Second, several people have challenged whether your facts are really facts at all.  I have also mentioned, several times, that the God-concept fails for a whole series of other reasons even before the cosmological argument is considered.

Third, we have offered facts supporting the idea that the universe and life came about without a Creator: the billions of years which must pass before life arises, the hostility of most of the universe to life, the disproportionate numbers of allegedly less-consequential lifeforms, and so on.  None of that speaks of a Creator with the intentions you believe he has.  In other words, it is not just the existence of the universe you have to look at, but its properties as well to prove your case.  Those are the other reasons the God-concept fails even before we consider the origin of the universe.  The God-concept can't meet the demands of a scientific theory because it is wildly uneconomical for explaining what we already observe.

(April 14, 2025 at 2:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Isn't it true that neither theists or atheists know for a fact what they think is true, is true? Isn't it a bit goofy to be getting our hackles up over an issue both sides concede is unknown? Is it plausible the universe came about unwittingly like all the natural things we see around us? Sure. Is it ironclad fool proof that happened? No because no one actually knows how the universe came into existence. No one knows what it takes to cause a universe or exactly what it takes to cause life.

 
The origin of the universe is an open question, but those of us who have read some of the science surrounding the question feel confident that we can eliminate God from among the possibilities, for the reasons mentioned above among many others.

(April 14, 2025 at 2:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I don't declare its a fact our existence was intentionally caused. I certainly could be wrong. Its an opinion not based on faith, but on the known facts. It could be true we live in a multiverse and if some direct confirmation comes forth, I would have to tip my hat to those who claimed as much. It would explain the most puzzling fact we know about the universe. That it takes a lot of just so properties, conditions just for stars, solar systems, planets and galaxies to obtain. It seems most atheists I run into don't care for multiverse theory despite the impressive number of reputable scientists who often talk about it as a matter of fact. I'm guessing two reasons. One, they don't concede (or don't want to concede) that the universe is on the absolute razors edge of being life friendly. Not just life friendly but having stars, galaxies and planets. They don't want to believe in something minus direct evidence. 

I personally think that there are certain bio-friendly properties of our universe which require further explanation.  However, they might only be explained by scientists whose methods just might be up to the challenge -- not by you or me or any arm-chair philosophers.  For one thing, the math is far too complex for laypeople.

(April 14, 2025 at 2:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Likewise few atheists give the simulation hypothesis much attention after all it too would involve intelligent design. I'm not onboard either but I can't flat out reject it. Our own simulations get closer to mimicking reality that they can't be distinguished from reality. With the exponential power in computing in another 50-100 years scientists will probably be able to create virtual people who aren't aware they are virtual and live in a virtual habitat. Amusingly enough those virtual people will no doubt question if there existence was intentionally caused or was unintentionally caused by 'natural forces'. If that happens would atheists concede that reality was intentionally caused to exist?

I think the evidence supports the idea that consciousness is an evolved brain function serving the purposes of a body.  I don't believe it could be created by a machine of any kind, only a simulation could be created by a machine.  Since I know I am conscious some of the time, I conclude that I am also quite real.

(April 14, 2025 at 3:33 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Speaking for myself, I’m not ‘hostile’ to the idea. I simply reject it because there are better explanations and arguments for a non-deliberately created universe.

What are they? Most atheists I've encountered here and elsewhere only engage in relentless attacks of God or a Creator and therefore submit naturedidit. The argument seems to be we don't know how the universe came into existence but it did and then fortuitously it caused all the circumstances necessary for human life to exist no god necessary. That may seem like a tall glass of water buts its more sensible than thinking the universe was intentionally caused to exist.

Quote:I do, however, admit to being hostile to you.

That's perfectly understandable. You wouldn't be the first. 

Quote: Your argument seems to be based on misrepresentation of what science and scientists have to say, you make up your own definitions for words, you deflect when asked questions, and you reject the facts presented to you. Your arguments are weak, logically flawed, and poorly presented.

You mean the claim that 81% of Americans believe is true is the flawed one? I list 5 facts that persuade me (and I believe most people) that we owe our existence to a Creator. I don't even rule out the possibility the Creator is a scientist in another universe.

1. The fact the universe exists
2. The  fact  life  exists
3. The  fact  intelligent  life  exists.
4. The  fact  the  universe  has  laws  of  physics,  is  knowable,  uniform  and  to  a  large  extent  predictable,  amenable  to  scientific  research  and  the  laws  of  logic  deduction  and  induction  and  is  also  explicable  in  mathematical  terms.
5. The fact that in order for intelligent humans to exist requires a myriad of exacting conditions including causing the ingredients for life to exist from scratch.

These are the facts any hypothesis or theory hopes to explain. At some point everyone asks themselves why is there something rather than nothing? How did life begin? How did a planet that allows our existence come to be? Because the universe exists, earth exists and we humans exist, it raises the question was our existence intentionally caused or the result of happenstance? Isn't that a reasonable question? If we could observe another universe and saw it was chaotic and lifeless no one would suggest it was intentionally caused. In our universe intelligent life does exist and the universe is not entirely chaotic. Its dominated by laws of physics which we can trace back to being the cause of our existence. Do you agree or disagree we owe our very existence to the laws of physics? 

Theism is a hypothesis that seeks to explain the 5 observations. Atheism isn't an attempt to explain the 5 observations its mostly just a repudiation of the theist hypothesis. That's probably the reason why its not very popular. Even if one decides a Creator doesn't exist we're still left with an unsatisfactory answer to the 5 questions. Naturedidit for no reason and its none of your business anyway.

If I were arguing in favor of atheism, I'd use a much lighter approach. I wouldn't disparage belief in a Creator. Why should I? I don't know for a fact it only took natural forces to cause a life creating universe. Nobody knows that. As for the universe I'd say its a black box how it came about and we have to accept it as a brute given. I'd probably argue some laws of physics would emerge in any universe and we're fortunate to be in one that allowed our existence. I'd point to evolution as an explanation for how life once started became more complex. I would point to multiverse as a potential solution to our universe having precise properties for life to exist. The fact this universe exists is evidence other universes exist.

(April 14, 2025 at 3:34 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: So after failing for over 60 pages on one thread you decide to essentially repeat the same nonsense on a separate thread so you can fail all over again 

I don't measure failure by what the loyal opposition thinks. If I was failing it wouldn't go on for 60 pages.