God: Misinterpreted as an extraterrestrial?

[lucent]

Let's just examine this question:

Was the Universe deliberately created?

Now, I happen to think that it takes a lot more faith to think that this all just came about by accident than not. It may be a fallacy to say it, but could anything so amazing and wonderful just happen on its own? Or does the majesty of creation have the creators fingerprints on it? That's why I was an agnostic previous to this, because I knew the limitations of knowledge and the subjective nature of our limited perceptions. However, I think you can come to some reasonable conclusions right off the bat.

Science tells us the Universe had a beginning. More specifically, that time space and matter had a beginning. Therefore, whatever caused the Universe to exist is timeless, immaterial and transcendent. Right away you have the facts of the matter matching up to attributes of deity. You add a mind to that and you have a God. It isn't implausible to suggest this is true, just from our observation of the Universe itself.

There are certain features of our Universe which speak to design. For instance, the evidence of fine tuning. Such as the 40 or so values that have to be just right for anything to form or life to existence. Science attempts to explain away the evidence of fine tuning by postulating multiple universes, saying the extreme mathematical uncertainty is probable once you have infinite Universes..but not only is there no evidence for that, but it just pushes the necessity of a Creator back a step; in fact it necessitates it even more because now you have to explain the fine tuning of an infinite Universe generator.

You also have the presence of information, such as what is found in DNA molecules. DNA is a genetic language of encoded information, even having its own grammar and semantics. It has the same properties as a computer code. Natural selection and random mutation cannot explain it away.

It is something that has to be considered beyond the medium it is carried in. Information is not the same as matter and energy. The information in a book is not the same as the material that makes up the book. The book itself, the paper and ink, are just the medium to carry the information. You could take what is in a book and put it on a disk, or speak it aloud, and it would remain the same. The message itself has an independent existence from the physical medium. Just as the DNA molecule is the medium, but not the message. This type of high level information originates only in a mind.

I also believe that logic demonstrates that there must be an eternal first cause. I think we can probably agree that something doesn't come from nothing. This means, that if there were at any point "nothing", something could never arise. Therefore, there always had to be something. That means that the first cause of everything is eternal and uncaused. Again, this speaks to the account of an eternal God.

I see people talk about skepticism quite a bit, but it isn't true skepticism...true skepticism is to be skeptical of all of it, not just what gets you out of responsibility to a higher power. That kind of skepticism is just religious skepticism, not philosophical skepticism. Many people who think of themselves as skeptics take the claims of empiricism on blind faith. Many dont't realize that science is a philosophical discipline which is predicated on empiricism. The interpretation of scientific data is in itself highly subjective, and all of it stems from natural philosophy.

So, in any case, these are just some of the reasons I consider the existence of God highly probable.

Cutting away your bias towards religion, why do you think it is so implausible the Universe was created by a higher power?

No evidence, no credibility, no explanatory power and no value. Got some pretty good reasons to reject the whole religious thing.

Do you honestly believe this is all an accident?

I don't know. But just because I don't know doesn't mean a god did it. I won't jump to conclusions like you have.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Was the Universe deliberately created?

I don't know,but do not believe so (lack of credible evidence)

Now, I happen to think that it takes a lot more faith to think that this all just came about by accident.

Geez,that's twice in the two posts I've read this morning. The other is a dogmatic Muslim. You both use the same basic logical fallacy;argument from personal incredulity/argument from lack of imagination.

For the sake of consistency, I need to explain it to you as I did to him:

A person using that argument is actually saying: "I'm too ignorant,too lacking in imagination or to stupid to think of anything else,and too arrogant or fearful to say "I don't know',therefore god did it"

Can't bothered replying to any more of badly thought out,unoriginal apologist drivel. Most of us have actually have heard ALL of your arguments many times and refuted them many times

The reason I can't be bothered is that attacking your arguments with with reason, logic and evidence will change nothing. Why should it? Those tools have not been used to form or maintain your beliefs. However, the main reason is indifference.: I really don't give a rat's bum about your personal superstitions and corkscrew logic, as long as you stay out of my face.

PS congrats on the hilariously ironic name "Lucent"; latin root ; "lucere=bright,radiant.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

PPS,sorry, couldn't resist:

I also believe that logic demonstrates that there must be an eternal first cause.

Yes indeed it can,however a logical inference is true if and only if the premise is also true. Logical does NOT=true as a general principle.


Video by physicist Lawrence Krauss,NOTE: I make no truth claims.I merely present a view contra to the dogma "nothing comes from nothing"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[Rev. Rye]

Many times I feel that in the old testament, God has been misinterpreted as an extraterrestrial. But not all the time.

For example, when God "walks with" or "personally visits" someone, I feel this was probably an extraterrestrial who was more or less a messenger of God. I certainly feel that these extraterrestrials obviously have a higher understanding of God, thus they were able to reiterate God's message.

As for proof of extra terrestrials, I certainly feel that the worldly legends of such beings like "the annunaki" and the increase in sightings of UFO's indicates that we are not alone in the universe. Not to mention how expansive the Universe is, I highly doubt we are the only life in such a grand expanse. When you consider that scientists confirmed the finding of other planets similar to earth, I certainly feel that it's very hard to deny the possibility of life on other planets.

[lucent]

Now, I happen to think that it takes a lot more faith to think that this all just came about by accident than not. It may be a fallacy to say it, but could anything so amazing and wonderful just happen on its own? Or does the majesty of creation have the creators fingerprints on it

I was just espousing my belief, not predicating an argument upon it. As you can see, I noted it was a fallacious argument. So, you think using Ad Homs against me is any less fallacious? This is your own argument from personal incredulity. I mean it's amusing you interjected just to tell me you don't care, then go on to say that I am intellectual deficient and even to denigrate my choice of nickname. Fairly petty, I have to say. Is this the way you introduce yourself to people?

If this is an example of the truth you represent then even if you were right I would still reject it on the basis of the personality it has generated within you. In any case, insulting me isn't an argument, so if you have anything to offer beyond your cheerful disposition, feel free. To say there was nothing in my post worth responding to shows your deficiency, not mine.

Watch a lot of Star Trek as a child?

Yes indeed it can,however a logical inference is true if and only if the premise is also true. Logical does NOT=true as a general principle.

PLUS with the notion of dark matter,comes the argument of a universe from nothing .IE no prime cause

Ahh, you did include something. The idea of mr. Krauss violates scientific law, specifically the laws of thermodynamics:

http://www.physicsplanet.com/articles/th...modynamics

So, to say the idea is rooted in dogma is incorrect. Science itself affirms you cannot get something from nothing.

Was the Universe deliberately created?

I don't know,but do not believe so (lack of credible evidence)

Now, I happen to think that it takes a lot more faith to think that this all just came about by accident.

Geez,that's twice in the two posts I've read this morning. The other is a dogmatic Muslim. You both use the same basic logical fallacy;argument from personal incredulity/argument from lack of imagination.

For the sake of consistency, I need to explain it to you as I did to him:

A person using that argument is actually saying: "I'm too ignorant,too lacking in imagination or to stupid to think of anything else,and too arrogant or fearful to say "I don't know',therefore god did it"

Can't bothered replying to any more of badly thought out,unoriginal apologist drivel. Most of us have actually have heard ALL of your arguments many times and refuted them many times

The reason I can't be bothered is that attacking your arguments with with reason, logic and evidence will change nothing. Why should it? Those tools have not been used to form or maintain your beliefs. However, the main reason is indifference.: I really don't give a rat's bum about your personal superstitions and corkscrew logic, as long as you stay out of my face.

PS congrats on the hilariously ironic name "Lucent"; latin root ; "lucere=bright,radiant.

PPS,sorry, couldn't resist:

I also believe that logic demonstrates that there must be an eternal first cause.

Watch a lot of Star Trek as a child?

Yes indeed it can,however a logical inference is true if and only if the premise is also true. Logical does NOT=true as a general principle.

PLUS with the notion of dark matter,comes the argument of a universe from nothing .IE no prime cause


Video by physicist Lawrence Krauss,NOTE: I make no truth claims.I merely present a view contra to the dogma "nothing comes from nothing"

[The Grand Nudger]

Let's just examine this question:

How about we examine some evidence. You have thoughts, excellent, I believe that you have thoughts. Now let's see some evidence.

Also, for about the billionth time on just this forum...the universe came from "we don't know". God or Nothing is not a fair representation of our options is it. Please stop repeating this shit because it makes my head heard every single time someone says it.

[Cyberman]

I have never understood why those silly "it takes more faith to be an atheist"-type arguments are meant to be so compelling. The only people I've ever encountered that use it are the same ones who, when pressed, insist that their beliefs are and can only be a matter of faith. It seems that 'faith' is one of those strange weasel words - a virtue if I use it, but an idiocy if used by others.

[Ace Otana]

Let's just examine this question:

Was the Universe deliberately created?

Now, I happen to think that it takes a lot more faith to think that this all just came about by accident than not.

We don't know where it all came from, not you not me. WE DON'T KNOW! It's just one us isn't afraid to admit that. I won't jump to 'goddidit' just because I don't know. There is no faith in 'I don't know'. You're the one taking things on faith. I'm stating the obvious and what's true at this point in time. I always stick to Occam's razer. State the obvious, stick to the simple till there is evidence for the more complex. Stick to explanations requiring the fewest assumptions (which I have).

Every time you ask me where the universe came from, I shall continue to answer with a "I don't know."
Until we have some idea with evidence of where it all came from, I'm going to stick to what is true right now at this point in time. Which is - I have no idea, and I won't pretend otherwise.

I have never understood why those silly "it takes more faith to be an atheist"-type arguments are meant to be so compelling.

Pathetic isn't it? How can it take faith to not believe in something? Often they use special pleading to try and argue out of it. But you can't argue out of something with a fallacy.

[Faith No More]

I have never understood why those silly "it takes more faith to be an atheist"-type arguments are meant to be so compelling. The only people I've ever encountered that use it are the same ones who, when pressed, insist that their beliefs are and can only be a matter of faith. It seems that 'faith' is one of those strange weasel words - a virtue if I use it, but an idiocy if used by others.

That's because they know faith is a dirty word to atheists, and and when theists are afraid to propose valid reasons for their own beliefs, they try to accuse us of the same unsubstantiated thought process. It's the same ploy as intolerant people saying an unwillingness to tolerate their intolerance means you are intolerant too.

I think a big part of it is that many theists believe that atheists feel they have answered all of life's questions naturally, but what they don't understand is that we are just unwilling to use a lack of knowledge and understanding as a stepping stone for an argument for god. How that takes faith is beyond me.

[fr0d0]

Interesting points lucent, not that I'd quite agree with your conclusions, but I have no arguments against it, beyond contradiction, which seems the best we've achieved here so far.

Science tells us the Universe had a beginning. More specifically, that time space and matter had a beginning. Therefore, whatever caused the Universe to exist is timeless, immaterial and transcendent

Does science tell us that? One theory does. Some posit a re-occurring start point [don't they?]. And how do you conclude that this must have been "timeless, immaterial and transcendant"?

[personally: I believe this, but I also believe that this cannot be independantly verifiable]

I am also unconvinced by the fine tuning arguments. Chance is it did happen. A slim chance but a successful one. Although I do understand that logical order is intrinsic to the natural world and God fit's.

[Stucky]

Oh my dear tap-dancing frog Jesus.

One thing at a time.

Okay, let's start with implants. Where's the evidence?

I know you don't believe in God or Jesus but must you slander His name like that? I wouldn't use such sarcasm against your beliefs.