Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

[pood]

Do you think gravity is caused by “intelligent falling?”

 

[pood]

God can create any sort of particles He wants.

He can also create any sort of brain cancer that kills innocent little children who did nothing to bring on their fate, right?

 

[pood]

Hit the wrong button, doubling posts I guess.

 

[pood]

double post.

 

[pood]

The more general question is this: Is there any creative, causative act in nature that occurs without foresight, intent, plan, or, God’s will? If there is, name what they are.

 

[bilby]

Humans deliberately copying another caused event is a natural process.

Humans deliberately copying an event thought to have happened in the past, to determine whether it actually can have happened or not, is a natural process.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

No, it observably is NOT.

Here. I'll repeat it.

"Humans deliberately copying another caused event is a natural process."

If you genuinely cannot tell the difference between...

"Humans deliberately copying an event thought to have happened in the past, to determine whether it actually can have happened or not, is a natural process".

... and ...

"Humans deliberately copying another caused event is a natural process".

... then you definitely need to consult a neurologist.

Describing that event in the past as "caused" is just the logical fallacy of assuming your preferred conclusion.

There's no logical fallacy in thinking your conclusion is correct.

No, but there is in assuming that your conclusion is correct, and using it as a premise. As you are doing here.

But your conspicuous lack of arguments for unpredictable, spontaneous, uncaused events tells me a lot about your assumed preferences.

I have made conspicuous and explicit arguments against unpredictable, spontaneous, uncaused events, in recent conversations to which you were an active contributor.

Firstly, who said it is a "god". A creator would be a creator. Computer, upper level existence, some blind set of circumstances.

You can use whatever placeholder word for Creator you like.

So you are using the word "creator" instead of "god". That does make more sense.

Well, that depends. In the context of "everything" a creator makes no sense regardless, because any creator would have to be a part of "everything", and so must either be eternal, or have sprung into existence spontaneously.

If things can spring into existence spontaneously, we need not bother to posit a creator; We can simplify by positing the spontaneous existence of matter/energy.

And if things that are eternal are real, we need not bother to posit a creator; We can simplify by positing an eternal existence of matter/energy.

If it is impossible for things to be eternal, AND it is impossible for things to spontaneously begin from nothing, then it is impossible for anything to exist - including any "creator(s)".

I find it comical that most people want to demand to have a satisfying conclusion regarding origins. The reality is, however, we don't know. We don't have a clue. And that's okay.

It is okay not to know, but it's not true that we don't have a clue. The first law of thermodynamics is a strong hint that mass/energy is probably eternal.

You should definitely mention the memory issues while you are speaking to that neurologist. Perhaps write that down so you don't forget.

 

[pood]

Are thunder and lighting created by Thor banging his hammer on clouds? Or is that wrong just because the hammer banger is not the Great I Yam?

 

[Jarhyn]

it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.

Yes, deliberately copying another caused event does seem like a win for the idea that events are deliberately caused rather than spontaneous.

So you DO feel that the word “create” excludes natural processes and hence, contrary to your claim, no one made a straw man of your position at all. Got it. And, of course, taking note of your straw man, natural causation and creation is not (necessarily) spontaneous, though there are those pesky virtual particles …

It's as if he doesn't understand what "deliberate" means in this context.

Creating a board and rolling a billion sided dice does not count as deliberate selection of the result.

 

[Learner]

So, according to you, God creates everything. When hydrogen and oxygen atoms stick together to create water, is God moving the two together between thumb and index finger? Or not? Does God, or his delegated angels, push the planets and moons together to orbit each other and the sun?

(Another religion sector?)

Christians born in the modern world would describe in today's language and pov that the universe is operating on systematic mechanical means. We include 'natural' being the systematic process - running on automation e.g. God creates a sophisticated clock, winds it up then it runs by itself.

Genesis 1:14-16
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.

Psalms 104:
19 He made the moon for the seasons;
The sun knows the place of its setting.

(note the bible implies these lights are not gods, as other beliefs do, hence the false gods narrative etc.)

 

[pood]

So, according to you, God creates everything. When hydrogen and oxygen atoms stick together to create water, is God moving the two together between thumb and index finger? Or not? Does God, or his delegated angels, push the planets and moons together to orbit each other and the sun?

(Another religion sector?)

Christians born in the modern world would describe in today's language and pov that the universe is operating on systematic mechanical means. We include 'natural' being the systematic process - running on automation e.g. God creates a sophisticated clock, winds it up then it runs by itself.

Genesis 1:14-16
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.

Psalms 104:
19 He made the moon for the seasons;
The sun knows the place of its setting.

(note the bible implies these lights are not gods, as other beliefs do, hence the false gods narrative etc.)

OK. So that sounds like a deistic god. Unless of course God intervenes every now and then to perform a miracle, like the resurrection. Is that your view?

 

[bilby]

Christians born in the modern world would describe in today's language and pov that the universe is operating on systematic mechanical means. We include 'natural' being the systematic process - running on automation e.g. God creates a sophisticated clock, winds it up then it runs by itself.

So, you are saying that Christians born in the modern world will be at least a century out of date in their understanding of physics?

I mean, I don't really disagree in general, most people (whether Christian or not) are woefully uneducated and have no grasp of the revolution in physics that occurred in the twentieth century; But there are a number of modern physicists who are also Christians, and I am sure that they would consider your position here to be highly insulting.

 

[pood]

Christians born in the modern world would describe in today's language and pov that the universe is operating on systematic mechanical means. We include 'natural' being the systematic process - running on automation e.g. God creates a sophisticated clock, winds it up then it runs by itself.

So, you are saying that Christians born in the modern world will be at least a century out of date in their understanding of physics?

I mean, I don't really disagree in general, most people (whether Christian or not) are woefully uneducated and have no grasp of the revolution in physics that occurred in the twentieth century; But there are a number of modern physicists who are also Christians, and I am sure that they would consider your position here to be highly insulting.

Well that’s OK, at least he is a century out of date as opposed to pre-Socratic, as Lion seems to be. I wonder where quantum mechanics and a dice-playing God fits in his metaphysics. Be that as it may, I’m trying to focus on stuff like, is there any Christian here who agrees, for example, that evolution is OK? Because the Catholic Church, for example, does —with the addendum that somehow and for some reason God “ensouled” humans when they arose. But this is better than my recent brief foray at CARM, where when I mentioned to some “biblical believing Christian” that Catholic doctrine accepted evolution, he snorted, “Catholics aren’t true Christians.” You can’t make this shit up. It’s just too bizarre.

 

[Lion IRC]

it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.

Yes, deliberately copying another caused event does seem like a win for the idea that events are deliberately caused rather than spontaneous.

So you DO feel that the word “create” excludes natural processes

No.

Humans deliberately copying another caused event is a natural process.

It would be nice if you would stop slipping around, moving goalposts and otherwise dodging the issue.

Evolution by means of natural selection, genetic drift and other factors involves no creator at all, not God, not intelligent design. Do you agree that these things happen, and do so without intelligent design, foresight, or intent? Yes or no?

and hence, contrary to your claim, no one made a straw man of your position at all.

No. They made a strawman of someone ELSE'S position.

Thats what a strawman is. You take someone elses position and knock it down mistakenly thinking that you've knocked down my position

I dont think that the word "create" excludes natural processes.

But you just DEFINED a natural process as “humans copying another caused event,” which is true..

No I didn't. You're not very good at using the quote function. Where did I define natural processes as being solely exclusive to humans?
Animals create stuff. They copy and mimic stuff all the time. They are natural.

...the question at hand is, do you think the word “create” can involve non-intelligent, non-supernatural, non-intended outcomes? Yes or no?

Why would an uncaused, unintended, spontaneous event need a creator? Why would a past-eternal thing need a creator?
If the universe has always existed it wasnt created. If life on earth arose spontaneously and/or inevitably thats called time plus chance.

And whatever the unpredictable circumstances were that lead up to that spontaneous event, they too were inevitable and unpredictable. So nothing created it. It just happened all by itself.

Thats not created/creation.

...natural causation and creation is not (necessarily) spontaneous

I know. Thats what I've been saying.

No, you haven’t.

Yes I have.
(Gainsaying is fun isnt it.)

...though there are those pesky virtual particles …

They aren't pesky.
God can create any sort of particles He wants.

So, according to you, God creates everything.

Nope.
Did you miss the part where I said humans can deliberately copy and re-create stuff?

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes, You should definitely mention the memory issues while you are speaking to that neurologist. Perhaps write that down so you don't forget.

Adding you to the list.
Bye

 

[pood]

it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.

Yes, deliberately copying another caused event does seem like a win for the idea that events are deliberately caused rather than spontaneous.

So you DO feel that the word “create” excludes natural processes

No.

Humans deliberately copying another caused event is a natural process.

It would be nice if you would stop slipping around, moving goalposts and otherwise dodging the issue.

Evolution by means of natural selection, genetic drift and other factors involves no creator at all, not God, not intelligent design. Do you agree that these things happen, and do so without intelligent design, foresight, or intent? Yes or no?

and hence, contrary to your claim, no one made a straw man of your position at all.

No. They made a strawman of someone ELSE'S position.

Thats what a strawman is. You take someone elses position and knock it down mistakenly thinking that you've knocked down my position

I dont think that the word "create" excludes natural processes.

But you just DEFINED a natural process as “humans copying another caused event,” which is true..

No I didn't. You're not very good at using the quote function. Where did I define natural processes as being solely exclusive to humans?
Animals create stuff. They copy and mimic stuff all the time. They are natural.

Oh, please. I didn’t say you said “solely.”

...the question at hand is, do you think the word “create” can involve non-intelligent, non-supernatural, non-intended outcomes? Yes or no?

Why would an uncaused, unintended, spontaneous event need a creator?

I doesn’t.

Why would a past-eternal thing need a creator?

It doesn’t.

If the universe has always existed it wasnt created. If life on earth arose spontaneously and/or inevitably thats called time plus chance.

Right.

And whatever the unpredictable circumstances were that lead up to that spontaneous event, they too were inevitable and unpredictable. So nothing created it. It just happened all by itself.

Thats not created/creation.

I wouldn’t say they were “inevitable,” and “spontaneous” is a bit of tendentious word in this context, but substantially, that’s it. This is the universe as we observe it to be. If you have evidence that all of the above is wrong, produce it.

...natural causation and creation is not (necessarily) spontaneous

I know. Thats what I've been saying.

No, you haven’t.

Yes I have.
(Gainsaying is fun isnt it.)

...though there are those pesky virtual particles …

They aren't pesky.
God can create any sort of particles He wants.

So, according to you, God creates everything.

Nope.
Did you miss the part where I said humans can deliberately copy and re-create stuff?

But God created humans, according to you, and God created stuff, according to you, and God created humans with the ability to deliberately copy and re-create the stuff that God created, according to you. Hence, according to you, God must ultimately be responsible for everything, even if indirectly, according to your own logic.

Now, is God responsible for brain cancer that kills young, innocent children? If not, why not? If so, how can such a God be morally perfect? It would be monstrous to let a kid die of brain cancer if you have the means to prevent it, as God does, according to you, since God, according to you, is omnipotent.

 

[Elixir]

Now, is God responsible for brain cancer that kills young, innocent children? If not, why not?

Are you really desiring another list of proximate causes of horrors for which fundies hold their skydaddy harmless?

Do you expect that the hypocrisy of that stance will be resolved by the fundy apologetic response?

Wake me up when THAT happens.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.

Yes, deliberately copying another caused event does seem like a win for the idea that events are deliberately caused rather than spontaneous.

You never addressed my post about creating a pile of dirt and creating a hole.

Just because both are gone by now doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And there's now a tree there that was definitely the work of man. Does that mean trees can't grow naturally?

 

[Lion IRC]

But God created humans, according to you, and God created stuff, according to you, and God created humans with the ability to deliberately copy and re-create the stuff that God created, according to you.
Hence, according to you, God must ultimately be responsible for everything, even if indirectly, according to your own logic.

...with the ability.

...to deliberately

Being ABLE to do something entails elective choice - the corresponding ability not to do something.

When we DELIBERATE we are contemplating options.

I see no puppet strings with God controlling our free will choices/actions.

Now, is God responsible for brain cancer that kills young, innocent children? If not, why not?

Didn't we already have the "scientific causes of cancer" discussion?

If so, how can such a God be morally perfect? It would be monstrous to let a kid die of brain cancer if you have the means to prevent it, as God does, according to you, since God, according to you, is omnipotent

God has the ability to prevent all deaths.
He also has the ability to create life.
I don't know what the quota is for life/years created in order to be considered "morally perfect".

If you want to deep dive into the Problem of Evil and crash test my theodicy I'm sure there's a thread where that is the topic

 

[bilby]

God has the ability to prevent all deaths.

But chooses not to.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[Lion IRC]

it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.

Yes, deliberately copying another caused event does seem like a win for the idea that events are deliberately caused rather than spontaneous.

You never addressed my post about creating a pile of dirt and creating a hole.

Just because both are gone by now doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And there's now a tree there that was definitely the work of man. Does that mean trees can't grow naturally?

I saw the Alexa example and answered that one but missed the dirt/hole thing.
That was a long way back