Aaron, why can you not just use another word? rather than creation, which is being taken to mean "was created by someone", just use universe, or whatever. Then we could get past the last 2 pages of
creation exists
but youre saying it was created
no, Im saying creation exists
but if its a creation it was created
yes, so creation exists
but it cant be a creation because it wasnt created

Frayleyight is clearly taking your talk of creation to mean that there was a creator( although you did point out earlier that it didnt imply that to you).

frayleyights question seems clear to me. "what proof do you have that a god, or gods, made the universe"? If your answer is "the universe is proof" then that seems circular to me.

What other word would you want me to have used? If provided with a different word, I would have no objection to using it.

I've already noted that "creation" doesn't really imply any significant properties. I can say that the Grand Canyon was created over millions of years without implying anything about some sort of sentience or intentional actions. So it seems to me to be a forced conflation of terms rather than a natural one to insist something more out of the word "creation."

I answered that one in the previous post. From his perspective, there's no way for me to provide proof that is sufficient for him.

Ok, lets try this. What do you find sufficient to justify your conviction that God is responsible for the creation of the universe?

The belief of God's existence.

But why? Is it just a belief you rationalize because you see a life with god more meaningful? Please explain.

The word "rationalize" here is loaded and is doing a lot of question-begging. Given how poorly you've used words and concepts in other places, I think you would benefit greatly from thinking more carefully about the words you use. That is, if you're actually interested in listening and learning. You've thus far shown a propensity to jump all over things without fully understanding them (the Socratic problem and your calling yourself an epistemologist in this thread, your understanding of noncontradiction and general philosophical depth in the other one). So it would be good of you to slow yourself down and think more deeply about how you actually understand things instead of doing a minimal glancing over of something and coming to a quick conclusion about it.

I believe because I believe it's true. I wouldn't believe if I didn't believe it was true. Is there an element of ascribing "meaning"? Sure. But not in any way that's particularly distinct from virtually any other worldview. Every worldview does some level of attempting to define values and meaning and interpretation to the world around them.

I believe that the Bible is accurate in its narrative about the human experience and of humanity's tendency towards brokenness. I find that in my life experiences, I've observed and experienced things that are best described through the existence of what would probably be described as a "personal God" (compared to an "impersonal God"). I find my beliefs to be functional in how I interact with people and the world around me, such as how I understand concepts such as social justice and forgiveness.

Aaron,

How do you reconcile that the God of the Old Testament seems to be of a totally different approach from the one of the NT?

The only thing that logically makes sense to me is that the Jews were way off in their thoughts of Him in the OT and God had to send Jesus to give mankind a model to emulate and follow.

That would be a loving god, but what's in the OT ...

This is a very different direction than the thread is facing, and this is a very broad question. The short answer is that it works the same way we understand the depth of a character in a book or movie over the course of the storyline (assuming that your characters are not flat and one-dimensional).

I don't need you to talk down to me dude. You have done this in two different threads now. I appreciate criticism and all but you are putting all your focus on parts of the discussion that you shouldn't be. It is a borderline red herring for you to spend this much time telling me that "I am using this word wrong" you understand my point when I make it and you should be addressing that, not if I am using the wrong word. If you are that concerned about it you could correct the terminology then respond. Every time you seem to prefer spending 5 or 6 responses on terminology and what "created" means for example. although I mixed up terms in the other thread, my point was still valid to the discussion.

As for my question being loaded, that is fair. I didn't intend for that to be the case. I should have just asked why you believe.


Did you always believe or were you convinced later? If so, what convinced you? Also, do you feel like you know there is a god? By know I mean is it demonstrable to others?


Some of this I agree with. I do not see reason for any God to be personal though. Why do you think this?

O, like we are going to worry about that now :P lol.

Then slow yourself down to get the basics right.

The first responsibility of communication is on you. The problem of trying to guess at what you mean instead of addressing what you say is because then I'm likely to get the "That's not what I said" coming back at me.

It wouldn't have taken 5 or 6 responses if you had actually understood what I said in the first response.

Saying the wrong things while meaning the right things is a poor way to make a valid point.

[quote]Did you always believe or were you convinced later? If so, what convinced you?

I would say I became convinced as an adult. While I would have characterized myself as being a Christian, there was no real sense in which that faith was anything more than a set of claims to which I gave intellectual assent and little more. I became convinced through a period of asking questions and thinking deeply about myself and the world around me.

You really shouldn't redefine words like this. It's highly problematic. Just ask the question you mean to ask in the first place:

"Also, do you feel like God is demonstrable to others?"

Maybe. It depends on what level of demonstration you require. God is not like a static physical object where I can just point and say "This is God." This is very similar to the global flood issue. Even if it's true that God caused the global flood, there would always be room for you to claim that God was not the cause and assert some set of "natural conditions" that brought it about. It is entirely possible for the demonstration of God's existence to fall outside of what you would accept as valid.

I think this because of my own set of experiences and the experiences of people that I know well.

Maybe a silly way of putting this but is there a favorite argument you've heard for Gods existence? Or do you think it is pointless to try and win people to your side using arguments? Maybe only experiencing god so to speak?

Favorite argument? I guess I would say that the mystery of consciousness is pretty powerful. At the end of the day, the assertion that inanimate objects become not just animate, but self-aware is a powerful hint that randomness is insufficient to explain the universe. And even if it's just a process that just follows "natural laws" it that the "natural laws" were somehow "rigged" to make it come about.

I think it's pointless to try to win by argumentation alone. Argumentation fails to appreciate and connect with many of the things that make up the entirety of human experiences. Just stringing words together into sentences that have certain syntactic structures and following certain "rules" doesn't seem to be sufficient to describe human experience.

If you want to call it "experiencing God" I wouldn't object. I also wouldn't object if you said it was "emotional" because that would not be inconsistent with what we know about how people come to deep convictions about things. (Though I would object if you put a qualifier like "purely" in front of emotional. And don't think I even need to talk about God to raise such an objection.) But something must give at some level in order for people's perspective to shift significantly enough to draw them away from a worldview that outright denies God's existence. Arguments alone will never do it.

Why do you think other animals are self aware? Such as elephants, some apes and dolphins? I am assuming you think that consciousness is somehow special because we are special. Don't you think it is more likely that it comes about from natural processes since some living things have this and some don't?



I suppose that is all fair. I guess it took some emotional convincing to move me away from theism too.

Why does it matter?

That's a weird assumption.

The conclusion ("comes from natural causes") is utterly disconnected from the reasoning ("some have it and some don't"). So, no. This would be utterly illogical.

I disagree, you would expect to see a more organized system if it were created in some way. We see animals that are the most social are also the most self aware. This sounds like a natural process to me. If it were created (assuming for humans since you are talking about the God of the bible) we wouldn't expect this gift of consciousness to be shared by random other living things.

On what basis can you assert that an "organized system" must behave in precisely the way you imagine it?

Why does this sound like a natural process to you?

Why wouldn't we expect this? On what are you basing this theological claim?

You're doing precisely what most atheists accuse religious folk of doing, which is just making up stuff as they go. There's no specific logical connection between "natural causes" and any of these statements. It's just a bunch of stuff you're speculating about with no particular foundation in anything. Just some vague concept of "natural" which somehow allows you to make whatever assertions you want.

Created (the way created is generally used) systems have a mind. Natural systems come about through un predictable processes. You will find something like a Giraffe with its larygeal nerve going around its nervous system rather than directly to it. This is kind of the same thing. Why were lesser beings given the gift of self awareness if self awareness is evidence of creation? (using creation how it is normally used, not the way you decided to use it earlier when shown how you were begging the question)

same as above

"Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

How is this not making animals for man?

What? No. In what way does this statement imply a mind?

"The Grand Canyon was created over a period of 20 million years."

What? No. Where do you even get this as your concept?

The natural system of a satellite revolving around a sun is highly predictable.

So, the question is...

"Why were lesser beings given the gift of self awareness if self awareness is evidence of a mind?"

Whether or not I can answer this says nothing about whether there's anything that indicates that there's anything going on here of interest.

Your theology is completely bonkers. Suppose that creatures were made for man. In what way does this imply that they wouldn't necessarily be given any self-awareness?

When you say things like this, it strongly suggests that you really have no idea about theology, despite your claims otherwise.

I am just going to point this out.. Here are the normally used definitions for Creation: cre·a·tion
krēˈāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: creation; noun: Creation; noun: the Creation
1.
the action or process of bringing something into existence.
"the creation of a coalition government"
synonyms: establishment, formation, foundation, initiation, institution, inauguration, constitution; More
antonyms: destruction
a thing that has been made or invented, especially something showing artistic talent.
plural noun: creations
"she treats fictional creations as if they were real people"
synonyms: work, work of art, production, opus, oeuvre; More
2.
the bringing into of existence of the universe, especially when regarded as an act of God.
everything so created; the universe.
"our alienation from the rest of Creation"
synonyms: the world, the universe, the cosmos; More
3.
the action or process of investing someone with a new rank or title.

You say you were using the first definition but we were talking about god so why were you not using the 2nd definition? It looks like you started to back peddle after I showed you were using circular logic. It is ok to be wrong aaron, even if it is a me a manwho doesn't understand any of these things as you say I am that needs to point out this out to you.

Although, some natural systems are predictable.. I will grant you that. Life isn't. or at least in general isn't. We don't know what future living things may develop consciousness for example. We can figure out why they would but don't really have a way of predicting which ones will. There are too many factors to consider, mainly the condition of the environment.

As for this whole conscious thing, you said consciousness is a good reason for you to believe in god. I am saying wouldn't consciousness make more sense under a natural process because multiple animals have it? It is not like it is special to us. In your worldview you would have to account for why God gave consciousness to other living things and why coincidently the smartest and most socially active animals also have consciousness.. This is more evidence that it has something to do with social evolution and not any sort of magic.

Are you saying you don't know how to read a dictionary? Because that's what's going on right now. I'm using the *most common* definition of the word "creation." And the second definition is not only in reference to God, nor is anything in reference to God automatically the second definition. What sort of bizarro world are you living in?

*Yawn* -- I was clear from the start what my position was. If you choose to ignore thing I say in order to reinterpret statements in a way that's favorable to you, that's nothing for me to concern myself with.

If you accept that some natural systems are predictable, then you deny your own claim:

And hence your supposed connection is without meaning or value.

This is you just making assertions again. Boring assertions that do not have any particular force behind them.

I know that's what you're saying. I'm saying that it doesn't. The connection between "a natural process" and "multiple animals have it" is at best tenuous and at worst it's completely wrong.

Worldview doesn't have to account for every single question that can be raised. That's a dumb requirement for a worldview and is grossly inconsistent with any concept of worldview that is commonly used.

Also, your return to loaded language does little more that to confirm that you're unable to make your point in any meaningful way.

"2.
the bringing into of existence of the universe, especially when regarded as an act of God.
everything so created; the universe."

this is about god and the question was about god so why would I not assume you were talking about god? LOL

By the way. It was 3 or 4 responses later where you said what you meant by creation. This was of course after I pointed out you were being circular.

So it is 100% true that you have no idea how to use a dictionary properly. There is no room for doubt.

The fact that you make bad assumptions is of no concern to me.

Hey aaron, give me an example of something god has done as described in the bible?

Hey Fraleyight, creation? There is a creation.

Aaron, how do you know there is a creation?

Fraleyight, because I am living in a creation?

Aaron? No , I am asking how you know you are living in a creation?

Fraleyight, creation, confirms creator.. Duh bro.

aaron, isn't that circular?

no fraleyight, don't make silly assumptions like this. I didn't mean the creator caused the creation necessarily.. I just mean things exist LDO.