What does the Ceres pyramid say about intelligent design?

[Kurieuo]

Not if one believes in spontaneous creation...

Oy! And theists are accused of believing in fairy tales?

Yes Byblos.

Theists are the loonies who believe God created something from nothing (Ex nihilo ).

But atheists are perfectly reasonable in believing in spontaneous creation (something created from nothing).

Sometimes, the most intelligent people come up with the dumbest things:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2758745/posts

Speaking of which, Rich reviewed Dr. Leslie Wickman's recently published book on the big bang and God.

[Byblos]

Not if one believes in spontaneous creation...

Oy! And theists are accused of believing in fairy tales?

Yes Byblos.

Theists are the loonies who believe God created something from nothing (Ex nihilo ).

But atheists are perfectly reasonable in believing in spontaneous creation (something created from nothing).

Sometimes, the most intelligent people come up with the dumbest things:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2758745/posts

“Because these is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing"

Evidently brilliant minds can't be bothered with mere violations of the law of non-contradiction. They simply redefine nothing.

[RickD]

Byblos,

Seems like there's been quite a bit of "redefining" going on lately...

Wanna get married?

[Byblos]

Byblos,

Seems like there's been quite a bit of "redefining" going on lately...

Wanna get married?

Lol, first we'd have to wait for polygamy laws to take effect. How's your schedule looking for next week?

[RickD]

Byblos,

Seems like there's been quite a bit of "redefining" going on lately...

Wanna get married?

Lol, first we'd have to wait for polygamy laws to take effect. How's your schedule looking for next week?

You had me at "polygamy"!


Polygamy is your fault anyways. Didn't you vote for that Mormon guy for president?

[abelcainsbrother]

abelcainsbrother

I really appreciate your feedback. Still...

Atheists are the last place you want to look for information about God,the bible,theology,etc.You should instead use this place for that,in a respectful manner.

Ok, there's so much wrong with this. 1. There are atheists who know the Bible better than some so-called christians. 2. Some atheists are, by nature, cynical, which can mean they reject naive hopes because of those hopes' optimism. 3. I know I can use this place to learn instead, namely because it usually quotes sources for everything. However, that doesn't mean it is not biased. And bias is one of the worst obstacles to a thoughtful, rational conclusion. 4. You may say that atheists' websites are also biased (towards atheism or something...), and you'd be right. However, so are christians' websites. So how can I trust any of them? 5. When did I say I looked for info about the God of the Bible around atheists? Why did you think that? Was it because we talked about Dawkins? If it was, I'd suggest you to let it go. It was just a small moment. Other than that...well, it's kind of true that I heard a lot about God and the Bible from atheists, but that's because I grew up in a mostly atheist environment. I had no choice, so to speak...however, I hadn't told you that, so I still don't get your assumption...

It is a fact of logic,reason and the reality around us that all things have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else and all things are willed into existence

Not if one believes in spontaneous creation...

So here is the question,before you go asking atheists about God,the bible,theology,etc ask them this.
Can you name one thing that does not have a cause,was not caused by something else and was not willed into existence? And I think you'll see they cannot name one thing.

Actually...
From the christian perspective, there's God. And, please, don't tell me God is His own reason. That only makes sense if you think about it for less than 5 seconds.
From the atheist perspective, there are the rules that allowed something to come into existence in the first place. Not particles; rules. It's different. Those rules "may" exist without being caused or wanted just because they are...well...rules! Not something physical, something...metaphysical, I guess.

Thanks for your response but I can see that you are plagued by the very things I explained that all of those who reject God do. The thing is though is you either don't realize it or in denial about it. You defy logic,reason and reality in order to reject God,you are using imagination and basing your beliefs on it.Can't you not see how you are denying logic,reason and reality? I'm not trying to pick on you,I'm trying to get you to realize on your own that those who reject God live in LA LA land in order to do it,no matter who they are and whether they believe or realize it or not.

Re-read what you posted and ask yourself what you base thinking like that on? This is not a trick or anything,what I'm trying to get you to understand. ALL things have a cause and ALL things are caused by something else and ALL things are willed into existence,this is a fact of logic,reason and reality.I mean no matter what we could talk about in our world all things have a cause and all things are caused by something else and all things are willed into existence,look around you right now and see,this is not a trick,this is philosophy from the 13th century that was confronting naturalism and despite all of the rhetoric we've heard about naturalism from people,scientists,etc this has never been refuted and cannot be refuted,the only way a person can reject God is to deny logic,reason and reality and you are doing it.
There is no reason for you to believe not all things have a cause and some things that don't have a cause are not caused by something else and that some things are not willed into existence and yet in order to deny God you must believe this and you do based on what you posted.

This is not a trick or anything I am just trying to make you see what one does always in order to deny God and that is live in LA LA land.Why is it OK for you to defy logic,reason and reality just because you reject God? I mean this is even before we even get into evidence for or against God,first a person must be in reality or it is futile because the person is living in LA LA land willingly to deny God and has nothing to base it in,so that because they are already denying reality evidence and truth do not really matter like they claim it does,they really could careless about the truth because they have a problem and are in denial of it.

[MBPrata]

Oy! And theists are accused of believing in fairy tales?

You say spontaneous creation is a fairy tale, atheists say God is a fairy tale. Both of the assumptions have their logic, so what gives?

Exactly where did these rules come from?

If God doesn't need to come from anything, neither do rules. Particles might have to come from anything because, you know, they're physical. Metaphysical things don't have to come from anything, right?

That's the difference between us, we can actually make a rational case for creation whereas the only thing you can offer are inexplicable, scientifically unreachable set of brute force laws.

No. You make a case full of unexplained stuff. So do atheists, you might say, and you could be right. Other than that...they're not "inexplicable". They can be explained if people actually have a flexible mind AND a good tendency not to take things too literally. Personally, I think christians usually abuse of the word "nothing" in order to make atheists look naive. At least that's how I felt when I was a convict atheist...

Evidently brilliant minds can't be bothered with mere violations of the law of non-contradiction. They simply redefine nothing.

This again?! Since when do rules are a physical thing? They're not! Something metaphysical doesn't need to be created, right?

[MBPrata]

this is a fact of logic,reason and reality.

Yeah, but according to some atheist perspectives, logic isn't obligatory because existence isn't logic. Ultimately, everything is just freaking absurd. According to SOME atheist perspectives, I repeat...

I mean this is even before we even get into evidence for or against God,first a person must be in reality

Yeah...I don't really know what reality is. I believe I know some kind of "reality", but I don't think I "know" it. Sometimes I can hardly believe I exist. Sort of like Descartes, I guess; I heard he said the only thing we can be sure that exists is our own mind. This makes a lot of sense to me. Unfortunately...

[abelcainsbrother]

this is a fact of logic,reason and reality.

Yeah, but according to some atheist perspectives, logic isn't obligatory because existence isn't logic. Ultimately, everything is just freaking absurd. According to SOME atheist perspectives, I repeat...

I mean this is even before we even get into evidence for or against God,first a person must be in reality

Yeah...I don't really know what reality is. I believe I know some kind of "reality", but I don't think I "know" it. Sometimes I can hardly believe I exist. Sort of like Descartes, I guess; I heard he said the only thing we can be sure that exists is our own mind. This makes a lot of sense to me. Unfortunately...

I think you are overlooking my point and nobody can change your mind,this is something that you must get yourself but this is easy to get.
Can you name anything that did not have a cause,was not caused by something and was not willed into existence? If not then how can you believe by imagination things that defy the fact that all things have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else and that all things are willed into existence? This is a fact,yet anybody who rejects God is going against this reality and there is nothing to base it on,nothing to go on to believe and live like this,no evidence,nothing,yet they still do and all to reject God even if they don't realize it.

A person is using imagination and choosing to ignore the reality around them and defy it and all to reject God and this has been the case since the 13th century and has not changed.But they have faith and hold out hope that logic,reason and reality can be proven wrong somehow,all while denying they have faith.A person like this does not value truth and are subjecting their self to defy reality in rebellion to reality.

But when a person believes in God they accept logic,reason and reality and know that all things have a cause and all things are caused by something else and all things are willed into existence,this is reality.Infinite regression can go on forever but never be broken and it is all apart of the chain of everything that exists.Nothing can happen without a cause and things are always caused by something else and always willed into existence and nothing can change this,yet those who reject God defy this.

You see when you bring God into the picture it is easy to believe because all things have a cause,all things are caused by something else and all things are willed into existence,but the moment you remove God you step out of this fact of reality and instead go by imagination and your imagination is somehow easier to believe in than God.

[Byblos]

Oy! And theists are accused of believing in fairy tales?

You say spontaneous creation is a fairy tale, atheists say God is a fairy tale. Both of the assumptions have their logic, so what gives?

Wrong. Spontaneous creation is a violation of the law of non-contradiction for it presumes the creation of something from nothing. Nothing is nothing, it cannot create anything, otherwise it would not be nothing. That's the very definition of nothing (if it can be defined at all).

God, on the other hand, as the prime unmoved mover and uncaused cause, is the necessary conclusion of a logical set of premises. I certainly hope you can see the difference.

Exactly where did these rules come from?

If God doesn't need to come from anything, neither do rules.

Wrong again. God, by definition, is eternal as he IS the cause of everything. Rules in general, and laws in particular, don't exist apart from whatever it is they rule and govern.

Particles might have to come from anything because, you know, they're physical. Metaphysical things don't have to come from anything, right?

At a minimum you're implicitly acknowledging the existence of non-physical things, that's a good start. But you're dead wrong if you think metaphysical things (I'm assuming here you mean universals?) can stand in self-causation apart from an eternal uncaused cause.

That's the difference between us, we can actually make a rational case for creation whereas the only thing you can offer are inexplicable, scientifically unreachable set of brute force laws.

No. You make a case full of unexplained stuff. So do atheists, you might say, and you could be right. Other than that...they're not "inexplicable". They can be explained if people actually have a flexible mind AND a good tendency not to take things too literally. Personally, I think christians usually abuse of the word "nothing" in order to make atheists look naive. At least that's how I felt when I was a convict atheist...

Lol, there you go again, trying to justify a (re)definition of nothing. It's really much more basic than you think. In fact, it's nothing at all. But you'er batting a 1000 so far (in case you missed the reference, you're wrong, yet again). It's not us who are making "a case full unexplained stuff", quite the opposite. Our case is built entirely from reason based on a set of logical premises that necessarily conclude in an eternal unmoved mover, without whom nothing gets started. (get it? nothing gets started).

On atheism though, there are only 2 possibilities:

1. Something from nothing, which is contradictory, or
2. Brute force laws without the possibility of an explanatory power as to their origin

Evidently brilliant minds can't be bothered with mere violations of the law of non-contradiction. They simply redefine nothing.

This again?! Since when do rules are a physical thing? They're not! Something metaphysical doesn't need to be created, right?

[/quote]

And once again, rules and laws cannot exist apart from that which they rule or govern, and most importantly without the reason for their existence (metaphysical as it may be). You're getting there but you're not there yet. Keep trying.

[MBPrata]

Wrong. Spontaneous creation is a violation of the law of non-contradiction for it presumes the creation of something from nothing. Nothing is nothing, it cannot create anything, otherwise it would not be nothing. That's the very definition of nothing (if it can be defined at all).

Yeah, I know some people say this. Some of them claim the mr. Hawking's nothing isn't really nothing, it's "nothing" with gravity. And it makes sense. Until you realize gravity is a rule and rules are not physical, so they don't need to be created; they can be the supreme force.

Rules in general, and laws in particular, don't exist apart from whatever it is they rule and govern.

Uh...yes, they do. Take God for an example. He is omniscient but he - supposedly - is immune to the "insanity" one can get by being omniscient. Why? It's a rule. Can God kill Himself? Whether He can or not, why is that? Because it's a rule. Why is God's character the way it is? Why isn't He more forgiveful? Or less forgiveful? Because it's a rule. He didn't choose His character, after all...

you're dead wrong if you think metaphysical things (I'm assuming here you mean universals?) can stand in self-causation apart from an eternal uncaused cause.

But that eternal uncaused cause can be a rule, instead of an intelligent, conscient being.

It's not us who are making "a case full unexplained stuff", quite the opposite

You shouldn't dodge the unexplained stuff the Bible - and Christianity - don't explain. The same way atheists shouldn't dodge the unexplained stuff Atheism doesn't explain. Personally, each I think more that we, humans, should admit that we're helpless scared beings who know nothing about what reality is. But that's just me, I guess...

Brute force laws without the possibility of an explanatory power as to their origin

Not if one thinks the origin is a rule. What would that rule be? I don't know, maybe the supreme rule is "things will change". Or "stuff will happen". Or something like that...

[Byblos]

Wrong. Spontaneous creation is a violation of the law of non-contradiction for it presumes the creation of something from nothing. Nothing is nothing, it cannot create anything, otherwise it would not be nothing. That's the very definition of nothing (if it can be defined at all).

Yeah, I know some people say this. Some of them claim the mr. Hawking's nothing isn't really nothing, it's "nothing" with gravity. And it makes sense. Until you realize gravity is a rule and rules are not physical, so they don't need to be created; they can be the supreme force.

I don't know how many times I'm going to repeat myself but I will try one more time. Rules and laws do not stand in causal relation to anything, the least of which their very existence. Rules and laws such as the law of gravity are descriptive, not causal, and certainly not creatively.

Rules in general, and laws in particular, don't exist apart from whatever it is they rule and govern.

Uh...yes, they do. Take God for an example. He is omniscient but he - supposedly - is immune to the "insanity" one can get by being omniscient. Why? It's a rule. Can God kill Himself? Whether He can or not, why is that? Because it's a rule. Why is God's character the way it is? Why isn't He more forgiveful? Or less forgiveful? Because it's a rule. He didn't choose His character, after all...

Er.. no they don't (see I can play that game too ). That's because you do not understand the nature of God or the nature of universals. You think God is subject to some rules (you really do mean universals here but whatever). You are redefining the nature of God to suit your purpose. There is no rule or law or universal that God is subject to simply because God IS the rule and law and the universal for nothing exists apart from Him for He IS existence itself. You're desperately (knowingly or not) trying to interject Euthyphro's dilemma here not knowing (I'm assuming) that it has already been shown to be a false dilemma long ago.

you're dead wrong if you think metaphysical things (I'm assuming here you mean universals?) can stand in self-causation apart from an eternal uncaused cause.

But that eternal uncaused cause can be a rule, instead of an intelligent, conscient being.

See above.

It's not us who are making "a case full unexplained stuff", quite the opposite

You shouldn't dodge the unexplained stuff the Bible - and Christianity - don't explain. The same way atheists shouldn't dodge the unexplained stuff Atheism doesn't explain. Personally, each I think more that we, humans, should admit that we're helpless scared beings who know nothing about what reality is. But that's just me, I guess...

Funny you use the word 'dodge'. Where, pray tell, in anything I said or referenced, anything at all, did I mention Christianity or the Bible? I dare you to go back and quote me on that.

Brute force laws without the possibility of an explanatory power as to their origin

Not if one thinks the origin is a rule. What would that rule be? I don't know, maybe the supreme rule is "things will change". Or "stuff will happen". Or something like that...

And you're back to exactly what I predicted, a set of laws that are utterly inexplicable. Congratulations, you just fashioned an irrational, and yes, fairytale god of your own making.

[abelcainsbrother]

MBprata said this.
But that eternal uncaused cause can be a rule, instead of an intelligent, conscient being

This is the imagination that all people who reject God live by,they must deny logic,reason and reality and do and all to deny God.It is just made up imagination that they believe instead of believing in God.They are not even in reality.He cannot name one thing in our world that did did not have a cause,was not caused by something else and was not willed into existence and yet defies this fact of our world and uses imagination and believes stuff on absolutely no basis and all to reject God. It is easier to live by imagination and believe it instead of believing in God.This is before we even get into evidence for why we believe what we do.

The reason why this applies to all people who deny God is because science has been ignoring philosophy for hundreds of years and is looking at everything in the universe from a naturalistic point of view and so it gives people hope that they can live by imagination in order to reject God.

If atheists would demand evidence from science like they do for God they would see the chirade going on,but it is easier just to defy logic reason and reality and use imagination than to believe in God.

MBprata if you want proof God is real then get saved by Jesus and you will have all the proof you need.

[MBPrata]

God [...] IS existence itself.

Now...

...that's a whole new, fresh perspective for me. It has made me think a lot. Thank you. Still, christians would be more believable if they stopped calling God different names (I heard christian saying God is "love", God is "everything", God is "the verb"...and now this God-is-existence thing. Although the last one makes much more sense to me...)

Anyway, I've been kinda busy researching on Rupert Sheldrake. Fingers crossed so I won't have to buy a book...

[Byblos]

God [...] IS existence itself.

Now...

...that's a whole new, fresh perspective for me. It has made me think a lot. Thank you. Still, christians would be more believable if they stopped calling God different names (I heard christian saying God is "love", God is "everything", God is "the verb"...and now this God-is-existence thing. Although the last one makes much more sense to me...)

Anyway, I've been kinda busy researching on Rupert Sheldrake. Fingers crossed so I won't have to buy a book...

If you're interested in exploring the subject in greater detail I would look up materials on classical philosophy (of the Tomistic genre). I would highly recommend the following:

1. Reconsidering Divine Simplicity (by our resident expert philosopher Jac)
2. The Last Superstition (by Edward Feser)