Donjared And Deism

[Asimov]

Donjared, before I analyze your specific belief system (to prevent creation of a straw-man) I'd like you to please outline what your belief system entails regarding God.

[Guest Donjared]

Donjared, before I analyze your specific belief system (to prevent creation of a straw-man) I'd like you to please outline what your belief system entails regarding God.

 

Thanks for this opportunity Asimov. How kind (dare I say compassionate?)of you to care.

 

First I will say that I am a work in progress. I change my mind a lot. So much, in fact, that I am afraid of all labels because I never know how long they will last. I don't want to be accused of inconsistency or hypocrisy so I just don't hang a sign around my neck. I can say that I was, without a doubt, a baptized Bible-believing Christian for all my life. But even this was a challenge for me. I was constantly attracted to different brands of Christianity. I was raised a Protestant, but always was attracted by the history and majesty of the Roman Catholic Church. Pentecostals were always a little freaky, but I could get in there and roll holy with the best of them. I love Black Pentecostal Churches. If you're looking for excitement, let the Holy Ghost fill you up in there, woooo! All that is to say that I am inquisitive. I get bored eventually and want to know why other people (different from me) think what they do.

 

Anyway that was the preface to my most recent definition of myself, Deist. It was also my "out" if I change my mind later. So on to my understanding as of today.....

[Guest Donjared]

Donjared, before I analyze your specific belief system (to prevent creation of a straw-man) I'd like you to please outline what your belief system entails regarding God.

 

OK, Deism -a rational belief in God based on reason rather than revelation, and involving the view that God has set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs. -ala Encarta Dictionary

 

As a Christian I believed in God because the Bible says that God is real and interested in us humans. I know it sounds ignorant, but if one is taught from childhood that the Bible is an authoritative book, he believes it. Once I stopped seeing the Bible as unquestionable, I started to question many things, including if God is real. I now started to ask myself not what was scriptural, but what was reasonable.

Does it seem reasonable that God came to earth as a man, was born of a virgin, performed miracles, was dead and resurrected, reigns in heaven now, and did this all to forgive sins that I had not yet committed? My answer is NO, not anymore. That story seems more like a good legend. With many mythological precedents included. So I think it would be UNreasonable to take this New Testament story as literal truth.

Is it reasonable that God as Yahweh did mean and horrible things to all but the Hebrews because they were his chosen race of people? It does for a local ancient God being worshipped by a superstitious people justifying a genocidal campaign against their neighbors. But it doesn't for an all-knowing, all-benevolent, and all-loving Heavenly Father of all humanity. So I decided it was again UNreasonable to take the Old Testament as fact.

Now on to the good stuff. Is it unreasonable to presume that a Designer/God set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs. I don't think so. My experience tells me this is so.

The Universe is highly ordered. Our ecology is highly ordered. Our own bodies are highly ordered. A single cell is unimaginitively complex. I can't believe we just lucked out. The existence of our solar system. The existence of our planet. Our bizarre evolution. It seems unreasonable to believe it was a fortunate accident. The odds are too high. I was born, raised, and still live in Reno, NV so I know about odds Seriously, I must believe (until proven differently) that these things were designed by a force we have yet to discover. Now this Designer could be impersonal. In fact this seems likely. This God seems to play no role for good or evil in our world. It simply was the cause and motivation for the history of the Universe. Now (as Bill OReilly says) tell me why I'm wrong?

[Asimov]

OK, Deism -a rational belief in God based on reason rather than revelation, and involving the view that God has set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs. -ala Encarta Dictionary

 

That's an interesting definition, I think...not all Deists think that, some think that God does interfere in human affairs but they are subtle and beyond comprehension.

 

Now on to the good stuff.

 

If you say so.

 

Is it unreasonable to presume that a Designer/God set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs. I don't think so. My experience tells me this is so.

 

Of course it is unreasonable to "presume" that something exists before you:

 

Know what it is you think exists, and

Have a rational idea for why you think it does exist.

 

The Universe is highly ordered. Our ecology is highly ordered. Our own bodies are highly ordered. A single cell is unimaginitively complex.

 

So?

 

I can't believe we just lucked out.

 

Why do you think this is a logical reason for believing in God? Luck is a matter of perspective, a matter of intrinsic feelings, not knowledge and reason. It's a logical fallacy to assert something because of your own feelings.

 

The existence of our solar system. The existence of our planet. Our bizarre evolution. It seems unreasonable to believe it was a fortunate accident.

 

Who says it was a fortunate accident? Again you seem to be looking at things from now to the past and seeing how it all formed.

 

It seems unreasonable to believe that a hole in the ground fits a puddle of water perfectly, but it isn't.

 

The odds are too high.

 

According to whom? In what way? How do you know the odds? What ARE the odds? Do you know all the variables involved? Can you demonstrate these odds?

 

Seriously, I must believe (until proven differently) that these things were designed by a force we have yet to discover.

 

So we haven't even discovered this force yet you blindly uphold it's existence with nothing more than emotionalism?

 

And we must prove you wrong?

 

Uh, no. Now you're shifting the burden of proof onto people who have no need to disprove what you say. YOU have to prove that YOU are right, not the other way around.

 

Now this Designer could be impersonal. In fact this seems likely. This God seems to play no role for good or evil in our world. It simply was the cause and motivation for the history of the Universe.

 

Why do you believe that?

[Ouroboros]

Moving the topic to the Colosseum.

[Asimov]

Thanks, Han. Colosseum does seem to be more appropriate.

[NobleSavage]

Not all deists necessarily believe that God is uninvolved. A few, like Washington, used the word "Providence" to describe God, apparently expressing a belief that God had a hand in unfolding events. I never read any lines in Paine, Voltaire or other deist philosophers the positive statement that "God is not involved".

 

What is true is that most deists don't see any reason to believe in miracles (other than the miracle of life itself). It's just like how the atheist sees no reason to believe in God. Doubt is not necessarily denial.

 

Personally, it's not hard for me to believe that the Creator would have larger issues to worry about. It's a matter of scale. The universe is billions of years old and includes hundreds of millions of galaxies. My personal belief is that God has provided us with what we need and the rest is up to us.

 

As for my definition of deism, its the belief that the only word of God is the Creation.

 

Another definition I sometimes use is that it's just like atheism ...except that we believe in God.

[Guest Donjared]

Of course it is unreasonable to "presume" that something exists before you:

 

Know what it is you think exists, and

Have a rational idea for why you think it does exist.

 

Good point there Asimov. Indeed presumptions are a risky business. However, I believe I have identified what I think exists. An impersonal intelligence that is the Source of all that is. I can't define what this source is, any more than I can define the singularity at the Big Bang. However I believe the order of the Universe is my rational idea for why I think it exists.

 

So?

 

So, my human experience bears witness to me that order and complexity are the product of intelligent manipulation. Could be you have examples of order without intelligence. I'd like to hear them, if so. But I simply have my own limited human experience and observation to go on.

 

Why do you think this is a logical reason for believing in God? Luck is a matter of perspective, a matter of intrinsic feelings, not knowledge and reason. It's a logical fallacy to assert something because of your own feelings.

 

I'm sorry I gave you the impression that I feel that luck plays a factor in my opinions. The point I was making is that, through observation, I have determined that the Universe is too complex to have not been directed by a Designer. Again, you may present evidence of very complex systems without intelligent design. That is simply outside of my experience.

 

Who says it was a fortunate accident? Again you seem to be looking at things from now to the past and seeing how it all formed.

 

It seems unreasonable to believe that a hole in the ground fits a puddle of water perfectly, but it isn't.

 

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that perhaps our universe is typical and not outside the norm at all. That since I have no basis of comparison, how do I know this was a "fortunate accident" and not standard operating procedure. I believe that is a good point and requires some consideration.

 

According to whom? In what way? How do you know the odds? What ARE the odds? Do you know all the variables involved? Can you demonstrate these odds?

 

Again a good point, I can not demonstrate the odds. I also obviously can not answer all your questions, which is why I suppose you asked them. However, searching back through the archives of my alcohol-soaked noodle, I recall a formula for calculating the odds of human evolution without intelligent manipulation. As one would expect they were astronomical. If someone reading this happens to remember what formula that was, please chime in. I would say it simply makes sense that incredibly complex systems don't spontaneously exist without a cause, and don't develop in an orderly manner without intelligent manipulation. All of our human experience testifies that this is so.

 

So we haven't even discovered this force yet you blindly uphold it's existence with nothing more than emotionalism?

 

And we must prove you wrong?

 

Uh, no. Now you're shifting the burden of proof onto people who have no need to disprove what you say. YOU have to prove that YOU are right, not the other way around.

 

I hope I've explained that it's not simply emotionalism which leads me to believe in a God. It's observation, it's consideration, its lubrication and then a little masturbation. Just kidding about that last thing, it just rhymed well

 

Do you claim that everything you believe exists is a testable assumption? Do you believe in anything just because you observe the effects of this thing? I know scientists do this. For instance, when astronomers see a star wobble. They assume that means there are planets exerting a force on the star. They can't see the planets because the stars are too bright and the planets too small. But the astronomer says,"Yep, that's a planet alright". My point is we don't always have to discover a thing before we decide that it likely exists.

 

Now I'm not asking you to prove that there isn't a God. I 'm just asking you to give me a better solution as to how we got here. I understand that I have nothing more than my own observations to offer as to why I believe there is a God. I understand that my observations should, and probably do, mean diddly squat to you. You obviously have your own. So please don't think that I'm asking you to believe in a God, or disprove It's existence.

 

Why do you believe that?

 

I believe if there is a God, it is impersonal because the Universe is brutal and beautiful, but not moral. The Universe simply is. It has no regard for our definitions of right and wrong. It destroys and creates with equal vigor. The history of the Earth is a series of feasts and famines, wellbeing and pestilence, floods and droughts, war and peace, life and death. There is no magic to the cause of these things, they just happen.

I've lost many relatives to death, but the most difficult death to handle was my sister's. I asked God why, why, why, why, why? Guess what? There is no why? She was ill and she passed and that's all. No magic. No cosmic answer as why it was her time. When my wife was pregnant with my first child her water broke at 9 weeks. I fell on my face and tearfully begged God to save my daughter. Well, He did. The obstetrician called to birth my daughter explained that the rupture in the bag had sealed itself and he didn't know how. I was wholly grateful to God for what He had done. And then it occured to me. There was probably a young couple like my wife and I in the hospital room next door. Did their baby survive? Were they Christians like me? It then made more sense to me that life just happens. I could not accept the idea that somebody was in charge here. Or else why did He save my daughter and kill my sister? Why not kill my wife and sons next time, until there is nobody left? That's my honest answer. I don't believe in a personal God because I would hate him with a rage that I can scarcely contain. Sorry to get emotional.

 

 

 

As for my definition of deism, its the belief that the only word of God is the Creation.

 

Another definition I sometimes use is that it's just like atheism ...except that we believe in God.

 

I like your definition Noble Savage. You've probably been a Deist longer than me (I'm going on a week now) so I will consider your explanations thoughtfully. It also wouldn't hurt for you to back me up in this discussion with Asimov. He sounds really smart and frankly that unnerves me.

[Asimov]

Good point there Asimov. Indeed presumptions are a risky business. However, I believe I have identified what I think exists. An impersonal intelligence that is the Source of all that is. I can't define what this source is, any more than I can define the singularity at the Big Bang. However I believe the order of the Universe is my rational idea for why I think it exists.

 

But you have no valid rationale for believing it, or at least you've provided none.

 

So, my human experience bears witness to me that order and complexity are the product of intelligent manipulation.

 

How?

 

Could be you have examples of order without intelligence. I'd like to hear them, if so. But I simply have my own limited human experience and observation to go on.

 

I can, you see it everywhere around you from a snowflake to a newborn baby to a tree. They don't require intelligence to form. Unless you can demonstrate that some intelligence created it all, why should I accept that life occured through intelligent means?

 

I have determined that the Universe is too complex to have not been directed by a Designer.

 

And what observations lead to you make that conclusion? Have you observed an intelligence being creating life? Have you observed an intelligent being forming snowflakes? Have you observed stars forming through intelligent means?

 

You haven't observed anything of the sort, you're interpretations of such events through an emotional filter lead you to conclude that only a designer could have done this.

 

Would this Designer be more complex than the universe? Isn't it too complex to have not been directed by a previous designer? Where would that stop?

 

How complex IS the universe?

How do you know how complex it is?

 

Just because you can't comprehend the universes functions doesn't mean it's complex, don.

 

I recall a formula for calculating the odds of human evolution without intelligent manipulation. As one would expect they were astronomical. If someone reading this happens to remember what formula that was, please chime in. I would say it simply makes sense that incredibly complex systems don't spontaneously exist without a cause, and don't develop in an orderly manner without intelligent manipulation. All of our human experience testifies that this is so.

 

OF COURSE it's astronomical, but you're looking at it backwards, dude!!

 

Let's create a random number generator that creates a random number that is 10^85894 numbers long.

 

We'll call this number (x).

 

Number (x) is created randomly. What are the odds that this specific number would have been created had we tried to randomly create it? Well...1 in 10^85894. That is astronomically large, but it happened. You know why? We weren't trying to create it.

 

Probability is goal-oriented. If natural law has no goal to create humans randomly, then our probability argument falls to pieces.

 

It's observation, it's consideration, its lubrication and then a little masturbation. Just kidding about that last thing, it just rhymed well

 

Porn IS a good argument for God...I LOVE PORN!!!

 

Haha..but seriously, what observations? What considerations (by that I mean what's your rationale)?

 

Do you claim that everything you believe exists is a testable assumption? Do you believe in anything just because you observe the effects of this thing? I know scientists do this. For instance, when astronomers see a star wobble. They assume that means there are planets exerting a force on the star. They can't see the planets because the stars are too bright and the planets too small. But the astronomer says,"Yep, that's a planet alright". My point is we don't always have to discover a thing before we decide that it likely exists.

 

I think you're creating a straw-man of the issue regarding science and astronomy. Their work is a little more difficult than looking at wobbling stars and assuming that it's a planet. There are probably a few more variables involved.

 

Everything I believe exists doesn't have to be scientifically demonstrable. I don't use science, I let scientists use science and I think about what they have to say.

 

Besides, we're not talking about what I think exists, we're talking about what YOU think exists. Side-tracking the issue with a red-herring.

 

Now I'm not asking you to prove that there isn't a God. I 'm just asking you to give me a better solution as to how we got here.

 

Meaningless question. I can answer how you and I got here. Do you want to know the origin of man? The origin of species? The origin of life? The origin of the planet? What?

 

I have to attack the rest later.

[NobleSavage]

Is it permissable for me to post on a thread like this? I'm new to this forum so I don't want to offend anyone by not following the rules. The Colosseum rules don't specify that the discussion has to be 1-on-1 but maybe this is what you mean by a debate forum.

[Guest Donjared]

Is it permissable for me to post on a thread like this? I'm new to this forum so I don't want to offend anyone by not following the rules. The Colosseum rules don't specify that the discussion has to be 1-on-1 but maybe this is what you mean by a debate forum.

 

I don't know the rules either, but I don't care if you chime in. Just stay on track in terms of the subject matter. This topic began because Asimov accused me of being "intellectually dishonest" about being a Deist. I asked why this was so, and he started this topic. His position is that being an Atheist is not intellectually dishonest, but being a Deist is. His reasons seem pretty clear. We Deist's claim to use reason and rationale thought to form all of our conclusions. This, in my opinion, includes a belief in God. Asimov, however sees no rationale reason to believe in God, so that makes you and me intellectually dishonest. Tell me if I got that right, Asimov.

[Asimov]

Is it permissable for me to post on a thread like this? I'm new to this forum so I don't want to offend anyone by not following the rules. The Colosseum rules don't specify that the discussion has to be 1-on-1 but maybe this is what you mean by a debate forum.

 

I requested it be 1 on 1, you don't have to respect that. That doesn't mean I'll reply to you, though...hahaha

 

If you have a specific issue....then I'll permit it.

[Asimov]

I believe if there is a God, it is impersonal because the Universe is brutal and beautiful, but not moral. The Universe simply is. It has no regard for our definitions of right and wrong. It destroys and creates with equal vigor. The history of the Earth is a series of feasts and famines, wellbeing and pestilence, floods and droughts, war and peace, life and death. There is no magic to the cause of these things, they just happen.

 

Interesting. Morality is only a human abstract that we create in order to live in harmony with one another, so that is true.

 

I've lost many relatives to death, but the most difficult death to handle was my sister's. I asked God why, why, why, why, why? Guess what? There is no why? She was ill and she passed and that's all. No magic. No cosmic answer as why it was her time. When my wife was pregnant with my first child her water broke at 9 weeks. I fell on my face and tearfully begged God to save my daughter. Well, He did. The obstetrician called to birth my daughter explained that the rupture in the bag had sealed itself and he didn't know how. I was wholly grateful to God for what He had done. And then it occured to me. There was probably a young couple like my wife and I in the hospital room next door. Did their baby survive? Were they Christians like me? It then made more sense to me that life just happens. I could not accept the idea that somebody was in charge here. Or else why did He save my daughter and kill my sister? Why not kill my wife and sons next time, until there is nobody left? That's my honest answer. I don't believe in a personal God because I would hate him with a rage that I can scarcely contain. Sorry to get emotional.

 

No worries, I feel sorry for people who believe in personal Gods like Christianity, etc. and wonder why shit like that happens to them. I know how to deal with death, I've dealt with it before, my mom killed herself last year and I'm only 22. My grandpa killed himself when I was 13. I don't go through that intense sense of confusion.

 

Anyways....if you wish to continue such a discussion, you can pm me if you have any questions on that. I was just curious and I don't want to sidetrack too much.

 

Tell me if I got that right, Asimov.

 

Right you did, dude.

[NobleSavage]

There is an important point that Asimov is missing, Don, but I think the proper thing to do is for me to start another thread.

[Guest Donjared]

But you have no valid rationale for believing it, or at least you've provided none.

 

I provided the order of the Universe as my rationale for believing in a God. I think you are suggesting that this not a valid reason for believing in a God. Again I only "know" what life experience has taught me. Everywhere I see order outside of the natural world, I also see an intelligence behind this order. So why would I think that the natural world is any different than our own human world. After all, we exist within the natural world and therefore play by the same rules.

 

How?

For the reason stated above.

 

I can, you see it everywhere around you from a snowflake to a newborn baby to a tree. They don't require intelligence to form. Unless you can demonstrate that some intelligence created it all, why should I accept that life occured through intelligent means?

 

I see your point, but again I would suggest that order without an intelligent source is outside human experience. The examples you give only serve to suggest these things were designed, just like the roof the snowflake falls on, the crib the newborn baby sleeps in, and tire swing hanging from the tree. The tire swing didn't just fortunately come together at the right time and place. Someone made it and put it there.

 

And what observations lead to you make that conclusion? Have you observed an intelligence being creating life? Have you observed an intelligent being forming snowflakes? Have you observed stars forming through intelligent means?

 

Well, I would say all those observations are affirmations of intelligent design. But ofcourse no, I have not seen the Deity (unless you mean Elvis, I saw him last week selling snowcones on a bicycle )

 

You haven't observed anything of the sort, you're interpretations of such events through an emotional filter lead you to conclude that only a designer could have done this.

 

I understand the gist of your statement. But what is my "emotional filter"? Do you mean I want to believe in a God because I have an emotional need to?

 

Would this Designer be more complex than the universe? Isn't it too complex to have not been directed by a previous designer? Where would that stop?

 

Aah, the chicken or the egg thing? Well one would have to speculate (yes, I know, bad word when discussing science ) that an Intelligence capable of designing our Universe must exist outside space and time. Which by necessity would make It more complex than the Universe. I know that this sounds very Star Trekish until you consider that something existed before the Big Bang. Scientists call it a singularity (aka the little big ball of nothingness). It seems more likely to me that this something was a God, or something to that effect.

 

How complex IS the universe?

How do you know how complex it is?

 

Just because you can't comprehend the universes functions doesn't mean it's complex, don.

 

Ok, I'll give you that point. I don't have a freakin clue how complex the Universe is. Maybe to the Klingons, understanding the Universe is effortless. But it seems pretty darn multifaceted. Scientists admit (the honest ones anyway) that they can't begin to understand the workings of the Universe. We discover one facet which leads to another, and then another, and then another, seemingly without end.

 

OF COURSE it's astronomical, but you're looking at it backwards, dude!!

 

Let's create a random number generator that creates a random number that is 10^85894 numbers long.

 

We'll call this number (x).

 

Number (x) is created randomly. What are the odds that this specific number would have been created had we tried to randomly create it? Well...1 in 10^85894. That is astronomically large, but it happened. You know why? We weren't trying to create it.

 

Probability is goal-oriented. If natural law has no goal to create humans randomly, then our probability argument falls to pieces.

 

This is my favorite part of your post because I think this is your strongest argument. I have nothing to say in response except that it's cool to have one's perspective reversed.

 

I think you're creating a straw-man of the issue regarding science and astronomy. Their work is a little more difficult than looking at wobbling stars and assuming that it's a planet. There are probably a few more variables involved.

 

I'm sure there are other variables involved. But that doesn't change the fact that they can't see the planets they presume to exist. The can only observe what's going on around the planets. In other words, they can only see the effects of these planets. Much like I can't see a God, but can observe an ordered universe right down to, the never actually seen, atom. I don't know how to make a straw man, you silly goose.

 

Everything I believe exists doesn't have to be scientifically demonstrable. I don't use science, I let scientists use science and I think about what they have to say.

 

Sorry friend Asimov but I have no clue what this means. Aren't you making an argument that I am intellectually dishonest because God is not scientifically demonstrable? Are you saying that you are intellectually dishonest too?

 

Besides, we're not talking about what I think exists, we're talking about what YOU think exists. Side-tracking the issue with a red-herring.

 

My questions were not to create a diversion, but rather to make a point. My point was, that even you dear Asimov, likely trust in things that you have not observed directly.

 

Meaningless question. I can answer how you and I got here. Do you want to know the origin of man? The origin of species? The origin of life? The origin of the planet? What?

 

I have to attack the rest later.

 

I want to know the origin of the Universe? Scientists are doing a pretty good job of explaining things after the Universe magically appeared. But how did it all begin? And never call my questions meaningless, unless you want to make me cry.

 

Attack? just an expression I suppose.

 

 

 

 

Interesting. Morality is only a human abstract that we create in order to live in harmony with one another, so that is true.

 

We agree here. Lets celebrate!

 

No worries, I feel sorry for people who believe in personal Gods like Christianity, etc. and wonder why shit like that happens to them. I know how to deal with death, I've dealt with it before, my mom killed herself last year and I'm only 22. My grandpa killed himself when I was 13. I don't go through that intense sense of confusion.

 

I'm genuinely sorry for your losses Asimov.

[Asimov]

I provided the order of the Universe as my rationale for believing in a God. I think you are suggesting that this not a valid reason for believing in a God. Again I only "know" what life experience has taught me. Everywhere I see order outside of the natural world, I also see an intelligence behind this order. So why would I think that the natural world is any different than our own human world. After all, we exist within the natural world and therefore play by the same rules.

 

I did say that you haven't provided valid reasoning and I've pointed out that your reasoning is invalid because it's a logical fallacy.

 

You need to provide a logical correlation as to how you seeing order in the universe (along with the fact that your brain is a pattern recognition machine) and that leads into valid evidence that an intelligence could only have created this.

 

 

I see your point, but again I would suggest that order without an intelligent source is outside human experience. The examples you give only serve to suggest these things were designed, just like the roof the snowflake falls on, the crib the newborn baby sleeps in, and tire swing hanging from the tree. The tire swing didn't just fortunately come together at the right time and place. Someone made it and put it there.

 

So? We know that someone did because we define and design these things. What about biological organisms? We have a natural mechanism for these things being produced, they are complex things and you can't say that there's a designer behind it without any logical validation or empirical sources to support your assumption.

 

Well, I would say all those observations are affirmations of intelligent design.

 

How?

 

But what is my "emotional filter"? Do you mean I want to believe in a God because I have an emotional need to?

 

You believe what you want to believe because you want it to be so.

 

Aah, the chicken or the egg thing? Well one would have to speculate (yes, I know, bad word when discussing science) that an Intelligence capable of designing our Universe must exist outside space and time.

I know that this sounds very Star Trekish until you consider that something existed before the Big Bang. Scientists call it a singularity (aka the little big ball of nothingness). It seems more likely to me that this something was a God, or something to that effect.

 

Uh...no, everything must exist in time, even God.

 

The singularity WAS the universe, the Big Bang was the event of the singularity "banging".

 

This is my favorite part of your post because I think this is your strongest argument. I have nothing to say in response except that it's cool to have one's perspective reversed.

 

Cool.

 

I'm sure there are other variables involved. But that doesn't change the fact that they can't see the planets they presume to exist. The can only observe what's going on around the planets. In other words, they can only see the effects of these planets. Much like I can't see a God, but can observe an ordered universe right down to, the never actually seen, atom. I don't know how to make a straw man, you silly goose.

 

Dude, I think you're trying to create a correlation that doesn't exist. We have planets to corroborate our findings with, because planets operate in the same way due to their physical properties.

 

You don't have a God that you can compare what a God's nature is like and see if what you are interpreting as being God is actually God.

 

Sorry friend Asimov but I have no clue what this means. Aren't you making an argument that I am intellectually dishonest because God is not scientifically demonstrable? Are you saying that you are intellectually dishonest too?

 

My questions were not to create a diversion, but rather to make a point. My point was, that even you dear Asimov, likely trust in things that you have not observed directly.

 

Uh, no...I'm saying I'm not talking about science. We're talking about Philosophy. Science can't demonstrate any supernatural.

 

Direct observation doesn't mean jack shit, though. Empirical data and logical data must be present, and I have those for my beliefs.

 

I want to know the origin of the Universe? Scientists are doing a pretty good job of explaining things after the Universe magically appeared. But how did it all begin? And never call my questions meaningless, unless you want to make me cry.

 

I'm genuinely sorry for your losses Asimov.

 

What do you mean the origin of the universe? What if there is no origin? What if it just appeared randomly and uncaused? Those are definite possibilities.