Case for a Creator

[sammywantsya]

@ shernajwine
you go girl im glad that you finally made a choice on what you believe in and standing up for your beliefs...
dont let anyone fool you but yourself

just embrace on what they have to say.
because ignorance is a bliss and that can led to be superior to one another.
and we dont want that do we?

[makedoughonline]

Thank you for sharing.

[ktheodos]

Wow! Interesting to read, thanks for sharing about the book....I had heard of it and it had sounded good-the relationship between science and faith is very interesting and important-check out the "Biologos Foundation" for some interesting thoughts on this relationship...keep reading and exploring!!!

[Cuppycake]

@ shernajwine
you go girl im glad that you finally made a choice on what you believe in and standing up for your beliefs...
dont let anyone fool you but yourself

just embrace on what they have to say.
because ignorance is a bliss and that can led to be superior to one another.
and we dont want that do we?

LOL

[queenofnines]

He talks about the universes fine tuning which referrs to the extraordinary balanceing of the fundamental laws and paramenters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe. He speaks about the incredible and overwhelming odds for our fragile balance on the razors edge of life.  One tiny fraction in one direction or the other and life is not possible....

He mentions that skeptics say, if the universe were not fine-tuned for life, then human beings wouldn't be around to observe it. So therefore it requires no explanation....

Bleh, I don't know why I bother spending my time responding to stuff like this.  You obviously want to be kept hostage by the idea of god...if god wasn't a deep psychological need of yours, you'd be able to see the very clear arguments against him and understand how you've been misled.

Life WOULD have been possible had conditions of the universe been altered; life would have just been different.  And yes, the anthropic principle stands just fine.

Our world in particular is NOT ideal for life: we have oxygen which we require to breathe, but also slowly POISONS US; a planet that is not invincible to deadly asteroids; a very small percentage of good drinking water; a large portion of lands that are INFERTILE, causing millions of starving people; etc.

The universe is also not "fine-tuned" for us indefinitely; scientists have known for DECADES that we're doomed (that is, if we don't kill ourselves first).  There is going to be a heat death or crunch one day, and then NO LIFE WHATSOEVER will exist at that point.

[queenofnines]

But to summarize the chapter as a whole Gonzalez and Richards explain with logical reasoning how life is nearly impossible if not entirely possible anywhere else in the universe.

I assume you made a typo here with the word possible.  In any event, this kind of statement is clear evidence of how you can know you're being decieved by reading these books.

Why are you being deceived?  Because to say that life elsewhere in the universe is "nearly impossible, if not entirely" is the most IGNORANT thing I've read this week.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of science knows that there are TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS of galaxies, solar systems, planets, stars, etc.  It would be nearly impossible, if not entirely (to steal the authors' stupid line) for there NOT to be some form of life elsewhere in the universe.  The reason why we haven't found beings comparable to humans yet is because space is measured in millions of light years; the closest intelligent alien life is beyond our technological capabilities right now.  Hello, we only just walked on the moon in 1969.

[queenofnines]

It seems logical that both exist to some extent: that is a supreme being/beings either flat out created us or guided our evolution into what we know today: humans/humanoids/homosapiens - and that we have evolved and will keep evolving (or at least I hope because it seems we have tipped and now are devolving as a whole >< ) into a more complex, compassionate, aware etc etc beings.

Why would a god capable of creating the vast cosmos and laws within it need to use evolution??  I'm just sayin'.

[lancenweman1978]

Why would a god capable of creating the vast cosmos and laws within it need to use evolution??  I'm just sayin'.

This is a discussion thread not a debate thread . The whole of my post is to show support for ideas and possibilities not beliefs. To be open minded and to speculate for the interest of discussion and freedom and the enjoyment of learning in a non-threatening positive way is a big part of these topics. Not to come in and start picking apart a lot of what is being said. We actually should stop posting and allow the original thread makers continue with their own direction.

In no way does your comment contribute at all. We cannot effectively ask questions such as "Why would a god capable of creating the vast cosmos and laws within it need to use evolution." Your question as it stands has no answer except maybe that it would allow for us to move forward and grow emotionally, intellectually and physically etc and maybe a little nudge every now and then could be beneficial and I seriously doubt we will be able to answer it because within it we would need to question a creator(god) which I am confident he/she/they would rather us not do if in fact a creator(s) exists. If you don't have the intellectual capacity or discipline to contribute effectively I am confident everyone would rather your not comment at all.

Please feel free not to retort. Thanks

 

[shernajwine]

Well queen, I could only post a limited amount of information from the book so you're replying in ignorance because you don't have all the information presented from the particular chapter and all the evidence that the interviewees discuss for their position. This is why I stated at the first post that I was not intending this as a debate topic. If you are actually INTERESTED in reading something other than atheistic and evolutionary materials and are willing to openly research the scientific evidence that points to a creator than this a good book to read. There are many other information sources out there.

This isn't the only source of material out there and I think I'm going to listen to someone who understands their field of study and spent years studying to receive in a doctorate.
And also the nearly impossible if not entirely was not the author's exact words, it was my summarized statement of the overall view.

Anyhow point being you cannot effectively argue something you don't understand, so either go read the book The Privileged Planet, or read The Case for a Creator and then you decide whether it's logical or not. After all being intellectually honest, is not the act of refusing to view all evidence before making a logical conclusion.

And I think you made a very important statement earlier.....

For me personally, I didn't spend much time reading books that attempted to prove Christ nor watch videos proclaiming "how stupid evolution is" when I was a Christian (except when I was trying to witness).  I didn't need to convince myself that there were "good" arguments for god because it simply felt like he was real.

Well, there you have it. Maybe you should have read books and watched videos but instead you let an atheist make you feel stupid for your beliefs and you got bombarded with information to support an atheistic perspective.....therefore your faith in God was not rooted in knowledge and you were easily deceived. An atheist once tried to make me look stupid and I decided to do an honest search for answers  

2 Peter 1:5
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;....

There is a list of scientists on another thread (and it certainly isn't by any means every single one) that believe in Creation. Many scientists (and several are mentioned and quoted in this particular book) have turned from atheism in favor of God...and not just any God but the God of Christianity because, try though they might they could not turn a blind eye to the evidence glaring them in the face any longer and many of them true to the purpose of science, let the evidence lead them to truth....even if that truth was uncomfortable.

I don't have a psychological need for God, I have a spiritual need for Him....and because I have a unique ability, being a human being, to reflect on the information I have come across...I can make a free will choice based on ALL evidence.

I read the God Delusion, I read Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker (a former christian turned atheist) and the many other video links and articles you have posted here that have led me to other sites and information. So I think I can say...even though I haven't read every single word from every single atheist or christian ever written...that I have a good basic foundation of information on both spectrums and I'm sorry but, I find that, what I once thought you said that made sense....doesn't anymore. I am more sure of the truth than I ever have been.

You can call me ignorant, delusional, psychotic, unintelligent, closed minded, stupid, unrealistic....aaaaaaanything you want. I'm beginning to understand atheist arrogance because suddenly I find myself laughing at these implications on my intelligence.  
 

[shernajwine]

Chapter 10

This chapter delves into the enigma of the mind. Something that evolution has never...cannot presently...and will never be able to explain.

The assertion of this chapter is that people are both body and spirit with a consciousness that acts outside the physical matter of the brain. This section also goes into details that I can't do justice to and I'm sitting here trying to fathom how I can put this into a short post and have it make sense lol. Well here goes...

Strobel interviews J.P. Moreland PHD. Moreland's science training came at the University of Missouri, where he received a degree in chemistry. He then earned a master's degree in theology at Dallas Theological Seminary and a doctorate in philosophy at the University of Southern California.

He describes consciousness as, what you are aware of when you introspect. When you pay attention to what's going on inside of you, that's consciousness.
Strobels asks, what if consciousness didn't exist?
Moreland's example:  apples would still be red, but there would be no awareness of red or any sensations of red.

Moreland discusses physicalism, he says "if physicalism is true, then consciousness doesn't really exist, because there would be no such thing a sconscious states that must be described from a first-person point of view."
"also there would be no free will. That's because matter is completely governed by the laws of nature. Take any physical object, for instance, a cloud...it's just a material object, and it's movement is completely govered by the laws of air pressure, wind movement, and the life.  So if I'm a material object, all of the things I do are fixed by my environment, my genetics, and so forth.  That would mean I'm not really free to make choices."

His third reason for physicalism not being true deals with near death experiences or disembodied intermediate states.
Stroble asks flat out if Moreland thinks near death experiences are true.

"We have to be careful with the data and not overstate things, but I do think they provide at least a minimalist case for consciousness surviving death.

He mentions that consciousness is inner and private to the individual. A scientist could know more about what's happening in my brain that I do, but he couldn't know more about what's happening in my mind that I do. He has to ask me.

Later he says Darwinian evolution will never be able to explain the origin of consciousness. Perhaps Darwinists can explain how consciousness was shaped in a certain way over time, because the behavior that consciousness caused had survival value.  But it can't explain the origin of consciousness, because it can't explain how you can get something from nothing....In Darwin's notebooks, he said if there was anything his theory can't explain, then there would have to be another explanation...Well he can't explain the origin of mind.

A soul is what we are, it is our character....Moreland gives an example of how he has never seen his wife. His wife is invisible. His wife has thoughts, a personality, likes and dislikes, feelings, beliefs, desires. If she were to be taken apart piece by piece cell by cell and you peeked into each one of them, you would not see any of that...you would not find her ego or her "self". Her ego and her conscious life are invisible. Now, she is small enough to have a body, God isn't...and the existence of the consciousness is the presence of the soul and the image in which God made us like him.

How interesting, that the very ability to ponder God's existence and to reason about evidence IS the very evidence for his existence! I love it!!

[shernajwine]

Chapter 11 is a summary of the cumulative case for a creator.

Strobel says...I realized that if I were to embrace Darwinism and it's underlying premise of naturalism, I would have to believe that:

• Nothing produces everything
• Non-life produces life
• Randomness produces fine-tuning
• Chaos produces information
• Unconsciousness produces consciousness
• Non-reason produces reason

[/i]

From his search he became firmly convinced that evolution is a confirmed fact......as long as it's defined as the micro-evolutionary variations we see in animal and plant world. Undeniably, a considerable amount of change and diversification has taken place over time.  However, there is simply insufficient evidence from which to draw the radical conclusion that large-scale, macro-evolutionary transitions have occurred.

What he considered impossible years ago he now considered not only possible, but obvious. The"explanatory power" of the design hypothesis outstripped every other theory.

[shernajwine]

Thanks everyone who contributed to this thread! I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and posting about it helped me reflect in a deeper way. Trying to convey such a vast amount of information in such a limited way was difficult so I would definitely recommend buying or checking out this book from the library!

There was a point in my life that I asked all the questions atheists ask, I never quite went so far as believing God didn't exist but I began to resent him. I threw my bible in anger at scriptures I didn't understand and questioned the character of God that seemed so cruel at times. I felt, there was a God but he hated me and created me out of spite to watch me suffer while he played games with my life.

When I began to feel misery slipping into deep depression at this idea I just made a choice to say, God you MUST love me. I can't go through my life feeling this way, and I decided to suppress those questions that I didn't have answers to and went on my way.

From there God began taking me on a journey to discover Him and joining this forum was no chance happening. I was confronted with the very questions I had asked years ago and buried without answers. The atheists in this forum forced me to dig them up and I began to see things in a new light. I was forced to find answers and that is exactly what God wanted. He didn't want me to walk around in any form of doubt or to believe in Him just for the sake of believing. And most of all He wanted to show me how much He loves me. Through discovering scientific evidence for God I have discovered a new facet of God's love for His creation that I never knew before!

I pray that anyone who is seeking answers that the Holy Spirit guide them in the right direction and with gentleness and love open their eyes to the truth of God and His all encompassing power, love, and grace! 

[dell9031]

Sherna --

I could be wrong when I say this, but I get the impression that your sudden zest for proving to yourself that god is real is due to recent doubt you may have experienced in regards to your faith.  No offense, but most Christians don't have to read books to prove to themselves that there's a god; they believe, and that's all there is to it.

For me personally, I didn't spend much time reading books that attempted to prove Christ nor watch videos proclaiming "how stupid evolution is" when I was a Christian (except when I was trying to witness).  I didn't need to convince myself that there were "good" arguments for god because it simply felt like he was real.  As an atheist I can now see that going to church is a KEY COMPONENT of maintaining a belief in god...but not for the reason you think.  It's a key component because the delusions are being reinforced to you on a weekly basis.

The second key component to maintaining a belief in god is to have "god glasses" firmly glued to your head.  This means when you're outside church in your everyday life, you can TRAIN YOURSELF to see "god" in pretty much anything.  If something mundane but good happens, it's a "blessing".  When something sh*tty happens, it's a "test".  Because you've TRICKED YOURSELF into seeing normal life through shades of "god", this also significantly reinforces the belief.  Occasionally some really weird coincidences will happen, but it never occurs to you that these same "blessings", "tests", and "coincidences" happen to atheists, too!

Did you read my thread on how the Christian god is logically impossible?  Facts such as those are what woke me up to the Christian dreamland I had been living in.  From then on, I could no longer see "god" in my everyday life because I realized he was never there to begin with.

What is wrong with God Glasses?  What is wrong with brain washing?  There are lot of things in this world to be brainwashed with and we all have a choice.  Your choice of the atheism brainwash is your choice and you are entitled to it.  You obviously "own" that belief system and hang out with other atheists.  Logic ?  You have not lived long enough or seen the hell that war, famine and true hell on earth brings to mankind to base your philosphy of logic on making any argument against anothers belief.  Quite frankly an atheists philosophy on logic is boring and intellectually lazy. Most atheists have never truly confronted the horror of mankind and his "logic" to why and life.  You are naive even from an atheists point of view.

[lancenweman1978]

shernajwine

wow. i did watch some of the "cause for a creator" and I must say it is quite a pleasure to just hear people postulate/hypothesize about the possibilities and keep an open mind since most likely we won't know until we pass on. One of humanities biggest challenges is to "LET IT GO" and this holds true to the topic of "why are we here." I actually enjoy being kept on my toes a bit about why we are here, if there is a purpose, what we can do and/or are meant/given the opportunity to accomplish. I feel like I get too complacent when I think I have figured out what this whole show is all about and then I remember why I choose to have ideas instead of beliefs, although I do use that term from time to time but usually i use it to describe that I believe the possibilities are infinite or something of the like. watching the films/documentaries on these subjects very directly reminds me of my favorite radio stations, "npr", "wmub", "pri" and a couple others I am having difficulty recalling right now. They speak/report in a very unbiased way and let the listener attempt to decide for themselves. Anyway, enough rambling for now. Thanks again for this epic topic. ;-)

 

[queenofnines]

If you don't have the intellectual capacity or discipline to contribute effectively I am confident everyone would rather your not comment at all.

This statement is disrespectful and uncalled for.  Someone needed to challenge this thread so it didn't wind up as one big sales pitch for religion.

And Sherna -- it wasn't atheists that turned me away from god, it was my own research.