Man created the gods, why do we believe God created man?

Quote:

It's a bad analogy, because in the examples you give, other people are trying to reach conclusions about my personal experience, but in the example under discussion, we are trying to reach a conclusion about the origin and nature of the universe.

But you see, I have no problem with your conclusion about the origin and nature of the universe. I have no problem with the big bang theory and I have no problem with evolution or any other scientific theories. These may or may not turn out to be the way they are currently believed to be, but I don't have any problem with the concepts in themselves. But it is the God whom I have experienced that makes me able to believe that it was him who formed the matter of which the universe is made. Do you have a better theory about where all the stuff that makes up the universe came from?

And it is the God whom I have experienced who would have formed the components of the universe in such a way that a 'big bang' would occur. He lit the fuse so to speak. Do you have a better theory about how all that came to pass?

And since such things are easy for me to believe due to that of God which he has allowed me to experience, I don't have any problem whatsoever in seeing Evolution coexisting peacefully side by side or within a larger concept of intelligent design.

For me there is no conflict between God and science for I am confident that God is the author of all that we understand as science.

I also think that all of us are going to be really surprised about some of this stuff when we are privy to know how it all came about.

The analogy I used was purely to illustrate that there is much that we all believe that we cannot prove to anybody else. We have all experienced all kinds of things that we cannot prove to anybody else that we have experienced them.

I do find it rather remarkable that out of all those things that we have experienced but cannot prove that we have experienced, it is usually mostly the professed experience of God that some go way out of their way to dispute or discredit. I have long concluded that the reason for that is that a concept of God is terrifying to some who have never experienced Him.

When you say that God created the universe, no matter how he did it, you are making a very specific assertion about the universe, which is either correct or incorrect. You can use "personal experience" to justify absolutely any assertion whatsoever. It would be illogical for anyone to accept your assertion in the utter absence of evidence. I see no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a God, and you appear to be able to give me none. In the absence of evidence, it would simply be stupid for me or anyone else to accept your theory. It seems odd to me that this being could exist and be responsible for the origin and operation of the universe, yet leave behind not one shred of evidence that he exists.

Brandon writes

Quote:

When you say that God created the universe, no matter how he did it, you are making a very specific assertion about the universe, which is either correct or incorrect. You can use "personal experience" to justify absolutely any assertion whatsoever. It would be illogical for anyone to accept your assertion in the utter absence of evidence. I see no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a God, and you appear to be able to give me none. In the absence of evidence, it would simply be stupid for me or anyone else to accept your theory. It seems odd to me that this being could exist and be responsible for the origin and operation of the universe, yet leave behind not one shred of evidence that he exists.

I haven't asked you or anybody else to accept my theory. I have only provided the reason that I hold it. It is irrational for you to presume that I have not experienced what I say that I have experienced when you have no way to dispute that other than the fact that you do not wish to believe it.

Further, when you add my testimony to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of others, it becomes quite irrational to not at least consider the possibility that what is being testified to exists. You know that if he testimony was about anything other than God/supernatural, you would not be so quick to reject it out of hand purely because the people could provide you with no material evidence.

Foxfyre wrote:

Brandon writes

Quote:

When you say that God created the universe, no matter how he did it, you are making a very specific assertion about the universe, which is either correct or incorrect. You can use "personal experience" to justify absolutely any assertion whatsoever. It would be illogical for anyone to accept your assertion in the utter absence of evidence. I see no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a God, and you appear to be able to give me none. In the absence of evidence, it would simply be stupid for me or anyone else to accept your theory. It seems odd to me that this being could exist and be responsible for the origin and operation of the universe, yet leave behind not one shred of evidence that he exists.

I haven't asked you or anybody else to accept my theory. I have only provided the reason that I hold it. It is irrational for you to presume that I have not experienced what I say that I have experienced when you have no way to dispute that other than the fact that you do not wish to believe it.

Further, when you add my testimony to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of others, it becomes quite irrational to not at least consider the possibility that what is being testified to exists. You know that if he testimony was about anything other than God/supernatural, you would not be so quick to reject it out of hand purely because the people could provide you with no material evidence.

My personal tendencies really have no bearing on the truth or falsehood of your model of the universe. As I said, one could justify any theory whatever based on, "it was revealed to me personally," including false theories. The only rational basis on which I can determine the nature of the universe is observation of characteristics of the universe. Why do you suppose it is that you cannot provide any external characteristic of the universe whatever that points toward the existence of a God?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Brandon writes

Quote:

When you say that God created the universe, no matter how he did it, you are making a very specific assertion about the universe, which is either correct or incorrect. You can use "personal experience" to justify absolutely any assertion whatsoever. It would be illogical for anyone to accept your assertion in the utter absence of evidence. I see no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a God, and you appear to be able to give me none. In the absence of evidence, it would simply be stupid for me or anyone else to accept your theory. It seems odd to me that this being could exist and be responsible for the origin and operation of the universe, yet leave behind not one shred of evidence that he exists.

I haven't asked you or anybody else to accept my theory. I have only provided the reason that I hold it. It is irrational for you to presume that I have not experienced what I say that I have experienced when you have no way to dispute that other than the fact that you do not wish to believe it.

Further, when you add my testimony to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of others, it becomes quite irrational to not at least consider the possibility that what is being testified to exists. You know that if he testimony was about anything other than God/supernatural, you would not be so quick to reject it out of hand purely because the people could provide you with no material evidence.

My personal tendencies really have no bearing on the truth or falsehood of your model of the universe. As I said, one could justify any theory whatever based on, "it was revealed to me personally," including false theories. The only rational basis on which I can determine the nature of the universe is observation of characteristics of the universe. Why do you suppose it is that you cannot provide any external characteristic of the universe whatever that points toward the existence of a God?

I point to the universe itself. Where did the stuff of the universe come from?

Why is a Supreme Being as author and architect less logical than any other theory put out there?

What evidence--what external characteristic--can you point to that suggests anything else provided the basic stuff of the universe as well as the time and space within which it functions?

Other than that I have presented no model of the universe whatsoever other than those which are already accepted as scientific theories. I have simply stated that I have experienced God; therefore I know he exists. There is no external evidence because God must be apparently be experienced in order to be known.

You have absolutely no external characteristic that points to dozens of things that you experienced today either. But I bet you are absolutely certain that you had the experience.

What would you say was the No. 1 characteristic of the universe you have observed Brandon? The one most important to you personally I mean.

The topic as it is being debated has no relevance to anything as far as I can tell.

I liked "ironing out the fine details" thing though.

The assertion, "a supreme supernatural being created and operates the universe" is on the table here, and my answer is simply that I am prepared to accept it at the point that someone can give me evidence that it's true, and not before. That's how any logical person ought to respond to any proposed explanation.

No, that a supreme supernatural being created and operates the universe is not what is on the table here. The thread title/thesis doesn't address that at all. Whether it is plausible that a Supreme Being exists or is a product of human imagination is what is on the table.

One way to experience what those who testify experience of God is to have the experience yourself. I believe anybody who wants it can have it. It would make a great scientific experiement, yes?

Quote:

One way to experience what those who testify experience of God is to have the experience yourself. I believe anybody who wants it can have it. It would make a great scientific experiement, yes?

It's been done Foxy. All down the years and all over the place. Ceremonies.

Evolved combinations of sense distortions. Light, sound, fragrances, rhythm. Swelling organs, incense, crescendo and diminuendo. Or jungle jug bands in the moonlight with torches burning.

The Roman Catholic church has been selected in through its manipulation of these powerful forces. Mass in St Peter's on Easter Sunday sets the standard.
It's rich because it is successful. And the society it created is rich.

Nobody can touch it. Try Midnight Mass in a cathedral a bit popped up, which isn't difficult on Christmas Eve.

I've seen others. I think that it doesn't work with married men officiating. They can't pull it off properly. They can't look insanely jealous when marrying a comely, virginal wench on her big day. Nor be quite so cheerful at baptisms because the little monster is somebody else's. Married men have no dignity. You have to suspend your scientific training to think otherwise.

What you might try for a scientific experiment is a tour of cathedrals to study regional variations in the ceremonials and mark them for the Oceanic Feeling factor. If you can get a big enough slice of pork I might consider accompanying you to take notes when you're swaying from side to side.

Atheists have no chance. Hypnosists will tell you that you can only hypnotise someone who is receptive to being hypnotised. Some atheist teacher somewhere took it off them.