Drew_2017

[TrueStory]

Its not a caveat. If we owe our existence to a creator who intentionally caused the universe for sentient beings to live (not necessarily just human life) we have a philosophical platform to elevate human kind above all else that is created. We also have reason to claim brotherhood and sisterhood with all people because we owe our existence to the same Creator. This in contrast to the notion we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that never intended humans to exist. From that point of view we can draw a much more cruel philosophical view point, that since humans were never intended to exist human life is nothing remotely special, we don't have a right to live or exist or any rights whatsoever least of all rights endowed by a Creator.

I don't see how in either of your scenarios we are more related than we currently are IRL and since you can't tell what the real answer is, apparently it doesn't matter.

[Mike Cl]

You make my case for me. You think the sun will rise because you believe it will rise. Prior to it rising you don't have a fact it will rise only a belief. Your belief becomes fact once the sun rises.

You still want to 'believe' so deeply that you would not recognize a fact if it slapped you in the face.  I don't 'believe' the sun will rise.  I have several decades of facts to guide my thinking.  Not only have I seen it rise daily all that time, but I have photo and tapes to show that it does just that on a daily basis.  And science has demonstrated why that is so--why the earth rotates around the sun.  I know the sun will come up because of the underlying facts and scientific proof.  Belief has nothing to do with my knowing the sun will rise; it's called critical thinking, something theists resist at all costs.  And you are no different.

[Baruch]

MikeCL demonstrates, that people here aren't nihilists, or even as skeptical as David Hume.  At times the OP is very much in the 18th century model, both in terms of quoting 18th century documents, but also alluding to a Humean skepticism, as a rhetorical gambit.  The usual POV here is taken from Voltaire, another 18th century thinker, and politically from Rousseau ... so it is rather French.  So yes, conservation of angular momentum defeats David Hume in the sun rise example ;-)  Though while humans living on a gravitating ball is anything but obvious, and was first proven by the surviving crew of the Magellan expedition.  The spinning Earth first proven by the Foucault pendulum, again contrary to naive common sense.  The limited but relentless regularity of nature, being one good point of objective analysis.

I agree that sentient beings are special .. and while materialism denies this, I have to conclude that materialism is false.  Analysis is not superior to synthesis ... so in that abstract way, I am a creationist.  Art triumphs over science, painter over mere paint.  I don't agree that religion is necessarily more humanistic than atheism ... though I have rhetorically used that position myself at times (if we are all predators, then there is no reason why I shouldn't kill and eat you).  Human motivation vs behavior is complicated.  Seculars will claim that while natural theology (a creation of the peruke people) is senseless, that natural law (another creation of the peruke people) does make sense.  I would say, show actual people who think like that (in terms of universal human rights constrain what I can or can't do, based on reciprocity) other than peruke people.  One has to escape all historical periods, otherwise one is simply in a different annex of the Matrix.  I happen to believe that humans have no political or moral rights, precisely because I reject the empirically obvious absurdity of a beneficent G-d.  G-d is clearly amoral.

Attempts to divine a unique condition under while life can exist in only our particular universe ... is a fallacy.  To be consistent with the fact that we are alive, it is logically impossible for the physics "numbers" not to be consistent with that, tempting even materialists into the Anthropic Principle argument.  Human life is the only life we can know, no matter what other sentients may exist, we can only know them partially.  Aren't dolphins the superior species here ;-)

[Mike Cl]

Aren't dolphins the superior species here ;-)

No, I'd vote for Bonobos!

[Baruch]

No, I'd vote for Bonobos!

Bonobos are the only apes that are matriarchal, so that is a feminist vote ;-)

[PopeyesPappy]

I don't reject naturalism as a possibility in fact if theism isn't true, its second runner up. 

Deism would be my 1st runner up.

I don't have a second as theism (as least as it pertains to any of the gods of the theistic religions of men I've ever heard about) goes into the same category as healing crystals and alien abductions. That category heading would be Woo.

[Mike Cl]

Bonobos are the only apes that are matriarchal, so that is a feminist vote ;-)

Feminist society that loves to screw---what's the downside here?????

[Mr.Obvious]

Feminist society that loves to screw---what's the downside here?????

That's what I thought!

... They don't allow me into the zoo anymore.

[Drew_2017]

You still want to 'believe' so deeply that you would not recognize a fact if it slapped you in the face.  I don't 'believe' the sun will rise.  I have several decades of facts to guide my thinking.  Not only have I seen it rise daily all that time, but I have photo and tapes to show that it does just that on a daily basis.  And science has demonstrated why that is so--why the earth rotates around the sun.  I know the sun will come up because of the underlying facts and scientific proof.  Belief has nothing to do with my knowing the sun will rise; it's called critical thinking, something theists resist at all costs.  And you are no different.

Obviously no meeting of minds is going to occur here. I recognize and listed 6 facts of the universe that lead me to believe the universe was intentionally caused by a Creator. Known facts can lead to beliefs. Do you know for a fact our universe was unintentionally caused by unguided naturalistic forces or is that a belief due to known facts?

[Mike Cl]

Probably not a meeting of the minds here.  All of the facts I understand that science has determined about the beginning or origin of the universe and life lead me to think there is no need for a creator; and I see not a single fact that leads me to think there is a creator.  A creator would leave some tracks; there are no divine tracks out there.  I think a creator does not nor ever did exist.  I do understand that from the beginning of the time of humans, they have wanted answers--humans are curious.  'I don't know' is not a satisfying answer; god did it can be very satisfying.  It's called wishful thinking and not critical thinking.

[Baruch]

Obviously no meeting of minds is going to occur here. I recognize and listed 6 facts of the universe that lead me to believe the universe was intentionally caused by a Creator. Known facts can lead to beliefs. Do you know for a fact our universe was unintentionally caused by unguided naturalistic forces or is that a belief due to known facts?

Depends on the definition of G-d.  If the god in question is the one from Sunday School, fed to children, then that is no more real than Santa Claus.  Also as I pointed out before, materialists deny agency (at least out of one side of their mouths).  There is also a categorical error involved.  In the Aristotelian example, one takes existing matter and reforms it into a new form.  This isn't creation ex nihilo ... and naturalists can argue that no truly new forms arise, because the future was implied by the past ... either as classic determinism or as quantum regulated probability.  Uniformitarianism implies that there is not only nothing new under the Sun, but that it is sunny everywhere, no shadows.  Usually the Sunday School god is the straw man, for both theists and atheists.  It is so easy to bash Santa Claus, or even turn him into the Grinch.

If you wanted to engage me, you will have to up your theistic game.  The others here have no interest in even indirect evangelism, nor are they interested in empty philosophical arguments ... they are harsh empirical realists.

[Drew_2017]

Depends on the definition of G-d.  If the god in question is the one from Sunday School, fed to children, then that is no more real than Santa Claus.  Also as I pointed out before, materialists deny agency (at least out of one side of their mouths).  There is also a categorical error involved.  In the Aristotelian example, one takes existing matter and reforms it into a new form.  This isn't creation ex nihilo ... and naturalists can argue that no truly new forms arise, because the future was implied by the past ... either as classic determinism or as quantum regulated probability.  Uniformitarianism implies that there is not only nothing new under the Sun, but that it is sunny everywhere, no shadows.  Usually the Sunday School god is the straw man, for both theists and atheists.  It is so easy to bash Santa Claus, or even turn him into the Grinch.

If you wanted to engage me, you will have to up your theistic game.  The others here have no interest in even indirect evangelism, nor are they interested in empty philosophical arguments ... they are harsh empirical realists.

It depends more on my definition of theism. If we were to find out our existence was due to a scientist from some other plane of existence that caused this universe to exist then theism (or deism) would be more accurate than atheism which just means not or without God. Another possibility that seems to be gaining scientific currency is the notion our existence and universe is a computer simulation.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

We are now capable of creating virtual universes and computing power is doubling about every few years. Imagine 500 years from now we could create a virtual universe so real that we could cause sentient beings to come into existence in a universe very similar to ours and no doubt those beings would question there existence as well only in their case we know the cause was theistic...

I don't need to up my game or convince anyone, I'm merely offering justification for my own beliefs.

[Baruch]

Computer geeks like to think that existence is software (but where is the hardware?).  Some Santa Cruz billionaires want to reboot the universe ... such is their megalomania.  Perhaps politics is proof that our universal Windows Registry is corrupt ... boat anchor time ;-)

What is software?  We don't even agree on what consciousness is, let alone unconsciousness.  And I appreciate that you are seeking answers, rather than just giving them ;-)

For Von Danikin ... aliens with enough technology are gods.  I wouldn't agree ... humans are demigods and so are sufficiently advanced alien species.  So what is a demigod?  Usually in monotheism, G-d is a metaphysical projection.

[Drew_2017]

Computer geeks like to think that existence is software (but where is the hardware?).  Some Santa Cruz billionaires want to reboot the universe ... such is their megalomania.  Perhaps politics is proof that our universal Windows Registry is corrupt ... boat anchor time ;-)

What is software?  We don't even agree on what consciousness is, let alone unconsciousness.  And I appreciate that you are seeking answers, rather than just giving them ;-)

For Von Danikin ... aliens with enough technology are gods.  I wouldn't agree ... humans are demigods and so are sufficiently advanced alien species.  So what is a demigod?  Usually in monotheism, G-d is a metaphysical projection.

No possible answer to our existence doesn't raise yet other questions. If we are the result of naturalistic forces that didn't intentionally cause our existence what caused natural forces to exist and can that cause be called naturalistic also? If we are the result of a Creator who intentionally caused the universe and life one can ask what caused God to exist? These questions don't negate either possibility it just shows we will probably never dig down to ultimate truth.

[Baruch]

What is ultimate truth?  What is truth?

This is a matter of temporal logic vs non-temporal logic.  It is a real thing ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_logic

In temporal logic, we sorry abut necessity and sufficiency in the context of cause/effect with a time-like lag.  in non-temporal logic, we are dealing with things like Quantum Entanglement ... which shows that logical necessity has no time limitations.  In non-temporal logic (aka eternity) there is no separation between cause/effect, no separation between creator and creation (or creature).  Buddha would tell you that the temporal is contained within the non-temporal, at least as I understand it in Mahayana Buddhism.  And in that sense, the temporal is illusory.  As is individuality (salt boy parable).