Theists - what convinced you?

[The Piper]

It's not logical because you still haven't demonstrated why it necessarily had to have been designed, and a definition of the designer. You're not backing up your claims with anything.

I never said it had to be designed. I just believe it is, based on my own observations and the observations of others.

Due to this belief I have come to the conclusion that the Universe and everything in it is not eternal, but it's creator is.

If I believed that the universe and everything in it was not designed, then I could come to the conclusion that the creation could be eternal and therefore have no creator.

Comprehend?

[tavarish]

It's not logical because you still haven't demonstrated why it necessarily had to have been designed, and a definition of the designer. You're not backing up your claims with anything.

I never said it had to be designed. I just believe it is, based on my own observations and the observations of others.

I'm getting tired of this.

Observations like WHAT? Can you provide details for ANYTHING?

Due to this belief I have come to the conclusion that the Universe and everything in it is not eternal, but it's creator is.
If I believed that the universe and everything in it was not designed, then I could come to the conclusion that the creation could be eternal and therefore have no creator.

Comprehend?

You've just reiterated the statement.

I'm noticing an obvious pattern in your posts.

"I believe this because I believe it. If I didn't, I wouldn't hold this belief."

...yeah.

[The Piper]

It's not logical because you still haven't demonstrated why it necessarily had to have been designed, and a definition of the designer. You're not backing up your claims with anything.

I never said it had to be designed. I just believe it is, based on my own observations and the observations of others.

I'm getting tired of this.

Observations like WHAT? Can you provide details for ANYTHING?

Due to this belief I have come to the conclusion that the Universe and everything in it is not eternal, but it's creator is.
If I believed that the universe and everything in it was not designed, then I could come to the conclusion that the creation could be eternal and therefore have no creator.

Comprehend?

You've just reiterated the statement.

I'm noticing an obvious pattern in your posts.

"I believe this because I believe it. If I didn't, I wouldn't hold this belief."

...yeah.

I have not bothered going into details of the observations of evidence for design, because I am assuming as an atheist you would have already checked them out? So you can try and refute them? Google is the answer.

There is also a pattern in your posts. Circle work is awesome.

[tavarish]

I have not bothered going into details of the observations of evidence for design, because I am assuming as an atheist you would have already checked them out? So you can try and refute them? Google is the answer.

Don't assume. I made this thread for theists to post up specifics about their experiences and how they reflect their belief in God's existence. Am I going to Google "The Piper's life experiences"? I asked what YOU had to back this up, not what is able to be found on Google. The point is to find out what YOU consider valid.

There is also a pattern in your posts. Circle work is awesome.

Please point out where I have been circular.

[The Piper]

I have not bothered going into details of the observations of evidence for design, because I am assuming as an atheist you would have already checked them out? So you can try and refute them? Google is the answer.

Don't assume. I made this thread for theists to post up specifics about their experiences and how they reflect their belief in God's existence. Am I going to Google "The Piper's life experiences"? I asked what YOU had to back this up, not what is able to be found on Google. The point is to find out what YOU consider valid.

There is also a pattern in your posts. Circle work is awesome.

Please point out where I have been circular.

You are being circular right now.

I consider so many things valid to the nature of the universe being designed that I could not possibly have the time to write them all down for you. If you are interested, do some research on Google.

I have not been evasive at all, I have answered all of your questions, and repeatedly answered them. I do apologise for not having the time to explain all of the observations of nature that lead me to believe in a designed universe.

[fr0d0]

If you go to my posting of Richard Dawkins interview with Father George Coyne Tav you'll see him explain quite clearly from a Christians point of view about the issue of God's existence from the POV of creation/ science. He says of the question that: "it isn't satisfying at all". Theological and philosophical questioning doesn't really answer the question well enough. For the question is a scientific one. What you're searching for Tav is a "God of explanation" as Coyne puts it, and that God is not the Christian God. If you want to find explanation... then use science. Don't try to make ideas of God = scientific ideas. I hope that makes sense.

You're exclusive take here has been to understand a Christian's reasoning for their belief in God from a scientific POV... which is strictly outside of the realm of religious belief. I'd suggest, if you want to try to understand reasoning for belief, you try to focus on what that belief actually entails rather than on what it doesn't. Don't change the subject to science... stick to the subject of religion.

[Tiberius]

Here's an honest question for you Piper:

What makes you think the "creation" is a "creation"? So far, all you've done is play with words. If you call something a painting, yes, it means it has to have a painter. If you call something a creation, it must need a creator. However, calling something one thing does not make it so; you need reasons why it should be labeled as such. I could call my laptop a painting, and therefore argue that it has a painter (logically), but the fact that my laptop isn't a painting means my argument falls down due to definitions.

So, your argument that God is creator of the Universe is valid if and only if the thing you label as "creation" is in fact a creation. So please, what evidence do you have to suggest it was a creation?

[tavarish]

You are being circular right now.

Explain how I'm being circular.

I consider so many things valid to the nature of the universe being designed that I could not possibly have the time to write them all down for you.

I don't need all of them, a few would be nice.

If you are interested, do some research on Google.

Would I search for "The Piper's evidence for the existence of God"? You're utterly missing the point, an it's getting monotonous to keep repeating the point. It's about your experiences and what led you to your belief in the existence of God. This is not necessarily the belief IN God.

I have not been evasive at all, I have answered all of your questions, and repeatedly answered them.

Where? You sure as hell didn't do that in this thread. I asked you to be more specific a number of times and I got nothing.

I do apologise for not having the time to explain all of the observations of nature that lead me to believe in a designed universe.

I don't need all of them - the most compelling ones that convinced you of such an entity's existence will suffice.

---

If you go to my posting of Richard Dawkins interview with Father George Coyne Tav you'll see him explain quite clearly from a Christians point of view about the issue of God's existence from the POV of creation/ science. He says of the question that: "it isn't satisfying at all". Theological and philosophical questioning doesn't really answer the question well enough. For the question is a scientific one. What you're searching for Tav is a "God of explanation" as Coyne puts it, and that God is not the Christian God. If you want to find explanation... then use science. Don't try to make ideas of God = scientific ideas. I hope that makes sense.

God has no explanatory value. What good is that then? How can you assert an object's existence and necessary traits if it's not backed by anything?

Also, what relevance does this have to my initial questions?

You're exclusive take here has been to understand a Christian's reasoning for their belief in God from a scientific POV... which is strictly outside of the realm of religious belief. I'd suggest, if you want to try to understand reasoning for belief, you try to focus on what that belief actually entails rather than on what it doesn't. Don't change the subject to science... stick to the subject of religion.

I'm not changing anything to science, I'm asking what convinced people of their belief in the existence of God. I'm just probing a bit further than the vague assertions that plague these sorts of topics.

[Violet]

Here's an honest question for you Piper:

What makes you think the "creation" is a "creation"? So far, all you've done is play with words. If you call something a painting, yes, it means it has to have a painter. If you call something a creation, it must need a creator. However, calling something one thing does not make it so; you need reasons why it should be labeled as such. I could call my laptop a painting, and therefore argue that it has a painter (logically), but the fact that my laptop isn't a painting means my argument falls down due to definitions.

So, your argument that God is creator of the Universe is valid if and only if the thing you label as "creation" is in fact a creation. So please, what evidence do you have to suggest it was a creation?

My laptop is a prettier painting than yours

If a person defines 'painting' as how they also define 'laptop'... then it would be true that their laptop would be a painting (and same the other way). However, if one defines 'painting' differently than they define 'laptop', then the painting is not necessarily also a laptop... and perhaps the definitions are exclusive of each other.

Darn these annoying semantics... how can I know that the word I use for 'chocolate' is not the same word that you use for 'orangutang'... so that when I ask you, "Would you like some chocolate?": you interpret it as, "Would you like some orangutang?"

[tavarish]

Here's a better question:

What kind of tree is a pig?