Evidence for the Creator: Angst

..hardly..

You only have a different "imaginary creator!' ..atheistic naturalism, with its fantastic belief systems of abiogenesis, big bang, and common ancestry..

NONE of these BELIEFS have any scientific basis, nor are any of them 'Facts!', like you pretend.

Pseudoscience pretension proves prevarication..

I actually accept your religious beliefs, and your right to express and promote them, as you do. I only bristle at the violence done to the scientific method, pretending your religious opinions concerning origins are somehow 'settled science!'

If i were to assert MY belief in 'Factual Reality!', i would warn, very strongly, of the danger in denying or mocking one's Creator. You can berate or demean me all you want..but don't miss the deep call from your Creator, urging you to reconciliation.

 

That is a compelling way to look at it. 'Separation Anxiety', from our Source, is very concise, and poetic, if you don't mind me saying so..

It is clear and compelling evidence for The Creator. Those cut off or estranged from Him should reconcile this problem, immediately.

Why be separated, if you can be united?

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Still unable to defend your egregious OP FALLACY so instead you blunder down the path of PROJECTING theist shortcomings onto others.

Read SAD that your inane position has descended into wallowing in that sewer but that is NOT my problem.

 

Thank you, I try. You have also been respectful and pleasant to talk to. It does get harder to justify writing more in depth arguments when we see shorter, less thought-through posts being answered at a higher rate, so I'm not surprised to see the situation as it is.

Well, how would you know what an animal frustration would look like? Hunger feels very different from vertigo, or from hanger, or fear of death or shame. I would expect a distinct feeling/whatever like angst to seem fundamentally different too. Based on the evolution explanation, I wouldn't be surprised to find angst to feel different to the other feelings. I don't see how any of the things you present means that it couldn't fundamentally be another "animal" frustration (I hesitate to call it animal, since it seems to require a certain amount of abstraction that only humans seem capable of, but I more or less refer to the human animal).

What are you suggesting that would show? I already agree that it exists and on many of the features of it. I even agree that the angst itself pushes us towards believing in a god. The question I'm asking is why that is a good reason to believe that the god in question actually exists.

I think this is the same objection Camus would have, the central point of the philosophy he fathered is that the angst in our hearts is at odds with the lack of meaning in the universe, i.e. he argues (as do I) that the angst is real, but that that is not evidence for a creator. Clearly, the quote you provide is not meant to prove the point you provided it for, since Camus doesn't actually agree with your conclusion.

The Pascal and Aquinas quotes you refer to both seem to talk about this God-shaped hole. I would argue that there is a hole in every man, and we have invented a hole-shaped god to fit into it.

It seems to me, what we need is not more quotes, but quotes (or other evidence) that links any of this to what is.

I keep running into the issue that the fact that we want something doesn't mean it exists. On the evolutionary view, evolution doesn't have a requirement to get us to desire things that actually exist. I don't think that any of this defies natural explanation, the conclusion of a creator doesn't seem to follow to me.

I don't see that this resolves the issue, though. So if we are so good at biases and self-deception, why should we trust that our angst points us somewhere meaningful? I agree that it calls, but I don't see how that means it must be god-given.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Obviously, I don't agree that this is the truth, and at that point, the details don't really matter. There is plenty literature and thought that delves into this from a secular point of view as well, practical as well as theoretical. My questions for here is solely how the desire links us to know what actually is.

 

Reality as we directly perceive it involves 2 main subjects: nonliving substance and conscious living beings. Such beings increasingly impose on the status of the material world, modifying, manipulating, and managing it. If the trajectory and momentum of evolution is speculatively projected, the pattern is much like that suggested by Michio Kaku: civilizations types I, II, and III. Then if we up the ante even further, the contemplation is the multiverse that includes worlds of various types of physical reality.

It is said that each such world has a highly evolved master manager who is not a perfect being and is assisted by a modest entourage of subordinate staff.

Material worlds seem to be programmed to produce life. In this scenario, beings are not the source of creation, but are sophisticated managers, enhancers and proponents of refinement and development. Yet they are an evolutionary derivative of substance.

Where then is the Designer/Creator of material substance? Somewhere beyond our perceptibility. His works are manifest via photons and energies that we can't detect.

 

[QUOTE="Swensson, post: 1071573455, member: 30924"... the lack of meaning in the universe....[/QUOTE]

It can be overcome, but it requires consideration of clues left by Steiner, the Egyptians, and the Roman Catholics.

Obviously, the mystery can't be solved by focusing on the visible physical universe. Since we can't witness what happens to us after death or before conception, that's where we must focus. We are stardust while alive, starbound after death, and earthbound from the stars before birth. It's just a matter of widening your scope and seeing the big picture.

 

Depends on what you mean. The Existentialists and Absurdists were quite happy to find meaning in their material world. I don't know what version of meaning you refer to, but what makes you focus on that meaning rather than another, or none at all?

 

It certainly addresses your claim to be a philosopher.

 

Without energy there is NO "creation."
So the choices are:
Nuthindidit!
Energydidit!

 

Various pundits have noted how pointless the material universe seems to be. It is cold, heartless, indifferent, and largely inhospitable. The attempt to achieve a fully satisfactory understanding of the justification for one's existence within the framework of material limitations is indeed problematic. That is why some philosophically inclined thinkers throughout the ages have resorted to serious consideration of transcendence in the search for answers. When you consider the many clues that have turned up, it is possible to make sense of the predicament, although it is necessary to entertain what may seem to be a serious mental stretch beyond known familiar physical processes.

 

Both energy and intelligence are essential. It's true that intelligence cannot accomplish anything without energy, but energy cannot accomplish much that is constructive without intelligence.

 

At one time I defined a belief in a god as the irrational belief in the supernatural, but I have reconsidered.

Angst is an emotion like regret, hope, etc. that everyone may have experienced one time or another and hopefully it is not a chronic state or you need to see a doctor. Humans are unique in the animal world (elephants?) in knowing that someday they will die. The angst caused by this knowledge can be relieved. If someone suggested the idea that there is a life after death, imagination can go wild. If that someone was authoritative and convinced others then group belief is stronger because it reinforces individual beliefs. So if one can suspend disbelief, make that leap of faith, it is a rational choice to relieve that fear of death.

What grew out of that or better merged with social mores and taboos was religion. Religion has been with man since probably the beginning and the theory goes it provides an evolutionary advantage. In other words we are built for religiosity.

 

If there is a creator, a god looking over us, a father and we are his children and omnipotent god of creation then why is he letting his children die by something he could stop? If your child was lying in their bed, about to die and you had a medicine that could cure him would you withhold it? Is that what a father does with their child?

 

Pretty sure the OP isn't talking about anything so transitory.

Might as well hire a plumber to do brain surgery.

Because He doesn't intervene without their consent, which they mostly deny.

 

Is that how you would treat your children, they get sick unless they consent to you saving them from it you would stand there and watch them die? And I have no reason to believe that only atheist are dying from this virus. If god creates everything didn't he create this virus, why is he allowing it to kill his children?

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

- Epicurus (341–270 B.C.)

 

Or maybe evolution selected those with angst because they tended to be more likely to survive. Maybe angst is just a collection of chemical reactions in the brain. We don't quite understand the brain or how it evolved, but I'm sure that isn't going to stop you from using the classic God-of-the-Gaps style of debate.

 

You can entertain any ideas you want. To the best of my knowledge, nobody's turned up anything worth believing. Humans are predisposed to look for meaning, and even predisposed to think they've found it, but I see no reason to believe that the things you mention go beyond thought experiments.

 

Energy constructed the entire universe when enabled the existence of intelligence.

Intelligence has barely begun to comprehend the universe.

Intelligence is NOT "essential" to what energy has accomplished.

 

Nonsense!

Animals have no religion so prior to our learning how to communicate abstract concepts there cannot have been any religions.

In fundamental terms religion is nothing more than ignorance trying to explain the existence of the universe. Those ignorance based superstitions persisted because there was no better alternative explanation until science emerged.

Now that we have scientific knowledge about the universe the only sufferers of angst are those who still cling to those superstitions because they don't understand the science.

 

Bovine excrement!

Religion is more than having a god of the gaps and soothing fears of death. All societies through recorded time and before had some form of religion. Its persistence is evidence of its utility. It has been suggested believers have an evolutionary advantage over nonbelievers. Man is a social animal and a common religion tightens those bonds beyond kin. Religion has structured mores and taboos with a system of rewards and punishment, as well as a supernatural overseer to judge your behavior, which insures social order and cooperation between members. Religion can formalize group knowledge/experience, like dietary restrictions for example, that can be passed down through generations. The religious are happier than the non-religious which enhances the quality of life. I could go on.....

It is interesting that the most stable countries with a strong social safety net and low crime are the least religious and those countries with a weak central government are the most religious.

 

Thank you for heading your response as bovine excrement since it abjectly FAILED to address the point that I made and wandered off into a DEFLECTION that was utterly IRRELEVANT!

Are you pretending that there is ZERO social organization among animal groups that is an EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGE?

Of course you are because you are attempting to JUSTIFY religion because it does NOT have any ACTUAL "evolutionary advantage over nonbelievers" which you tacitly acknowledged with your final sentence.

Religion is nothing more that a "feel good" emotion and it has been used as a tool to MANIPULATE and CONTROL larger and larger groups of people.

But it is an evolutionary DEAD END because it makes people do things that AGAINST their own self interests and odds of survival.

Just look at who is observing Social Distancing and who is observing a religious ritual when the former can literally SAVE your life while the latter can literally turn into a death sentence.

 

I wandered off your point because it was simplistic and one dimensional.

I tried to illustrate there are many facets of our religiosity trait. I pointed out religion enhances/strengthens social organization. It spreads our altruistic impulses beyond kin which is an advantage to group survival. Studies have shown if people think they are being watched they are likely to act ethically. The religious are inspired to act ethically because they think they are being judged which is advantageous for their social group. Religions provide social boundaries, restrictions where there were none in order to keep the group safe. Group success in the long run insures individual success which in evolutionary terms is a positive.

You misunderstood my last sentence. Those who have more fear for their survival seek and cling to religion.

 

Well, there is the old standby answer used by many theists.... God has a plan. We just can’t see it. Not unlike some fathers when answering a child’s challenging question saying a variation of “Because”.

 

And a parent who watches their toddler crawl to the cabinet under the sink and get the bottle of lye and drink it had a plan too I guess.