What if we discover that life was indeed too complex to have evolved naturally? What if we find some clue that indicates that some intelligence was involved?
Does this vindicate creationists in any way? I don't think so.
Even if we can show that some design by an intelligent force occurred, this does not support any religion nor does it support any religion's concept of God. There is still the unknown of what the nature of the intelligence is and we know no more about that than we know about what exists outside of our universe.
Intelligent Design, as a movement, is a defense mechanism for religion to try and justify itself. It is unfortunate that anybody talking about some intelligent designer of the universe and/or life would inevitably be associated with religion.
I believe in the *possibility* that some form of intelligence helping create life. I do think that the universe was intelligently designed but I make no effort to describe the designer of it or the reasons for its creation.
- Dave
QUOTE (Dave Grossman+Sep 28 2006, 11:08 AM)
What if we discover that life was indeed too complex to have evolved naturally? What if we find some clue that indicates that some intelligence was involved?
Does this vindicate creationists in any way? I don't think so.
Even if we can show that some design by an intelligent force occurred, this does not support any religion nor does it support any religion's concept of God. There is still the unknown of what the nature of the intelligence is and we know no more about that than we know about what exists outside of our universe.
Intelligent Design, as a movement, is a defense mechanism for religion to try and justify itself. It is unfortunate that anybody talking about some intelligent designer of the universe and/or life would inevitably be associated with religion.
I believe in the *possibility* that some form of intelligence helping create life. I do think that the universe was intelligently designed but I make no effort to describe the designer of it or the reasons for its creation.
- Dave
If life (or the universe) was "designed", then who designed the designer?
Krreagan
Does this vindicate creationists in any way? I don't think so.
Even if we can show that some design by an intelligent force occurred, this does not support any religion nor does it support any religion's concept of God. There is still the unknown of what the nature of the intelligence is and we know no more about that than we know about what exists outside of our universe.
Intelligent Design, as a movement, is a defense mechanism for religion to try and justify itself. It is unfortunate that anybody talking about some intelligent designer of the universe and/or life would inevitably be associated with religion.
I believe in the *possibility* that some form of intelligence helping create life. I do think that the universe was intelligently designed but I make no effort to describe the designer of it or the reasons for its creation.
- Dave
If life (or the universe) was "designed", then who designed the designer?
Krreagan
QUOTE (krreagan+Sep 28 2006, 06:25 PM)
If life (or the universe) was "designed", then who designed the designer?
Krreagan
It's turtles all the way down, baby!
- Dave
Krreagan
It's turtles all the way down, baby!
- Dave
actually...this has been a question of concern for a long time.
If you go read up on panspermia...you will get the gest of the idea.
However...evidence really doesnt point in this direction....but if it does...Im sure science will accept it.
If you go read up on panspermia...you will get the gest of the idea.
However...evidence really doesnt point in this direction....but if it does...Im sure science will accept it.
What if all of the Universe was created by God, except for Earth which was "intelligently designed" by Satan who, of course, is the author of lies and disease and murderous religions and meteor impacts and "an eye for an eye." The plan of course is to pollute God's cosmos with radio noise and eventually a fleet of colonizing von Neumann's from our ecologically devastated Earth.
According to the ID front, we cannot discover whether the "intelligent designer" was God or Satan or an Alien, so this scenario is equally supported by ID as the ideas of Evangelical Christians.
So if ID is true, and the flagellum of the cholera bacteria was designed by the "intelligent designer," is it more likely the "intelligent designer" is God or Satan?
According to the ID front, we cannot discover whether the "intelligent designer" was God or Satan or an Alien, so this scenario is equally supported by ID as the ideas of Evangelical Christians.
So if ID is true, and the flagellum of the cholera bacteria was designed by the "intelligent designer," is it more likely the "intelligent designer" is God or Satan?
QUOTE (Dave Grossman+Sep 28 2006, 11:08 AM)
I believe in the *possibility* that some form of intelligence helping create life. I do think that the universe was intelligently designed but I make no effort to describe the designer of it or the reasons for its creation.
So do I.
But it has no bearing on 'Science' as far as I understand it. It might be perfectly possible to describe a macrame pattern by various combinations of mathematics involving network theories and who knows what all else. However, the "art" of macrame does not supplant the "science" of networking. They are different subjects.
'Science' would be interested in the mathematical descriptions of the forces involved in the positioning of whatever bits make up 'created' matter/energy, regardless of whether or not such positioning could occur naturally within the existing universe. Science isn't involved with the metaphysical "Why" that might or might not be behind all of it.
That's the realm of 'Religion'.
Just as science has no business becoming involved in the metaphysics of religion, religion has no business becoming involved in the physics of science. They're different subjects.
I might have no problem describing the relative motions of a bunch of balls on a pool table. But that ends at the point where a conscious choice was made to strike the cue ball "just so". The motion of the balls is science; the meaning behind the choice to strike is religion. Science might demonstrate that the balls didn't just start bouncing around on their own; but it can't (yet) go beyond that.
So do I.
But it has no bearing on 'Science' as far as I understand it. It might be perfectly possible to describe a macrame pattern by various combinations of mathematics involving network theories and who knows what all else. However, the "art" of macrame does not supplant the "science" of networking. They are different subjects.
'Science' would be interested in the mathematical descriptions of the forces involved in the positioning of whatever bits make up 'created' matter/energy, regardless of whether or not such positioning could occur naturally within the existing universe. Science isn't involved with the metaphysical "Why" that might or might not be behind all of it.
That's the realm of 'Religion'.
Just as science has no business becoming involved in the metaphysics of religion, religion has no business becoming involved in the physics of science. They're different subjects.
I might have no problem describing the relative motions of a bunch of balls on a pool table. But that ends at the point where a conscious choice was made to strike the cue ball "just so". The motion of the balls is science; the meaning behind the choice to strike is religion. Science might demonstrate that the balls didn't just start bouncing around on their own; but it can't (yet) go beyond that.
What if?
What if?
What if?
I was going to post something about how it wouldn't really change our lives, seeing as how nothing would be very different. We would still live in the same world, live the same lives, do the same things, be the same people. However, there would in fact be a huge difference. If we discovered evidence of Intelligent Design, that would imply that there is some higher being - an earth-shattering implication. We would have evidence of a God, although not necessarily a God in the same light as the one's portrayed by various religions. With our new knowledge, we would then live our lives in a new manner due to this profound knowledge? Every individual would now feel the pressure to live in a manner that they think would please the higher being. In essence, people would have to redefine how they live their lives.
From a personal standpoint, I don't think my life would change much. I would have many things to think about, but I do not see my life drastically changing. Even the knowledge of higher beings creates new questions: "How do they want us to live?" "Why did they create us?" "Is there an afterlife?" These are the types of questions that, given an answer, would change the way I live. However, without an answer, there is still ambiguity as to how a person should live. In this case, it is up to the individual to create meaning for himself.
What if?
What if?
I was going to post something about how it wouldn't really change our lives, seeing as how nothing would be very different. We would still live in the same world, live the same lives, do the same things, be the same people. However, there would in fact be a huge difference. If we discovered evidence of Intelligent Design, that would imply that there is some higher being - an earth-shattering implication. We would have evidence of a God, although not necessarily a God in the same light as the one's portrayed by various religions. With our new knowledge, we would then live our lives in a new manner due to this profound knowledge? Every individual would now feel the pressure to live in a manner that they think would please the higher being. In essence, people would have to redefine how they live their lives.
From a personal standpoint, I don't think my life would change much. I would have many things to think about, but I do not see my life drastically changing. Even the knowledge of higher beings creates new questions: "How do they want us to live?" "Why did they create us?" "Is there an afterlife?" These are the types of questions that, given an answer, would change the way I live. However, without an answer, there is still ambiguity as to how a person should live. In this case, it is up to the individual to create meaning for himself.
I have to agree with you Dave, however if we look to the Bible, which claims to be a letter from God, we should find out all we need to know. There are many people making a sincere effort to get to know the Creator, and it is has been found as you say, that religion generally has no idea of God or his requirements, because they don't follow it, but have developed many God-dishonouring doctrines, and are full of lawless hypocrites. It has become little more than a money-making racket. I don't mean to offend sincere worshippers, but you should examine yourself and what you believe in. For example, the empty philosophies which were "adopted" into the church from pagans in order to attract more converts; the trinity concept, hellfire, immortality of the soul, baptism of babies who have no choice, in case they choose not to when they get older, pagan holidays and celebrations; all these and many more. Also now you can be a Darwinist and still a good Catholic. Did you know Hitler was a Catholic in good atanding, and was never excommunicated, even posthumously?
With respect to Amac, also intelligent comment. I believe this was the basis for the strong acceptance of Darwinism. Ignorance of God and his Word, dissatisfaction with established religion, and the desire for independence, freedom from responsibility and accountability. However none of those things have really been achieved, and do not bring lasting happiness or satisfaction. Nor will any remain free of accountability.
And he made out of one [man] every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of the dwelling of [men], for them to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us. -Ac 17:26,27
With respect to Amac, also intelligent comment. I believe this was the basis for the strong acceptance of Darwinism. Ignorance of God and his Word, dissatisfaction with established religion, and the desire for independence, freedom from responsibility and accountability. However none of those things have really been achieved, and do not bring lasting happiness or satisfaction. Nor will any remain free of accountability.
And he made out of one [man] every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of the dwelling of [men], for them to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us. -Ac 17:26,27
with respect to tomliotta
I must disagree. You state that as if science and religion are on different poles. You don't think they are compatible? Did you know that 40% of US scientists have come to believe in intelligent design? And more than that, many are seeking to get to acquire more knowledge of the Creator. Unscientific? Hardly. A belief in God only enhances the myriad wonders of Creation. The reasons behind the harmony, the laws, the beauty, all start to become clearer. We can still study life and the Universe, although some views would need altering. More than that, we can learn what God requires in order for to us enjoy eternal youth in a peaceful paradise, as life was intended.
QUOTE
Just as science has no business becoming involved in the metaphysics of religion, religion has no business becoming involved in the physics of science. They're different subjects.
I must disagree. You state that as if science and religion are on different poles. You don't think they are compatible? Did you know that 40% of US scientists have come to believe in intelligent design? And more than that, many are seeking to get to acquire more knowledge of the Creator. Unscientific? Hardly. A belief in God only enhances the myriad wonders of Creation. The reasons behind the harmony, the laws, the beauty, all start to become clearer. We can still study life and the Universe, although some views would need altering. More than that, we can learn what God requires in order for to us enjoy eternal youth in a peaceful paradise, as life was intended.
That 40% statistic is so outrageous that I would like a citation. To be honest, I suspect that it's false, and that it has been posted to lend credibility to the ID field.
The implications of ID are minimal. Even if the universe was designed on purpose, there is no reason to believe that the designer cares about us, or that metaphysical theories have any basis in reality.
I can make a Lego house on purpose, or a mouse/hamster hybrid on purpose. The fact that they are invested with design by an intelligence does not mean that I care one whit about their souls, or even that I love them.
The implications of ID are minimal. Even if the universe was designed on purpose, there is no reason to believe that the designer cares about us, or that metaphysical theories have any basis in reality.
I can make a Lego house on purpose, or a mouse/hamster hybrid on purpose. The fact that they are invested with design by an intelligence does not mean that I care one whit about their souls, or even that I love them.
QUOTE (PhilP+Oct 3 2006, 05:21 AM)
Did you know that 40% of US scientists have come to believe in intelligent design?
Did you also know that 92.8% of all statistics are made up?
Did you also know that 92.8% of all statistics are made up?
It's worse than that. The people putting forward that outrageous statistic are clearly lying to fake popular support. Doesn't that give one pause about their standards? How can you think they're right if they're willing to lie to 'expose the truth'?
QUOTE
Did you know that 40% of US scientists have come to believe in intelligent design? And more than that, many are seeking to get to acquire more knowledge of the Creator. Unscientific? Hardly. A belief in God only enhances the myriad wonders of Creation. The reasons behind the harmony, the laws, the beauty, all start to become clearer. We can still study life and the Universe, although some views would need altering. More than that, we can learn what God requires in order for to us enjoy eternal youth in a peaceful paradise, as life was intended.
This is not completely wrong....but severely flawed.
First...let me break something down....
2 Views....
1. The Universe is amazing...I use that as my basis for belief in God
2. I have solid, concrete, undeniable evidence in the existence of God...(Intelligent Design).
Believing that God exists because of the vast expanse and beauty of the universe is hardly the same thing as believing in Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design is a sham of a scientific discipline that attempts to "prove" God by claiming all kinds of bogus evidence.
El_Machina is correct though....any God proven by a teleological argument could stand on fairly wobbly ground. This argument does not prove any of the traditional qualities associated with God. It does not prove that God is loving, cares, is good, or that He even still exists......
40% of Scientists may believe in God....Einstein and Newton were both very religious scientists....
However, a belief in God is very different from a belief in "Intelligent Design"....
Intelligent Design, for example, excludes the possibility of a deistic deity. It actually becomes rather vague though...did God NEED to be constantly involved in the evolutionary process? or did God HAVE to create us "as is" sans evolutionary process?
A teleological based argument for God could easily allow for an "intelligent designer" but also allow that it was a deistic deity. This would, therefore, not refute evolutionary theory...or anything else for that matter.
The reason that the ID movement is so successful is that the public has NO IDEA what the ID movement specifically is.....
"Intelligent Design" sounds nice, seems to allow for God...and has a certain scientific ring to it.....
The fact that ID actually makes very specific and FLAWED claims...the fact almost every idea proposed by the ID community has been totally destroyed both logically and scientifically...and the fact that they have yet to present any solid evidence....
Its all bunk...
BTW...for the less enlightened...some definitions
Teleological-The argument that God exists because the universe is so "perfect"
sans- french for "without"
deity-a "god"-figure
deistic- a deity that started the universe...but lacks any direct involvement currently
ID-intelligent design
intelligent design-a theory proposed by several creationist scientists...mostly based around the concept of irreducible complexity(that organisms are too complex to have evolved)
QUOTE (PhilP+Oct 3 2006, 03:21 AM)
I must disagree. You state that as if science and religion are on different poles. You don't think they are compatible?
Compatible? Of course they are. How could you get the idea they weren't? Not only compatible, but complementary, each serving its own area of reality.
You write as if automobile engines (Science) and tires (Religion) must be somehow incompatible. Although they obviously and necessarily are compatible, only an idiot would try to mount engines on the ends of the axles and stuff tires under the hood. Science and Religion are compatible; they're also different. How can you not grasp that?
Who cares? So do I. But it has nothing to do with Science. 38% of scientists declare themselves as Republicans too; but that ain't Science either. Over 70% of current scientists believe that black & white TV sets in the '50s and '60s could actually display "black"; but that ain't Science either. (Nor is it even true! But so what?)
Guess what? I can say "You don't understand simple differences." But no matter how many times I say it, it still doesn't make the statement a part of geometry. It is a statement in English; geometry is a different realm. Does that make English and geometry "incompatible"? Get serious. Learn to think.
Compatible? Of course they are. How could you get the idea they weren't? Not only compatible, but complementary, each serving its own area of reality.
You write as if automobile engines (Science) and tires (Religion) must be somehow incompatible. Although they obviously and necessarily are compatible, only an idiot would try to mount engines on the ends of the axles and stuff tires under the hood. Science and Religion are compatible; they're also different. How can you not grasp that?
QUOTE
Did you know that 40% of US scientists have come to believe in intelligent design?
Who cares? So do I. But it has nothing to do with Science. 38% of scientists declare themselves as Republicans too; but that ain't Science either. Over 70% of current scientists believe that black & white TV sets in the '50s and '60s could actually display "black"; but that ain't Science either. (Nor is it even true! But so what?)
Guess what? I can say "You don't understand simple differences." But no matter how many times I say it, it still doesn't make the statement a part of geometry. It is a statement in English; geometry is a different realm. Does that make English and geometry "incompatible"? Get serious. Learn to think.
QUOTE
Compatible? Of course they are. How could you get the idea they weren't? Not only compatible, but complementary, each serving its own area of reality.
Indeed, Science serving the real area of reality, and Religion serving the fantasy area of reality. They are compatible in the same way science is compatible with explaining that the sun isn't a guy riding a fiery chariot across the sky, and exploring the causes and effects of clinical delusions, etc...
For example, Science can create and explain hallucinogens, and Religion can take them and tell us some trippy stories that might even be life affirming! Hand in proverbial hand!
well for starters I have have no need to dishonestly make up statistics. If no scientist believed in God, I would accept the fact. However there have been two surveys done in recent times, years apart, and the 40% figure remained similar. i didn't know it would cause such pain, or I would've given a reference. If you'd like, I'll go find it. Survey results may be falsified, true, but not all are, and many come from credible sources.
I do grasp it well, and have never written as though the two areas are incompatible. The Bible is not a science text book, but when it touches on scientific matters, it is always accurate. However I was alluding to the statement you made :
I do grasp it well, and have never written as though the two areas are incompatible. The Bible is not a science text book, but when it touches on scientific matters, it is always accurate. However I was alluding to the statement you made :
Just as science has no business becoming involved in the metaphysics of religion, religion has no business becoming involved in the physics of science. They're different subjects.
Perhaps you forgot about that?
ID does imply a designer....however...using the current definition of "Intelligent Design" the designer could potentially be less intelligent than the average human.
Intelligent is a somewhat subjective word....
ID does imply a designer....however...using the current definition of "Intelligent Design" the designer could potentially be less intelligent than the average human.
Intelligent is a somewhat subjective word....
If no scientist believed in God, I would accept the fact. However there have been two surveys done in recent times, years apart, and the 40% figure remained similar.
Yeah...but believing in God is far from believing in Intelligent Design...
If that point escapes you...reread my previous post.
Yeah...except when it is blatantly wrong....
I can give you a rather long list if you would like....
This surely is competing for the JREF Pigusas award.
There is no ID because there is no God, see this URL for confirmation:
http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
I don't plan to debate the existence of any omnipotent deity with a bunch of mental defectives anymore; read my lips - THERE IS NO GOD.
Yours, theres, the other peoples, the primitives, the vengeful, the wrathful, the merciful or whatever other crap some one will come up with. There is no god. Nothing exists if there is no evidence of its existence. Believe as much as you want but the inconsequential chemical reactions in your head will not make it so.
Release yourself from your insecurities, break the chains of your subservience to nothing, breathe in and enjoy a beautiful world; you've only got one go at it.
THERE IS NO GOD!
Physfan
QUOTE
Compatible? Of course they are. How could you get the idea they weren't? Not only compatible, but complementary, each serving its own area of reality.
You write as if automobile engines (Science) and tires (Religion) must be somehow incompatible. Although they obviously and necessarily are compatible, only an idiot would try to mount engines on the ends of the axles and stuff tires under the hood. Science and Religion are compatible; they're also different. How can you not grasp that?
You write as if automobile engines (Science) and tires (Religion) must be somehow incompatible. Although they obviously and necessarily are compatible, only an idiot would try to mount engines on the ends of the axles and stuff tires under the hood. Science and Religion are compatible; they're also different. How can you not grasp that?
I do grasp it well, and have never written as though the two areas are incompatible. The Bible is not a science text book, but when it touches on scientific matters, it is always accurate. However I was alluding to the statement you made :
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Compatible? Of course they are. How could you get the idea they weren't? Not only compatible, but complementary, each serving its own area of reality. You write as if automobile engines (Science) and tires (Religion) must be somehow incompatible. Although they obviously and necessarily are compatible, only an idiot would try to mount engines on the ends of the axles and stuff tires under the hood. Science and Religion are compatible; they're also different. How can you not grasp that? |
I do grasp it well, and have never written as though the two areas are incompatible. The Bible is not a science text book, but when it touches on scientific matters, it is always accurate. However I was alluding to the statement you made :
Just as science has no business becoming involved in the metaphysics of religion, religion has no business becoming involved in the physics of science. They're different subjects.
Perhaps you forgot about that?
Puck, intelligent design, implies a designer does it not? Obviously not all were designed intelligently
I was not stating that you were dishonest in stating that 40% of scientists (in America) believe in Intelligent Design (that would be unprovable and an ad hominem attack). I was stating that the source of your statistics seems to be lying; and thus, the source of your statistics should be reconsidered for its truth regarding Evolution and Creationism. I've seen some pretty crappy arguments from creationist websites; so crappy, that I can only assume they're intended to deceive.
QUOTE (tomliotta+Oct 3 2006, 12:50 PM)
Compatible? Of course they are. How could you get the idea they weren't? Not only compatible, but complementary, each serving its own area of reality.
I disagree! religion serves spirituality, not reality! They are different!
Religion throughout history, has been used to explain what people observed and could not explain! this is the origin of religion (IMO). Science has supplanted religion as the explanation of what is observed in the world around us. Science and reason grew and expanded at the expense of religion (a good thing). Now, religion is constrained to explain the realms that science has no opinion on (a creator, a soul, life after death...). So they have not been compatible (both existing harmoniously). As long as religion keeps to the unobservable (spiritual), and therefore scientifically unexplainable, I fear that religion will always exist to some extent. This is one reason that ID has attacked science, there is nothing in the observable universe that religion (god) is currently the generally accepted explanation for, except bio-geneses! (for which science has no evidence except that like exists) and the religious are grasping at straws in an attempt to keep religion relevant! I think we will find that life is inevitable, and a completely natural process, when the conditions are right! At which point, (I hope, but doubt) humans will cast off their primitive, barbaric belief structures in favor of a more enlightened outlook on the universe.
Krreagan
I disagree! religion serves spirituality, not reality! They are different!
Religion throughout history, has been used to explain what people observed and could not explain! this is the origin of religion (IMO). Science has supplanted religion as the explanation of what is observed in the world around us. Science and reason grew and expanded at the expense of religion (a good thing). Now, religion is constrained to explain the realms that science has no opinion on (a creator, a soul, life after death...). So they have not been compatible (both existing harmoniously). As long as religion keeps to the unobservable (spiritual), and therefore scientifically unexplainable, I fear that religion will always exist to some extent. This is one reason that ID has attacked science, there is nothing in the observable universe that religion (god) is currently the generally accepted explanation for, except bio-geneses! (for which science has no evidence except that like exists) and the religious are grasping at straws in an attempt to keep religion relevant! I think we will find that life is inevitable, and a completely natural process, when the conditions are right! At which point, (I hope, but doubt) humans will cast off their primitive, barbaric belief structures in favor of a more enlightened outlook on the universe.
Krreagan
I can't argue with that El Machinae, and I'm sorry you have had to put up with that. I know just what you mean. Many do proceed from blind faith, and offer no evidences. I only raised that statistic because looking at the News reports and so on, one gets the impression that all scientists are evolutionists. So I thought this fact may have been of interest. It would be silly for someone to reject that out of hand, but I haven't found the article yet in which I read it, but I have good reason to believe the source was reliable. I have a feeling it won't be found online. However, I will find it.
Now now krreagan, spirituality IS reality
QUOTE
Puck, intelligent design, implies a designer does it not? Obviously not all were designed intelligently
ID does imply a designer....however...using the current definition of "Intelligent Design" the designer could potentially be less intelligent than the average human.
Intelligent is a somewhat subjective word....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Puck, intelligent design, implies a designer does it not? Obviously not all were designed intelligently |
ID does imply a designer....however...using the current definition of "Intelligent Design" the designer could potentially be less intelligent than the average human.
Intelligent is a somewhat subjective word....
If no scientist believed in God, I would accept the fact. However there have been two surveys done in recent times, years apart, and the 40% figure remained similar.
Yeah...but believing in God is far from believing in Intelligent Design...
If that point escapes you...reread my previous post.
QUOTE
The Bible is not a science text book, but when it touches on scientific matters, it is always accurate.
Yeah...except when it is blatantly wrong....
I can give you a rather long list if you would like....
QUOTE
Did you know that 40% of US scientists have come to believe in intelligent design?
This surely is competing for the JREF Pigusas award.
There is no ID because there is no God, see this URL for confirmation:
http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
I don't plan to debate the existence of any omnipotent deity with a bunch of mental defectives anymore; read my lips - THERE IS NO GOD.
Yours, theres, the other peoples, the primitives, the vengeful, the wrathful, the merciful or whatever other crap some one will come up with. There is no god. Nothing exists if there is no evidence of its existence. Believe as much as you want but the inconsequential chemical reactions in your head will not make it so.
Release yourself from your insecurities, break the chains of your subservience to nothing, breathe in and enjoy a beautiful world; you've only got one go at it.
THERE IS NO GOD!
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Oct 4 2006, 11:21 PM)
Yours, theres, the other peoples, the primitives, the vengeful, the wrathful, the merciful or whatever other crap some one will come up with. There is no god. Nothing exists if there is no evidence of its existence. Believe as much as you want but the inconsequential chemical reactions in your head will not make it so.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
- Dave ( quoting Carl Sagan, I think )
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
- Dave ( quoting Carl Sagan, I think )
Quoting out of context; why am I not surprised?
Any pathetic attempt to support the unsupportable.
I tell you what Dave, get your god to strike down a blasphemer (me), just as the bible says, and you will have your evidence.
......................................................................................... 5 minutes later;
still here. The big fairy, a big fairy, an apparition, a ghost, a spirit - none of it exists.
Any pathetic attempt to support the unsupportable.
I tell you what Dave, get your god to strike down a blasphemer (me), just as the bible says, and you will have your evidence.
......................................................................................... 5 minutes later;
still here. The big fairy, a big fairy, an apparition, a ghost, a spirit - none of it exists.
QUOTE (Physfan+Oct 5 2006, 02:31 AM)
Quoting out of context; why am I not surprised?
Any pathetic attempt to support the unsupportable.
I tell you what Dave, get your god to strike down a blasphemer (me), just as the bible says, and you will have your evidence.
......................................................................................... 5 minutes later;
still here. The big fairy, a big fairy, an apparition, a ghost, a spirit - none of it exists.
Wow, you're quite the douchebag.
If you read the first message in the thread, you'd realize that I don't believe in any existing religion or concept of god, simply that there may be an intelligent creator of the universe.
- Dave
Any pathetic attempt to support the unsupportable.
I tell you what Dave, get your god to strike down a blasphemer (me), just as the bible says, and you will have your evidence.
......................................................................................... 5 minutes later;
still here. The big fairy, a big fairy, an apparition, a ghost, a spirit - none of it exists.
Wow, you're quite the douchebag.
If you read the first message in the thread, you'd realize that I don't believe in any existing religion or concept of god, simply that there may be an intelligent creator of the universe.
- Dave
Thank you Dave. You are the first to call me a
Oxymoron
An oxymoron (plural oxymora or, more commonly, oxymorons) (noun) is a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms (e.g. "deafening silence"). Wikipedia.
Why am I not surprised?
The question is straightforward and requires a simple response. Failure to give an honest answer also provides adequate proof.
Physfan
Why am I not surprised?
The question is straightforward and requires a simple response. Failure to give an honest answer also provides adequate proof.
Physfan
Your question made no sense and your post is factually inaccurate.
Look, you're obviously a n00b at being a troll. I've dealt with your ilk on the Internet for over 10 years now. You're not going to upset me in any way. Additionally, you obviously have no clue what my position is.
If you'd like to continue, go ahead. Perhaps if you try hard enough I might even respond again. Probably not though so just say whatever you want. I have no problems with letting someone have the last word.
- Dave
Obviously, because you have not stated it clearly and openly.
Obviously, because you have not stated it clearly and openly.
Your question made no sense and your post is factually inaccurate.
If you say this, you should say why.
To quote me, why am I not surprised?
To quote me, why am I not surprised?
you're obviously a n00b at being a troll
I would prefer we conduct this in English.
This is not about 'the last word', it is now about your lack of intellectual honesty.
You made an oxymoronic statement, know you can't defend it and are now backpedalling using insults.
Physfan
QUOTE
douchebag
and possibly not the last.Oxymoron
An oxymoron (plural oxymora or, more commonly, oxymorons) (noun) is a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms (e.g. "deafening silence"). Wikipedia.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| douchebag |
and possibly not the last.
Oxymoron
An oxymoron (plural oxymora or, more commonly, oxymorons) (noun) is a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms (e.g. "deafening silence"). Wikipedia.
I don't believe in any existing religion or concept of god, simply that there may be an intelligent creator of the universe
As well as being an oxymoron, I can say with complete confidence that it is also complete crap.
That Dave encapsulates you. Have the intellectual honesty to put your actual and whole position, not dress it up as a position of reason. You are coming from an ideological position. Failure to admit and assert this honestly makes you, by definition, a liar.
Which is it to be?
Physfan
Oxymoron
An oxymoron (plural oxymora or, more commonly, oxymorons) (noun) is a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms (e.g. "deafening silence"). Wikipedia.
I don't believe in any existing religion or concept of god, simply that there may be an intelligent creator of the universe
As well as being an oxymoron, I can say with complete confidence that it is also complete crap.
QUOTE
English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) observed this fact:
Every sect as far as reason will help them, gladly use it; when it fails them, they cry out it is a matter of faith, and beyond reason.
Every sect as far as reason will help them, gladly use it; when it fails them, they cry out it is a matter of faith, and beyond reason.
That Dave encapsulates you. Have the intellectual honesty to put your actual and whole position, not dress it up as a position of reason. You are coming from an ideological position. Failure to admit and assert this honestly makes you, by definition, a liar.
Which is it to be?
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Oct 5 2006, 04:15 AM)
Thank you Dave. You are the first to call me a and possibly not the last.
Oxymoron
An oxymoron (plural oxymora or, more commonly, oxymorons) (noun) is a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms (e.g. "deafening silence"). Wikipedia.
As well as being an oxymoron, I can say with complete confidence that it is also complete crap.
That Dave encapsulates you. Have the intellectual honesty to put your actual and whole position, not dress it up as a position of reason. You are coming from an ideological position. Failure to admit and assert this honestly makes you, by definition, a liar.
Which is it to be?
Physfan
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Bye.
- Dave
Oxymoron
An oxymoron (plural oxymora or, more commonly, oxymorons) (noun) is a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms (e.g. "deafening silence"). Wikipedia.
As well as being an oxymoron, I can say with complete confidence that it is also complete crap.
That Dave encapsulates you. Have the intellectual honesty to put your actual and whole position, not dress it up as a position of reason. You are coming from an ideological position. Failure to admit and assert this honestly makes you, by definition, a liar.
Which is it to be?
Physfan
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Bye.
- Dave
QUOTE
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Why am I not surprised?
The question is straightforward and requires a simple response. Failure to give an honest answer also provides adequate proof.
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Oct 5 2006, 04:58 AM)
Why am I not surprised?
The question is straightforward and requires a simple response. Failure to give an honest answer also provides adequate proof.
Physfan
Your question made no sense and your post is factually inaccurate.
Look, you're obviously a n00b at being a troll. I've dealt with your ilk on the Internet for over 10 years now. You're not going to upset me in any way. Additionally, you obviously have no clue what my position is.
If you'd like to continue, go ahead. Perhaps if you try hard enough I might even respond again. Probably not though so just say whatever you want. I have no problems with letting someone have the last word.
- Dave
QUOTE
you obviously have no clue what my position is
Obviously, because you have not stated it clearly and openly.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| you obviously have no clue what my position is |
Obviously, because you have not stated it clearly and openly.
Your question made no sense and your post is factually inaccurate.
If you say this, you should say why.
QUOTE
I've dealt with your ilk on the Internet for over 10 years now
To quote me, why am I not surprised?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've dealt with your ilk on the Internet for over 10 years now |
To quote me, why am I not surprised?
you're obviously a n00b at being a troll
I would prefer we conduct this in English.
QUOTE
Probably not though so just say whatever you want. I have no problems with letting someone have the last word.
This is not about 'the last word', it is now about your lack of intellectual honesty.
You made an oxymoronic statement, know you can't defend it and are now backpedalling using insults.
Physfan
What was his oxymoronic statement? I don't think he denies having an ideological position; everyone does.
Your posts are a little ... biting ... and so I think the message is being lost.
Your posts are a little ... biting ... and so I think the message is being lost.
QUOTE (Dave Grossman+)
I don't believe in any existing religion or concept of god, simply that there may be an intelligent creator of the universe.
QUOTE (Physfan+)
As well as being an oxymoron, I can say with complete confidence that it is also complete crap.
Physfan: I, too, fail to see the oxymoron in what Dave has stated. I think you've missed his use of the word "existing" in relation to both "religion" and a "concept of god". It seems to me that Dave is simply saying that there may be an intelligent creator of the universe but none of the "existing" religions or concepts of god are accurately describing this intelligent creator. If I'm reading him correctly, and I think I am, then there is absolutely nothing oxymoronic in what he said.
That Dave encapsulates you. Have the intellectual honesty to put your actual and whole position, not dress it up as a position of reason. You are coming from an ideological position. Failure to admit and assert this honestly makes you, by definition, a liar.
You've encapsulated no one but yourself. Your comments are the epitome of one who lacks reason. Have you bothered to click on Dave Grossman's username to review his posting history to see his "ideological position" as you call it? Obviously not. Don't you think that would be the "reasonable" thing to do before making uninformed accusations? He's "lied" about nothing. It is you who are spreading lies about him. Those of us who've actually been paying attention won't be swayed though. Take care.
Gmilam;
I thought you had some knowledge of this area. This concept was settled over 1000 years ago. The circular conflict you speak of is only true if you limit your thinking to a condition of time. Your thought is correct that there can be no first cause if limited to the conditions of time. This also eliminates the ability of science to ever find the first cause. It is only through the ability to recognize this limitation that those that are able have the ability to consider a condition without time. You do not seem to have that ability. Until you gain that education you are wasting your time even considering this area.
All who understand science know it is a waste of time to look for a solution to a problem if you have already found that the answer can not be from the approach you have taken. You insist on looking where you think the light is better not where the solution is located.
What is the use of responding to you if you have no ability to understand the concepts being presented. Are you even able to consider a condition without time?
Physfan: I, too, fail to see the oxymoron in what Dave has stated. I think you've missed his use of the word "existing" in relation to both "religion" and a "concept of god". It seems to me that Dave is simply saying that there may be an intelligent creator of the universe but none of the "existing" religions or concepts of god are accurately describing this intelligent creator. If I'm reading him correctly, and I think I am, then there is absolutely nothing oxymoronic in what he said.
QUOTE
English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) observed this fact:
Every sect as far as reason will help them, gladly use it; when it fails them, they cry out it is a matter of faith, and beyond reason.
Every sect as far as reason will help them, gladly use it; when it fails them, they cry out it is a matter of faith, and beyond reason.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) observed this fact: Every sect as far as reason will help them, gladly use it; when it fails them, they cry out it is a matter of faith, and beyond reason. |
That Dave encapsulates you. Have the intellectual honesty to put your actual and whole position, not dress it up as a position of reason. You are coming from an ideological position. Failure to admit and assert this honestly makes you, by definition, a liar.
You've encapsulated no one but yourself. Your comments are the epitome of one who lacks reason. Have you bothered to click on Dave Grossman's username to review his posting history to see his "ideological position" as you call it? Obviously not. Don't you think that would be the "reasonable" thing to do before making uninformed accusations? He's "lied" about nothing. It is you who are spreading lies about him. Those of us who've actually been paying attention won't be swayed though. Take care.
PhilP. If the bible was literally the word of god, then all would believe in it and there would only be one religion. Instead there are many religionms, and there are/has been some 20,000 different versions of christianity based on the one very poorly written book.
Science is investigation of the world and Universe. It is neutral so if religion were true, it should back up religion. Instead, it is 100% against religion showing that religion is untrue.
Any scientist who believes in god is a fool. Science necessitates evidence, proof and the dismissal of what cannot be proved. All religions are completely free of evidence or proof, so for a scientist to claim to believe in what is clearly false shows that scientist to be a fool.
In court, ID was PROVED to be creationism under another name, made to fool people like you.
Science is investigation of the world and Universe. It is neutral so if religion were true, it should back up religion. Instead, it is 100% against religion showing that religion is untrue.
Any scientist who believes in god is a fool. Science necessitates evidence, proof and the dismissal of what cannot be proved. All religions are completely free of evidence or proof, so for a scientist to claim to believe in what is clearly false shows that scientist to be a fool.
In court, ID was PROVED to be creationism under another name, made to fool people like you.
Intelligent Design. Like it being agony for a woman to do something natural like give birth.
Like plate tectonics which allows earthquakes and tsunamis.
Like Earth having a liquid centre which allows volcanoes.
Like people who live in a hot country having black skin so they can absorb more heat while people who live in cold climates having a white skin so they reflect heat.
Like a whole host of parasites and insects which cause Mankind endless problems, even killing them.
Like locusts who have no use and devastate crops.
Like making large areas of the Earth uninhabitable with large areas of ice or desert.
Like making an unstable sun which causes heat and ice ages.
Like 1 in 5 babies not surviving birth in the third world (1 in 20 in the West).
Like babies being born with deformatives, lack of senses,
or mentally defective from Day One.
Like a woman undergoing personality changes for a few days each month due to chemical imbalanes.
Like the storage of huge quantities of unwanted fat.
Like an immune system that can attack the body.
I could go on and on showing why ID really stands for Idiot Design.
Like plate tectonics which allows earthquakes and tsunamis.
Like Earth having a liquid centre which allows volcanoes.
Like people who live in a hot country having black skin so they can absorb more heat while people who live in cold climates having a white skin so they reflect heat.
Like a whole host of parasites and insects which cause Mankind endless problems, even killing them.
Like locusts who have no use and devastate crops.
Like making large areas of the Earth uninhabitable with large areas of ice or desert.
Like making an unstable sun which causes heat and ice ages.
Like 1 in 5 babies not surviving birth in the third world (1 in 20 in the West).
Like babies being born with deformatives, lack of senses,
or mentally defective from Day One.
Like a woman undergoing personality changes for a few days each month due to chemical imbalanes.
Like the storage of huge quantities of unwanted fat.
Like an immune system that can attack the body.
I could go on and on showing why ID really stands for Idiot Design.
QUOTE (krreagan+Sep 28 2006, 06:25 PM)
If life (or the universe) was "designed", then who designed the designer?
Krreagan
Hi Krreagan.
I feel this is a pointless question. Assuming a designer exists, not knowing the origins of the designer does not prevent scientists from studying the effects of the designer. Much the same way that science cannot conclude cause to the Big Bang but most certainly study the effects of the Big Bang.
If I ask you how cells/biological systems acquire the ability to adapt, replicate, and repair, would you be able to provide a conclusive answer? I do not believe so; however not knowing the answer does not hinder the process of study.
Point is, science can study effect devoid cause.
Krreagan
Hi Krreagan.
I feel this is a pointless question. Assuming a designer exists, not knowing the origins of the designer does not prevent scientists from studying the effects of the designer. Much the same way that science cannot conclude cause to the Big Bang but most certainly study the effects of the Big Bang.
If I ask you how cells/biological systems acquire the ability to adapt, replicate, and repair, would you be able to provide a conclusive answer? I do not believe so; however not knowing the answer does not hinder the process of study.
Point is, science can study effect devoid cause.
QUOTE (Tron+Nov 23 2006, 08:50 AM)
Hi Krreagan.
I feel this is a pointless question. Assuming a designer exists, not knowing the origins of the designer does not prevent scientists from studying the effects of the designer. Much the same way that science cannot conclude cause to the Big Bang but most certainly study the effects of the Big Bang.
If I ask you how cells/biological systems acquire the ability to adapt, replicate, and repair, would you be able to provide a conclusive answer? I do not believe so; however not knowing the answer does not hinder the process of study.
Point is, science can study effect devoid cause.
Far from being a pointless question, this is "the question". If your "logic" for invoking a creator is that something is "too complex" to have "just happened", then you still have the same logic problem. You've just moved the "ultimate question" back one level.
I feel this is a pointless question. Assuming a designer exists, not knowing the origins of the designer does not prevent scientists from studying the effects of the designer. Much the same way that science cannot conclude cause to the Big Bang but most certainly study the effects of the Big Bang.
If I ask you how cells/biological systems acquire the ability to adapt, replicate, and repair, would you be able to provide a conclusive answer? I do not believe so; however not knowing the answer does not hinder the process of study.
Point is, science can study effect devoid cause.
Far from being a pointless question, this is "the question". If your "logic" for invoking a creator is that something is "too complex" to have "just happened", then you still have the same logic problem. You've just moved the "ultimate question" back one level.
QUOTE (gmilam+Nov 23 2006, 06:16 PM)
Far from being a pointless question, this is "the question". If your "logic" for invoking a creator is that something is "too complex" to have "just happened", then you still have the same logic problem. You've just moved the "ultimate question" back one level.
Hi Gmilam
So the fact that science can study effect devoid of knowing cause renders our understanding of the universe useless? The point is why is it so important to determine what designed the designer? Much like evolutionists who study evolution without knowing what actually caused the initial cell to appear. Put another way, I do not need to know who or what designed a car in order to test drive it and measure its performance and form predictions based on goal directed processes and there is certainly no need for me to identify the designer of the car. Therefore, logically, it doesn’t matter who designed the designer because I can still study the effect.
Hi Gmilam
So the fact that science can study effect devoid of knowing cause renders our understanding of the universe useless? The point is why is it so important to determine what designed the designer? Much like evolutionists who study evolution without knowing what actually caused the initial cell to appear. Put another way, I do not need to know who or what designed a car in order to test drive it and measure its performance and form predictions based on goal directed processes and there is certainly no need for me to identify the designer of the car. Therefore, logically, it doesn’t matter who designed the designer because I can still study the effect.
QUOTE (Tron+Nov 23 2006, 12:52 PM)
Hi Gmilam
So the fact that science can study effect devoid of knowing cause renders our understanding of the universe useless? The point is why is it so important to determine what designed the designer? Much like evolutionists who study evolution without knowing what actually caused the initial cell to appear. Put another way, I do not need to know who or what designed a car in order to test drive it and measure its performance and form predictions based on goal directed processes and there is certainly no need for me to identify the designer of the car. Therefore, logically, it doesn’t matter who designed the designer because I can still study the effect.
Don't know how you got that out of what I said. I just pointed out that saying "god did it" doesn't answer any questions.
So the fact that science can study effect devoid of knowing cause renders our understanding of the universe useless? The point is why is it so important to determine what designed the designer? Much like evolutionists who study evolution without knowing what actually caused the initial cell to appear. Put another way, I do not need to know who or what designed a car in order to test drive it and measure its performance and form predictions based on goal directed processes and there is certainly no need for me to identify the designer of the car. Therefore, logically, it doesn’t matter who designed the designer because I can still study the effect.
Don't know how you got that out of what I said. I just pointed out that saying "god did it" doesn't answer any questions.
The True Believer Syndrome
http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html
Sadly, Tron will see that in gmilam rather than the reality of the reverse.
Physfan
http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html
Sadly, Tron will see that in gmilam rather than the reality of the reverse.
Physfan
QUOTE (gmilam+Nov 24 2006, 01:00 AM)
Don't know how you got that out of what I said. I just pointed out that saying "god did it" doesn't answer any questions.
Hi Gmilam.
I agree, saying 'God did it' is no different from saying 'science will find an answer'; both are statements of faith.
Hi Gmilam.
I agree, saying 'God did it' is no different from saying 'science will find an answer'; both are statements of faith.
Tron. Provably, god did not do it.
Science has found many answers and there is no reason to believe that it may one day find an answer to the ultimate question.
Science has found many answers and there is no reason to believe that it may one day find an answer to the ultimate question.
QUOTE (Tron+Nov 24 2006, 04:07 AM)
Hi Gmilam.
I agree, saying 'God did it' is no different from saying 'science will find an answer'; both are statements of faith.
Science may or may not find the answers.. this is true.
But if I say, "That's a cool gadget. How does it work?" And someone tells me, "It was designed to work that way by someone who knows what they're doing."
"Uh - yeah - ok - cool... Now how does it work?"
You haven't answered anything. And knowing it was designed is not going to change my mode of inquiry one little bit.
I agree, saying 'God did it' is no different from saying 'science will find an answer'; both are statements of faith.
Science may or may not find the answers.. this is true.
But if I say, "That's a cool gadget. How does it work?" And someone tells me, "It was designed to work that way by someone who knows what they're doing."
"Uh - yeah - ok - cool... Now how does it work?"
You haven't answered anything. And knowing it was designed is not going to change my mode of inquiry one little bit.
I know this will not be understood by most on this form but it may still expand the mind of some.
Intelligent design comes from the simple observation that all things that come into being outside of nature do so by the design of man. Nothing in all of nature except for man is able to create or design. Man is intelligent and is able to produce intelligent designs or creations.
With the realization that design and creation require intelligence and since the universe shows a high degree of design. The only source for the universe is from a being of intelligence.
We therefore have more evidence of the requirement of an intelligent creator, God.
The question in the study of intelligent design is how the connection is made between intelligence and design. Why is man the only thing that is able to act against the natural order of the universe?
The effort to restrict the consideration of the nature of mans ability to design and create is no different than any of the other restrictions that have been placed on knowledge through out the ages.
Intelligent design comes from the simple observation that all things that come into being outside of nature do so by the design of man. Nothing in all of nature except for man is able to create or design. Man is intelligent and is able to produce intelligent designs or creations.
With the realization that design and creation require intelligence and since the universe shows a high degree of design. The only source for the universe is from a being of intelligence.
We therefore have more evidence of the requirement of an intelligent creator, God.
The question in the study of intelligent design is how the connection is made between intelligence and design. Why is man the only thing that is able to act against the natural order of the universe?
The effort to restrict the consideration of the nature of mans ability to design and create is no different than any of the other restrictions that have been placed on knowledge through out the ages.
QUOTE (tlocity+Nov 25 2006, 04:34 AM)
I know this will not be understood by most on this form but it may still expand the mind of some.
Intelligent design comes from the simple observation that all things that come into being outside of nature do so by the design of man. Nothing in all of nature except for man is able to create or design. Man is intelligent and is able to produce intelligent designs or creations.
With the realization that design and creation require intelligence and since the universe shows a high degree of design. The only source for the universe is from a being of intelligence.
We therefore have more evidence of the requirement of an intelligent creator, God.
The question in the study of intelligent design is how the connection is made between intelligence and design. Why is man the only thing that is able to act against the natural order of the universe?
The effort to restrict the consideration of the nature of mans ability to design and create is no different than any of the other restrictions that have been placed on knowledge through out the ages.
A very pretty little circular argument... you must've put a lot of thought into it.
But yet you still can't see how the part I've highlighted becomes an endless cycle of things needing creators. It's turtles all the way down.
The universe may very well be designed. There may very well be a designer, but there is no logical proof that can't be argued with by asking, "Where did the creator come from?"
Once you decide that everything has to have a beginning, it's a bottomless pit. Once you decide that something can exist without a beginning, then it could very well be our universe that has always been and always shall be.
Intelligent design comes from the simple observation that all things that come into being outside of nature do so by the design of man. Nothing in all of nature except for man is able to create or design. Man is intelligent and is able to produce intelligent designs or creations.
With the realization that design and creation require intelligence and since the universe shows a high degree of design. The only source for the universe is from a being of intelligence.
We therefore have more evidence of the requirement of an intelligent creator, God.
The question in the study of intelligent design is how the connection is made between intelligence and design. Why is man the only thing that is able to act against the natural order of the universe?
The effort to restrict the consideration of the nature of mans ability to design and create is no different than any of the other restrictions that have been placed on knowledge through out the ages.
A very pretty little circular argument... you must've put a lot of thought into it.
But yet you still can't see how the part I've highlighted becomes an endless cycle of things needing creators. It's turtles all the way down.
The universe may very well be designed. There may very well be a designer, but there is no logical proof that can't be argued with by asking, "Where did the creator come from?"
Once you decide that everything has to have a beginning, it's a bottomless pit. Once you decide that something can exist without a beginning, then it could very well be our universe that has always been and always shall be.
Gmilam;
QUOTE
A very pretty little circular argument... you must've put a lot of thought into it.
But yet you still can't see how the part I've highlighted becomes an endless cycle of things needing creators. It's turtles all the way down.
The universe may very well be designed. There may very well be a designer, but there is no logical proof that can't be argued with by asking, "Where did the creator come from?"
Once you decide that everything has to have a beginning, it's a bottomless pit. Once you decide that something can exist without a beginning, then it could very well be our universe that has always been and always shall be.
But yet you still can't see how the part I've highlighted becomes an endless cycle of things needing creators. It's turtles all the way down.
The universe may very well be designed. There may very well be a designer, but there is no logical proof that can't be argued with by asking, "Where did the creator come from?"
Once you decide that everything has to have a beginning, it's a bottomless pit. Once you decide that something can exist without a beginning, then it could very well be our universe that has always been and always shall be.
I thought you had some knowledge of this area. This concept was settled over 1000 years ago. The circular conflict you speak of is only true if you limit your thinking to a condition of time. Your thought is correct that there can be no first cause if limited to the conditions of time. This also eliminates the ability of science to ever find the first cause. It is only through the ability to recognize this limitation that those that are able have the ability to consider a condition without time. You do not seem to have that ability. Until you gain that education you are wasting your time even considering this area.
All who understand science know it is a waste of time to look for a solution to a problem if you have already found that the answer can not be from the approach you have taken. You insist on looking where you think the light is better not where the solution is located.
What is the use of responding to you if you have no ability to understand the concepts being presented. Are you even able to consider a condition without time?
QUOTE (tlocity+Nov 25 2006, 05:04 PM)
Are you even able to consider a condition without time?
I don't even know what this statement means. But it sounds like the topic is pure speculation and is better fit for a philosophy forum rather than a science forum.
I don't even know what this statement means. But it sounds like the topic is pure speculation and is better fit for a philosophy forum rather than a science forum.
QUOTE (tlocity+)
With the realization that design and creation require intelligence and since the universe shows a high degree of design. The only source for the universe is from a being of intelligence. We therefore have more evidence of the requirement of an intelligent creator, God.
The Teleological Argument has been quashed by the theory of evolution by natural selection. The God hypothesis is no longer the only possible answer to the question, "How did we get here?" Just as there are ordered systems (snowflakes, diamonds, etc.) which have no designer, evolutionary theory allows for living organisms to evolve extremely complex features, with no help from a Creator God.
At the time Thomas Aquinas wrote his Summa Theologiae (13th century), there was no competing hypothesis, and so people took for granted its conclusion:
"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God." - http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/P...on/fiveways.htm
The apparent design of the universe, however, is no reason to jump to the conclusion that the posited designer is God. Even Voltaire, who was a fan of the argument, was careful about accepting it:
"But from this one argument, I cannot conclude anything more, except that it is probable that an intelligent and superior being has prepared and shaped matter with dexterity; I cannot conclude from this argument alone that this being has made the matter out of nothing or that he is infinite in any sense. However deeply I search my mind for the connection between the following ideas — it is probable that I am the work of a being more powerful than myself, therefore this being has existed from all eternity, therefore he has created everything, therefore he is infinite, and so on. — I cannot see the chain which leads directly to that conclusion. I can see only that there is something more powerful than myself and nothing more." - "A Treatise on Metaphysics" (chapter 2)
Thanks but not quite right. There is no evidence for a creator, whereas science knows it does not know YET.
Gods/deities/fairies, whatever you want to call them/it have every opportunity to 'show their face' but all of them decline.Strange that. Besides which one; the smiter, the provider of whores in heaven, the laid-back one, the serpent or any other of the dozens worshiped by the superstitious? None of them have so much as performed one tangible 'god like' act. Equally, none have saved their chosen people in the face of war or prevented diseases, tsunamis, earthquakes or suicide bombers.
Perhaps not strangely, all deist beliefs are as equally bizarre as Scientology. What is so different between a giant blue space octopus and a ghost which fathered his own son, by knocking up some virgin and not upsetting her husband, but which is really himself. The human imagination knows no bounds.
Before anyone trots out the old 'absence of evidence, blah blah' routine, I'd say the evidence is incontrovertible. Venom? To some it might seem this, I would prefer to say 'forthright' in the assertion.
This, however,
Thanks but not quite right. There is no evidence for a creator, whereas science knows it does not know YET.
Gods/deities/fairies, whatever you want to call them/it have every opportunity to 'show their face' but all of them decline.Strange that. Besides which one; the smiter, the provider of whores in heaven, the laid-back one, the serpent or any other of the dozens worshiped by the superstitious? None of them have so much as performed one tangible 'god like' act. Equally, none have saved their chosen people in the face of war or prevented diseases, tsunamis, earthquakes or suicide bombers.
Perhaps not strangely, all deist beliefs are as equally bizarre as Scientology. What is so different between a giant blue space octopus and a ghost which fathered his own son, by knocking up some virgin and not upsetting her husband, but which is really himself. The human imagination knows no bounds.
Before anyone trots out the old 'absence of evidence, blah blah' routine, I'd say the evidence is incontrovertible. Venom? To some it might seem this, I would prefer to say 'forthright' in the assertion.
This, however,
here's nothing wrong with pursuing the idea of a "god"
only promotes the idea of the same faith-based nonsense going on around the world.
Doobies?
Gave them up before the deadly hydroponic stuff flooded the world. VB (Australian beer), sav blanc and a good red are the order now.
Physfan
Thanks but not quite right. There is no evidence for a creator, whereas science knows it does not know YET.
Gods/deities/fairies, whatever you want to call them/it have every opportunity to 'show their face' but all of them decline.Strange that. Besides which one; the smiter, the provider of whores in heaven, the laid-back one, the serpent or any other of the dozens worshiped by the superstitious? None of them have so much as performed one tangible 'god like' act. Equally, none have saved their chosen people in the face of war or prevented diseases, tsunamis, earthquakes or suicide bombers.
Perhaps not strangely, all deist beliefs are as equally bizarre as Scientology. What is so different between a giant blue space octopus and a ghost which fathered his own son, by knocking up some virgin and not upsetting her husband, but which is really himself. The human imagination knows no bounds.
Before anyone trots out the old 'absence of evidence, blah blah' routine, I'd say the evidence is incontrovertible. Venom? To some it might seem this, I would prefer to say 'forthright' in the assertion.
This, however,
only promotes the idea of the same faith-based nonsense going on around the world.
Doobies?
Gave them up before the deadly hydroponic stuff flooded the world. VB (Australian beer), sav blanc and a good red are the order now.
Physfan
If there's one thing I noticed fairly quickly was that no one is "exactly right" when replying to you. You appear to have the "real" answers to pretty much whatever you like. Congratulations for that.
You might want to form your sentences a bit better so they can be fully understood. Several have found themselves lost after reading them... I'm sure you probably find them too stupid to understand your genius-like mental flow...
Also, you are making some pretty big assumptions here... Why do you think the best thing to happen when a tsunamis is coming is for it to be stopped? Why are any lead ins to death painted as bad? Perhaps things are so great in our "real form" that it's a pleasure for us to suffer such things temporarily while corporeal... Maybe the design is to experience these very things. Hey, the ride only lasts 75 to 85 years for most...
The Teleological Argument has been quashed by the theory of evolution by natural selection. The God hypothesis is no longer the only possible answer to the question, "How did we get here?" Just as there are ordered systems (snowflakes, diamonds, etc.) which have no designer, evolutionary theory allows for living organisms to evolve extremely complex features, with no help from a Creator God.
At the time Thomas Aquinas wrote his Summa Theologiae (13th century), there was no competing hypothesis, and so people took for granted its conclusion:
"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God." - http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/P...on/fiveways.htm
The apparent design of the universe, however, is no reason to jump to the conclusion that the posited designer is God. Even Voltaire, who was a fan of the argument, was careful about accepting it:
"But from this one argument, I cannot conclude anything more, except that it is probable that an intelligent and superior being has prepared and shaped matter with dexterity; I cannot conclude from this argument alone that this being has made the matter out of nothing or that he is infinite in any sense. However deeply I search my mind for the connection between the following ideas — it is probable that I am the work of a being more powerful than myself, therefore this being has existed from all eternity, therefore he has created everything, therefore he is infinite, and so on. — I cannot see the chain which leads directly to that conclusion. I can see only that there is something more powerful than myself and nothing more." - "A Treatise on Metaphysics" (chapter 2)
QUOTE (tlocity+)
I know this will not be understood by most on this form but it may still expand the mind of some.
I believe that most readers of this forum do understand the simplistic argument from design (or perhaps more appropriately called the "argument for design"), but have rejected it for its flawed premise. George H. Smith writes:
"Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning." - "Atheism: The Case Against God" (pg. 268)
Why There Almost Certainly Is No God, by Richard Dawkins
I believe that most readers of this forum do understand the simplistic argument from design (or perhaps more appropriately called the "argument for design"), but have rejected it for its flawed premise. George H. Smith writes:
"Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning." - "Atheism: The Case Against God" (pg. 268)
Why There Almost Certainly Is No God, by Richard Dawkins
tlocity. Despite having answers, science still continues to look and check on facts. Some years ago, this showed that electricity did not flow through a wire quite like scientists had thought it did.
With religion, they had all their answers 2000 years ago. Now it's just a matter of fiddling facts so they fit the answers.
With religion, they had all their answers 2000 years ago. Now it's just a matter of fiddling facts so they fit the answers.
tlocity. As was shown at the Dover School trial, intelligent design was merely creationism under another name. Literally they had taken a book on creationism and reprinted it with the words "intelligent design" instead of "creationism".
Actually most of the Universe is very simple. Only life is complicated. That is because of the predator prey cycle. To avoid all being killed, the prey must become better. To avoid going hungry, the predators must become better. The time technology advances most is war time when there must be advances to survive and win.
There is no evidence of god. Who designed god? An even more intelligent god? And who designed the more intelligent god? Etc.
Man just has a much more complicated nature which if you could understand it completely you would find it is in with the natural order.
We are gaining more knowledge all the time. If this was going to happen, why did your god not just give it to us in the first place?
Actually most of the Universe is very simple. Only life is complicated. That is because of the predator prey cycle. To avoid all being killed, the prey must become better. To avoid going hungry, the predators must become better. The time technology advances most is war time when there must be advances to survive and win.
There is no evidence of god. Who designed god? An even more intelligent god? And who designed the more intelligent god? Etc.
Man just has a much more complicated nature which if you could understand it completely you would find it is in with the natural order.
We are gaining more knowledge all the time. If this was going to happen, why did your god not just give it to us in the first place?
Intelligent design--more like unintelligent design. 
Waste of one's time, if you ask me. I dunno about you, but as for me, I'll take creation by GOD, not by some farcical aquatic ceremony. (Pardon my reference to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I love that movie, historically and politically incorrect as it is.)
Did I mention I'll take creation by God?
Waste of one's time, if you ask me. I dunno about you, but as for me, I'll take creation by GOD, not by some farcical aquatic ceremony. (Pardon my reference to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I love that movie, historically and politically incorrect as it is.)Did I mention I'll take creation by God?
QUOTE (anteatermaster+)
Intelligent design--more like unintelligent design.
Did I mention I'll take creation by God?
This is a very strange juxtaposition. Do you mean to say your hypothetical God is an idiot?
Did I mention I'll take creation by God?
This is a very strange juxtaposition. Do you mean to say your hypothetical God is an idiot?
QUOTE (Dave Grossman+Sep 28 2006, 02:08 PM)
What if we discover that life was indeed too complex to have evolved naturally? What if we find some clue that indicates that some intelligence was involved?
Does this vindicate creationists in any way? I don't think so.
Even if we can show that some design by an intelligent force occurred, this does not support any religion nor does it support any religion's concept of God. There is still the unknown of what the nature of the intelligence is and we know no more about that than we know about what exists outside of our universe.
Intelligent Design, as a movement, is a defense mechanism for religion to try and justify itself. It is unfortunate that anybody talking about some intelligent designer of the universe and/or life would inevitably be associated with religion.
I believe in the *possibility* that some form of intelligence helping create life. I do think that the universe was intelligently designed but I make no effort to describe the designer of it or the reasons for its creation.
- Dave
Hey Dave,
As always, a great post... (Why oh why do so many find you so hard to understand??? And boy do you piss people off... I love it! )
Like any big business, organized religion is going to grab hold of ANYTHING that keeps its wheels in motion. The Catholic Church is a multi-billion $ business and you best believe that it is not going to simply roll over and go away. It just won't happen. If we were visited by aliens tomorrow with the blue prints in-hand of how they made everything we know, including us, there would be an Evangelical preacher telling his flock about how God made those aliens and had them set forth his plan before the smoke from their tailpipes cleared the skies. Its money brother, and it makes religion go round...
That being said, I too believe there is a very real possibility that something created us. The trick seems to be to pursue the idea while keeping it separate from science until the time (if ever) they can be linked. Let's face it, an iron clad finding of a designer would be the single greatest scientific discovery EVER. There would be no argument. Suddenly scientists from around the world would stand up and shout, "I BELIEVE!" It would be a very different world for sure.
There's nothing wrong with pursuing the idea of a "god" (Or whatever you like to think of a designer as being). The insanity most religions have brought to the idea has only hurt the pursuit. Get rid of the religious aspects and suddenly you have an open field to ask yourself, "What if..." It's a great line of thinking and I do it often...
Oh yeah, this Physfan guy should smoke a fatty and relax for a week or two. I can't believe the venom in his posts. He states his disbelief in a creator/designer with the same exact conviction bible thumpers throw around "the facts" about there being a god. Both equally annoying.
Does this vindicate creationists in any way? I don't think so.
Even if we can show that some design by an intelligent force occurred, this does not support any religion nor does it support any religion's concept of God. There is still the unknown of what the nature of the intelligence is and we know no more about that than we know about what exists outside of our universe.
Intelligent Design, as a movement, is a defense mechanism for religion to try and justify itself. It is unfortunate that anybody talking about some intelligent designer of the universe and/or life would inevitably be associated with religion.
I believe in the *possibility* that some form of intelligence helping create life. I do think that the universe was intelligently designed but I make no effort to describe the designer of it or the reasons for its creation.
- Dave
Hey Dave,
As always, a great post... (Why oh why do so many find you so hard to understand???
And boy do you piss people off... I love it! )Like any big business, organized religion is going to grab hold of ANYTHING that keeps its wheels in motion. The Catholic Church is a multi-billion $ business and you best believe that it is not going to simply roll over and go away. It just won't happen. If we were visited by aliens tomorrow with the blue prints in-hand of how they made everything we know, including us, there would be an Evangelical preacher telling his flock about how God made those aliens and had them set forth his plan before the smoke from their tailpipes cleared the skies. Its money brother, and it makes religion go round...
That being said, I too believe there is a very real possibility that something created us. The trick seems to be to pursue the idea while keeping it separate from science until the time (if ever) they can be linked. Let's face it, an iron clad finding of a designer would be the single greatest scientific discovery EVER. There would be no argument. Suddenly scientists from around the world would stand up and shout, "I BELIEVE!" It would be a very different world for sure.
There's nothing wrong with pursuing the idea of a "god" (Or whatever you like to think of a designer as being). The insanity most religions have brought to the idea has only hurt the pursuit. Get rid of the religious aspects and suddenly you have an open field to ask yourself, "What if..." It's a great line of thinking and I do it often...
Oh yeah, this Physfan guy should smoke a fatty and relax for a week or two. I can't believe the venom in his posts. He states his disbelief in a creator/designer with the same exact conviction bible thumpers throw around "the facts" about there being a god. Both equally annoying.
QUOTE
Oh yeah, this Physfan guy should smoke a fatty and relax for a week or two. I can't believe the venom in his posts. He states his disbelief in a creator/designer with the same exact conviction bible thumpers throw around "the facts" about there being a god. Both equally annoying.
Thanks but not quite right. There is no evidence for a creator, whereas science knows it does not know YET.
Gods/deities/fairies, whatever you want to call them/it have every opportunity to 'show their face' but all of them decline.Strange that. Besides which one; the smiter, the provider of whores in heaven, the laid-back one, the serpent or any other of the dozens worshiped by the superstitious? None of them have so much as performed one tangible 'god like' act. Equally, none have saved their chosen people in the face of war or prevented diseases, tsunamis, earthquakes or suicide bombers.
Perhaps not strangely, all deist beliefs are as equally bizarre as Scientology. What is so different between a giant blue space octopus and a ghost which fathered his own son, by knocking up some virgin and not upsetting her husband, but which is really himself. The human imagination knows no bounds.
Before anyone trots out the old 'absence of evidence, blah blah' routine, I'd say the evidence is incontrovertible. Venom? To some it might seem this, I would prefer to say 'forthright' in the assertion.
This, however,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh yeah, this Physfan guy should smoke a fatty and relax for a week or two. I can't believe the venom in his posts. He states his disbelief in a creator/designer with the same exact conviction bible thumpers throw around "the facts" about there being a god. Both equally annoying. |
Thanks but not quite right. There is no evidence for a creator, whereas science knows it does not know YET.
Gods/deities/fairies, whatever you want to call them/it have every opportunity to 'show their face' but all of them decline.Strange that. Besides which one; the smiter, the provider of whores in heaven, the laid-back one, the serpent or any other of the dozens worshiped by the superstitious? None of them have so much as performed one tangible 'god like' act. Equally, none have saved their chosen people in the face of war or prevented diseases, tsunamis, earthquakes or suicide bombers.
Perhaps not strangely, all deist beliefs are as equally bizarre as Scientology. What is so different between a giant blue space octopus and a ghost which fathered his own son, by knocking up some virgin and not upsetting her husband, but which is really himself. The human imagination knows no bounds.
Before anyone trots out the old 'absence of evidence, blah blah' routine, I'd say the evidence is incontrovertible. Venom? To some it might seem this, I would prefer to say 'forthright' in the assertion.
This, however,
here's nothing wrong with pursuing the idea of a "god"
only promotes the idea of the same faith-based nonsense going on around the world.
Doobies?
Gave them up before the deadly hydroponic stuff flooded the world. VB (Australian beer), sav blanc and a good red are the order now.
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Nov 28 2006, 12:22 AM)
Thanks but not quite right. There is no evidence for a creator, whereas science knows it does not know YET.
Gods/deities/fairies, whatever you want to call them/it have every opportunity to 'show their face' but all of them decline.Strange that. Besides which one; the smiter, the provider of whores in heaven, the laid-back one, the serpent or any other of the dozens worshiped by the superstitious? None of them have so much as performed one tangible 'god like' act. Equally, none have saved their chosen people in the face of war or prevented diseases, tsunamis, earthquakes or suicide bombers.
Perhaps not strangely, all deist beliefs are as equally bizarre as Scientology. What is so different between a giant blue space octopus and a ghost which fathered his own son, by knocking up some virgin and not upsetting her husband, but which is really himself. The human imagination knows no bounds.
Before anyone trots out the old 'absence of evidence, blah blah' routine, I'd say the evidence is incontrovertible. Venom? To some it might seem this, I would prefer to say 'forthright' in the assertion.
This, however,
only promotes the idea of the same faith-based nonsense going on around the world.
Doobies?
Gave them up before the deadly hydroponic stuff flooded the world. VB (Australian beer), sav blanc and a good red are the order now.
Physfan
If there's one thing I noticed fairly quickly was that no one is "exactly right" when replying to you. You appear to have the "real" answers to pretty much whatever you like. Congratulations for that.
You might want to form your sentences a bit better so they can be fully understood. Several have found themselves lost after reading them... I'm sure you probably find them too stupid to understand your genius-like mental flow...
Also, you are making some pretty big assumptions here... Why do you think the best thing to happen when a tsunamis is coming is for it to be stopped? Why are any lead ins to death painted as bad? Perhaps things are so great in our "real form" that it's a pleasure for us to suffer such things temporarily while corporeal... Maybe the design is to experience these very things. Hey, the ride only lasts 75 to 85 years for most...
How do you know the truth when you here it?
DiscipulusIgnorantus;
By the observation that only order and design are the result of intelligence as seen in every day life. and not seeing any design or creation being produced without intelligence the hypothesis stands that creation is the result of intelligence.
When you look at the snowflake, you are looking at the result of creation not at creation itself. The things you see unfolding in nature are following the design of the creation of God. Only man has the ability to chose to act in line with that order or to act against that design.
QUOTE
The Teleological Argument has been quashed by the theory of evolution by natural selection. The God hypothesis is no longer the only possible answer to the question, "How did we get here?" Just as there are ordered systems (snowflakes, diamonds, etc.) which have no designer, evolutionary theory allows for living organisms to evolve extremely complex features, with no help from a Creator God.
At the time Thomas Aquinas wrote his Summa Theologiae (13th century), there was no competing hypothesis, and so people took for granted its conclusion:
How do you reach the conclusion that snowflakes, diamonds, etc have no designer? Or by what stretch of what logic do you think that evolution has anything to do with creation? Such limited thought.At the time Thomas Aquinas wrote his Summa Theologiae (13th century), there was no competing hypothesis, and so people took for granted its conclusion:
By the observation that only order and design are the result of intelligence as seen in every day life. and not seeing any design or creation being produced without intelligence the hypothesis stands that creation is the result of intelligence.
When you look at the snowflake, you are looking at the result of creation not at creation itself. The things you see unfolding in nature are following the design of the creation of God. Only man has the ability to chose to act in line with that order or to act against that design.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Teleological Argument has been quashed by the theory of evolution by natural selection. The God hypothesis is no longer the only possible answer to the question, "How did we get here?" Just as there are ordered systems (snowflakes, diamonds, etc.) which have no designer, evolutionary theory allows for living organisms to evolve extremely complex features, with no help from a Creator God. At the time Thomas Aquinas wrote his Summa Theologiae (13th century), there was no competing hypothesis, and so people took for granted its conclusion: |
How do you reach the conclusion that snowflakes, diamonds, etc have no designer? Or by what stretch of what logic do you think that evolution has anything to do with creation? Such limited thought.
By the observation that only order and design are the result of intelligence as seen in every day life. and not seeing any design or creation being produced without intelligence the hypothesis stands that creation is the result of intelligence.
When you look at the snowflake, you are looking at the result of creation not at creation itself. The things you see unfolding in nature are following the design of the creation of God. Only man has the ability to chose to act in line with that order or to act against that design.
The apparent design of the universe, however, is no reason to jump to the conclusion that the posited designer is God. Even Voltaire, who was a fan of the argument, was careful about accepting it:
By the observation that only order and design are the result of intelligence as seen in every day life. and not seeing any design or creation being produced without intelligence the hypothesis stands that creation is the result of intelligence.
When you look at the snowflake, you are looking at the result of creation not at creation itself. The things you see unfolding in nature are following the design of the creation of God. Only man has the ability to chose to act in line with that order or to act against that design.
The apparent design of the universe, however, is no reason to jump to the conclusion that the posited designer is God. Even Voltaire, who was a fan of the argument, was careful about accepting it:
It is not a jump. Anything that produces the result of the universe and all its attributes is by description God. What attributes would you give or take away from God that does not support the creation of the universe?
QUOTE
I believe that most readers of this forum do understand the simplistic argument from design (or perhaps more appropriately called the "argument for design"), but have rejected it for its flawed premise. George H. Smith writes:
If that were true, I would see some response to these ideas disproving the observation. The only premise is that of observation. If you consider observation a flawed premise then you have a lot more problems then can be covered here. There is no thinking here only cheering for your belief. To quote the opinion of anyone is not addressing the argument.
Kaneda;
QUOTE
tlocity. As was shown at the Dover School trial, intelligent design was merely creationism under another name. Literally they had taken a book on creationism and reprinted it with the words "intelligent design" instead of "creationism".
The only idea under consideration is the observation that I have presented.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| tlocity. As was shown at the Dover School trial, intelligent design was merely creationism under another name. Literally they had taken a book on creationism and reprinted it with the words "intelligent design" instead of "creationism". |
The only idea under consideration is the observation that I have presented.
There is no evidence of god. Who designed god? An even more intelligent god? And who designed the more intelligent god? Etc.
There is no evidence of god. Who designed god? An even more intelligent god? And who designed the more intelligent god? Etc.
If you were a two-dimensional being, would a three dimensional being be restricted you your limitations? As a two-dimensional being, would you be able to consider a universe with more then two dimensions?
I have found no difficulty in working in multiple dimensions. I do so with math everyday. I am even able to work in ten dimensions without any time dimension. If you are unable to consider concepts like these, you are not qualified to work in this area. You need to be able to understand dimensions and why there can only be three unique direction. Then you may go forward.
I have found no difficulty in working in multiple dimensions. I do so with math everyday. I am even able to work in ten dimensions without any time dimension. If you are unable to consider concepts like these, you are not qualified to work in this area. You need to be able to understand dimensions and why there can only be three unique direction. Then you may go forward.
QUOTE
Man just has a much more complicated nature which if you could understand it completely you would find it is in with the natural order.
All things are within the natural order. I am happy to see that you agree that there is natural order.QUOTE (tlocity+Nov 28 2006, 02:20 AM)
By the observation that only order and design are the result of intelligence as seen in every day life. and not seeing any design or creation being produced without intelligence the hypothesis stands that creation is the result of intelligence.
You were given the example of snowflakes and diamonds, whereupon you so brilliantly stated.
Really eloquently stated non-rebuttal there.
More words of wisdom from travelocity
Really eloquently stated non-rebuttal there.
More words of wisdom from travelocity
I have found no difficulty in working in multiple dimensions. I do so with math everyday. I am even able to work in ten dimensions without any time dimension. If you are unable to consider concepts like these, you are not qualified to work in this area. You need to be able to understand dimensions and why there can only be three unique direction. Then you may go forward.
Apparently if we can't think "outside of time" then we aren't even qualified to ask the questions...
What an arrogant a$$hole.
I wonder why no one has taken Dr. Hovind up on his $250,000 challange to prove that evolution is the only way? "The failure of anyone to claim the prize is evidence that the hypothesis of evolution is not scientific but religious in nature."
Seems to me that Dr. Hovind knows something we don't.
You have shown huh? You must be exceptionally smart.
You have shown huh? You must be exceptionally smart.
"The only premise is that of observation".
No observation shows any evidence of god. He is just a delusion.
I'm sure we're all very happy that you set the universe straight. We can all now rest knowing that you, keeper of the physics board and great cosmic muffin, have figured it all out. We bow to your superiority.
You were given the example of snowflakes and diamonds, whereupon you so brilliantly stated.
QUOTE
How do you reach the conclusion that snowflakes, diamonds, etc have no designer?
Really eloquently stated non-rebuttal there.
More words of wisdom from travelocity
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How do you reach the conclusion that snowflakes, diamonds, etc have no designer? |
Really eloquently stated non-rebuttal there.
More words of wisdom from travelocity
I have found no difficulty in working in multiple dimensions. I do so with math everyday. I am even able to work in ten dimensions without any time dimension. If you are unable to consider concepts like these, you are not qualified to work in this area. You need to be able to understand dimensions and why there can only be three unique direction. Then you may go forward.
Apparently if we can't think "outside of time" then we aren't even qualified to ask the questions...
What an arrogant a$$hole.
Also, you are making some pretty big assumptions here... Why do you think the best thing to happen when a tsunamis is coming is for it to be stopped? Why are any lead ins to death painted as bad? Perhaps things are so great in our "real form" that it's a pleasure for us to suffer such things temporarily while corporeal... Maybe the design is to experience these very things. Hey, the ride only lasts 75 to 85 years for most...
Jinxed,
It is nice to see someone else knows how to think openly. I attempted having this very argument with these guys on another board, but they always have all the answers. Funny that science doesn't even have the answers, but these guys know it all. They could be racking in millions with their truths. Instead they spend their time here arguing over something they know all about. Maybe they are God.
Jinxed,
It is nice to see someone else knows how to think openly. I attempted having this very argument with these guys on another board, but they always have all the answers. Funny that science doesn't even have the answers, but these guys know it all. They could be racking in millions with their truths. Instead they spend their time here arguing over something they know all about. Maybe they are God.
anteatermaster. You are happy to believe that you came from dirt? That a god who drowned untold millions of people in a worldwide flood actually loves you? That someone who has been happy to let untold billion suffer and die, even unto this day, gives a damn? That a god who Jesus tells us is in charge of hell and is happy that billions suffer there for eternity loves you?
Ever thought of trying logic and reasoning?
Ever thought of trying logic and reasoning?
tlocity. Over decades I have read of untold alien worlds where all sorts of thing are possible and exist. But like your maths, these things only exist on paper.
I understand different dimensions as I understand aliens from the planet Zog, which does not make either of them true.
A natural order is what exists. Nothing to do with superstition which an unnatural order.
I understand different dimensions as I understand aliens from the planet Zog, which does not make either of them true.
A natural order is what exists. Nothing to do with superstition which an unnatural order.
QUOTE (savagelogic+Nov 28 2006, 11:36 AM)
Jinxed,
It is nice to see someone else knows how to think openly. I attempted having this very argument with these guys on another board, but they always have all the answers. Funny that science doesn't even have the answers, but these guys know it all. They could be racking in millions with their truths. Instead they spend their time here arguing over something they know all about. Maybe they are God.
If a scientist says, "There is no proof of a god or intelligent design, therefore I do not want to entertain the idea for now." I can appreciate that. I have no problem with them.
But with scientists and the religious alike, when someone takes the stance, "There is NO God!" or... "There IS a God!" and then try to jamb that down my throat simply because they "believe it to be fact" , I have a problem with that.
Also, this entire "God didn't directly come down and stop these bad things from happening to me or to the people I know" thought process really pisses me off. Stop your crying! What kind of pathetic lambs would we be if some mighty thunderer stepped in to solve all our problems? Who the hell would want that anyway?
How would you create a universe and the beings in it? Would you want them to worship and fear you? Would you cast them to hell for their mistakes? Would you pamper thier little a$$es and make sure their noses weren't running? Again, religion has placed these characteristics on god. The reality is that a creator could be many, many things and none of them have to have something to do with the picture religions have painted.
The universe and all the things in it could very well be nothing more than the result of pure chance... Just a series of natural processes that come together to make what we know. It could be that way.
It could also be that everything, including us, was created. Who would have done the creating is unknown, but if it were ever discovered, what a scientific find that would be. What doors of possibilities are open from that one thought. It boggles the [open] mind.
For me the who, what and why are intriguing to no end. The idea of all of this being a cosmic fart is also intriguing. Either way, I'll entertain the ideas and thoughts.
It is nice to see someone else knows how to think openly. I attempted having this very argument with these guys on another board, but they always have all the answers. Funny that science doesn't even have the answers, but these guys know it all. They could be racking in millions with their truths. Instead they spend their time here arguing over something they know all about. Maybe they are God.
If a scientist says, "There is no proof of a god or intelligent design, therefore I do not want to entertain the idea for now." I can appreciate that. I have no problem with them.
But with scientists and the religious alike, when someone takes the stance, "There is NO God!" or... "There IS a God!" and then try to jamb that down my throat simply because they "believe it to be fact" , I have a problem with that.
Also, this entire "God didn't directly come down and stop these bad things from happening to me or to the people I know" thought process really pisses me off. Stop your crying! What kind of pathetic lambs would we be if some mighty thunderer stepped in to solve all our problems? Who the hell would want that anyway?
How would you create a universe and the beings in it? Would you want them to worship and fear you? Would you cast them to hell for their mistakes? Would you pamper thier little a$$es and make sure their noses weren't running? Again, religion has placed these characteristics on god. The reality is that a creator could be many, many things and none of them have to have something to do with the picture religions have painted.
The universe and all the things in it could very well be nothing more than the result of pure chance... Just a series of natural processes that come together to make what we know. It could be that way.
It could also be that everything, including us, was created. Who would have done the creating is unknown, but if it were ever discovered, what a scientific find that would be. What doors of possibilities are open from that one thought. It boggles the [open] mind.
For me the who, what and why are intriguing to no end. The idea of all of this being a cosmic fart is also intriguing. Either way, I'll entertain the ideas and thoughts.
tlocity. The fact that snowflakes look as they do does not mean a designer any more than that the force we call gravity is god pulling us down (see my thread elsewhere). If 1+1=2, you cannot say it does because god made it so. Things work a set way without supernatural aid.
True, evolution has nothing to do with creation. Evolution is provable. Creation is a fairy tale totally without evidence. No comparison.
Evidence that the god who supposedly had this "intelligence" exists is....? Elsewhere on this board I have shown it was Idiot Design, not Intelligent Design.
What has your imaginary friend, god got to do with the Universe? Next you'll be saying that attributes of pink rabbits are by description god.
"The only premise is that of observation".
No observation shows any evidence of god. He is just a delusion.
True, evolution has nothing to do with creation. Evolution is provable. Creation is a fairy tale totally without evidence. No comparison.
Evidence that the god who supposedly had this "intelligence" exists is....? Elsewhere on this board I have shown it was Idiot Design, not Intelligent Design.
What has your imaginary friend, god got to do with the Universe? Next you'll be saying that attributes of pink rabbits are by description god.
"The only premise is that of observation".
No observation shows any evidence of god. He is just a delusion.
I think you all know in your hearts that God exists.
I wonder why no one has taken Dr. Hovind up on his $250,000 challange to prove that evolution is the only way? "The failure of anyone to claim the prize is evidence that the hypothesis of evolution is not scientific but religious in nature."
Seems to me that Dr. Hovind knows something we don't.
QUOTE
Evidence that the god who supposedly had this "intelligence" exists is....? Elsewhere on this board I have shown it was Idiot Design, not Intelligent Design.
You have shown huh? You must be exceptionally smart.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Evidence that the god who supposedly had this "intelligence" exists is....? Elsewhere on this board I have shown it was Idiot Design, not Intelligent Design. |
You have shown huh? You must be exceptionally smart.
"The only premise is that of observation".
No observation shows any evidence of god. He is just a delusion.
I'm sure we're all very happy that you set the universe straight. We can all now rest knowing that you, keeper of the physics board and great cosmic muffin, have figured it all out. We bow to your superiority.
QUOTE (savagelogic+Nov 28 2006, 05:20 PM)
I wonder why no one has taken Dr. Hovind up on his $250,000 challange to prove that evolution is the only way? "The failure of anyone to claim the prize is evidence that the hypothesis of evolution is not scientific but religious in nature."
Seems to me that Dr. Hovind knows something we don't.
Because Dr. Hovind is a shady character who does not (as Jesus commanded) "render unto Caeser what is Caeser's."
Since he's not a "good Christian" (i.e. follower-of-Christ) who can blame evolutionists for not trusting him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
(I'm not a lawyer, but sentencing guidelines would suggest that more that 1 year would be involved and I think less than 10. But the judge is allowed to exceed the guidelines on the basis of non-repentance and evasiveness.)
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/p.../611030338/1006
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html
(I'm not a lawyer, but sentencing guidelines would suggest that more that 1 year would be involved and I think less than 10. But the judge is allowed to exceed the guidelines on the basis of non-repentance and evasiveness.)
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/p.../611030338/1006
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
...
* NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
Only the 5th is "evolution" and what possible evidence should show any event took place without God. The only evidence that Hovind would accept is utter proof God does not exist -- the best science can show is that God does not care about petty things like blasphemy or keeping Hovind out of jail enough to intervene.
Seems to me that Dr. Hovind knows something we don't.
Because Dr. Hovind is a shady character who does not (as Jesus commanded) "render unto Caeser what is Caeser's."
Since he's not a "good Christian" (i.e. follower-of-Christ) who can blame evolutionists for not trusting him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
QUOTE
Hovind is currently being held by the Escambia County Sheriff's Office awaiting sentencing on January 9, 2007. He has been ordered to forfeit $430,400 and faces a maximum of 288 years in prison.
(I'm not a lawyer, but sentencing guidelines would suggest that more that 1 year would be involved and I think less than 10. But the judge is allowed to exceed the guidelines on the basis of non-repentance and evasiveness.)
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/p.../611030338/1006
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hovind is currently being held by the Escambia County Sheriff's Office awaiting sentencing on January 9, 2007. He has been ordered to forfeit $430,400 and faces a maximum of 288 years in prison. |
(I'm not a lawyer, but sentencing guidelines would suggest that more that 1 year would be involved and I think less than 10. But the judge is allowed to exceed the guidelines on the basis of non-repentance and evasiveness.)
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/p.../611030338/1006
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
...
* NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
- Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
- Planets and stars formed from space dust.
- Matter created life by itself.
- Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
- Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
Only the 5th is "evolution" and what possible evidence should show any event took place without God. The only evidence that Hovind would accept is utter proof God does not exist -- the best science can show is that God does not care about petty things like blasphemy or keeping Hovind out of jail enough to intervene.
QUOTE (savagelogic+)
Funny that science doesn't even have the answers, but these guys know it all.
Not having all the answers is not proof of existence of god.
Not having all the answers is not proof of existence of god.
QUOTE (savagelogic+)
I think you all know in your hearts that God exists.
I had read a comical piece on the arguments used by theists. The above was one of them. I searched for that link, but unfortunately could not find it.
I had read a comical piece on the arguments used by theists. The above was one of them. I searched for that link, but unfortunately could not find it.QUOTE (savagelogic+)
I wonder why no one has taken Dr. Hovind up on his $250,000 challange to prove that evolution is the only way? "The failure of anyone to claim the prize is evidence that the hypothesis of evolution is not scientific but religious in nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovind#Hovind...250.2C000_offer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovind#Legal_problems
Hovind found guilty of tax fraud
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Evangelist_Hov...y_for_tax_fraud
I suggest you stop using Hovind in your posts. It only weakens your argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovind#Hovind...250.2C000_offer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovind#Legal_problems
Hovind found guilty of tax fraud
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Evangelist_Hov...y_for_tax_fraud
I suggest you stop using Hovind in your posts. It only weakens your argument.
I suggest you stop using Hovind in your posts. It only weakens your argument
That is only your opinion.
That is only your opinion.
QUOTE (savagelogic+)
I suggest you stop using Hovind in your posts. It only weakens your argument
That is only your opinion.
No, it is the opinion of most people, including creationists:
http://www.answersincreation.org/kent_hovind.htm
http://www.christiangeology.com/dr_dino_debate.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313064211/.../1011hovind.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/ross_...nd_analysis.asp
If you wish to be taken seriously, don't rely on Dr. Dino for your information.
http://www.nmsr.org/hovind.htm
That is only your opinion.
No, it is the opinion of most people, including creationists:
http://www.answersincreation.org/kent_hovind.htm
http://www.christiangeology.com/dr_dino_debate.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313064211/.../1011hovind.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/ross_...nd_analysis.asp
If you wish to be taken seriously, don't rely on Dr. Dino for your information.
http://www.nmsr.org/hovind.htm
you are willfully ignoring the "obvious truth."
Besides Darwin recanted evolution on his death bed. guess all the talk of going to hell changed his mind.
Besides Darwin recanted evolution on his death bed. guess all the talk of going to hell changed his mind.
QUOTE (savagelogic+Nov 28 2006, 04:09 PM)
you are willfully ignoring the "obvious truth."
Besides Darwin recanted evolution on his death bed. guess all the talk of going to hell changed his mind.
Even AnswersInGenesis says this is not true.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...rwin_recant.asp
Besides Darwin recanted evolution on his death bed. guess all the talk of going to hell changed his mind.
Even AnswersInGenesis says this is not true.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...rwin_recant.asp
Tlocity;
gmilam;
gmilam;
Really eloquently stated non-rebuttal there.
Tlocity;
I can now see your problem. Everything you think you know comes from being unable to read. Try reading past the first line.
You must see a lot of events that have no cause like: electric power in you home or computers that can do math.
If you have no answer to this observation just say so.
QUOTE
How do you reach the conclusion that snowflakes, diamonds, etc have no designer?
gmilam;
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How do you reach the conclusion that snowflakes, diamonds, etc have no designer? |
gmilam;
Really eloquently stated non-rebuttal there.
Tlocity;
QUOTE
When you look at the snowflake, you are looking at the result of creation not at creation itself. The things you see unfolding in nature are following the design of the creation of God. Only man has the ability to chose to act in line with that order or to act against that design.
I can now see your problem. Everything you think you know comes from being unable to read. Try reading past the first line.
You must see a lot of events that have no cause like: electric power in you home or computers that can do math.
If you have no answer to this observation just say so.
QUOTE (tlocity+Nov 28 2006, 04:26 PM)
Tlocity;
gmilam;
Tlocity;
I can now see your problem. Everything you think you know comes from being unable to read. Try reading past the first line.
You must see a lot of events that have no cause like: electric power in you home or computers that can do math.
If you have no answer to this observation just say so.
I have read past the first line. It's the god of the gaps argument... nothing more.
gmilam;
Tlocity;
I can now see your problem. Everything you think you know comes from being unable to read. Try reading past the first line.
You must see a lot of events that have no cause like: electric power in you home or computers that can do math.
If you have no answer to this observation just say so.
I have read past the first line. It's the god of the gaps argument... nothing more.
Even AnswersInGenesis says this is not true
Genesis is a bunch of trash. How do we believe such nonsense?
Genesis is a bunch of trash. How do we believe such nonsense?
QUOTE (tlocity+)
QUOTE (DiscipulusIgnorantus+)
The Teleological Argument has been quashed by the theory of evolution by natural selection. The God hypothesis is no longer the only possible answer to the question, "How did we get here?" Just as there are ordered systems (snowflakes, diamonds, etc.) which have no designer, evolutionary theory allows for living organisms to evolve extremely complex features, with no help from a Creator God.
At the time Thomas Aquinas wrote his Summa Theologiae (13th century), there was no competing hypothesis, and so people took for granted its conclusion
How do you reach the conclusion that snowflakes, diamonds, etc have no designer? Or by what stretch of what logic do you think that evolution has anything to do with creation? Such limited thought.
By the observation that only order and design are the result of intelligence as seen in every day life. and not seeing any design or creation being produced without intelligence the hypothesis stands that creation is the result of intelligence.
When you look at the snowflake, you are looking at the result of creation not at creation itself. The things you see unfolding in nature are following the design of the creation of God. Only man has the ability to chose to act in line with that order or to act against that design.
Dear tlocity,
If you want to see in the formation of snowflakes and diamonds the hand of God, you are entitled to your opinion. But natural processes are not empirical evidence of the existence of a creator. To say that these could not have arisen on their own amounts to an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because one cannot understand how a complex, ordered universe could have come about without a creator doesn't prove that it didn't.
At the time Thomas Aquinas wrote his Summa Theologiae (13th century), there was no competing hypothesis, and so people took for granted its conclusion
How do you reach the conclusion that snowflakes, diamonds, etc have no designer? Or by what stretch of what logic do you think that evolution has anything to do with creation? Such limited thought.
By the observation that only order and design are the result of intelligence as seen in every day life. and not seeing any design or creation being produced without intelligence the hypothesis stands that creation is the result of intelligence.
When you look at the snowflake, you are looking at the result of creation not at creation itself. The things you see unfolding in nature are following the design of the creation of God. Only man has the ability to chose to act in line with that order or to act against that design.
Dear tlocity,
If you want to see in the formation of snowflakes and diamonds the hand of God, you are entitled to your opinion. But natural processes are not empirical evidence of the existence of a creator. To say that these could not have arisen on their own amounts to an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because one cannot understand how a complex, ordered universe could have come about without a creator doesn't prove that it didn't.
QUOTE (tlocity+)
QUOTE (DiscipulusIgnorantus+)
The apparent design of the universe, however, is no reason to jump to the conclusion that the posited designer is God. Even Voltaire, who was a fan of the argument, was careful about accepting it:
It is not a jump. Anything that produces the result of the universe and all its attributes is by description God. What attributes would you give or take away from God that does not support the creation of the universe?
A posited supernatural creator entity could be non-eternal, non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, one who does not listen to prayers, one who is not interested in humans, etc. Furthermore, hypothetically speaking there could be many gods, rather than just one. The qualities attributed to the Judeo-Christian God are merely conjectured. This is why Voltaire had to write, "I can see only that there is something more powerful than myself and nothing more."
It is not a jump. Anything that produces the result of the universe and all its attributes is by description God. What attributes would you give or take away from God that does not support the creation of the universe?
A posited supernatural creator entity could be non-eternal, non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, one who does not listen to prayers, one who is not interested in humans, etc. Furthermore, hypothetically speaking there could be many gods, rather than just one. The qualities attributed to the Judeo-Christian God are merely conjectured. This is why Voltaire had to write, "I can see only that there is something more powerful than myself and nothing more."
QUOTE (tlocity+)
QUOTE (DiscipulusIgnorantus+)
I believe that most readers of this forum do understand the simplistic argument from design (or perhaps more appropriately called the "argument for design"), but have rejected it for its flawed premise. George H. Smith writes:
If that were true, I would see some response to these ideas disproving the observation. The only premise is that of observation. If you consider observation a flawed premise then you have a lot more problems then can be covered here. There is no thinking here only cheering for your belief. To quote the opinion of anyone is not addressing the argument.
It is not possible to observe the existence of God. One may make inferences from an observation of nature but to assert the existence of supernatural phenomena or entities is to claim knowledge of what is not observable.
This is an urban myth and total nonsense. Lady Hope who made the claim was not at his death bed and Darwin's daughter repudiated this assertion totally.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html
Apparently savagelogic (sic) is very selective about the myths he/she believes but, in the end, they are all myths. I used to collect match box tops when I was a little tacker and I was quite taken with the idea of the Norse thunder god, Thor. I think I might use him as my god of choice for the next few hours before I get tired of him and throw him in the bin with the others; it makes just as much sense as any other deity.
Yours ireverently,
Physfan
If that were true, I would see some response to these ideas disproving the observation. The only premise is that of observation. If you consider observation a flawed premise then you have a lot more problems then can be covered here. There is no thinking here only cheering for your belief. To quote the opinion of anyone is not addressing the argument.
It is not possible to observe the existence of God. One may make inferences from an observation of nature but to assert the existence of supernatural phenomena or entities is to claim knowledge of what is not observable.
QUOTE (savagelogic+Nov 28 2006, 04:42 PM)
Even AnswersInGenesis says this is not true
Genesis is a bunch of trash. How do we believe such nonsense?
Genesis is a collection of myths and legends from iron age man in the middle east. Nothing more.
However Answers in Genesis is a creationist website. And even they acknowledge that the tales of Charles Darwin recanting his life's work are not true.
Genesis is a bunch of trash. How do we believe such nonsense?
Genesis is a collection of myths and legends from iron age man in the middle east. Nothing more.
However Answers in Genesis is a creationist website. And even they acknowledge that the tales of Charles Darwin recanting his life's work are not true.
QUOTE
Besides Darwin recanted evolution on his death bed. guess all the talk of going to hell changed his mind.
This is an urban myth and total nonsense. Lady Hope who made the claim was not at his death bed and Darwin's daughter repudiated this assertion totally.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html
Apparently savagelogic (sic) is very selective about the myths he/she believes but, in the end, they are all myths. I used to collect match box tops when I was a little tacker and I was quite taken with the idea of the Norse thunder god, Thor. I think I might use him as my god of choice for the next few hours before I get tired of him and throw him in the bin with the others; it makes just as much sense as any other deity.
Yours ireverently,
Physfan
DiscipulusIgnorantus;
The laws and order of the universe are consistent. All observation shows that the process of design, order, and creation requires intelligence. To prove this wrong all you need do is show one instance of design being created without intelligence. In science, you know that if you see an object in motion it had to be put in motion by a force. In the same way, if you see order and design it must be the result of inelegance. To deny this is the same as denying the effects of force on an object. You are entitled to all forms of fantasy but they hold no weight unless you show a variation in the laws of nature that would allow your fantasy.
The laws and order of the universe are consistent. All observation shows that the process of design, order, and creation requires intelligence. To prove this wrong all you need do is show one instance of design being created without intelligence. In science, you know that if you see an object in motion it had to be put in motion by a force. In the same way, if you see order and design it must be the result of inelegance. To deny this is the same as denying the effects of force on an object. You are entitled to all forms of fantasy but they hold no weight unless you show a variation in the laws of nature that would allow your fantasy.
It is not possible to observe the existence of God. One may make inferences from an observation of nature but to assert the existence of supernatural phenomena or entities is to claim knowledge of what is not observable.
I am sorry that you do not believe in science. You see the effects of gravity but you have never seen gravity nor have any idea of what it is. Are you saying that you don’t believe in gravity. Alternatively, are you saying that because of your bias you make different rules for those things you don’t believe in.
If you wish to have a discussion of the nature of God that is a different topic.
Except for before the split?
Except for before the split?
All observation shows that the process of design, order, and creation requires intelligence.
This is a simplistic assumption that only a fundamendalist christian (sic) could believe, which, by the way, tlocity is.
tlocity, you fascinate me. In one sentence, you can appear rational and reasonable and in the next, you revert to type; raving, loony JW cultist.
The mental health of JWs;
http://www.rickross.com/reference/jw/jw72.html
Physfan
QUOTE
Dear tlocity,
If you want to see in the formation of snowflakes and diamonds the hand of God, you are entitled to your opinion. But natural processes are not empirical evidence of the existence of a creator. To say that these could not have arisen on their own amounts to an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because one cannot understand how a complex, ordered universe could have come about without a creator doesn't prove that it didn't.
If you want to see in the formation of snowflakes and diamonds the hand of God, you are entitled to your opinion. But natural processes are not empirical evidence of the existence of a creator. To say that these could not have arisen on their own amounts to an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because one cannot understand how a complex, ordered universe could have come about without a creator doesn't prove that it didn't.
The laws and order of the universe are consistent. All observation shows that the process of design, order, and creation requires intelligence. To prove this wrong all you need do is show one instance of design being created without intelligence. In science, you know that if you see an object in motion it had to be put in motion by a force. In the same way, if you see order and design it must be the result of inelegance. To deny this is the same as denying the effects of force on an object. You are entitled to all forms of fantasy but they hold no weight unless you show a variation in the laws of nature that would allow your fantasy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Dear tlocity, If you want to see in the formation of snowflakes and diamonds the hand of God, you are entitled to your opinion. But natural processes are not empirical evidence of the existence of a creator. To say that these could not have arisen on their own amounts to an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because one cannot understand how a complex, ordered universe could have come about without a creator doesn't prove that it didn't. |
The laws and order of the universe are consistent. All observation shows that the process of design, order, and creation requires intelligence. To prove this wrong all you need do is show one instance of design being created without intelligence. In science, you know that if you see an object in motion it had to be put in motion by a force. In the same way, if you see order and design it must be the result of inelegance. To deny this is the same as denying the effects of force on an object. You are entitled to all forms of fantasy but they hold no weight unless you show a variation in the laws of nature that would allow your fantasy.
It is not possible to observe the existence of God. One may make inferences from an observation of nature but to assert the existence of supernatural phenomena or entities is to claim knowledge of what is not observable.
I am sorry that you do not believe in science. You see the effects of gravity but you have never seen gravity nor have any idea of what it is. Are you saying that you don’t believe in gravity. Alternatively, are you saying that because of your bias you make different rules for those things you don’t believe in.
If you wish to have a discussion of the nature of God that is a different topic.
QUOTE
The laws and order of the universe are consistent.
Except for before the split?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The laws and order of the universe are consistent. |
Except for before the split?
All observation shows that the process of design, order, and creation requires intelligence.
This is a simplistic assumption that only a fundamendalist christian (sic) could believe, which, by the way, tlocity is.
tlocity, you fascinate me. In one sentence, you can appear rational and reasonable and in the next, you revert to type; raving, loony JW cultist.
The mental health of JWs;
http://www.rickross.com/reference/jw/jw72.html
Physfan
gmilam;
Yes, just as the theory of gravity is accepted because there is no better theory or the method of the propagation of light is accepted without any theory. Even the theory of relativity, that has proven discrepancies with reality, is accepted. Your science is without order or design. your science is just belief.
All things in nature have cause and effect. If you see the effect of gravity you know there is a cause. If you don’t accept this concept there is no reason for you to be in science. In fact is doubt you are in science. The point of science is to find the cause of effects or observations.
Upon observing a function or object science asks the question, what is it and where did it come from. From experience science has established that the universe is uniform and consistent. The consistence of the universe is seen in the laws of order. Using those known rules man has been able to extend understanding beyond the dog dish. Dogs are not able to consider anything beyond their food dish.
Your rules of science are inconsistent and therefore your results are of no value. The evidence for God as a prime source is as strong or stronger then any other theory in science.
If the requirements of a function fit the description of God, then that source is God. If you think that is a gaps argument then so be it. Of course that same argument applies to all theory for nothing in the universe is completely understood and is only accepted until the gap is filled.
QUOTE
have read past the first line. It's the god of the gaps argument... nothing more.
Yes, just as the theory of gravity is accepted because there is no better theory or the method of the propagation of light is accepted without any theory. Even the theory of relativity, that has proven discrepancies with reality, is accepted. Your science is without order or design. your science is just belief.
All things in nature have cause and effect. If you see the effect of gravity you know there is a cause. If you don’t accept this concept there is no reason for you to be in science. In fact is doubt you are in science. The point of science is to find the cause of effects or observations.
Upon observing a function or object science asks the question, what is it and where did it come from. From experience science has established that the universe is uniform and consistent. The consistence of the universe is seen in the laws of order. Using those known rules man has been able to extend understanding beyond the dog dish. Dogs are not able to consider anything beyond their food dish.
Your rules of science are inconsistent and therefore your results are of no value. The evidence for God as a prime source is as strong or stronger then any other theory in science.
If the requirements of a function fit the description of God, then that source is God. If you think that is a gaps argument then so be it. Of course that same argument applies to all theory for nothing in the universe is completely understood and is only accepted until the gap is filled.
All observation shows that the process of design, order, and creation requires intelligence.
Physfan;
I take note that you do not answer the statement. If it is wrong it should be easy for you, with your great knowledge, to show design taking place without intelligence. Your resort to personal attack has already answered that question.
I take note that you do not answer the statement. If it is wrong it should be easy for you, with your great knowledge, to show design taking place without intelligence. Your resort to personal attack has already answered that question.
tlocity, you fascinate me
It is an observation, not a personal attack. It is directed at your mental state and a link was provided to illustrate that JWs have, in one are at least, a higher incidence of mental health issues. Is that by design???
It is an observation, not a personal attack. It is directed at your mental state and a link was provided to illustrate that JWs have, in one are at least, a higher incidence of mental health issues. Is that by design???
I take note that you do not answer the statement.
Birds of a feather then?
Really, tlocity, all you do is quote from the bible or from your cult documents, not answer the issue raised by gmilam or GeneSplicer.
Physfan
Physfan;
QUOTE
This is a simplistic assumption that only a fundamentalist Christian (sic) could believe, which, by the way, tlocity is.
I take note that you do not answer the statement. If it is wrong it should be easy for you, with your great knowledge, to show design taking place without intelligence. Your resort to personal attack has already answered that question.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is a simplistic assumption that only a fundamentalist Christian (sic) could believe, which, by the way, tlocity is. |
I take note that you do not answer the statement. If it is wrong it should be easy for you, with your great knowledge, to show design taking place without intelligence. Your resort to personal attack has already answered that question.
tlocity, you fascinate me
Calm down and control your self.
QUOTE
Your resort to personal attack has already answered that question.
It is an observation, not a personal attack. It is directed at your mental state and a link was provided to illustrate that JWs have, in one are at least, a higher incidence of mental health issues. Is that by design???
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your resort to personal attack has already answered that question. |
It is an observation, not a personal attack. It is directed at your mental state and a link was provided to illustrate that JWs have, in one are at least, a higher incidence of mental health issues. Is that by design???
I take note that you do not answer the statement.
Birds of a feather then?
Really, tlocity, all you do is quote from the bible or from your cult documents, not answer the issue raised by gmilam or GeneSplicer.
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+)
tlocity, you fascinate me. In one sentence, you can appear rational and reasonable and in the next, you revert to type; raving, loony JW cultist.
Dear Physfan,
I believe tlocity is Roman Catholic. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=10313&st=45
Dear Physfan,
I believe tlocity is Roman Catholic. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=10313&st=45
QUOTE (tlocity+)
The laws and order of the universe are consistent.
Dear tlocity,
Before the universe came into existence, there was neither law nor order. To talk about what there was before the universe (including space/time) is like asking, in the words of Stephen Hawking, "What is north of the north pole?" Thus, the Cosmological Argument is flawed in that it assumes, petitio principii, that the First Cause is God, and God is causa sui (self-caused or uncaused).
Aside from snowflakes and crystals - a spontaneously generated amino acid.
Aside from snowflakes and crystals - a spontaneously generated amino acid.
I am sorry that you do not believe in science. You see the effects of gravity but you have never seen gravity nor have any idea of what it is. Are you saying that you don’t believe in gravity. Alternatively, are you saying that because of your bias you make different rules for those things you don’t believe in.
The effects of gravitation are observed. However, there are no effects which can hypothetically attributed to supernatural causes which cannot also be attributed to natural causes.
The Principle of Parsimony
Natural Knowledge and Natural Design
Dear tlocity,
Before the universe came into existence, there was neither law nor order. To talk about what there was before the universe (including space/time) is like asking, in the words of Stephen Hawking, "What is north of the north pole?" Thus, the Cosmological Argument is flawed in that it assumes, petitio principii, that the First Cause is God, and God is causa sui (self-caused or uncaused).
QUOTE
All observation shows that the process of design, order, and creation requires intelligence. To prove this wrong all you need do is show one instance of design being created without intelligence.
Aside from snowflakes and crystals - a spontaneously generated amino acid.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| All observation shows that the process of design, order, and creation requires intelligence. To prove this wrong all you need do is show one instance of design being created without intelligence. |
Aside from snowflakes and crystals - a spontaneously generated amino acid.
I am sorry that you do not believe in science. You see the effects of gravity but you have never seen gravity nor have any idea of what it is. Are you saying that you don’t believe in gravity. Alternatively, are you saying that because of your bias you make different rules for those things you don’t believe in.
The effects of gravitation are observed. However, there are no effects which can hypothetically attributed to supernatural causes which cannot also be attributed to natural causes.
The Principle of Parsimony
Natural Knowledge and Natural Design
QUOTE (tlocity+Nov 28 2006, 08:39 PM)
All things in nature have cause and effect.
Except, of course, your god. First cause, the one that needs no cause. The exception to the rule that can answer any question.
You still don't get it do you? There may very well be a god, there are definitely a LOT of unanswered questions. But science is the study of the natural world. You can speculate all you want about what may exist outside of nature. But until you can come up with a way to test your hypothesis, it remains speculation.
Except, of course, your god. First cause, the one that needs no cause. The exception to the rule that can answer any question.
You still don't get it do you? There may very well be a god, there are definitely a LOT of unanswered questions. But science is the study of the natural world. You can speculate all you want about what may exist outside of nature. But until you can come up with a way to test your hypothesis, it remains speculation.
DiscipulusIgnorantus;
http://richarddawkins.net/article,129,Natu...Richard-Dawkins
http://richarddawkins.net/article,129,Natu...Richard-Dawkins
chemical origin of life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
The first quote is from Dawkins. As you can see he admits intelligent design but is dishonest in trying to limit results of intelligence in design to the last 50 years of less. The creation ability of man goes back to the very first trace of intelligence in man. There is no evidence of man evolving intelligence. The record of intelligent man goes back less then 10,000 years ago.
Dawkins, having very little ability in science has no idea of the nature of time and as such is unable to even think of a condition without time.
As you have seen I have no problem in identifying the first cause as God.
The second quote is from your spontaneous link. You still do not seem able to get the concept. All physical functions are the result of the initial creation and must follow the design of that creation. Nothing is observed that violates the laws of that initial design except for man who has the ability of design and creation. I am still waiting for some evidence of design and creation without intelligence.
Your quote shows absolute certainty about the conditions before the Big Bang. It is much more logical to accept that the order and design that governs the universe not only existed before the universe but was much more ordered. After all the universe came out of that source.
If you believe your reference to Occam's razor then my theories are the most simple and without any conflict with observation.
You are very conflicted person. You post a link to Dawkins who accepts intelligent design and to spontaneous generation that also agrees with actions that follow the initial design and Occam’s Razor that favors the simple answer that you are against.
First cause is not required outside of time. All things are. It is interesting that in the Bible God refers to Himself as “I am who am”. This was thousands of years before anyone even had any knowledge of the nature of time.
If you wish to go into dimensions, and the physical nature of time let me know.
As you see can your total thinking is restricted to the limitations of time and your belief is keeping you from expanding your thinking. This is why I am convinced that anyone that denies the possibility of there being a God can do no real basic science. It is not required that you believe but that you do not close off any area of thought.
As I pointed out the effects of gravitation allow you to accept that there is a cause for that gravity so must the fact that the existence of the universe and the nature of intelligence in design and creation require a belief in a source. If you list the nature of that source that is required for the universe and intelligent design to exist you come out with the description of God. Even if you are unable to accept that there is a God and insist that there is some other cause that cause will still have all the attributes of God. Play the name game all you want call anything any name you want it makes no difference.
The line between natural and supernatural is only the limitation of the tools a person has.
QUOTE
Intelligent design works as a short-term proximal explanation of cameras and cars, prize roses and poodles. But it is fatally flawed as an ultimate explanation for anything, because it miserably fails to answer the $64,000 question: Who designed the designer?
Disingenuously, intelligent design advocates try to disguise their religious motives by claiming that the designer's identity is left open.
Disingenuously, intelligent design advocates try to disguise their religious motives by claiming that the designer's identity is left open.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,129,Natu...Richard-Dawkins
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Intelligent design works as a short-term proximal explanation of cameras and cars, prize roses and poodles. But it is fatally flawed as an ultimate explanation for anything, because it miserably fails to answer the $64,000 question: Who designed the designer? Disingenuously, intelligent design advocates try to disguise their religious motives by claiming that the designer's identity is left open. |
http://richarddawkins.net/article,129,Natu...Richard-Dawkins
chemical origin of life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
QUOTE
Dear tlocity,
Before the universe came into existence, there was neither law nor order. To talk about what there was before the universe (including space/time) is like asking, in the words of Stephen Hawking, "What is north of the north pole?" Thus, the Cosmological Argument is flawed in that it assumes, petitio principii, that the First Cause is God, and God is causa sui (self-caused or uncaused).
The effects of gravitation are observed. However, there are no effects which can hypothetically attributed to supernatural causes which cannot also be attributed to natural causes.
Before the universe came into existence, there was neither law nor order. To talk about what there was before the universe (including space/time) is like asking, in the words of Stephen Hawking, "What is north of the north pole?" Thus, the Cosmological Argument is flawed in that it assumes, petitio principii, that the First Cause is God, and God is causa sui (self-caused or uncaused).
The effects of gravitation are observed. However, there are no effects which can hypothetically attributed to supernatural causes which cannot also be attributed to natural causes.
The first quote is from Dawkins. As you can see he admits intelligent design but is dishonest in trying to limit results of intelligence in design to the last 50 years of less. The creation ability of man goes back to the very first trace of intelligence in man. There is no evidence of man evolving intelligence. The record of intelligent man goes back less then 10,000 years ago.
Dawkins, having very little ability in science has no idea of the nature of time and as such is unable to even think of a condition without time.
As you have seen I have no problem in identifying the first cause as God.
The second quote is from your spontaneous link. You still do not seem able to get the concept. All physical functions are the result of the initial creation and must follow the design of that creation. Nothing is observed that violates the laws of that initial design except for man who has the ability of design and creation. I am still waiting for some evidence of design and creation without intelligence.
Your quote shows absolute certainty about the conditions before the Big Bang. It is much more logical to accept that the order and design that governs the universe not only existed before the universe but was much more ordered. After all the universe came out of that source.
If you believe your reference to Occam's razor then my theories are the most simple and without any conflict with observation.
You are very conflicted person. You post a link to Dawkins who accepts intelligent design and to spontaneous generation that also agrees with actions that follow the initial design and Occam’s Razor that favors the simple answer that you are against.
First cause is not required outside of time. All things are. It is interesting that in the Bible God refers to Himself as “I am who am”. This was thousands of years before anyone even had any knowledge of the nature of time.
If you wish to go into dimensions, and the physical nature of time let me know.
As you see can your total thinking is restricted to the limitations of time and your belief is keeping you from expanding your thinking. This is why I am convinced that anyone that denies the possibility of there being a God can do no real basic science. It is not required that you believe but that you do not close off any area of thought.
As I pointed out the effects of gravitation allow you to accept that there is a cause for that gravity so must the fact that the existence of the universe and the nature of intelligence in design and creation require a belief in a source. If you list the nature of that source that is required for the universe and intelligent design to exist you come out with the description of God. Even if you are unable to accept that there is a God and insist that there is some other cause that cause will still have all the attributes of God. Play the name game all you want call anything any name you want it makes no difference.
The line between natural and supernatural is only the limitation of the tools a person has.
Gmilam;
Of course I get the fact that at some point there is no way to relate the supernatural to the natural world. The problem is that you draw the line to far into the natural world.
We have the ability to consider those things we do not fully know. This requires the development of skills and tools. The degree of certainty that we can have is no better then those skills and tools. It is prejudgment that prevents us from obtaining those skills.
It is not only natural but required that the first cause be outside of time. What we perceive as time and attach so much mystery to is nothing more then our transition in a dimension. If that transition stops time is gone. All the math shows time to be nothing more than this simple function in a dimension. It is only our senses that limit us. It is a matter of trusting your instruments, math, or your senses.
QUOTE
Except, of course, your god. First cause, the one that needs no cause. The exception to the rule that can answer any question.
You still don't get it do you? There may very well be a god, there are definitely a LOT of unanswered questions. But science is the study of the natural world. You can speculate all you want about what may exist outside of nature. But until you can come up with a way to test your hypothesis, it remains speculation.
You still don't get it do you? There may very well be a god, there are definitely a LOT of unanswered questions. But science is the study of the natural world. You can speculate all you want about what may exist outside of nature. But until you can come up with a way to test your hypothesis, it remains speculation.
Of course I get the fact that at some point there is no way to relate the supernatural to the natural world. The problem is that you draw the line to far into the natural world.
We have the ability to consider those things we do not fully know. This requires the development of skills and tools. The degree of certainty that we can have is no better then those skills and tools. It is prejudgment that prevents us from obtaining those skills.
It is not only natural but required that the first cause be outside of time. What we perceive as time and attach so much mystery to is nothing more then our transition in a dimension. If that transition stops time is gone. All the math shows time to be nothing more than this simple function in a dimension. It is only our senses that limit us. It is a matter of trusting your instruments, math, or your senses.
QUOTE (tlocity+)
The first quote is from Dawkins. As you can see he admits intelligent design but is dishonest in trying to limit results of intelligence in design to the last 50 years of less. The creation ability of man goes back to the very first trace of intelligence in man. There is no evidence of man evolving intelligence. The record of intelligent man goes back less then 10,000 years ago.
Dawkins, having very little ability in science has no idea of the nature of time and as such is unable to even think of a condition without time.
Dear tlocity,
Certainly you would agree that stone tools and burial rituals are evidence of intelligence, though?
Dawkins, having very little ability in science has no idea of the nature of time and as such is unable to even think of a condition without time.
Dear tlocity,
Certainly you would agree that stone tools and burial rituals are evidence of intelligence, though?
QUOTE (tlocity+)
Your quote shows absolute certainty about the conditions before the Big Bang. It is much more logical to accept that the order and design that governs the universe not only existed before the universe but was much more ordered. After all the universe came out of that source.
If you believe your reference to Occam's razor then my theories are the most simple and without any conflict with observation.
You are very conflicted person. You post a link to Dawkins who accepts intelligent design and to spontaneous generation that also agrees with actions that follow the initial design and Occam’s Razor that favors the simple answer that you are against.
Forgive my ommission. I should have prefaced my comment with "presumably" or "probably," but I suppose we would still have this disagreement. As for Occam's Razor, to account for the unlikely existence of our complex universe with the postulation that an even more unlikely and complex creator god made it is not parsimony.
It is hard to imagine a more lamentably weak argument.
The only dishonest person is you, tlocity. The second quote above is actually Dawkin's view on ID; you have quoted out of context, in itself a lamentably and pathetically weak attempt at salvaging an unsupportable argument.
It has been pointed out to me that you aren't a JW, but a RC and for this I apologise for tagging you with another cult. Yours is more smoke, funny clothes and hats, bottling bits of dead people in churches, and, nearly forgot, no sex. Equally bizarre, nonetheless.
Physfan
What an 'excellent' strategy you have, tlocity. When clearly shown to be in error and attempting deception, you simply ignore it and move on. I can now understand why you can readily accept the god notion; it is unprovable, however, you ignore all evidence to the contrary and move on.
I'm glad you don't live anywhere near me; I prefer my neighbours to be sane.
Physfan
If you believe your reference to Occam's razor then my theories are the most simple and without any conflict with observation.
You are very conflicted person. You post a link to Dawkins who accepts intelligent design and to spontaneous generation that also agrees with actions that follow the initial design and Occam’s Razor that favors the simple answer that you are against.
Forgive my ommission. I should have prefaced my comment with "presumably" or "probably," but I suppose we would still have this disagreement. As for Occam's Razor, to account for the unlikely existence of our complex universe with the postulation that an even more unlikely and complex creator god made it is not parsimony.
QUOTE (tlocity+)
As you see can your total thinking is restricted to the limitations of time and your belief is keeping you from expanding your thinking. This is why I am convinced that anyone that denies the possibility of there being a God can do no real basic science. It is not required that you believe but that you do not close off any area of thought.
As I pointed out the effects of gravitation allow you to accept that there is a cause for that gravity so must the fact that the existence of the universe and the nature of intelligence in design and creation require a belief in a source. If you list the nature of that source that is required for the universe and intelligent design to exist you come out with the description of God. Even if you are unable to accept that there is a God and insist that there is some other cause that cause will still have all the attributes of God. Play the name game all you want call anything any name you want it makes no difference.
The line between natural and supernatural is only the limitation of the tools a person has.
I am sorry, my friend. I just do not see the limitations that you are talking about. I cannot fathom what the acceptance of the God Hypothesis or the supernatural can possibly have to do with "real basic science." It seems we are at an impasse.
As I pointed out the effects of gravitation allow you to accept that there is a cause for that gravity so must the fact that the existence of the universe and the nature of intelligence in design and creation require a belief in a source. If you list the nature of that source that is required for the universe and intelligent design to exist you come out with the description of God. Even if you are unable to accept that there is a God and insist that there is some other cause that cause will still have all the attributes of God. Play the name game all you want call anything any name you want it makes no difference.
The line between natural and supernatural is only the limitation of the tools a person has.
I am sorry, my friend. I just do not see the limitations that you are talking about. I cannot fathom what the acceptance of the God Hypothesis or the supernatural can possibly have to do with "real basic science." It seems we are at an impasse.
Assume that each factor that affects the possibility of life in the universe is a dice. Assuming that there are 25 dices and life is possible only if say the number 5 appears on everyone of the 25 dice. So the possibility of life coming to existence in this case would be 1 out of 6^25. Now if all these 25 dice are being rolled once every second for billions of years and *POOF* one fine day all 25 dice show the number 5 and a observer comes into existence. This observer now sees all the 25 dice having the number 5 and thinks that the probability of him coming into existence was very low. So he thinks that there must be a superior being (God) who placed all these dice on the number 5 and *BAM* religion comes into existence.
QUOTE (tlocity+Nov 29 2006, 01:41 AM)
Of course I get the fact that at some point there is no way to relate the supernatural to the natural world.
Fixed.
Fixed.
QUOTE
The first quote is from Dawkins. As you can see he admits intelligent design but is dishonest in trying to limit results of intelligence in design to the last 50 years of less.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The first quote is from Dawkins. As you can see he admits intelligent design but is dishonest in trying to limit results of intelligence in design to the last 50 years of less. |
It is hard to imagine a more lamentably weak argument.
The only dishonest person is you, tlocity. The second quote above is actually Dawkin's view on ID; you have quoted out of context, in itself a lamentably and pathetically weak attempt at salvaging an unsupportable argument.
It has been pointed out to me that you aren't a JW, but a RC and for this I apologise for tagging you with another cult. Yours is more smoke, funny clothes and hats, bottling bits of dead people in churches, and, nearly forgot, no sex. Equally bizarre, nonetheless.
Physfan
To all;
In order to bring some order to this discussion, it may be helpful to consider each concept one at a time. If you do not wish to do so it will be clear that your point of view is dependent on confusion.
Is cause and effect a requirement of nature?
If you do not believe that it is a requirement of nature, please show evidence for that belief.
In order to bring some order to this discussion, it may be helpful to consider each concept one at a time. If you do not wish to do so it will be clear that your point of view is dependent on confusion.
Is cause and effect a requirement of nature?
If you do not believe that it is a requirement of nature, please show evidence for that belief.
vkamath. If a creationist looked at a block of flats, he would say that no one could ever reach the top floor because it was too high to jump in one go.
A scientist would instead say we can get to the top floor one step at a time. You build on what has gone before.
It only takes four different molecules to make DNA or RNA. How hard can it be for four seperate molecules to combine in the right order to start the process off?
A scientist would instead say we can get to the top floor one step at a time. You build on what has gone before.
It only takes four different molecules to make DNA or RNA. How hard can it be for four seperate molecules to combine in the right order to start the process off?
tlocity. Everything only works one way. Gravity always pulls towards the centre of mass. Heat makes things hotter, etc. No god is involved. It is said that there may have been a million Universes before ours which never worked because these laws were wrong.
There is no evidence of a god thing making these laws work, or the latest cretinous idea, that gravity is due to god.
The difference between god and gravity is that we can prove gravity exists. No one can prove your invisible friend exists. He is just a mass delusion.
There is no evidence of a god thing making these laws work, or the latest cretinous idea, that gravity is due to god.
The difference between god and gravity is that we can prove gravity exists. No one can prove your invisible friend exists. He is just a mass delusion.
All things have cause and effect. the cause of god is.......?
A lot of delusional people.
Just because we cannot explain away a first cause it only means we cannot yet explain it, not that we never will. Christians are people who have given up on knowledge and settle for "goddidit!" as an answer to all questions.
A lot of delusional people.
Just because we cannot explain away a first cause it only means we cannot yet explain it, not that we never will. Christians are people who have given up on knowledge and settle for "goddidit!" as an answer to all questions.
tlocity. God has never provenly done anything.
God has never provenly contacted anyone.
God is impossible.
Put them together and you have proof god does not exist. So who is the intelligent designer if not your invisible friend?
God has never provenly contacted anyone.
God is impossible.
Put them together and you have proof god does not exist. So who is the intelligent designer if not your invisible friend?
QUOTE
QUOTE
The first quote is from Dawkins. As you can see he admits intelligent design but is dishonest in trying to limit results of intelligence in design to the last 50 years of less.
QUOTE
It is hard to imagine a more lamentably weak argument.
The only dishonest person is you, tlocity. The second quote above is actually Dawkin's view on ID; you have quoted out of context, in itself a lamentably and pathetically weak attempt at salvaging an unsupportable argument.
The first quote is from Dawkins. As you can see he admits intelligent design but is dishonest in trying to limit results of intelligence in design to the last 50 years of less.
QUOTE
It is hard to imagine a more lamentably weak argument.
The only dishonest person is you, tlocity. The second quote above is actually Dawkin's view on ID; you have quoted out of context, in itself a lamentably and pathetically weak attempt at salvaging an unsupportable argument.
What an 'excellent' strategy you have, tlocity. When clearly shown to be in error and attempting deception, you simply ignore it and move on. I can now understand why you can readily accept the god notion; it is unprovable, however, you ignore all evidence to the contrary and move on.
I'm glad you don't live anywhere near me; I prefer my neighbours to be sane.
Physfan
I see that there is no answer given to this simple question so I will ask again. If you have no answer to this simple question how can anything else you say have any weight. All your thoughts only amount to bluster. Your ideas are without a base.
To all;
In order to bring some order to this discussion, it may be helpful to consider each concept one at a time. If you do not wish to do so it will be clear that your point of view is dependent on confusion.
Is cause and effect a requirement of nature?
If you do not believe that it is a requirement of nature, please show evidence for that belief.
To all;
In order to bring some order to this discussion, it may be helpful to consider each concept one at a time. If you do not wish to do so it will be clear that your point of view is dependent on confusion.
Is cause and effect a requirement of nature?
If you do not believe that it is a requirement of nature, please show evidence for that belief.
QUOTE
QUOTE
QUOTE
The first quote is from Dawkins. As you can see he admits intelligent design but is dishonest in trying to limit results of intelligence in design to the last 50 years of less.
QUOTE
It is hard to imagine a more lamentably weak argument.
The only dishonest person is you, tlocity. The second quote above is actually Dawkin's view on ID; you have quoted out of context, in itself a lamentably and pathetically weak attempt at salvaging an unsupportable argument.
What an 'excellent' strategy you have, tlocity. When clearly shown to be in error and attempting deception, you simply ignore it and move on. I can now understand why you can readily accept the god notion; it is unprovable, however, you ignore all evidence to the contrary and move on.
I'm glad you don't live anywhere near me; I prefer my neighbours to be sane.
Physfan
QUOTE
The first quote is from Dawkins. As you can see he admits intelligent design but is dishonest in trying to limit results of intelligence in design to the last 50 years of less.
QUOTE
It is hard to imagine a more lamentably weak argument.
The only dishonest person is you, tlocity. The second quote above is actually Dawkin's view on ID; you have quoted out of context, in itself a lamentably and pathetically weak attempt at salvaging an unsupportable argument.
What an 'excellent' strategy you have, tlocity. When clearly shown to be in error and attempting deception, you simply ignore it and move on. I can now understand why you can readily accept the god notion; it is unprovable, however, you ignore all evidence to the contrary and move on.
I'm glad you don't live anywhere near me; I prefer my neighbours to be sane.
Physfan
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.