Divine Intelligence: God the Evidence (for those that require it)

[Alderuhen]

 

[Dert Bagg]

Supposedly a great many physicists are (privately) religious men.

I think its difficult to study just how perfectly the universe is crafted, down to the smallest quarks on up to the biggest galaxies, on every level--atomic, molecular, geological, astronomical--and not embrace at the very least, intelligent design.

Deism and Agnosticism make sense to me. Atheism does not.

Its all in the definition.
Only a small % of self-described atheists are actually positive-atheists.
Most call themselves atheists because they disbelieve the popular concepts of God attached to the term.

IMO, using "God" to refer to an abstracted "higher power" is an abuse of the word.

 

[rikdicoulesmarv]

right?

Its fundamental. If the complexity of our creation necessitates an intelligent designer, doesn't a designer complex enough to design that creation require a designer as well?

Indeed but who says the Designer has a Beginning or End?

I feel as though there are Facts out there that require us to put aside our Human Logic way of thinking which is very limited/limiting. My point is that in order to recognize "Design" we need not look into outer Space but moreso at what surrounds us and at Ourselves. The Variety of Organisms on this Planet alone and the Way we Harmonize as Organisms with our Surroundings. Things grow out of the Ground for us to Eat and the Shit is Good for us (Most of it anyway ) After rain has penetrated the Gound to reach a seed and the combination of the seeds Biological make up and the Water brings forth a Vegetable/Fruit etc. Recognize that a process like that didn't have to be, but it is.......................The entire Planet is an Organic System that FUNCTIONS!! The Solar System is a SYSTEM that Functions. Things like that dont Assemble by Chance........

 

[Dert Bagg]

Indeed but who says the Designer has a Beginning or End?

Who says the design has a beginning or end?

 

[rikdicoulesmarv]

Who says the design has a beginning or end?

C'mon Dawg!!! Are we shitpickin all Night now?? I dont claim to know it all...I never have......Neither do you...Regardless of how much schooling you've been thru. Do you really think all these things happened by chance?
If you are the Knowledgeable person you claim to be........................

 

[rikdicoulesmarv]

Who says the design has a beginning or end?

.....and to answer that: "Some of our own Humankind do!"

 

[RBGrider]

I feel you on your "reasoning" of what was dropped on us by the OP. However Dertbagg, I'm more compelled to use critical thinking in this manner on this particular topic. You are right, without solid, concrete evidence, one cannot back up claims of an Intelligent Design without linking the "facts" together cogently. The OP gave what is called a vague definition and used tautology (circular thinking) both of which I'm sure you're familiar with.

However, because there are little facts to "link together", it makes you wonder how theoretical physicists can make some of their claims of how the Universe is structured. There is neither physical nor sometimes even visible evidence to support their calculations, only that they are gathering this information and trying to compile it to make a sound argument as to how the Universe is structured. No one on this earth has ever seen the Universe from a different vantage point outside of our solar system.

So then we must analyze why people ask questions and investigate in the first place...because they don't know. We find that through applying certain "laws" of physical science that we experience on earth to other celestial bodies in our universe that the same conditions somewhat work most of the time. What scientists can't figure out, they chalk up to either error on their part or just the unknown not yet discovered...the unquantifiable. However, spiritual people take that same bit of unknown and apply a "God" to it.

So how is the existence of God explained? Should it even be attempted because it is fastened so tightly on belief and not evidence? As in the response that I was going to give Dale, the reason why some theoretical physicists and scientists as a whole will sometimes have a belief in God is because they find that some things can't be quantified or explained.

This is my rationalization of the whole thing...If you analyze string and membrane theory ALLLLLL the way back to before the Big Bang, there still needs to be something that should have started it all. We say that with the Conservation of Energy, energy can neither be created or destroyed just transferred into different states, well then that goes against the model of the current Universe...unless you believe that the energy will seep into another dimensional space/time and create another universe and so on...Still begs the need to answer the question who created it all.

*Disclaimer: In no way Dertbagg was I trying to disprove you or your reasoning, just use my own thought process to get to the same conclusion you did.*

So called materialist or atheistic science is no less a "religion" with its fanatics and white knuckled adherence to its premises. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

 

[Dert Bagg]

C'mon Dawg!!! Are we shitpickin all Night now?? I dont claim to know it all...I never have......Neither do you...Regardless of how much schooling you've been thru. Do you really think all these things happened by chance?
If you are the Knowledgeable person you claim to be........................

That's not "shitpickin."
It goes to the core of the argument.
You can't offer complexity as an argument for a creator and then dodge the question of who designed so complex a creator by trying to position the creator outside of time.

If the creator can exist outside of time and doesn't need a beginning (creator) then why must any creation need a beginning (creator)?


(Remember I didn't start this thread...
I'm not arguing for the necessity of atheism.
I just pointing out the crater-sized holes in the OP's argument that he can prove the existence of GOD objectively.)

.....and to answer that: "Some of our own Humankind do!"

Of course that's not an answer, is it?

 

[Blunt]

THIS is all the evidence of GOD that I need. Who else could create such a remarkable creature?

 

[rikdicoulesmarv]

That's not "shitpickin."
It goes to the core of the argument.
You can't offer complexity as an argument for a creator and then dodge the question of who designed so complex a creator by trying to position the creator outside of time.
If the creator can exist outside of time and doesn't need a beginning (creator) then why must any creation need a beginning (creator)?




Of course that's not an answer, is it?

It would be possible for a Creator to exist outside of time..logically....if he himself created Time...as well. The issue of Creation goes beyond the things we are able to Fathom..clearly.You are dodging my Question....or maybe you missed it:

Do YOU think all living Things and the order in wich they exist came into existence by Chance?? Or by the Big Bang??

So if I have a Junkyard full of Car Parts and i detonate a Huge explosive device on site......(lets even say i have the capability to repeat this act a million times over).....do you think that after any one of those times a fully assembled/functional Vehicle with the Keys in the Ignition and everything, is going to come rolling out of that?

 

[RBGrider]

Which is it?
Is it the reasoning or the logic that is intelligence?
(One is the movement the other is the medium.)

Once again it is reasoning along the lines of mathematical or quantitative logic that is intelligence.

Kuhn undermined the fundamental assumption of objectivity in science by defining science (and the scientific community) socially. He coined the modern meaning of paradigm, and proposed that absent a neutral paradigm, no true objectivity can be achieved. Objectivity is only relative to the paradigm (social group and the rules of conduct born of it). So as paradigms shift....

But we are talking about God. What that bit means in general is that claims of final objective proofs can never truly get off the ground. Of course we can't escape paradigms so our arguments will necessarily be relative to the, which usually makes this academic. But your argument isn't even objective relative to the paradigm!

You've written paragraphs over-elaborating a point:
The capacity we have to reason proves logic proves supra-human intelligence.

Assuming I've distilled the proof correctly, it in-and-of-itself does not proceed objectively. Reason "requires" logic, because logic is the paradigm of reason. It does not follow, simply, that logic necessarily "requires" a superior "reasoner" for its own existence. That can easily lead to an infinite regress devolving into the classic watch, watchmaker, watchmakermaker line of debate.

But even if it were objectively true (relative to the paradigm) that our ability to reason quantitatively proves a medium of intelligence greater than ourselves, you still fail to provide an objective link between that and "God."

You introduced "mathematical thinking" and "design" as the foundations of living matter without providing any evidence for that prior to the introduction, then try to use that undemonstrated premise to support the your God theory. (Simply exposing the irritability hypothesis does not create a design hypothesis.)

This is all very theoretical but completely unnecessary as I have provided a very simple and specific example using chemistry that shows intelligence, again quantitative reasoning, at work at the very earliest stages of creation. I did not simply "expose" irritability as nonsense I most certainly provided a specific example that demonstrates this. It doesn't get more objective then that. The only question left is whether in your dogged attempt to disprove Divine Intelligence are you willing to claim that mathematical design and pattern is NOT INTELLIGENCE.

1) Again, no evidence is provided linking a capacity for mathematics with a necessary endowment by "God."

Use your "reasoning" is it simply by chance that unlike all other creatures we have the capacity to think and reason in the only known ways that the universe can be understood "scientifically" ? Is this another random and inexplicable occurrence to be explained away by "naturalism"??

2) Says who? The lack of a unified field theory is one example of something that is clearly, currently, unquantifiable. And it is not controversial among scientists that much of nature "exists" outside of any human potential to quantify it.

As has been said by many posters here the limits of Wo/Man's current intellectual ability to understand the universe is not evidence that there isn't an Intelligence behind its order. I must also indicate here that the Ancient Kamitians (Egyptians) and the Dogon did not have sophisticated computers or telescopes yet had an understanding of the universe which in many respects equaled and exceeded that of so called modern civilizations. How did they gain such an understanding? Could it be that there are other ways of knowing outside of intellect? Damn African people are remarkable as hell.

3) That nature expresses quantifiable patterns is not evidence that it was "built" (by a "builder"), at all.

You're simply being obtuse here. Quantifiable patterns is evidence of intelligence. Now you may ponder as long as you wish what that intelligence is but I don't think you are so far gone as to suggest that it is not intelligent.

4) Plenty of scientists do invent (Edison, Carver). But they don't invent science and none would claim to (name one). Scientists discover what is discoverable in nature. And no discovery yet has provided relatively objective proof of design.


And how you can even attempt to tie the precision of empiricist argument to those vagueries about race and "the West," is baffling.

YEs and this is precisely what I said. The "paradigm" that currently rules the scientific community is one which is married ball and chain to the agreed upon and unprovable premise that there is no intelligent design. I do not agree with that paradigm and I have introduced it contextually as a way of seeing the world introduced by whites. This is not in anyway provocative and I am baffled that you find it well....baffling.

PEACE

 

[RBGrider]

THIS is all the evidence of GOD that I need. Who else could create such a remarkable creature?

Simple and well put Blunt.

 

[Nok17]

^^^

A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

Things happen over time - As long as something is (exists), and is happening, then there will be time. Something was always there, there was always time and time could not be created. That is unless, something can come from complete nothingness.

Also, the Big Bang and a Junkyard full of cars are hardly comparable besides, well, a similarity of the word explosion in each.

 

[hawk919]

man you know the atheist cats on this board aint gonna listen to anything about God..........
If it isnt gangsta rap and slutty ass hoes, they're not interested

 

[jwreck]

Um......I am the furthest thing from a christian. In fact I am COMPLETELY AMORAL. "mortals" is just a term I use jokingly.
god made man in his own image.......yea im sure. to an alien, monkeys and men are pretty similar. aas far as this "knowing god" thats just another wack way to say "you" because "you" think "your" way have reached "enlightenment", or "heaven" or "nirvana" or "paradise" whether it be here on earth, in the spiritual realm, or in fantasy. I have known the way to "god" for over 10 years. i'm glad that YOU just got there and are exited....but ive known my purpose for a while. Glad to see you made it here......first rule of enlightenment......dont preach! everyman must find his own way. see how you are being rejected out of hand? I believe everything you said inthe first post....but im teaching you a lesson of "enlightenment" all of the people i have led to "nirvana" have been through discussion. "what is the prpose of life" when you get to the purpose...it all becomes clear to them. but you cant throw information at em. you have to ask questions and let THEM come up with the answers. When you come across in the preachy way......niggas feel like they are in church,and start falling asleep.

what do you mean dont preach, let others find their own way. so what you are trying to say is moses,christ,mohammed and all other prophets were wrong for preaching and spreading gods words

 

[Nok17]

man you know the atheist cats on this board aint gonna listen to anything about God..........
If it isnt gangsta rap and slutty ass hoes, they're not interested

And with posts like these, you sure are wowing them with your intelligence.

 

[RBGrider]

^^^



Things happen over time - As long as something is (exists), and is happening, then there will be time. Something was always there, there was always time and time could not be created. That is unless, something can come from complete nothingness.

Also, the Big Bang and a Junkyard full of cars are hardly comparable besides, well, a similarity of the word explosion in each.

Well in fact complete NO-THINGNESS is exactly correct.

 

[rikdicoulesmarv]

^^^



Things happen over time - As long as something is (exists), and is happening, then there will be time. Something was always there, there was always time and time could not be created. That is unless, something can come from complete nothingness.

Also, the Big Bang and a Junkyard full of cars are hardly comparable besides, well, a similarity of the word explosion in each.

I said Car Parts! Drawing a parallel to having all the necessary components to create something Functional (A Car in this case) and assembling those parts by making them collide in an explosion to end up as a completely working Vehicle. But you know what Fuck Explosives let's just bag all the parts up and shake the Bag for 13 Billion years and just maayyyybbeeee we'll get the same Results (A Car)!! Is that better for you?

The Human Body boasts a far more complex make up so you go and calculate the odds of THAT assembling by chance.

 

[Nok17]

I said Car Parts! Drawing a parallel to having all the necessary components to create something Functional (A Car in this case) and assembling those parts by making them collide in an explosion to end up as a completely working Vehicle. But you know what Fuck Explosives let's just bag all the parts up and shake the Bag for 13 Billion years and just maayyyybbeeee we'll get the same Results (A Car)!! Is that better for you?

The Human Body boasts a far more complex make up so you go and calculate the odds of THAT assembling by chance.

There were a lot more factors than just "things being exploded", or shaken around. I don't wanna copy and paste the entire theory. Give it a look. Sorry, the car part thing being shaken around in a bag isn't comparable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

[RBGrider]

While we're at it lets bang on evolution a bit too. LOL

"Evolution has no scientific merit whatsoever". First of all, it uses naturalism as an axiom. This is an unknowable assumption (the assumption that everything can be explained in naturalistic terms). It is counter-intuitive (the only mechanism for generating information is intelligence, evolution tries to tell us otherwise).

To accept evolution you must place blind faith in hypothetical creatures (the original life form, countless transitional forms) for which no evidence exists. Not even on paper or in the wildest imaginations can many of these alleged non-existent transitional form even be made to work. The same holds true for abiogenesis.

Particles-to-people evolution - as impossible as anything could be said to be, not observable, testable or falsifiable, lacking
fundamental mechanism to create information, in contradiction to the stasis observed in the fossil record, appeals to imaginary
(hypothetical) fossils.

This is science with merit? LOL. You have been duped.

It is indeed an inherent aspect of Wo/Man to want and need to "know" the answers to the many questions surrounding the existence of the universe. For too long this desire for knowledge has been discouraged and labeled heresy by those in the leadership of Christianity in particular. There are different types of religion. Religions of knowledge (gnosis) and religions of belief. The religions of belief,like Christianity, have to a large degree avoided the questions that drive and compel Wo/Man to seek answers. This has left these religions unable to intelligently answer many fundamental questions regarding
the origins of the universe.

Elements within or at least with influence over the scientific
community are equally culpable in the creation of the chasm between religion and science. Most true scientist honestly seek answers, caring not where their observations and experiments lead as long as their conclusions rest on sound foundation. Darwin was not out to disprove the existence of God. Unfortunately many with just this agenda, most of whom were/are not scientist themselves, have and continue to use Darwin and other scientific doctrine as a means to further these very narrow atheistic agendas.

Sadly this chasm between science and religion has become antagonistic. This antagonism is of course also widespread among posters in almost all of the threads on this subject. And this is not to say that there aren't "creationist" who's labored attempts to use "science" to support their "beliefs" are not based in ignorance and a rigid attachment to those beliefs.

What is truly sad is that there is no chasm between true science and true religion. If fact where science and religion cannot support each other in revealing the wonder of the universe and the intelligence that created and sustains it is the point where science and religion must recognize the need for further growth and understanding.

ONE

 

[Dert Bagg]

It would be possible for a Creator to exist outside of time..logically....if he himself created Time...as well. The issue of Creation goes beyond the things we are able to Fathom..clearly.You are dodging my Question....or maybe you missed it:

I haven't argued against the possibility of anything.
We are talking about the argument for God based on necessity.

Do YOU think all living Things and the order in wich they exist came into existence by Chance?? Or by the Big Bang??

I believe that life is here. How it got here is openly debatable.
The Big Bang is not an explanation for the origin of life, its a description of the motion of matter through space-time.

So if I have a Junkyard full of Car Parts and i detonate a Huge explosive device on site......(lets even say i have the capability to repeat this act a million times over).....do you think that after any one of those times a fully assembled/functional Vehicle with the Keys in the Ignition and everything, is going to come rolling out of that?

Evolution as the explanation for all biological diversity is not problem free, by any means, but this junk-yard analogy is worn (usually a tornado, rather than bomb) and strays far from the basic propositions of evolution to blow away its straw man.

Evolution doesn't propose 1-shot complexity from a random chance event.
It is a theory of cumulative change accrued through selective retention of random mutations. The mutations are random (and regularly occur in replication), but no evolutionist has ever argued that mutations on the scale of junkyard-to-vehicle occur. Evolutionists are talking about small gradual changes. Its not even controversial that this kind of evolution happens. We can see that in Darwin's finches, black/brown/polar bears, and the avian flu virus.

What's most often disputed is the role that this cumulative change plays in broad species differentiation. I don't think I'm fit to argue either way on this point, because I'm not an evolutionary biologist, and I'd just be regurgitating another man's argument, while trying to poke holes in yours. (And that's some weak shit, to me.)

But in any case, the theory of evolution does not claim to explain the origin of life, only its development. The big bang doesn't seek to explain the origin of the heavens, only its development. IMO, there is no relatively objective theory for the origin of these things. People will believe what they will. Some believe that existence is so complex that some "God" had to create it. This explanation won't do for me because it creates more questions than it answers.

If God can exist as an entity with no designer, with no beginning or end, and outside of time, I am aware of no logical, objective premise that requires such a far less complicated "being" as the universe to exist within the confines of time, and require a creator.

 

[SKATTA]

my only question here is if one is willing to believe that no one created the creator he/she just existed.
why cant u believe that no one created the universe it just existed. through time/space/engergy etc.

not really taking sides here just posing a question?

 

[RBGrider]

There were a lot more factors than just "things being exploded", or shaken around. I don't wanna copy and paste the entire theory. Give it a look. Sorry, the car part thing being shaken around in a bag isn't comparable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

What is important with regard to the theory called the big bang is that a mathematical pattern is evidenced in the creation of the elements which resulted. (see OP) The mathematical basis to the formation of the elements suggest that this was not a random event but one guided by quantitative logic. (ie Intelligence)

 

[Dert Bagg]

Once again it is reasoning along the lines of mathematical or quantitative logic that is intelligence.

Then who disagrees that reasoning is intelligence?
Intelligence is core to any definition of reason.
That is not a remarkable statement.
It certainly isn't the lynch-pin in a God-proof.

This is all very theoretical but completely unnecessary as I have provided a very simple and specific example using chemistry that shows intelligence, again quantitative reasoning, at work at the very earliest stages of creation. 1.)I did not simply "expose" irritability as nonsense I most certainly provided a specific example that demonstrates this. It doesn't get more objective then that. 2.) The only question left is whether in your dogged attempt to disprove Divine Intelligence 3.)are you willing to claim that mathematical design and pattern is NOT INTELLIGENCE.

1.) I make no distinction between "exposing" or "demonstrating" error. At issue was whether identifying the error in the irritability hypothesis is objective evidence for your designer hypothesis. It is still my view that is is not. One does not rise simply because the other one falls.

2.) Show me where I've tried to disprove divine intelligence anywhere in this thread. There is an substantial difference between disproving a hypothesis and challenging the necessity of that hypothesis.

3.) Pattern and design are not the same thing. Design is defined to include intelligence. But evidence of a pattern is not necessarily evidence of design.
Establishing a necessary connection between pattern and design is at the core of all these necessary designer arguments. If you reply, please turn some attention to objective evidence for a necessary link between pattern and design.

1)Use your "reasoning" is it simply by chance that unlike all other creatures we have the capacity to think and reason in the only known ways that the universe can be understood "scientifically" ? 2) Is this another random and inexplicable occurrence to be explained away by "naturalism"??

1) How could we have developed a capacity to reason in an unknown way that couldn't be understood by our measure of science? However we manifest reason, if reason exists it exists the way we know it and understand it...

Also, are you arguing here that (from your perspective) the only pattern that necessitates a designer is the pattern of human intelligence? That would narrow your hypothesis quite a bit. It would suggest that with out man, God isn't necessary.

2) It's not purely random or inexplicable. With or without human beings intelligence varies across the biological field. Neither is it unique (even to primates), cephalopods can do math too. Intelligence is a continuum, not a apex.

As has been said by many posters here the limits of Wo/Man's current intellectual ability to understand the universe is not evidence that there isn't an Intelligence behind its order. I must also indicate here that the Ancient Kamitians (Egyptians) and the Dogon did not have sophisticated computers or telescopes yet had an understanding of the universe which in many respects equaled and exceeded that of so called modern civilizations. How did they gain such an understanding? Could it be that there are other ways of knowing outside of intellect? Damn African people are remarkable as hell.

I'm not arguing against the possibility of an intelligent designer in this thread.

You're simply being obtuse here. Quantifiable patterns is evidence of intelligence. Now you may ponder as long as you wish what that intelligence is but I don't think you are so far gone as to suggest that it is not intelligent.

Being unconvinced ≠ being obtuse, and quantifiable patterns ≠ intelligence.
The quantifier must be intelligent, but the quantified is just an object of his attention. This is dangerously close the the tautology of presuppositional apologetics. Human intelligence ≠ proof of supernatural intelligence, any more than humans = proof of the supernatural. (The same watchmaker regression.) You are missing a step here; that step is evidence (a causal link).

Yes and this is precisely what I said. The "paradigm" that currently rules the scientific community is one which is married ball and chain to the agreed upon and unprovable premise that there is no intelligent design. I do not agree with that paradigm and I have introduced it contextually as a way of seeing the world introduced by whites. This is not in anyway provocative and I am baffled that you find it well....baffling.

PEACE

The scientific community is not married to any negative premise about anything. The paradigm as it is, seeks provable hypothesis. Intelligent design is not provable. That is why its dismissed by scientists, because it isn't science (as defined) and cannot be proved by the relatively objective observations scientists engage in. Modern science has never weighed in on intelligent design except to reject it as outside of the paradigm.

Again...distilling the issue to a conflict between perspectives of The African and The West is insufficient. Those generalities certainly fail to stand up to the precision of empirical classification and objective observation, which are ostensibly the basis for you God-proof. But this is an aside in many ways, however it measures.

I am sure I'm right, otherwise.
No objective measure for that though...

 

[Dert Bagg]

my only question here is if one is willing to believe that no one created the creator he/she just existed.
why cant u believe that no one created the universe it just existed. through time/space/engergy etc.

not really taking sides here just posing a question?

I've posed this question in many forms, and there has not yet been an answer.

 

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by SKATTA
my only question here is if one is willing to believe that no one created the creator he/she just existed.
why cant u believe that no one created the universe it just existed. through time/space/engergy etc.

not really taking sides here just posing a question?

I've posed this question in many forms, and there has not yet been an answer.

Here we go again ...Oh the blind faith of the atheist!!!

By scientists own admonishment whatever caused the initial movement (like dominoes) defies physics (which is impossible - the laws of physics are just that - they can't be broken ). Whatever it is then that causes the first dominoe (not even getting into the creation of the dominoe) to fall must by THEIR definition be SUPERNATURAL. I'm ok with not identifying what THAT is right now, but it has to be supernatual. EVERY EFFECT MUST HAVE A CAUSE!!!! Shit just doesn't move by itself (I know I'm not being very detailed and getting into energy, gravity, time and light, but fuck it no one will listen anyway).

I know this won't be enough for the blind faithed atheist to accept. Perhaps those with an open mind will give it some thought.

 

[Dert Bagg]

Here we go again ...Oh the blind faith of the atheist!!!

By scientists own admonishment whatever caused the initial movement (like dominoes) defies physics (which is impossible - the laws of physics are just that - they can't be broken ). Whatever it is then that causes the first dominoe (not even getting into the creation of the dominoe) to fall must by THEIR definition be SUPERNATURAL. I'm ok with not identifying what THAT is right now, but it has to be supernatual. EVERY EFFECT MUST HAVE A CAUSE!!!! Shit just doesn't move by itself (I know I'm not being very detailed and getting into energy, gravity, time and light, but fuck it no one will listen anyway).

I know this won't be enough for the blind faithed atheist to accept. Perhaps those with an open mind will give it some thought.

You know, that is a very effective way of starting an exchange...

1) By "admonishment," do you mean "admission?"
2) So what if the universe is itself a cause, rather than an effect?


Have you read this thread? Your post has already been covered.
(I haven't brought up atheism at any point in this thread.)

 

[CeeloChamp]

ahhhh the power of carefully worded nonesense

Lmao

 

[CeeloChamp]

Here we go again ...Oh the blind faith of the atheist!!!

By scientists own admonishment whatever caused the initial movement (like dominoes) defies physics (which is impossible - the laws of physics are just that - they can't be broken ). Whatever it is then that causes the first dominoe (not even getting into the creation of the dominoe) to fall must by THEIR definition be SUPERNATURAL. I'm ok with not identifying what THAT is right now, but it has to be supernatual. EVERY EFFECT MUST HAVE A CAUSE!!!! Shit just doesn't move by itself (I know I'm not being very detailed and getting into energy, gravity, time and light, but fuck it no one will listen anyway).

I know this won't be enough for the blind faithed atheist to accept. Perhaps those with an open mind will give it some thought.

ccorrect me if I'm wrong but I kinda believe in natural selection, its the most believable to me

 

[RBGrider]

I haven't argued against the possibility of anything.
We are talking about the argument for God based on necessity.




I believe that life is here. How it got here is openly debatable.
The Big Bang is not an explanation for the origin of life, its a description of the motion of matter through space-time.




Evolution as the explanation for all biological diversity is not problem free, by any means, but this junk-yard analogy is worn (usually a tornado, rather than bomb) and strays far from the basic propositions of evolution to blow away its straw man.

Evolution doesn't propose 1-shot complexity from a random chance event.
It is a theory of cumulative change accrued through selective retention of random mutations. The mutations are random (and regularly occur in replication), but no evolutionist has ever argued that mutations on the scale of junkyard-to-vehicle occur. Evolutionists are talking about small gradual changes. Its not even controversial that this kind of evolution happens. We can see that in Darwin's finches, black/brown/polar bears, and the avian flu virus.

Darwins finches are STILL FINCHES bears are still bears and like most of the fossil evidence claimed by western science fall short of demonstrating what is claimed to have occurred in evolution.

While there is a evolutionary process going on in the world it does not apply to the species making up the world. The FACT is as much as some would like to trace their origins to monkey's or cockroaches or whatever that creatures do not evolve above their assigned station in what is a web of intra and inter dependance that makes up and sustains the world. Darwin arrived at his theory from the perception that the world is made up of creatures that can be arranged in a progressive order of complexity along a time line. The same can be said of living things, which are made of cells of different levels of complexity. Biologist conclude that the cells in a creature are as simple or complex according to the function they are carrying out as part of a whole. Platelets are not primitive cells that will eventually evolve
into a complex form. Their simple nature conforms to their role in the body. Brain cells are not highly evolved cells. Their complex nature conforms to their function. The same can be said about the creatures making up the world.

If bees evolved, if flowers evolved, if nitrogen fixing bacteria
evolved, what would happen to animals which are incapable to making their own food or preparing oxygen for animal consumption, and so on? As for what appears to be a progressive introduction of more complex creatures along a time line, need not be the expression of separate creatures engaged in a striving by and for themselvesm, but a gradual unfolding of the components of a developing being - as seen in the fetal process, where complex cells and tissues "evolve" from simpler ones as integral and interdependent parts of a whole.

It is a shame that the theory of evolution has not been revisited from the level of genetics which reveals very little "evolutionary" development between the blueprints of primitive and highly "evolved" creatures. Mirroring this is the fact that the entire genetic blueprint of a creature is encoded even in all its cells - from the simplest to the most complex.

Viewed from another perspective, interdependence translates into the expression of need and its fulfillment through sharing. That people need each other and should share is readily understood. What is not recognized by most people is that God needs Man as much as Man needs God. This is not recognized by people who view God as an omnipotent being that makes the world and Man and deals with the world from the outside.

If you don't know that there has been a vociferous struggle going on between agenda driven science and religion then you have not been watching this unfolding debate. Although not necessarily the core of the debate what I have presented here represents the difference between a left brained western view of God and the world and the right brained or more balanced view of African spiritual philosophy. And whether those on either side of this debate know it or not African spiritual philosophy holds the key to ending this debate.

ONE

 

[dasmybikepunk]

 

[Dert Bagg]

Darwins finches are STILL FINCHES bears are still bears and like most of the fossil evidence claimed by western science fall short of demonstrating what is claimed to have occurred in evolution.

While there is a evolutionary process going on in the world it does not apply to the species making up the world. The FACT is as much as some would like to trace their origins to monkey's or cockroaches or whatever that creatures do not evolve above their assigned station in what is a web of intra and inter dependance that makes up and sustains the world. Darwin arrived at his theory from the perception that the world is made up of creatures that can be arranged in a progressive order of complexity along a time line. The same can be said of living things, which are made of cells of different levels of complexity. Biologist conclude that the cells in a creature are as simple or complex according to the function they are carrying out as part of a whole. Platelets are not primitive cells that will eventually evolve
into a complex form. Their simple nature conforms to their role in the body. Brain cells are not highly evolved cells. Their complex nature conforms to their function. The same can be said about the creatures making up the world.

If bees evolved, if flowers evolved, if nitrogen fixing bacteria
evolved, what would happen to animals which are incapable to making their own food or preparing oxygen for animal consumption, and so on? As for what appears to be a progressive introduction of more complex creatures along a time line, need not be the expression of separate creatures engaged in a striving by and for themselvesm, but a gradual unfolding of the components of a developing being - as seen in the fetal process, where complex cells and tissues "evolve" from simpler ones as integral and interdependent parts of a whole.

It is a shame that the theory of evolution has not been revisited from the level of genetics which reveals very little "evolutionary" development between the blueprints of primitive and highly "evolved" creatures. Mirroring this is the fact that the entire genetic blueprint of a creature is encoded even in all its cells - from the simplest to the most complex.

Viewed from another perspective, interdependence translates into the expression of need and its fulfillment through sharing. That people need each other and should share is readily understood. What is not recognized by most people is that God needs Man as much as Man needs God. This is not recognized by people who view God as an omnipotent being that makes the world and Man and deals with the world from the outside.

If you don't know that there has been a vociferous struggle going on between agenda driven science and religion then you have not been watching this unfolding debate. Although not necessarily the core of the debate what I have presented here represents the difference between a left brained western view of God and the world and the right brained or more balanced view of African spiritual philosophy. And whether those on either side of this debate know it or not African spiritual philosophy holds the key to ending this debate.

ONE

While I appreciate the attention, I haven't promoted or defended macro-evolution any where in this thread...

 

[Gazoo]

What does religion have to do with the existence of God? Nothing.

Excellent post.

I agree a thousand percent (watch some asshole come and say there's no such thing as a thousand percent). Most will always come back with some retort against the bible, christianity, religion, islam or whatever when debating the existance of an intellgent creator.

 

[truplutu]

God is real believe

 

[Dert Bagg]

Damn. It got quiet as shit in here