Creator god or intelligent design, the facts that inform the theory?

Ok so we all know the difference
Religious faith theory is different because, blah blah
Evidently creationism has so much solid evidence that it doesn't need any more evidence, no I don't get that either.
What are these facts that inform the theory of a creator god or some other intelligent design?

Some one care to list them...

...oh this thread will be managed in the same style as a similar one asking about evolution, if you have no 'facts' to provide then your opinion will be dismissed.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

gets ring side seat

i will just wait for the priceless moment when - after explaining all the " reasons " a naturalistic explaination is " impossible "

they turn around and invoke magic to " explain " the origins of thier cults alledged "god "

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

You may as well ask " is there life after death ? "

No one alive knows and can prove it ...

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I'm hoping the author of the 'other' thread will get involved, but I'll hold him to the same strict parameters in this thread as he does in the evolution one.
It's only fair lol

a reply to: Timely

Yes, that's how I see it myself.
I'm not here trying to prove anything, I'm with you, more making the point that nobody can.
The theory of evolution is pretty strong though, I'd believe that over gods any day if I had a gun to my head.

Creation, It's a faith
You have a silly strawman
Nobody is using science to justify God

If you don't believe, that's fine, I don't have a gun to your head
Not here to make you believe, won't even try

a reply to: Raggedyman

So you have nothing, zero, nada, to support claims of a creator god then?
I already knew that but hey lol
Now go play with your star wars figures or whatever as you advise people in your thread

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

They say that truth is stranger than fiction.

Many keys to our beginning were lost in wars and to thieves in ancient times.

It has been nothing more than chinese whispers and egg heads conjecturing; that being taken as gospel by the indifferent masses, since.

Any real truth is lost in history ... or is it ?

This is an interesting topic. 🤯

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Raggedyman

So you have nothing, zero, nada, to support claims of a creator god then?
I already knew that but hey lol
Now go play with your star wars figures or whatever as you advise people in your thread

Sorry, don't have any Star Wars toys

I kinda wonder where your head is at?
You say nothing, I say I have faith

If you already knew that, why ask

a reply to: Timely

I'm with you, with an open mind, but I've got to play this thread like the evolution one, no verifiable facts to prove the argument then it has to be BS.
I'm presenting an alternative thread for equity and balance.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I'm asking for facts, same as you in your thread, if you have none then I'll just laugh at your blind faith.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Faith is an extremely bad way of getting to the truth.

Padawan, give me one thing I could not believe in based on faith?

If I can use 'faith' to get to all conclusions then what good is it?

Faith is as useless as buying a lotto ticket and 100% expecting to win.

I'd rather use a beaver's shadow to determine the weather than use something as faulty as faith!

Master Coomba

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Raggedyman
I'd rather use a beaver's shadow to determine the weather than use something as faulty as faith!

PMSL! Yes, absolutely agree

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

gets ring side seat

i will just wait for the priceless moment when - after explaining all the " reasons " a naturalistic explaination is " impossible "

they turn around and invoke magic to " explain " the origins of thier cults alledged "god "

I'm hoping I'll get some responses which are not 'magic' or solely faith based. I have an open mind so I say to the creationists bring it on, any verifiable evidence such as offered in the theory of evolution, bring it to the table, let's discuss your evidence, or 'facts' as described in the similar evolution thread.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

You mentioned intelligent design.

One of the tenets of intelligent design is that irreducible complexity underpins most of the observed biome. There are many instance of species interdependence and rapid genetic change that cannot be explained by evolutionary gradualism or anything other than that the processes of biological change and diversity was 'directed' towards maximum variability in the minimum time.

There is also ample proof of irreducible complexity in number theory, infinite series and chaotic systems. It does exist and is strongly represented in nature, yet there are those who would consider themselves 'scientific' and yet deny such obvious and overtly evidenced proof (perhaps because science itself is a reductionist process and so is useless in determining anything that doesn't fit is myopic view).

I mean if science can't explain it, it can't exist (like turbulent flow, chaotic determinancy and the natural sequence of prime numbers). < - - sarcasm.



Similarly, the laws of thermodynamics point to a system that can only degrade, tending towards a state of pure entropy. Yet somehow things ordered themselves and became complex and have contined to do so over a period of 13.4 billion years (which by now should have negated any original 'accidental' instances of order).

Also, in nature as observed, all systems tend towards the lowest energy solution. You mix chemicals A and B and get simple mixtures, not rainbows of incredible variety. By theoretically tweaking the primary constants and variables of physics and seeing how the universe plays out, we usually generate very boring and single state outcomes. Yet the reality of the particular balance of forces and values that underlie this universe, leads to incredible observed variety.

Then we look at probabiliy. The universe expresses incredible levels of improbability on all scales, everywhere we may choose to look. How does that work?

But if the observed universe doesn't conform to complete explanation by science (which is a mathematical impossibility according to Incompleteness), then it is obvious that the universe is what is wrong? < - - more sarcasm.



... and as for proofs of God, there are several, perhaps the strongest and most mathematically rigourous being Gödel's ontological proof.

If you care to search on Amazon for "Proof of the existence of God" you will find there are nearly 200 books, so it would appear that insistence on there being 'no proof ofthe existence of God', is probably an extremely ill informed opinion. < - - irony?

a reply to: chr0naut

Sorry pal, you've got no verifiable evidence to support claims of gods creating the universe, nice try though.


EDIT
You have faith and speculation, nothing more.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0naut

Sorry pal, you've got no verifiable evidence to support claims of gods creating the universe, nice try though.

EDIT
You have faith and speculation, nothing more.

I mentioned a fair bit of verifiable evidence. What do you think evidence looks like?

a reply to: chr0naut

It doesn't look like your speculation that's for sure.
Your speculation is solely faith based, unless you have something testable and empirical to bring to the table?

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0naut

It doesn't look like your speculation that's for sure.
Your speculation is solely faith based, unless you have something testable and empirical to bring to the table?

I have read through some of your posts.

Have you presented any evidence for your opinions on any post on ATS?

I have, please feel free to review my posts.