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

originally posted by: chr0naut
I have read through some of your posts.

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

I make no claims based on any faith so I'm not required to provide any evidence. I just challenge those who do make speculative claims based on faith.
That is a reasoned position to take.

I just wanted to say that if one day it turns out that there is an intelligent creator, than whoever that is cannot be called god in the bible sense.
It would be a being of nature, maybe in another dimension or just really, really big or maybe of alien origin.

But lets get this clear, religious folk can not then suddenly change their tune and say 'see we were right', because what they call god wouldn't be one. It would be merely a being that we don't know about, but it would be a being that has to adhere to whatever natural laws exist in its dwelling place/space. Therefore it won't be a mystical, all knowing holy thing.
It would be just another being and I would not do blindly as they tell me just because they have the means of punishing me.

I would also not admire or pray to them.

Just to recap; christians, don't hijack scientific ideas and mold them so that you don't look too gullible.

Any creator will have had to be created themselves and they have to be part of overall nature however it pans out in various dimensions/universes etc. A creator is possible but won't be a god!

God set the rules laws to enable life to emerge, it was inevitable.

Before that he created the universe with his grand plan in mind so that life could eventually emerge planets form etc.

Evolution is one of gods methods.

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 have evidence that god exists and created everything. If he lets me, I'll come back with it to prove to you.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
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.

I would argue that the universe and everything in it is evidence enough.

We know through science that there are fundamental laws that govern everything. We have not invented these, only discovered them. Why should this be? Why isn’t everything in complete chaos?

Just because your idea of god is based off what some religion has to say about it doesn’t mean that is the fact of the matter. Not by a long shot, why do you take religious ideas as being some kind of authority on the matter if you don’t believe in these religions? For example a benevolent, all powerful and loving god is clearly BS but that doesn’t mean there is no god.

You and nobody else can prove to me there is no god, just as I can’t prove there is because science can’t anwser questions about the infinite or the circular first cause arguments, such as what created the Big Bang and what created that etc...

So the whole discussion is pointless and a circle jerk for people with similar ideas.

a reply to: Hecate666

Interesting points
I share your sentiments, and I also would not worship such an entity, I'd go further and call it a barbaric monster letting babies starve to death and whatnot. I do my best giving to charities that help people, but god/s seem to do nothing. No miracles for a couple of thousand years, what, did God die or something?

a reply to: chr0naut

chrOnaut buddy,

St. Anselm's ontological argument, in its most succinct form, is as follows:
"God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist."

A more elaborate version was given by Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716); this is the version that Gödel studied and attempted to clarify with his ontological argument. Gödel left a fourteen-point outline of his philosophical beliefs in his papers. Points relevant to the ontological proof include:
4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind;
5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived;
13. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science;
14. Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.

en.wikipedia.org...

The wiki also speaks of the logical criticisms of such a view.

Gödel's ontological proof is nothing more than a 'faith' based position digger.

Coomba98

originally posted by: Invision123
God set the rules laws to enable life to emerge, it was inevitable.

Before that he created the universe with his grand plan in mind so that life could eventually emerge planets form etc.

Evolution is one of gods methods.

So no evidence to support your claims either?
Come back to me when you have some, that is what the thread is asking for.

originally posted by: SummerRain

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 have evidence that god exists and created everything. If he lets me, I'll come back with it to prove to you.

Lol, good luck with that

a reply to: surfer_soul

I don't state 'there are no gods' and I'm not trying to prove there are none.
This thread is a mirror of the 'evolution' one for equity and balance, merely asking for the evidence or 'facts' to confirm or verify creationism.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Hey just a heads up, troll the trolls.

No need to stoop to Padawans level with others, civil discussions work sufficiently.

Troll the Troll.

For Padawans will be Padawans.

Coomba98

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: surfer_soul

I don't state 'there are no gods' and I'm not trying to prove there are none.
This thread is a mirror of the 'evolution' one for equity and balance, merely asking for the evidence or 'facts' to confirm or verify creationism.

But you are an atheist and as such reject the idea of god right? I contend that the reason for this and many other atheists views is because you get your ideas about what god is from religion. So it is religion you should be rejecting and re-thinking your ideas about what god is. I get that from a scientific point of view we can’t know one way or the other. But from a philosophical point of view god as a concept is the most reasonable conclusion to the problem of creation or indeed the infinite.

P.s is anyone else constantly being redirected to amazon saying they’ve won a gift card? Is this malware on my iPad or has ATS sunk so low as to allow this?

a reply to: surfer_soul

sigh.....

How many times do I have too.... sigh

youtu.be...

Coomba98

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
So no evidence to support your claims either?
Come back to me when you have some, that is what the thread is asking for.

Be honest here, you wont accept anything as "evidence" short of God announcing in the sky loud and clear that he exists. If God does exist, then he is not bound by the limitations of the scientific method.

When it comes to figuring out whether God exists or not, rationalism is more important than empiricism.

When was the last time claims like "there are over 200 billion stars in our galaxy" were verified by somebody counting each one individually and reaching over 200 billion?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

All of these have been debunked multiple times, and i’m sure that you have seen it done more than a few times in these threads.

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.

Irreducible complexity is a poor way to argue for ID or against evolution. The most common example used is the eyeball, but it has been shown that many versions of the organ can be seen in many stages of developement, from single cells that can detect light, to a cupped area that can tell which direction that light is coming from, to a crude lense that covers that cup, to color resolving rods and cones, to muscles that allow focus and zooming abilities. At each point the ability to see gets a little better, all the way up to eagle abilities to spot a mouse from half a mile away. If you have any more examples, i will gladly talk you through them.

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 have never heard this argument, could you please expand on this?

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.

Sarcasm? Why?

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).

Systems only degrade when they are a closed loop. We have this enormous amount of energy that we can draw fuel from that allows life thrive and to be as diverse as it is. It feeds plants, which then feed animals, which then feeds us. Nearly unlimited amount of fuel to power our 4 billion years of evolution.

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.

sure, but we are not mixing just A and B. We have unlimited amounts of molecules that we can mix together to create nearly unlimited combinations.

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?

rare things happen a lot in a universe as expanse as ours. Stars explode at an average rate of 1 per galaxy per every hundred years. But, since there are 100’s of billions of galaxies, we can observe them every day. To calculate how probable an event is, we must first observe it, or calculate based on other related observations

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.

i’m going to answer this as if you are not being sarcastic.

The universe does not need to conform to science. Our theories need to conform to our observations of the universe. Without observations there would be no science. It is true that there are things that we can not observe. Some parts of our universe have traveled far beyond our ability to observe, but there is no reason to think that those parts act any differently than the parts we can observe.

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

ontological arguments are not “proofs” for anything. They require you to accept absurd assumptions at the beginning of the process. Therefore could be used to argue for any unfounded claim, making them useless.

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?

until you ask people to lay these proofs on the table, and that table remains empty in perpetuity.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Nature is proof itself, it's self evidence we are the evidence

originally posted by: Incandescent

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
So no evidence to support your claims either?
Come back to me when you have some, that is what the thread is asking for.

Be honest here, you wont accept anything as "evidence" short of God announcing in the sky loud and clear that he exists. If God does exist, then he is not bound by the limitations of the scientific method.

When it comes to figuring out whether God exists or not, rationalism is more important than empiricism.

When was the last time claims like "there are over 200 billion stars in our galaxy" were verified by somebody counting each one individually and reaching over 200 billion?

You do realise that we do count the stars. With computers.

originally posted by: Invision123
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Nature is proof itself, it's self evidence we are the evidence

Nature is proof of evolution, chemistry, geology, mathematics, and a few more things, but when have you ever observed a god in nature?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
You do realise that we do count the stars. With computers.

You do realise that like humans, technology is prone to errors and miscalculations?

originally posted by: Invision123
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Nature is proof itself, it's self evidence we are the evidence

Um even drunk as phark I dont understand your statement!

Coomba98