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

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

This thread is asking you to prove it, and you can't lol, just philosophical speculative bull#.

You asked a philosophical question. Hence strawman.

youtu.be...


youtu.be...
A physicist perspective.

Creationism by the way is not the same as a designer. Creationism is something a very small amount of people belive. The general consensus is the story is allegory.

a reply to: luthier

Lol not at all, don't be so silly.
...you still have no verifiable evidence of creator gods by the way

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Phantom423

I think you miss my point.

One the anthropic principle most likely limits the ability to understand actual reality.

Two cosmology does not always have current testable falsifiable tests other than math.

Three I trust the process but understand human limitations and thus leave the ego at the door that we are really capable of understanding the entire cosmological model in our current biological form.

We aren't talking about making a laser or treating cancer. This is an infinite regress issue.

Yes, I see your point. I think most theoretical physicists would tell you that hard evidence is where the rubber meets the road. The numbers, the math, the theories lie in wait for experimental evidence.

But where I disagree is that humans do not have the capability of developing the technology to investigate the biggest questions in science. Humans have a history: given a problem, we will work like hell to solve it. It's an inherent feature in our biology. Which is a good thing otherwise no progress would ever be made.

I wouldn't put humans into the trash heep of history yet. We still have a long way to go.

Just look at recent journal articles - not just from Nature or Phys Letters, but some of the other journals out there. Humans have a huge capacity for creativity and ideas. We're always thinking - you're thinking, I'm thinking. It's an evolutionary process. The challenges and the questions are what motivates us to get up at 4 am and get in the lab and go to work. I can say that was the best time of my life - every day no matter how boring the outcome was an opportunity to discover. Now I'm on the theoretical side of the road, learning how to think like "them" as we used to call them.

Don't despair, especially if your wife is actively involved in research. It's not so much about optimism as it is about drive. The drive to get the job done, whatever it is.

Good conversation. I wish your wife the best of luck in her endeavours. I understand the drill all too well.

Thank you good conversation. My wife works in medical research and clinical studies. So the review process is much easier than theoretical physics. Still a challenge as some of the process are patented in drug manufacture. The conflict of interest also drives her nuts.

My degree is in philosophy. I have a pretty good knowledge of cosmology from that perpespective and keep up with most breakthrough journal papers.

I don't think you stopped to consider some of the points I have made. If you had I think you would understand better what I am talking about.

I haven't put humans in the trash heap, I am merely explaining some of the logic of my opinion.

I have also tried to explain the logic of possible design/designers from simulation to fine tuning.

Not as a believer but as an agnostic explaining what are considered valid reason based philosophical arguments in the formal study of philosophy.

You posed some good thoughts and I need a little time to research. I don't want to post just my own thoughts - there's some interesting articles about science and philosophy which I have bookmarked to read but I need a little time. It's a good topic - science and philosophy - which probably deserves its own thread. In any case, will get back to you after I have time to absorb what others think as well.

Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin’s Enigma: “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.” On the other hand, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator tend to attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces.

What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things​—machines, houses, and even living cells—​in time break down.* [Such decay is a result of what scientists call the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, this law states that the natural tendency is for order to degenerate into disorder.] Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.”

To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order​—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building. Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed.

On the other hand, when we view life and the universe as the work of a wise Creator who possesses an “abundance of dynamic energy,” we can explain not only the complexity of life’s information systems but also the finely tuned forces that govern matter itself, from vast galaxies to tiny atoms.​—Isaiah 40:26.

Source: Which Approach Is More Reasonable?

Some scientists* realize that the rejection of God is a path paved, not by hard evidence and careful logic, but by hopeful assumptions, conjectures and a rather hostile reaction to even the mildest, most respectful or polite forms of criticism of their way of thinking and arguing (*: examples). This is a psychological response that is well described in the bible (including the cause) which provides more clues and evidence for the authorship of the bible. So the evidence for God's existence is not just found in the fields of biology, physics, chemistry and astronomy, it is also found in human psychology, sociology and human history. As it is found in false religious doctrines like creationism (which posits that the earth and the universe is only around 6000 years old) and false religious doctrines designed to obscure the truth about God, his exact identity and attributes, his will and purpose for mankind and the earth, etc. Human behaviour as demonstrated in this thread for example is one of the key convincing factors for me. In that sense, ATS has been quite instrumental in convincing me, or making me more sure about these subjects. The snide, smug and prideful remarks regularly made on ATS are in turn a big part of that. I can't begin to count the number of times I've observed the effect or endresult of these techniques (the cause) having been used relentlessly on the masses:

Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

For example, fear is an emotion that can becloud judgment. ...

Hatred is a strong emotion exploited by propagandists. Loaded language is particularly effective in triggering it. There seems to be a nearly endless supply of nasty words that promote and exploit hatred toward particular racial, ethnic, or religious groups. [whereislogic: or specific individuals who dare to point out the harmful impact of the use of loaded language to argue one's opinions/views/beliefs or by playing on the emotions of a potential audience, trying to tickle their ears, or falling victim to these techniques by exposing oneself to them on a regular basis by association and choice of food for your mind]

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.
...
They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.
...

Source: The Manipulation of Information and Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda!

a reply to: whereislogic

That’s nice.

Got any evidence of a creator sky daddy, or are you just here to promote your cult and get your precious points for the week?

a reply to: whereislogic

You got any testable or verifiable evidence that "God did it" ???
I'm open to change my mind if you have though, of course.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

You got any testable or verifiable evidence that "God did it" ???

I think everyone knows the answer to that.

29 pages and nada.

a reply to: TerryDon79

LMAO I know!
Have you been bothered with Raggedyarse's new thread? I dipped in but his thread after thread of drivel I couldn't get into it again lol
Fair play to the rational flag bearers though

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Nah. I tend to give him and his nonesense a wide berth. Nothing quite like watching stupid from a distance

a reply to: TerryDon79

Lol I get ya.
...still waiting for verifiable evidence of a god though, any god, Shiva, Thor, whatever, speculative philosophical argument is pretty lame and doesn't cut the mustard with me.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: TerryDon79

Lol I get ya.
...still waiting for verifiable evidence of a god though, any god, Shiva, Thor, whatever, speculative philosophical argument is pretty lame and doesn't cut the mustard with me.

Well you are the one who asked a philosophical question and expected a scientific answer.

Maybe you need to take some time and understand the difference.

a reply to: luthier

Lol, but aside from philosophical argument you have no testable or verifiable evidence to support claims of gods.
That is the amusing bit to me, now go run to Raggedyarse's many threads so you can pretend playing at science.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

Lol, but aside from philosophical argument you have no testable or verifiable evidence to support claims of gods.
That is the amusing bit to me, now go run to Raggedyarse's many threads so you can pretend playing at science.

You appear to be someone with no knowledge of science or philosophy.

Otherwise you wouldn't act so juvenile and could have an awareness f the subjects.

Raggedy and I couldn't be more different. I believe in evolution for instance, I don't believe in the bible, and think creationism is a bizarre theory when used to cancel evolution.

However you sir don't even know the difference between philosophy and science.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin’s Enigma: “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.” On the other hand, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator tend to attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces (sometimes in a rather obvious manner, often obscured behind a lot of smooth talking and persuasive arguments to distract from the actual evidence and what Luther D. Sutherland refers to as "the inescapable deduction"; which doesn't just count for the subject he's talking about, so I would say "inescapable deductions", that is, if one is willing to follow through the logic properly and honestly and draw conclusions from the available evidence in the various sciences such as biology, physics, chemistry and astronomy, the ones discussed in the links in my first comment here with specific examples).

Some scientists* realize that the rejection of God is a path paved, not by hard evidence and careful logic, but by hopeful assumptions, conjectures and a rather hostile rejection to even the mildest, most respectful or polite forms of criticism of their way of thinking and arguing (*: examples). This is a psychological response that is well described in the bible (including the cause) which provides more clues and evidence for the authorship of the bible. So the evidence for God's existence is not just found in the fields of biology, physics, chemistry and astronomy, it is also found in human psychology, sociology and human history. As it is found in false religious doctrines like creationism (which posits that the earth and the universe is only around 6000 years old) and false religious doctrines designed to obscure the truth about God, his exact identity and attributes, his will and purpose for mankind and the earth, etc. Human behaviour as demonstrated in this thread for example is one of the key convincing factors for me. In that sense, ATS has been quite instrumental in convincing me, or making me more sure about these subjects. The snide, smug and prideful remarks regularly made on ATS are in turn a big part of that. I can't begin to count the number of times I've observed the effect or endresult of these techniques (the cause) having been used relentlessly on the masses:

Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

For example, fear is an emotion that can becloud judgment. ...

Hatred is a strong emotion exploited by propagandists. Loaded language is particularly effective in triggering it. There seems to be a nearly endless supply of nasty words that promote and exploit hatred toward particular racial, ethnic, or religious groups. [whereislogic: or specific individuals who don't agree with those using loaded language to argue their opinions/views/beliefs or those playing on the emotions of their potential audience, trying to tickle their ears]

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.
...
They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.
...

Source: The Manipulation of Information and Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda!

a reply to: luthier

Lol behave, I studied both but chose science at uni because I enjoyed being able to reconcile maths with experiments.
Attack the argument not the person remember

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

Lol behave, I studied both but chose science at uni because I enjoyed being able to reconcile maths with experiments.
Attack the argument not the person remember

I did attack the argument. You asked a philosophical question. You reapetedly use ad hom attacks and then act like a baby when called out you have no knowledge.

You chose science? I wasn't aware you had to choose one or the other.

I have pointed out however you DID NOT ASK A SCIENTIFIC QUESTION
.
Hence you must not even understand science.

a reply to: luthier

I did the same as Raggedyarse and asked for facts to support creationism or even intelligent design, there are none, absolutely nothing except lame speculative philosophical argument.
Now stop being so grumpy, you are beginning to sound like your mate Raggy lol

a reply to: HiddenWaters

If i knew how to work computer stuff like the rest of you, i would have framed this response better, however i do not. Sutherlands musings are patently false, the fossil record does not provide proof of biochemistry of the prokaryote/eukaryotees that we see. Although we see eukaryotes as complete organisms, in the first, we need to realize current ideas of how they came about. It may have been a very rare event in the universe. Philosophy has no place here.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

I did the same as Raggedyarse and asked for facts to support creationism or even intelligent design, there are none, absolutely nothing except lame speculative philosophical argument.
Now stop being so grumpy, you are beginning to sound like your mate Raggy lol

There is nothing lame about philosophy. That is a juvenile response. It makes you seem like a child.

And you are exactly correct you are about as knowledgeable about science as Raggedy. The only difference is he doesn't pretend.

You asked a philosophical question got philosophical answers you don't understand or have tested vocabulary to understand and have no argument against them based on reason.

What is the scientific theory for god for instance?

That's right there isn't one. So right there in your op title you have a fallacy.

You have shown zero understanding of science or philosophy.

How do you falsify the concept of god? Which god? A designer? Like a simulation designer? Zeus?

Let me guess you don't even know what that means.

All you did was try and make a gotcha thread which is an utter failure do to your lack of knowledge of what science is, what it does, and what it asks.