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

a reply to: surfer_soul

So you've got no 'facts' or evidence to support claims of a creator then?
I know, it's a challenge trying to support claims which have no verifiable evidence to back them up. It's why I stopped believing years ago.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
1) the creator makes themselves known. This would be the easiest process of course.

2) the characters identify the code used, and are able to use that code to rewrite reality in ways that would otherwise be impossible. (Breaking the physics of the game.

I’ll try to think of some more. That was a pretty fun exercise.

1) If the creator makes themselves known in an obvious manner, it will ruin the fun of the game!
2) But the characters are limited by the rules of the code of the game, therefore, they would not have the capacity to recognise or understand the code.

Even if we don't agree, it is comforting to know you are at least being open-minded about what I am saying. Which unfortunately cannot be said for many militant atheists out there.

originally posted by: surfer_soul

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.

I also cannot prove that there are no dragons, or fairies, or unicorns. But we have stories in books about these things, and certainly there are people who believe in such things.

All of our ideas about gods come from earlier stories, and as science cannot prove that something doesn’t exist, it can surely say that some things are so improbable that they have less than a 1% probability of existing. We come to that number by compiling all of the available evidence and evaluating their merits individually. If there is no available data, then that clearly puts the probability at a very low value.

People used to attribute pretty much all events to the actions of gods, but as science has advanced, we now understand where rain and lightning come from. We know that germs create sickness. And voices in our heads are an indication of mental illness. Concepts of god have been pushed back so far that there are no attributable events to lay at their feet. Even prayer has been studied ad nausium and there is no identifiable reactions in those tests. In fact, sick people who know they are being prayed over, take longer to recover.

originally posted by: chr0naut
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?

Except irreducible complexity is bull#...and your examples are vague and unspecific....

a reply to: coomba98

Oh I see so lacking “belief” in god is somehow different to not believing in god? Hmm
Ok so it’s really belief or faith that you have issues with. I get this point it sounds reasonable enough. Unfortunately there are many things you believe that you haven’t proven or verified personally, you just take others word for it. The fact is no one individual can know everything that we know as a collective. So would you throw out that knowledge as well until you have personally verified all discoveries?

Sigh

originally posted by: Incandescent

originally posted by: Woodcarver
1) the creator makes themselves known. This would be the easiest process of course.

2) the characters identify the code used, and are able to use that code to rewrite reality in ways that would otherwise be impossible. (Breaking the physics of the game.

I’ll try to think of some more. That was a pretty fun exercise.

1) If the creator makes themselves known in an obvious manner, it will ruin the fun of the game!
2) But the characters are limited by the rules of the code of the game, therefore, they would not have the capacity to recognise or understand the code.

Even if we don't agree, it is comforting to know you are at least being open-minded about what I am saying. Which unfortunately cannot be said for many militant atheists out there.

2) you said the characters could have any level of intelligence. I was going off of that caveat.

Calling people militant, is not fair. I don’t call people who argue strongly for their faith, militant christians. You are responsible for your own words. When you stoop to such tactics, you will be seen in the same light as those you would call militant yourself. Be the kind of person that you want others to be, and that will be reflected back at you.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: surfer_soul

So you've got no 'facts' or evidence to support claims of a creator then?
I know, it's a challenge trying to support claims which have no verifiable evidence to back them up. It's why I stopped believing years ago.

It’s also a challenge trying to grasp the infinite with a finite mind. But there it is, manifest in energy.

Best just to stop believing in things we cant grasp or understand then..

a reply to: Woodcarver

Unfortunately there are hardcore atheists such as Dawkins who constantly try to push there ideas on the rest of us. I for one take offence at being referred to as Christian because I believe in god. Not everything is a black and white/either or as some would have it.

originally posted by: Incandescent

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
This thread is about 'facts' which inform the 'theory' of creationism, you got any?

I don't believe in creationism, but since the thread title includes the words "intelligent design" which I DO believe is a plausible theory, I decided to chime in. Hope you don't mind?

Intelligent design is creationism. It always has been.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Woodcarver

Unfortunately there are hardcore atheists such as Dawkins who constantly try to push there ideas on the rest of us. I for one take offence at being referred to as Christian because I believe in god. Not everything is a black and white/either or as some would have it.

So you do believe in god? What led you to this position?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Intelligent design is creationism. It always has been.

And is deism the same as theism?

I don't believe in creationism because I am not a theist, but I do believe the universe is likely to have been made by a creator who designed it in an intelligent manner. What does that make me?

.

a reply to: Incandescent

A creator we don't have the capabilities to properly comprehend is the answer.

A creator we don't have the capabilities to properly comprehend is a creator we don't have the capabilities to properly comprehend!!
If you dont understand that then I recommend a study of critical thinking.

Be honest, if you found an article from a reputable source stating that "scientists have just discovered..." you would be quick to take the article's findings on faith alone, without conducting your own research to confirm the claims made.

Ummm, its not faith its not only reasonable expectations but with science you have other scientist trying to replicate the results. Like Duhhh!!!!

Faith is not only employed by theists you know!

Unfortunately this is not the case. As noted above.

1) If the creator makes themselves known in an obvious manner, it will ruin the fun of the game!

Umm this is your proof!!! Honestly?

2) But the characters are limited by the rules of the code of the game, therefore, they would not have the capacity to recognise or understand the code.

Then how on earth did you come to the conclusion of a creator? If you cannot perceive the creator?
Whats the difference?
1. A creator that does not exist? or
2. A creator that does not interfere?

Both are the same from our perspective. Therefore you cannot say 100% that there is a creator. That fantasy.

If 'God' interferes with the universe, then we can measure it. However at this stage we have not.

Therefore the best position to take is the atheist position.

Coomba98

originally posted by: Incandescent

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Intelligent design is creationism. It always has been.

And is deism the same as theism?

I don't believe in creationism because I am not a theist, but I do believe the universe is likely to have been made by a creator who designed it in an intelligent manner. What does that make me?

No, they are not necessarily the same. Deism is the belief that some god(s) created the universe, but have no further interaction with it or it’s inhabitants. (There is no evidence to support this position)

Theism is the belief in some kind of god, and usually includes a doctrine or some religion that goes along with it. (There is evidence that some of the examples presented are untrue.)

a reply to: Woodcarver

Actually deism and theism are the same.

They both believe in god or gods.

Coomba98

originally posted by: Woodcarver
No, they are not necessarily the same. Deism is the belief that some god(s) created the universe, but have no further interaction with it or it’s inhabitants. (There is no evidence to support this position)

How could this position be proven if God does not intervene in this universe? You could only find out the truth if you die or have an NDE where you have an experience with another dimension/realm of existence.

originally posted by: coomba98

Actually deism and theism are the same.

They both believe in god or gods.

The same to those who are ignorant of deism.

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Woodcarver

Actually deism and theism are the same.

They both believe in god or gods.

Coomba98

There are some not so subtle differences.

originally posted by: Incandescent

originally posted by: Woodcarver
No, they are not necessarily the same. Deism is the belief that some god(s) created the universe, but have no further interaction with it or it’s inhabitants. (There is no evidence to support this position)

How could this position be proven if God does not intervene in this universe? You could only find out the truth if you die or have an NDE where you have an experience with another dimension/realm of existence.

originally posted by: coomba98

Actually deism and theism are the same.

They both believe in god or gods.

The same to those who are ignorant of deism.

The burden of proof lies with the one who claims such things.

How does one go about proving that invisible unicorns are all around us?

NDEs are not proof of an afterlife.

I agree that deism and theism are different. However the context I was getting at was they both have a model of god/s. Whereas atheism does not.

Theists believe in god or gods.

Deists are a subset of Theists, and like Theists there are many categories. As we know.

Coomba98

Accidental double post, see first post of next page.