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

originally posted by: coomba98

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?

You can come to the conclusion of a creator through rationalism (reason and logic), not through empirical evidence.

And the creator can be "perceived" through its work (creations of stars, planets ad space). Believing there is a creator is not the same as knowing the nature of the creator.

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

Who said there is 100% a creator? It's very likely there is a creator, but it is just beyond our current capacity to comprehend.

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.

If science confirmed there is a creator, would you believe it? Or would you begin to doubt the scientific method? (I predict the latter).

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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?

I believe that everything at its core is infinite, what I would describe as god is the same thing as infinity or a better way of putting it, that infinity is a property of god.
Mind or intelligence is another property of god, the universe is a property of god, do you see where I’m going with this?

Just as our physical body’s are properties of us but we aren’t the exact same thing as our body’s. We exist as minds that can traverse the physical through will alone. Such as when we imagine the concepts being discussed.

It’s very hard to describe especially when I keep being redirected to some malware site, I’ll leave it at that for now

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

The fact that none of those who disbelieve in the theory of a CREATOR of ALL* things (and feel all evolved from nothing) cannot produce a simple experiment showing how nothing makes or creates somethings is enough proof for 1 to consider a Intelligent CREATOR.
A CREATOR who made the more advanced beings perceived as GODS by human species...

Now if some who feel all evolved from nothing can reproduce the experiment of making something from nothing w/o use of controlled settings in a lab or with technology which will still yield similar results, then 1 would be more inclined to accept the theory bases of evolution.

Otherwise it is the usual scientific and or atheist driven minds and rhetoric attempting the same old argument & premise to deny THE who created ALL* things, with limited intelligence-explanation and perception of how the Universe(s) are actually created.

Big bang theory totally missed the Abyssal planes (the primal medium) 1 must add, mentioned in many religious or mythical text related to the beginning that the theorized process of the big bang started within. Look at the medium or "beam" CERN for example has to build-prepare just to test particle collision data, associated to the big bang theory?
The beam requires large amounts of magnetism-electromagnetism-lower then kelvin temperatures-extreme hot temperatures-radiation and other components just to carry the particle bundles. Yet many feel the big bang starting at some singularity point (which 1 does not fully deny) started w/o a pre-existing condition such as the abyss to start or generate the process of creation...

Be well

originally posted by: coomba98
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

Yes, and atheists are those who reject such claims. Usually based on the lack of supporting evidence, or because of the absurdity of the evidence presented.

originally posted by: Incandescent

originally posted by: coomba98

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?

You can come to the conclusion of a creator through rationalism (reason and logic), not through empirical evidence.

And the creator can be "perceived" through its work (creations of stars, planets ad space). Believing there is a creator is not the same as knowing the nature of the creator.

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

Who said there is 100% a creator? It's very likely there is a creator, but it is just beyond our current capacity to comprehend.

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.

If science confirmed there is a creator, would you believe it? Or would you begin to doubt the scientific method? (I predict the latter).

Rationalism is useless without empiricism. One still needs to demonstrate their claims before they can be accepted. Otherwise, all claims are equally valid, and we know that is not the case.

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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?

I believe that everything at its core is infinite, what I would describe as god is the same thing as infinity or a better way of putting it, that infinity is a property of god.
Mind or intelligence is another property of god, the universe is a property of god, do you see where I’m going with this?

Just as our physical body’s are properties of us but we aren’t the exact same thing as our body’s. We exist as minds that can traverse the physical through will alone. Such as when we imagine the concepts being discussed.

It’s very hard to describe especially when I keep being redirected to some malware site, I’ll leave it at that for now

All of these beliefs would necessarily need to be demonstrated before being accepted, otherwise you are just asserting your opinion.

Yes, it is very difficult to describe your opinion without empirical evidence that supports it.

a reply to: Incandescent

You can come to the conclusion of a creator through rationalism (reason and logic), not through empirical evidence.

Ummm, did you hear what you just said? Ummm.... ok then .... that makes sense.....ummmmm....eeeerrrr..... jesus.......hmmmm............phark.......sheit....... got me there.

And the creator can be "perceived" through its work (creations of stars, planets ad space).

You do know this is the very definition of 'The Argument From Ignorance' fallacy?

Believing there is a creator is not the same as knowing the nature of the creator.

Dont you know it. Never denied that.

But first you have to 'prove' theres a creator.

Who said there is 100% a creator? It's very likely there is a creator, but it is just beyond our current capacity to comprehend.

Ok, so now your an atheist. Now im confused!

If science confirmed there is a creator, would you believe it? Or would you begin to doubt the scientific method? (I predict the latter).

Of course I would believe the science. Same with unicorns, vampires, bigfoot etc etc. Evidence trumps all.... But politics and running the country and what not then thats a different story....

Coomba98

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
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.

Apparently you are not familiar with the teleological argument.

It uses fine tuning as a possible explanation for a designer.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

When I first heard the argument for ID it went this way. Say you are walking down the beach. And you find a watch. You pick it up and you can tell is an object designed and manufactured. This is different than say a rock you pickup. The rock has no symmetry. The rock has no meaningful purpose to its shape or design.

So the argument then gets extended to man. The way our eyes work bla bla bla.

I think when it comes to religion, facts are irrelevant. An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence. It seem idiotic to me when people claim God is bounded by the laws of physics. Or that God is somehow bounded by the laws of logic like being two places at the same time. And on the other side it seems idiotic to me when people of so called "faith" are threaten by Darwinian evolution. To me when someone of "faith" speaks out about evolution what they are really saying is their faith in an omnipotent God is weak or they have doubts.

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Incandescent

You can come to the conclusion of a creator through rationalism (reason and logic), not through empirical evidence.

Ummm, did you hear what you just said? Ummm.... ok then .... that makes sense.....ummmmm....eeeerrrr..... jesus.......hmmmm............phark.......sheit....... got me there.

And the creator can be "perceived" through its work (creations of stars, planets ad space).

You do know this is the very definition of 'The Argument From Ignorance' fallacy?

Believing there is a creator is not the same as knowing the nature of the creator.

Dont you know it. Never denied that.

But first you have to 'prove' theres a creator.

Who said there is 100% a creator? It's very likely there is a creator, but it is just beyond our current capacity to comprehend.

Ok, so now your an atheist. Now im confused!

If science confirmed there is a creator, would you believe it? Or would you begin to doubt the scientific method? (I predict the latter).

Of course I would. Same with unicorns, vampires, bigfoot etc etc. Evidence trumps all.... But politics and running the country and what not....

Coomba98

I wouldn't exactly call aquinas's ways an argument from ignorance. There may be good rebuttal and it may not be compelling but it solves an infinite regress problem.

Falsifiablility doesn't apply to metaphysics or even theoretical physics the same way it does newtonian or applied sciences.

Nobody has proven that string or bosonic dimensionAL reality exists it has an argument based on math and the current model understanding.

Is gravity emersive?

I personally am agnostic but blowing off philosophy and inserting the incorrect fallacy isn't the way to win an argument.

a reply to: luthier

I dont know or I dont understand how it occurs/happened, therefore God..... Is an Ignorance Fallacy.

And saying your agnostic does not answer your position in belief. See my video in my prior post.

If your not 100% sure of the existence of God/s, then your an atheist.

If you have the knowledge of God/s, then your an Gnostic.

If you dont have the knowledge of God/s, then your an Agnostic.

See the difference?

Theist = Belief in God/s.
Atheist - Non or without the belief in God/s.

Gnostic = Knowledge in God/s.
Agnostic = Non or without the Knowledge in God/s.

Super simple stuff.

Coomba98

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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?

I believe that everything at its core is infinite, what I would describe as god is the same thing as infinity or a better way of putting it, that infinity is a property of god.
Mind or intelligence is another property of god, the universe is a property of god, do you see where I’m going with this?

Just as our physical body’s are properties of us but we aren’t the exact same thing as our body’s. We exist as minds that can traverse the physical through will alone. Such as when we imagine the concepts being discussed.

It’s very hard to describe especially when I keep being redirected to some malware site, I’ll leave it at that for now

All of these beliefs would necessarily need to be demonstrated before being accepted, otherwise you are just asserting your opinion.

Yes, it is very difficult to describe your opinion without empirical evidence that supports it.

Do you have emperical evidence anyone loves you?

Emperical evidence is certainly the last stage of proving a subject but it can also be a small part of reality and be false by implying it means something it does not. We can not know an actual object. It first is filtered through our mind, perception, and senses.

People believed the standard model without it being completely proven. Emerson gravity certainly helps.

The problem for me is when people become more than agnostic in claims that are unproven. Stating either god is real or god is not real. We may be able to prove certain gods are not currently real with proof. Or that unicorns don't exist. But proving the universe was not created is far harder. We are also stuck with the anthropic principle.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Rationalism is useless without empiricism. One still needs to demonstrate their claims before they can be accepted. Otherwise, all claims are equally valid, and we know that is not the case.

That is simply not true. Otherwise ideas and concepts (which are both abstract in nature) would have no merit, when the reality is that they can have merit as long as they are reasonable and logical. And not all claims are made for the purpose of gaining acceptance.

a reply to: luthier

Love is a feeling that is measured in chemicals that show up in MRI's or the like.

These are proven facts.

Coomba98

a reply to: Incandescent

originally posted by: Incandescent

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Rationalism is useless without empiricism. One still needs to demonstrate their claims before they can be accepted. Otherwise, all claims are equally valid, and we know that is not the case.

That is simply not true. Otherwise ideas and concepts (which are both abstract in nature) would have no merit, when the reality is that they can have merit as long as they are reasonable and logical. And not all claims are made for the purpose of gaining acceptance.

You obviously dont understand what his getting at.

Coomba98

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: luthier

I dont know or I dont understand how it occurs/happened, therefore God..... Is an Ignorance Fallacy.

And saying your agnostic does not answer your position in belief. See my video in my prior post.

If your not 100% sure of the existence of God/s, then your an atheist.

If you have the knowledge of God/s, then your an Gnostic.

If you dont have the knowledge of God/s, then your an Agnostic.

See the difference?

Theist = Belief in God/s.
Atheist - Non or without the belief in God/s.

Gnostic = Knowledge in God/s.
Agnostic = Non or without the Knowledge in God/s.

Super simple stuff.

Coomba98

What you are saying is false in traditional philosophy.

In philosophy we claim there are two distinct differences in atheism. One claims there is no God, god is not possible, another doesn't claim anything see tell difference?

And no it is not an argument of ignorance to try and solve an infinite regress problem.

The problem seems to be you have no formal philosophy training and are using its terms to explain a part of the argument you find compelling.

Not sure if you know who Cristopher Hitchens is but he had trouble arguing against the teleological argument for god. He found it to be a solid argument. You can find him explaining it.

Also if we live in a simulation, a hologram etc we know have a god...maybe just scientists but we have intelligent design.

I find people who argue in the way you are haven't actually studied the subject.

a reply to: coomba98

What about dreams? If somebody tells you they had a dream involving them becoming the Secretary-General of the UN and their first day on the job, can the content of their dreams be scientifically verified, and thus, measured using empirical means? The answer is no. So why do you believe in dreams exactly?

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: luthier

Love is a feeling that is measured in chemicals that show up in MRI's or the like.

These are proven facts.

Coomba98

False.

Hormones do not prove love. They explain the body's systems of interaction.

This is going to be interesting even for me.

I think that a creator god support the idea of an intelligent design and an intelligent design support the idea of a creator god. After all if it is a design, then there must be a designer.

I'm not a scientist, but, (as I understand) we are a bunch of organs working together to stay alive for the longest time possible. Those organs are compose of cells that work together for the same reason above. And those cells are compose of particles with the same purpose describe above.

Same will apply for the "non-biological" matter. They change (or degrade) from one thing to another. So basically everything is an exchange, today I am one thing, when I die I will become another.

Now, If we go back in time before any "biological" whatever ever existed, we have a lot of particles of whatever that primordial thing was. But they existed in a chaos and somehow they decided to work together. But how they knew there were chaos? Somehow those particles had some kind of intelligence or consciousness (call it whatever you want). And they decided to work together.

But what if they are just particles without any kind of intelligence or consciousness?
Well, then a set of rules had to be present or the environment itself was design in a way that choose which particle will go one way or the other. Now we have another question; What is that environment? Of what is made? Who set the rules for that environment? Is it made of the same particles?

Did they just came to order just because? Ordo ab chao? What is order, what is chaos?

Every particle has a unique set of characteristics, so they group themselves with the most favorable particles in order to survive, but still that shows some kind of intelligence.

And still we have more intriguing questions; From where that intelligence came? How it develop?

The problem with this is that the farther back in time we go, the more subjective the issue becomes.

Haha, what a brilliant response to this thread.
Thanks for all the replies so far, even views I disagree with, it's been really interesting reading, and importantly, nearly everyone is pretty friendly in their interaction, unlike some similar threads I could mention.
Please do keep sharing your thoughts, it is fascinating how we all look at things differently.
...and again, keep it friendly because that always makes for a better conversation, pity some folk on ATS seem to be such grumps, it spoils their message.