Intelligent Design Explain Simply

These are just words.
There is however a result which we would be foolish to explain.
our tools are not able to explain these matters.

to me it makes some sense, that for a supreme intelligence, the mechanisms of creation put forward by atheist seem fair enough.
Yet I am not an atheist.
I would hope God just made physics, and ran with it.

originally posted by: cooperton

This is why God has been called 'Logos', which means both "word" and "reason/logic".

(Jehovah) God is not called “the Logos” in the bible. Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman, not the logos of Greek philosophy. Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.”* Christians, he said, received the word in the person of Christ himself. However, logos in the sense of reason is found in every man, including pagans. Thus, he concluded, those who live in harmony with reason are Christians, even those who claimed or were thought to be atheists, like Socrates and others.

Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christendom to the Trinity dogma.

*:

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.

Source: The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000

originally posted by: Blue Shift

What's the motivation?

children of God can add nothing to God, but why would God not add more conscious aware beings to the universe? As a Creator your Will would be to create. We are the fortunate beneficiaries to this gift of life. As an interesting paradox, those who are forever always did exist, and this journey is us remembering our eternal dwelling which has been historically referred to as the birthright.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: cooperton

Sounds about right, though from a Christian perspective quite a bit. What does your last quote "ask in my name" even mean? Ask in who's name JC's? Why would that be relevant?

The point is that all will be given to someone who synchronizes their life with the Creator. In this way hedonism is a trap because you are seeking something that you could also have more abundantly if you primarily sought God. Solomon for example primarily sought the wisdom of God and was given everything he asked for in the name of God.

originally posted by: whereislogic

(Jehovah) God is not called “the Logos” in the bible. Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman, not the logos of Greek philosophy.

Jehovah creating all by His Word in Genesis was what the early Christians referred to as the Logos, which they realized Jesus was the embodiment of the Logos. John explains this very succinctly John describes Logos

originally posted by: wheresthebody
This sounds like a video game

From what I gather, it is a sort of simulation where we develop into the next step once we prove we are ready. The word "matrix" means 'womb/breeding woman' and is also derived from the latin 'mater' (mother)

Jesus refers to the matrix

originally posted by: Barcs

That's actually the woowoo interpretation of the double slit. The experiment actually has nothing to do with conscious observation, the observer effect is the microscope taking readings, which is what causes the wave function to collapse into a particle, which happens every time it takes readings regardless of whether or not a conscious individual is looking at it.

You could have that opinion, but all the major nobel prize winning quantum physicists disagree with that opinion.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: cooperton

when are you actually going to " explain " the principle of " inteligent design " ?

The genetic code is a blatant manifestation of the intelligent work of a Coder/Creator. But these obvious representations can be stubbornly ignored to persist the material-reductionist narrative.

a reply to: cooperton

So if the invisible Primordial Awareness manifested on the material plane, what would It (for lack of a better word) look like? A human being. Look at your self, you are an upright bipedal super computer that has seamlessly been integrated with your consciousness. The human body is the form of God manifest. We have the ideal vessel for the Creative Spirit - our bodies are organic machines capable of all sorts of material and mental creations.

so basically god is a reflection of our own ego. fascinating.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

so basically god is a reflection of our own ego. fascinating.

I think a better analogy would be that humankind is God's shadow. A shadow is to a 3-Dimensional object as we are to God.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

so basically god is a reflection of our own ego. fascinating.

I think a better analogy would be that humankind is God's shadow. A shadow is to a 3-Dimensional object as we are to God.

what makes you think that humans are so closely related to a cosmic figure of that status?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

what makes you think that humans are so closely related to a cosmic figure of that status?

We are the apex creator creature on the planet. We have an anatomy that allows us to create amazing/horrible things, much greater than any animal on earth. Our eldest brother also came down to tell us of our potential intimate relationship with God - it was so impactful that we re-oriented our calendar system around his coming.

a reply to: cooperton

We are the apex creator creature on the planet

that is an arrogant statement to make. we are not apex or we would not fear our own government. we are not creators or we would not need planet earth to teach us how chemistry and physics works. but we are creatures...very self important creatures who enjoy being reassured of our relevance.

We have an anatomy that allows us to create amazing/horrible things, much greater than any animal on earth.

this sounds like pride, a sense of accomplishment that leads us to believe we are not just worthy, but deserving of a special place in the universe. another word for pride is ego.

Our eldest brother also came down to tell us of our potential intimate relationship with God - it was so impactful that we re-oriented our calendar system around his

reorienting the calendar system was the european version of putting god on our money. does not mean there is a direct causality between our currency and divine mandate. likewise, the calendar revision was directly due to the economy as opposed to being an edict from the heavens. money has always been far more impactful than any god, which is why churches can never get enough of it.

do you have a better argument to offer?

originally posted by: cooperton
You could have that opinion, but all the major nobel prize winning quantum physicists disagree with that opinion.

They do? Show me tangible proof that demonstrates consciousness itself is responsible for the observer effect. Sorry, but it's impossible to prove that since the microscope will collapse wave function every time, regardless of consciousness.

Here's Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about it with Joe Rogan.

youtu.be...

Intelligent Design explained simply:

God did it because some things are complex and because we don't know the answers to everything.

originally posted by: Barcs

They do? Show me tangible proof that demonstrates consciousness itself is responsible for the observer effect.

You are asking me to prove that observers are responsible for the observer effect? You are asking me to prove that 1=1. Of course Neil DeGrasse et al are going to clamor their way away from empirical evidence that disagrees with their narrative. A scientist should value empirical evidence over opinion.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

this sounds like pride, a sense of accomplishment that leads us to believe we are not just worthy, but deserving of a special place in the universe. another word for pride is ego.

It is not pride, it is matter of fact. Humans are special. You have it too, just stop being so stubbornly nihilistic. Seriously. It can drastically change your life.

originally posted by: cooperton
You are asking me to prove that observers are responsible for the observer effect? You are asking me to prove that 1=1. Of course Neil DeGrasse et al are going to clamor their way away from empirical evidence that disagrees with their narrative. A scientist should value empirical evidence over opinion.

No, I said CONSCIOUSNESS. The microscope is the "observer." What empirical evidence are you talking about that links consciousness to the observer effect?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: cooperton
You are asking me to prove that observers are responsible for the observer effect? You are asking me to prove that 1=1. Of course Neil DeGrasse et al are going to clamor their way away from empirical evidence that disagrees with their narrative. A scientist should value empirical evidence over opinion.

No, I said CONSCIOUSNESS. The microscope is the "observer." What empirical evidence are you talking about that links consciousness to the observer effect?

the double slit experiment, supposedly.

The thing to remember, I suppose, is that the concept of "time" is very poorly understood. People get hung up on the ideas of beginnings and endings, Alphas and Omegas, and that things are created and destroyed, rather than just existing and changing forms. So the notion that there was no creation, and therefore no creator, is hard for some people to grasp, especially if they get a lot of their notions of cosmology from books written when people were just moving beyond worshiping earth and animal spirits.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: cooperton
You are asking me to prove that observers are responsible for the observer effect? You are asking me to prove that 1=1. Of course Neil DeGrasse et al are going to clamor their way away from empirical evidence that disagrees with their narrative. A scientist should value empirical evidence over opinion.

No, I said CONSCIOUSNESS. The microscope is the "observer." What empirical evidence are you talking about that links consciousness to the observer effect?

the double slit experiment, supposedly.

Yeah, I get that they think this, but the experiment itself is about the electron microscope taking readings, which causes the collapse of wave function to particles every time the microscope observes it. There is no way to determine that consciousness affects this, since you can't take a measurement without the observer effect happening. People seem to think it literally means that things don't exist unless they are consciously observed (looked at) and that consciousness manipulates reality, but there is no evidence of that.

Personally, I think that the particles are simply too small to be accurately measured and observed.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Blue Shift
What's the motivation?

The motivation is love and relationship, God created humanity to be equals as I understand

Equals to what? Humanity can only exist in .000000001% (probably more 0's in that fraction too) of the universe. Hell we can't even exist on most places on earth as it is covered by water. Even IF you isolate the scope down to just land on Earth we STILL can't live everywhere as there are extreme conditions in places that prevent us from doing so.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Blue Shift
What's the motivation?

The motivation is love and relationship, God created humanity to be equals as I understand

Equals to what? Humanity can only exist in .000000001% (probably more 0's in that fraction too) of the universe. Hell we can't even exist on most places on earth as it is covered by water. Even IF you isolate the scope down to just land on Earth we STILL can't live everywhere as there are extreme conditions in places that prevent us from doing so.

I believe humans are both physical and spiritual
But only you can be right, no other opinion matters but yours

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: cooperton
You are asking me to prove that observers are responsible for the observer effect? You are asking me to prove that 1=1. Of course Neil DeGrasse et al are going to clamor their way away from empirical evidence that disagrees with their narrative. A scientist should value empirical evidence over opinion.

No, I said CONSCIOUSNESS. The microscope is the "observer." What empirical evidence are you talking about that links consciousness to the observer effect?

the double slit experiment, supposedly.

Yeah, I get that they think this, but the experiment itself is about the electron microscope taking readings, which causes the collapse of wave function to particles every time the microscope observes it. There is no way to determine that consciousness affects this, since you can't take a measurement without the observer effect happening. People seem to think it literally means that things don't exist unless they are consciously observed (looked at) and that consciousness manipulates reality, but there is no evidence of that.

Personally, I think that the particles are simply too small to be accurately measured and observed.

that is exactly the idea here, that existence itself is impossible unless observed on a cosmic scale. basically god generates reality by watching it happen. but good luck designing an experiment to falsify this hypothesis.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

maybe you could take a moment to show us in explicit detail exactly how divine meddling produced life on earth as we know it. the thread you made on that topic was very lacking on technical details and i am sure there are a lot of questions about the mechanics of your hypothesis. maybe we can even help you devise a means of testing it for falsifiability. otherwise there is just no way to prove your ideas are better than the theory of evolution. its your word against thousands of credited professionals who can show their work.

If you have questions about my thoughts on Creation let's talk in this thread

here we are, now answer my request please? quoted below for convenience.

maybe you could take a moment to show us in explicit detail exactly how divine meddling produced life on earth as we know it. the thread you made on that topic was very lacking on technical details and i am sure there are a lot of questions about the mechanics of your hypothesis. maybe we can even help you devise a means of testing it for falsifiability. otherwise there is just no way to prove your ideas are better than the theory of evolution. its your word against thousands of credited professionals who can show their work.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
maybe you could take a moment to show us in explicit detail exactly how divine meddling produced life on earth as we know it.

Take for example Luc Montagnier's recent experiments with Viruses. He found that viruses emit a particular frequency that is unique to each particular virus. He recorded that frequency, and emitted it onto a vial of water that contained basic building blocks of life. The nucleotides in the vial of water, when exposed to the frequency, assembled into the same genetic sequence as the original virus, with up to 96% accuracy if my memory is right.

more info

This demonstrates that the sequence of genetic code is programmed into particular electromagnetic spectra. It is not matter that reacted over time to create the genetic code, but rather there is essential electromagnetic data that is capable of creating a logical genetic. It seems obvious in hindsight that genetic code would need a Coder.

a reply to: cooperton

Now for the most crucial test: could the EM signals transmitted to the pure water that never had DNA in it provide sufficient information to recreate the DNA sequence? To do the test, all the ingredients necessary for synthesizing the DNA by the polymerase chain reaction – nucleotides, primers, polymerase enzyme - were added to the tube with the pure water that had gained the EM signal. The amplification was done under ordinary conditions, and the DNA produced was then run through an agarose gel electrophoresis.

A DNA band of the expected size (104 bp) was found. It was 98 percent identical to the sequence of DNA from which the EM signals originated (only 2 out of 104 basepairs were different).

if 2% of the code is lost with every replication, it would take ten copies to lose a fifth of its genetic integrity from the original version. this does not strike me as intelligent coding. and it seems that article was more concerned with water being a fascinating transistor as opposed to suggesting that DNA is exhibiting the finger prints of a divine architect.

do you have more to share? this was better than nothing, but it is not explicit detail nor was it a diagram of how divine meddling produced reality as we know it. pull back the curtain on the wizard for us please, got a lot of ground to cover if you want to beat MES.