God's Fingerprint On Creation Found!

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Why can't things just be ? Why must we add the human element of "there must be a creator" into the mix. It's things like this which turn people insane when they ponder too long and cannot come with up with a definitive answer.

Seriously why must there be a creator when we only base it off our inferior human intellect (don't forget we only use like 20% of our brains) from what we know on old terra firma why does it need to have been created ? Why can't it just have always existed ? Lest it's just an answer to stop you questioning it, so you can move onto something else to question ?

reply to post by Discotech


Because if the universe always existed it wouldn't be expanding. If something is expanding then it had to have a beginning. If something had a beginning then it was created; unless you have seen something naturally appear from nothing. You probably still believe in the Steady State Theory.

reply to post by Discotech


Why does it need not have been? The question works both ways. Personally I think people who argue 100% either way are chasing some other agenda.

The very premise of this thread comes from a place of ignorance. i.e. Whatever you personally don't understand in this universe, or whatever mystifies you must be attributed to God. It is a logical fallacy!


The Worship Of Gaps
"I don't understand, therefore it must be god!"

Richard Dawkins explains it nicely in "The God Delusion"

Creationalists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that GOD, by default, must fill it. What worries thoughtful theologians such as Bonhoeffer is that gaps shrink as science advances, and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide. What worries scientists is something else. It is an essential part of the scientific enterprise to admit ignorance, even to exult in ignorance as a challenge to future conquests. As my friend Matt Ridley has written, "Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on". Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a different reason: it gives them something to do. More generally, as I shall repeat in Chapter 8, one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding.

Admissions of ignorance and temporary mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore unfortunate, to say the least, that the main strategy of creation propagandists is the negative one of seeking out gaps in scientific knowledge and claiming to fill them with 'intelligent design' by default.

Source

IRM

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Well I am happy we agree then.

I feel as if many people label themselves atheists when in reality they just have no damn clue in whats out there and are proud to admit that.

God? Maybe.

Endless cycle? Maybe.

Religion? Maybe (nah).

Countless dimensions? Maybe.

Who knows. Maybe everything.

Lets keep discovering and not make our ideas so concrete.

reply to post by InfaRedMan


Is Richard Dawkins God ?

Or does he just think he is ?

Why quote him, what makes him important ?

Is it because he says what you believe ??

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by Discotech

 

If something is expanding then it had to have a beginning.

Sorry but where is it written that anything with a beginning is always expanding ?

Please tell me just Why that should be the case and why it can't have always existed ?

If God can have always existed with no creator then why can the universe not follow this rule too ?

Our minds are not intelligent enough to comprehend such questions unfortunately as we simply don't know enough to make even the most educated of guesses, the stage we're at now is basically sticking assumptions on a dart board and blindfolding ourselves and throwing darts at the board to pick an answer

Wow, this video doesn't prove a d*mn thing about a creator. All it proves/shows is that nature follows patterns. Efficiency will be found and adopted by nature. Nothing more, nothing less. I just love how the religious folk go" see, we cant explain or prove it, proof of a creator.". uhhhhh no. Sorry, but it will take a lot more then that.

Also, the video PURPOSEFULLY chooses the fingerprint out of all the examples because we have fingerprints and we are designers so proof that there was a designer. VERY MISLEADING. What if they had chosen the sea shell? Then the creator would be a snail like figure. See how that works? Nature will find the most efficient way to do something and "run with it" for lack of a better term.

If anything, it would almost prove that mother nature is a living entity of some sorts more then it proves there is a "creator".

It's like a conversation I had with my mother one time. She said "if there is no god then how did the mountains get there?" I told her it's called plate tectonics. Just like the universe must be created by god because how else could it have happened? Oh right...we have things called SATELLITES that actually show us galaxies being formed. NOT BY MAGIC.

Sorry religious folk...EPIC FAIL!

reply to post by Discotech


Picking and choosing quotes to prove a point doesn't help you much. I should have worded it better but it was in reference to the universe. Thanks for taking my comment out of context to support your opinion

Originally posted by malcr
Oh please! Just because the universe follows a pattern is not an indicator of a creator. It is an indication of something very interesting for us to discover. Like all things through time man (in his ignorance) invents a god for that which he doesn't understand. Some of us are willing to admit "we don't know yet.....but we will eventually".

God(s) are for the ignorant and those who fear death.

eeerrrmm.. yea.. it's not a pattern.. you missed the point.. it's the MATH that MAKES the pattern..

math is the only unverisal language ..

reply to post by rationaluser

Originally posted by rationaluser
Oh great ANOTHER thread where the dellusional religious fanatics post praise for pseudo scientific links someone found on the internet. Despite the fact that numbers WERE created by man and obviously did evolve otherwise cavemen would be doing algebra and lucasian mathmatics a feat which is utterly hilarious to think about but still near impossible. If you fundies and religious types are going to "prove god exists" it isn't going to be on the internet where anything can be faked and rebuttal is just around the corner.

Us religious fundies ain’t tryin` uh prov God zists - shooot. It cain’t be dun.

God created man so we would have to choose Him without evidence – it’s called faith.
Don’t forget, what you believe is only a theory> with no missing link and with odds of (only) 1 in 1.28 X 10^175 chance even happening - also called faith.

Love ya.

Originally posted by jimmyx
the existance of "god" simply cannot be known. the control of people's lives by those that believe is, however, well known. to suggest a lack of morality without god, is false, and has been proven with the discoveries of tribes of people cutoff from the known world, who were discovered and observed in the south pacific a few decades back. they had a code of ethics and morals not related to any god, only from their own origination.

what's to say that God didn't INSPIRE thier thoughts to create the 'code of ethics'.. ?

Originally posted by NaturaltoBelieve
reply to post by InfaRedMan

 

Is Richard Dawkins God ?

Or does he just think he is ?

Ummm... Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in a god. Your assumptions, again, are based on ignorance. Your one comment above actually does much to prove the mindset he describes in 'The God Delusion'.

i.e. Illogical conclusions based solely on ignorance.

Why quote him, what makes him important ?

I quote him because it is an accurate observation of creationalists, and historically, of how religious doctrine has consistently been proven wrong by scientific discovery.

Is it because he says what you believe ??

One does not need to believe in observation.

IRM

[edit on 16/5/10 by InfaRedMan]

reply to post by DTOXsick

Sorry religious folk...EPIC FAIL!

Careful, your emotional bias is showing, yelling that the video is an epic failure.

But your right about the mountains

reply to post by InfaRedMan


Which religious doctrine has been proven wrong by science? Did you forget to read the post that says one of the religious doctrine proved science wrong? Maybe you are displaying this ignorance yourself.

Originally posted by malcr

God(s) are for the ignorant and those who fear death.

God can refer to many things.

And I think you are ignorant for ruling out a possibility - no matter how small the chances are.

FYI - I know many people who believe in God and do not fear death.

I do not believe in God and do not fear death (in certain circumstances that is).

God can also be perceived in many different ways. You need to be clearer if you are referring to a religious God are something supernatural that we do not understand as of yet.

Yes.. I love the vid~! It's something I've always believed in .. Math is and always will be God's unverisal language; meaning, no matter where you go on our planet, even if you can't speak their language in another country.. you can still communicate thru.. Math .. it's unverisal.

reply to post by InfaRedMan


So you believe in what Richard Dawkins says. Is it the ultimate truth or just his views.

What makes him right and the bible wrong ? Apart from belief from either side.

I don't understand why Atheist quote him. I thought they had made up their own mind, I thought they were free thinkers.

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by InfaRedMan

 

Which religious doctrine has been proven wrong by science? Did you forget to read the post that says one of the religious doctrine proved science wrong? Maybe you are displaying this ignorance yourself.

Roughly Translated:

Ooga Booga... Ooga Booga!

IRM

reply to post by NaturaltoBelieve


Look.. I don't hold it against you that you cannot wrap your mind around my Dawkins quote. That's why it's easier for you to use a bog standard answer for everything you don't understand in life.

Your name says it all really! Nothing to question here huh. It's 'natural'.. to just believe.

IRM