Science=God, God=Science, page 3

reply to post by ObservingTheWorld

---

Okay, let's agree that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Fine. We take that as a fact of faith. Now here is where you need to do a little 'open minded' thinking.

Wait..."open minded thinking" is only required AFTER pretending "god created..." is a fact?

Until you or someone else proves god's existence in the first place, everything else is nothing but a god of the gaps argument. We DON'T KNOW how it all started, so by claiming "god did it", you are essentially filling a gap in knowledge with MAGIC.

And just fyi, the "god did it" track record is pretty horrible. They said he's responsible for plagues, we now know that's complete and utter nonsense. And the same goes for comets being a sign of god, floods created by god, or that silly Genesis account that's demonstrably wrong.

reply to post by Barcs

---

I guess you are right. I guess I didn't say it right.

reply to post by ImNotHuman

---

How on earth is a mathematical ratio proof of a creator? It could be just as well caused by natural forces...

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by ImNotHuman

---

How on earth is a mathematical ratio proof of a creator? It could be just as well caused by natural forces...

There is rules to follow when the "natural forces" create and its phi (or math in general) and that proves that it had to be some kind of intellegence behind the creation. The natural forces IS "God" and because the "natural forces" follow these priciples of phi it is intellegent

(if a 2 yr old draws is he just scribbling or is he drawing something that you can decipher w/e it might be)

and because its (natural forces you say) everywhere and god is everywhere and God is all then it is "God" who created it all and put these laws (phi) in motion

Originally posted by ImNotHuman

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by ImNotHuman

---

How on earth is a mathematical ratio proof of a creator? It could be just as well caused by natural forces...

There is rules to follow when the "natural forces" create and its phi (or math in general) and that proves that it had to be some kind of intellegence behind the creation. The natural forces IS "God" and because the "natural forces" follow these priciples of phi it is intellegent

(if a 2 yr old draws is he just scribbling or is he drawing something that you can decipher w/e it might be)

and because its (natural forces you say) everywhere and god is everywhere and God is all then it is "God" who created it all and put these laws (phi) in motion

Now you're using the argument from complexity. Just because there's a pattern doesn't mean there's intelligence required. In the desert, sand dunes show patterns...but guess what, they're not the product of intelligence.

So no, mathematical ratios don't prove intelligence

and because its (natural forces you say) everywhere and god is everywhere and God is all then it is "God" who created it all and put these laws (phi) in motion

That's circular reasoning

You can't state that "god did it all" and justify it with "god did it all"

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by ImNotHuman

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by ImNotHuman

---

How on earth is a mathematical ratio proof of a creator? It could be just as well caused by natural forces...

There is rules to follow when the "natural forces" create and its phi (or math in general) and that proves that it had to be some kind of intellegence behind the creation. The natural forces IS "God" and because the "natural forces" follow these priciples of phi it is intellegent

(if a 2 yr old draws is he just scribbling or is he drawing something that you can decipher w/e it might be)

and because its (natural forces you say) everywhere and god is everywhere and God is all then it is "God" who created it all and put these laws (phi) in motion

Now you're using the argument from complexity. Just because there's a pattern doesn't mean there's intelligence required. In the desert, sand dunes show patterns...but guess what, they're not the product of intelligence.

So no, mathematical ratios don't prove intelligence

and because its (natural forces you say) everywhere and god is everywhere and God is all then it is "God" who created it all and put these laws (phi) in motion

That's circular reasoning

You can't state that "god did it all" and justify it with "god did it all"

edit on 16-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

The patterns in the deserts are natural. The wind which blows its sand and it gives us oxygen to breathe is natural. The planet that its wind blows in and we call home is natural. The galaxy that spirals in the universe is natural.

All of these natural occurences is proof of intellegence because if it wasnt an intellegent design behind it it would be random and then we wouldnt be here. If it were "random natural"(not following rules to creation ie golden ratio) would mean its a 50/50 chance of success and failure and this place is obvioulsly successive place with no failures.

your thinking natural like it has no rules to how it works and it obvioulsy does. this "natural" way of creating successful creations is the proof of intellegence because everything is food or energy for something else. everything helps the next thing in some kind of way. thats not random

we are here today because something happened that caused the next thing. and if it were random with no intellegence behind it WE wouldnt be able to follow the random events that happened.

reply to post by ImNotHuman

---

All of these natural occurences is proof of intellegence because if it wasnt an intellegent design behind it it would be random and then we wouldnt be here. If it were "random natural"(not following rules to creation ie golden ratio) would mean its a 50/50 chance of success and failure and this place is obvioulsly successive place with no failures.

That's nonsense...

Again, you are using the argument from complexity....a very common argumentative fallacy. Just because something is ordered or shows a pattern doesn't mean intelligence is required. So on one hand you admit the patterns in the sand are the result of the natural wind...yet then you take the HUGE leap of faith and basically claim the wind is a result of physical forces that are obviously created by intelligence. Where's the proof? You're simply ignoring the fact that a natural pattern I named didn't require intelligence. So if that one didn't require intelligence, how can you then simply claim the physics behind it are the result of intelligence???

And just fyi, very rarely something has a 50/50 chance of happening. Not sure what you mean by "failure" because we are just the product of past events...hell, for that species that was hoping for earth being a helium planet, earth is a massive failure

Where's your positive proof that patterns require intelligence?

reply to post by MrXYZ

---

Im saying anything natural is the product of the intellegent design because "Naturally" everything natural follows a guided set of rules which makes its outcome the way it is. It Naturally occurred because those occrrences are natural. This natural way IS the intellegence behind it. Evolution its self is natural because it naturally happens.

Originally posted by ImNotHuman
reply to post by MrXYZ

---

Im saying anything natural is the product of the intellegent design because "Naturally" everything natural follows a guided set of rules which makes its outcome the way it is. It Naturally occurred because those occrrences are natural. This natural way IS the intellegence behind it. Evolution its self is natural because it naturally happens.

You can't just claim "natural" suddenly requires intelligence as a prerequisite. Where's your proof? You're simply making a claim...and then use that as "proof".

Again, what's your proof that "natural" automatically requires intelligence?

Biggest conspiracy known to man is that when you are told what you are inhaling and exhaling is oxygen... This ["Oxygen"] is god.

Consciousness, our ability to be aware. We tend to think it comes from us... but the argument is that if we are separated from this for 4 minutes... what's the first think you lose? Consciousness. Therefore consciousness does not come from you, it is a gift from god.

Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.
  Posted 15 days ago with 20 member flags

Christians help me debunk these non sense atheistic beliefs about Genesis please
  Posted 3 days ago with 14 member flags

Satan hid the fossils to trick everyone!
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags

Just ONE question on evolution
  Posted 15 days ago with 5 member flags

M U T A T I O N - Friend or Foe of Evolution?
  Posted 8 days ago with 5 member flags

When a Child is Born...the Evolution begins
  Posted 5 days ago with 5 member flags

Denisovans
  Posted 15 days ago with 3 member flags

Are Humans the result of Hybridization?
  Posted 14 days ago with 3 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: