It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

page: 17
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by Phage
 


So it all boils down to faith vs. science does it? Interesting.

Let me ask you something. Do you believe that anything exists outside of the universe?


I see your argument as god existing outside the universe..correct?
The problem with this logic is, if existance requires design, but god doesn't because he is outside of existance, then oddly enough, you are making a case for "god doesn't exist."


Actually that is not the case I was trying to build, but now that you bring it up...I believe in a transcendent creator, not confined by our physical laws or dimensions. I am in no position to even make a conjecture as to where God does or does not exists as humanity can barely even define our universe and all that it entails.




posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
You missed it. The OP says that would also be proof of intelligent design.


I thought that was the main premise of the OP?

Yeah mate, I admit I didn't bother reading all of it, that one claim was all I needed to hear lol.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Short. Succinct. I like your approach.

Let me try.



Because the answer is easy for those of faith; "God made it that way."


Again, your definition of faith is more accurately termed "blind faith." Easy to mock, but thankfully, not always the reality (although I'll admit there are cases).



That has not been my experience.


Well, I guess our only hope is that your experience as mine is, is still in process.



Because "why" cannot be answered by means of the scientific method. "Why" has no place in science. "How did the Moon come to be"...yes. "Why is the Moon there"...no.


Science is predicated on rules that don't have explanation from within the universe. Therefore, before those rules can be asserted, the questions of why must be answered.



Um. How can the "laws of the universe" exist outside the universe? How can science explore what is outside of our existence?


Not sure...but according to science they do. You'll have to take that one up with the big dogs at the universities.



Like I say to the Witnesses when they come around. "No thank you, have a nice day."


You're not really afraid that the New York Times would publish an article with an agenda to prosthelytize are you?



You didn't answer my question about why there seems to be a need to "prove" that there is God. Isn't faith enough?


I suppose for similar reasons that you feel the need to prove otherwise. We're both just here trying to figure out what paradigm best fits the world we live in. Sharing ideas and connecting dots is just a part of being human I guess wouldn't you agree?
edit on 2-6-2013 by Afewloosescrews because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


Well, I guess our only hope is that your experience as mine is, is still in process.
Your hope. Why do you hope that? The salvation of my eternal soul? Do I have to believe in Jesus too?


Science is predicated on rules that don't have explanation from within the universe. Therefore, before those rules can be asserted, the questions of why must be answered.
Science is predicated on observation of phenomena. Observation of phenomena outside of the Universe is, by definition, not possible. The rules define the way things behave and predicting the way they will behave. Knowing "why" they behave that way is not required. In fact, no "why" is even required at all.


Not sure...but according to science they do.
According to what science, exactly? Can you point me to some science which deals with conditions outside of the Universe?


You're not really afraid that the New York Times would really publish an article with an agenda to prosthelytize are you?
Afraid? No. But the title was enough to tell me it was pointless. The same way one look at the people at the door tells me who they are and what they have to say.



I suppose for similar reasons that you feel the need to prove otherwise.
Pardon me? Have I attempted to prove the non-existence of God? Can you provide an example?

edit on 6/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




Your hope. Why do you hope that?


Because the end of your experience would imply the end of this life, of course, and neither of us can prove what comes next.



Science is predicated on observation of phenomena.


Scientific observation of phenomena that happens to be dependent on a set of rules which transcendently & independently exist outside of the universe.



According to what science, exactly?


Is it not a requirement that the laws of physics had to have existed before, and therefore outside of the physical universe?



Afraid? No. But the title was enough to tell me it was pointless.


Yet, the title of this thread was enough to suck you in...



Pardon me? Have I attempted to prove the non-existence of God? Can you provide an example?


You have attempted and continue to attempt to diminish a reasonable quandary as to the relationship of the earth and the moon being potential evidence of ID. Prove may have been the wrong turn of phrase, yet somehow I suspect that you're position on the existence of God is less than neutral.
edit on 2-6-2013 by Afewloosescrews because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


Because the end of your experience would imply the end of this life, of course, and neither of us can prove what comes next.
I see. So the Christian outlook is the correct one then. My eternal soul is doomed unless I acknowledge the Christ as my savior?


Scientific observation of phenomena that happens to be dependent on a set of rules which transcendently & independently exist outside of the universe.
According to whom?


Is it not required that the laws of physics existed before, and therefore outside of the physical universe?
No. The laws of physics came into being along with this Universe and were, in fact, in a state of flux in the very early state of the Universe. There is no reason to believe that the laws of physics of other universes (should they exist) would be the same, or even similar, to those of this one.



Prove may have been the wrong turn of phrase, yet somehow I suspect that you're position on the existence of God is less than neutral.
Yes, "prove" was definitely wrong. Since you only "suspect" my position, it's clear that I have not disputed (or supported) the existence of God. The only thing you really know is that I dispute the claim that the Moon is proof of intelligent design.
edit on 6/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




I see. So the Christian outlook is the correct one then. My eternal soul is doomed unless I acknowledge the Christ as my savior?


I guess it's your turn to jump to conclusions. Although I have never stated my belief in regard to the afterlife or the concept of eternity, if your assumption of my beliefs were true, wouldn't it be the noble thing...the loving thing to try and convince you?



According to whom?


According to my understanding of the non-origin of the laws of physics, which as you have suggested, is apparently debated.




No. The laws of physics came into being along with this Universe and were, in fact, in a state of flux in the very early state of the Universe. There is no reason to believe that the laws of physics of other universes (should they exist) would be the same, or even similar, to those of this one.


Hmmm...is that what they're teaching these days? Sounds awfully speculative.



Yes, "prove" was definitely wrong. Since you only "suspect" my position, it's clear that I have not disputed (or supported) the existence of God. The only thing you really know is that I dispute the claim that the Moon is proof of intelligent design.


That's just fine by me. So would you dispute the claim that it could be potential evidence of ID?
edit on 2-6-2013 by Afewloosescrews because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:52 AM
link   
For those who can't be ballsed to read through this whole débacle, I posted a concept I once read (which was later posted as the actual quote, thank you for that), which is of a puddle which ponders one day, "Wow, I fit really well into this crevice; it must have been made for me". I urge you to think about it because it very clearly concludes the whole discussion.

The "I'm special" complex is a man-made one and is the source for the topic in the first place. It is disappointing that I share a planet with so many millions and millions of people who are 'convinced' (through nothing categorically convincing, otherwise every individual on the planet would accept it without question) of such a thing as the Earth being made 'for us', just as the puddle ignores the fact that it just happens to be perfect to its size smply through the natural process of water draining out when it overfilled and the fact the rain fell due to the natural water cycle in the first place. Further, this puddle is sure that it is the only one and that its very existence us special. Of course, all one need do is modify one variable component (tilt, temperature, etc) and it will modify beyond recognition (metaphorically speaking, it will still be 'alive' but of another form due to altered conditions).

So again, how disappointing that some people are convinced of the unconvincable and denounce those who use pure observable logic which is exactly the natural design concept behind all things anyway (if it doesn't work, fix it logically; that's how nature does it, and it couldn't care less who is around and what they think about it!).

Please, oh please, the convinced of the inconvincable, alter your mindsets and realise your puddled existence, for one day, more rain will fall and your foundations will change, and you will be the most lost of us all.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by DB340
 


Yes, and as I recall you received quite the accolades for it. Bravo.

Unfortunately, in this case, the comparison is absurdly inapplicable. The intricacies of the formation and sustainability of life are so much more exponentially complex and dangerously fragile than a puddle of mud that this attempted correlation is nothing short of asinine.

Sure, the analogy might be good for a slap on the back from your circle of friends, or a gold star from your elementary school science teacher, but please...it truly is an insult to your own intelligence.

How many puddles of mud have you come across in your lifetime? OK, now how many planets teaming with life have you come across? I suspect that your ratio might be slightly lop-sided.




Please, oh please, the convinced of the inconvincable, alter your mindsets and realise your puddled existence, for one day, more rain will fall and your foundations will change, and you will be the most lost of us all.


Interesting. For a proponent of naturalism, I find your comments to sound strangely spiritual.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:37 AM
link   
All comments taken in goodly jest.

My puddles are of water, not mud; I suppose your choice of puddle consistency was to enhance your feeling of disregard to my point?

Nevertheless, it is disappointing to learn that I have not jolted you into a more sensible frame of mind, nor perhaps ever will.

The comparison of my puddle's deluded excitement with that of your's regarding our little floating speckled ball of elements is quite well removed from asinine because the core concept remains the same: that of uniqued, biased specialness. The complexity of one's puddle is neither here nor there. What do little bacteria on Mars say to each other about their existence? Even closer to home, what about those fish which live so deep in the seas that the pressure change would kill them should we attempt to bring them to the surface unaided.

They, too, find their environment absolutely perfect so, using your stance on the whole idea of grand design, they, unaware of us, are living a perfect life and must be so thanks to a creator.

The notion of GD is simply a biased observation from a biased observer and rather than saying that I give insult to my intelligence, would you not be quick to accept that you, in fact, are regrettably insulting your own?



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by DB340
 




All comments taken in goodly jest.

Appreciated. Upon re-reading my post, I did come off a bit brash...my sincere apologies. I'll attribute my manners to the late hour here in my time zone.



The comparison of my puddle's deluded excitement with that of your's regarding our little floating speckled ball of elements is quite well removed from asinine because the core concept remains the same: that of uniqued, biased specialness.

I've tried to see it, but I still cannon concede that this is a sound analogy. Water, being neither self aware, nor unique in the cosmos is not a suitable comparison to life on earth. No matter which way you spin it.




The complexity of one's puddle is neither here nor there.

I beg to differ. Complexity is both here and there. If I can't compare apples to oranges, why should you be allowed to compare a simple compound molecule to the earth and its entire system?




What do little bacteria on Mars say to each other about their existence? Even closer to home, what about those fish which live so deep in the seas that the pressure change would kill them should we attempt to bring them to the surface unaided.

I commend that you at least ventured at a better comparison. Unfortunately, living bacteria on mars is unsubstantiated, & deep-sea fish just so happen to share in the special privilege of what we call life...which is in essence what is so special about our circumstances.

The way I see it, the burden of proof is on you to qualify earth as non-special. Show me a system equally as impressive, or even one that supports life at any capacity, and I will accept that by posting this I am regrettably insulting my own intelligence (which I don't claim to hold in high esteem to begin with).



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badgered1
When the argument for ID completely fails, and data and evidence are undeniably against ID, the OP and proponents of this fallacy will just move onto something else. Find a gap somewhere else.
They won't stop believing.

It's fun watching them squirm, though.



Please note that I said, "When..." Future tense. I am convinced that in time ID will be just another idiocy on a long list.

It's a matter of time. If you look at how many "god did it" situations have been proven quite natural by science over the years, you'll see that each time the faithful have turned their attentions to the things left unanswered. Answers come in time with science. With faith based ideas, they remain the same until proven incorrect.

Misreading, and jumping on what you perceived as a inference by me, doesn't answer anything.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I have read the entire thread yet as the title implies there hasn’t been a shred of proof supporting the claim of undeniable proof for intelligent design within these pages.

Plenty of inaccurate claims though. I am beginning to think that belief in a supernatural deity is a sign of mental illness it seems most that hold this belief are devoid of rational thought on the subject.

Maybe I am a little crazy for entertaining the thought that that the claims made by the thread title would hold any merit and wasting my time reading the thread looking for them.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 





more common sense conclusion falls on the side of design.


How so? Who designed the designer?
I'll give you a hint...It's bipedal.


I'm sure you've all heard plenty of analogies which illustrate the problem of chance-origins, so I'll try and conceive my own to keep things interesting.

Let's say I am walking along the Oregon coast one sunny afternoon and I happen to trip on something hard and metallic. I quickly pick up the object and pull off the seaweed to realize I've just stumbled on what looks to be some sort of portable computer. Obviously being tossed to and fro in the ocean has taken its toll on the laptop, but just for curiosities sake I open it up to take a look. To my complete and utter surprise the moment I open it up, the monitor flickers on. Without even attempting to locate information that might shed light on who the owner or manufacturer might be, I quickly close it, stuff it in my duffel bag, and remark "Hmmm...what an amazing seashell."

Now, keeping in mind that the odds of our insurmountably complex system resulting out of chaos and disorder are infinitesimally smaller than the odds of a fully functioning laptop being somehow assembled from scratch by the Pacific ocean, how can I not conclude that there is an intelligent designer behind our universe? Could it be that naturalists have committed themselves to blinding themselves to the multitude of creator's signatures dispersed throughout our world?

As to your second question, I believe it was meant to be rhetorical, so I'll leave it be.


Irrelevant gibberish: this is a red herring to the issue of evolving complex systems and it is just an argument from incredulity. I can't think of how such a complex system could have evolved, it MUST be designed by something. Bad logic does not make reality.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


"You didn't answer my question about why there seems to be a need to "prove" that there is God. Isn't faith enough?"

It is painfully evident there's a need- do you really believe the majority of man made problems over the past and the many faced today has had nothing to do with matters of the heart or spirituality and the answer lies materially under a microscope so to speak?
edit on 2-6-2013 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


I guess it's your turn to jump to conclusions. Although I have never stated my belief in regard to the afterlife or the concept of eternity
I must have misunderstood when you said this:

Because the end of your experience would imply the end of this life, of course,
I thought by saying this life you meant that there could be another...as long as one follows the rules of course, and believes.


According to my understanding of the non-origin of the laws of physics, which as you have suggested, is apparently debated.
Perhaps you can provide a source on which you base your understanding that science says physics existed before the Universe did. Maybe I could help with what seems to be your misunderstanding.


Hmmm...is that what they're teaching these days? Sounds awfully speculative.
Yes, it is speculative. Because it is not possible to know otherwise.


So would you dispute the claim that it could be potential evidence of ID?
"Could be potential evidence"? What does that even mean? Maybe it might be? That is such a vague statement that it leaves nothing to "dispute". Maybe there might be unicorns.

edit on 6/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 




Irrelevant gibberish: this is a red herring to the issue of evolving complex systems and it is just an argument from incredulity. I can't think of how such a complex system could have evolved, it MUST be designed by something. Bad logic does not make reality.


Wrong. The alleged logical fallacy you are attempting to apply to my commentary is simply not applicable. I never said that it was inconceivable that the conditions for our "evolving complex systems" might have come about by chance. I am more than willing to entertain that possibility. What I am saying, however is that based on the odds of this coming about (as illustrated in my analogy) I think the more reasonable explanation is ID.

If your real issue is that you don't like dealing in metaphor, I can accept that. Keep in mind, however, that with that same token you would also be forced to reject the puddle of water metaphor.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Perhaps you can provide a source on which you base your understanding that science says physics existed before the Universe did. Maybe I could help with what seems to be your misunderstanding.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." - Stephen Hawking

Would this not imply that laws such as gravity exist outside of the universe?



"Could be potential evidence"? What does that even mean? Maybe it might be? That is such a vague statement that it leaves nothing to "dispute". Maybe there might be unicorns.

You have me a bit confused as to what, in your belief, is grounds for reasonable speculation? In just your last statement you admitted in regard to the origins of the laws of the universe:


Yes, it is speculative. Because it is not possible to know otherwise.


So where again does speculation based on perceived evidence end and fairy tales and unicorns begin?
edit on 2-6-2013 by Afewloosescrews because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


In the same vein, you speak of astronomical odds. Those odds of complex evolution are bound to be met in the event of a multiverse. No intelligent design necessary.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


...and we move even further into the realm of chasing unicorns.

The way I see it, there are two reasons the OP is taking so much flack for this thread. 1.) the title claims proof of the unprovable (which he has since admitted was a mistake in wording), and 2.) there are those of you who are so blinded by your pre-supposed notion of naturalism, you wouldn't even admit to the apparent evidence of ID even if it smacked you upside the head.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join