Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

Apologies for thread drift and argumentativeness. Signing out of thread, wrong forum, sorry!

spy66
Yes, Jeus even walked on water. Jesus split a big bolder in two and gave water to a Whole tribe.

Jesus did lot of Things. And you can not disprove any of it.

Can you please point where does it say he did all of this, and what kind of evidence outside of Bible we have for his existence?

Another thing I would love to hear from you, if he existed, how did he look?

Krazysh0t

PhotonEffect

Krazysh0t

spy66
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

What evidence do you have that God formed singularity?

I have a problem when it comes to my evidence. Because first i must have Your agreement that the infinite must exist.

Well i dont really need it because it is common sense that it must exists, even without proof.

From there i can prove to you that God must exist, and that only God would be able to form finite "And that is any finite".

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

I believe in infinity, so lay down your proof that God created the singularity.

Not possible, since there is no proof of a singularity. Unless that's the point of this little exercise.

So what we have here are two entities that are not explicitly known to exist, but are "believed" to.
Back to square one...

Hey, I'm just trying to get him to explain his proof here. He claims he has proof that relies on the premise that the infinite exists, so I said ok I accept that premise, what is your proof?

Just dropping a reminder to spy, I'm still waiting for that proof of how the infinite proves God.

Krazysh0t

Krazysh0t

PhotonEffect

Krazysh0t

spy66
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

What evidence do you have that God formed singularity?

I have a problem when it comes to my evidence. Because first i must have Your agreement that the infinite must exist.

Well i dont really need it because it is common sense that it must exists, even without proof.

From there i can prove to you that God must exist, and that only God would be able to form finite "And that is any finite".

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

I believe in infinity, so lay down your proof that God created the singularity.

Not possible, since there is no proof of a singularity. Unless that's the point of this little exercise.

So what we have here are two entities that are not explicitly known to exist, but are "believed" to.
Back to square one...

Hey, I'm just trying to get him to explain his proof here. He claims he has proof that relies on the premise that the infinite exists, so I said ok I accept that premise, what is your proof?

Just dropping a reminder to spy, I'm still waiting for that proof of how the infinite proves God.

This topic is dead. The moderator killed it for all i care.

AugustusMasonicus

GargIndia
Your ancestors did not live through the bronze age. And you of course do not believe your own history.

If my ancestors 'did not live through the Bronze Age' how is it that I am here?

What knowledge of science do you have? Would be very interested to know.

My knowledge of science is that it is not based on religious stories from 3,000 years ago.

My problem is I have no idea which stories from "3000 years ago" you are talking about?

At least you agree that your ancestors lived through the bronze age. So you do have a history.

Historical tales may be correct or incorrect, but every civilization likes to know its history. It is same with Indians.

SuperFrog

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

Albert Einstein

I love how Morgan Freeman explains the balloon thing...

www.thedailyshow.com...

A lot of balloon stuff...

I have a feeling that you have accorded a "god" status to Einstein. So whatever he said is gospel for you.

Let me tell you something about belief. You believe in every theorem in your science book, but have you tried all the experiments yourself? Of course not.

You believe the theorems are correct because you trust the people who conducted the experiment.

It is the same with religious belief. People have religious belief because they trust the person who said what they believe.

deleted

spy66
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

What evidence do you have that God formed singularity?

I have a problem when it comes to my evidence. Because first i must have Your agreement that the infinite must exist.

Well i dont really need it because it is common sense that it must exists, even without proof.

From there i can prove to you that God must exist, and that only God would be able to form finite "And that is any finite".

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

First of all, God can not be proven from an argument between "finite" and "infinite".

Universe is called "brahmand" or egg of God in 'Veda'. It means the Universe has a definite shape and so is finite.

If Universe is finite, then everything else must be finite too - except (perhaps) the power of God who creates this space.

Both space and time are "created" entities according to "Veda".

However space can be traversed in both directions. Time cannot be traversed in both directions. Time is one way. This is the reason past cannot come back, and you cannot go into the future.

spy66
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Actually yes science, notably math can prove that it didn't take place. The dimensions for the ark are listed in the bible, you can build a scale model then determine the area that will be needed for two of every animal on the planet. If the area of all those animals exceeds the internal area of the ark, then it is impossible. Keep in mind the ark also needs to have the space for supplies, living quarters, and the operators of the vessel as well. Oh yeah and it also needs to be able to hold up under its own weight.

All of that is JUST issues with the ark. Not to mention geologists study sediment layers and can tell if there was a flood in the area. A global flood from the time frame in the bible is all but disproven.

None of this can actually disprove that it didnt take Place. It is just used as a argument. But it is not proof.

Science cant even figure out how the pyramids were built. But they were built.

What would science have stated today if the Pyramids were only a story and not a Visual fact?

Mathematically and cientifically the Egyptions shouldnt have been able to build them. Becase we dont know they did it.

Science certainly has disproven young earth creationism. It may not have disproven the idea that God created the universe and uses all the laws of physics, evolution and abiogenesis to create and develop life, but hey that's why I'm an agnostic.

I agree. Science have disproved that the Preachers of the Bible are wrong about the Young earth. And that is a good thing. But i dont think it will change anything when it comes to what they believe.

You have alot of misconceptions first we do know there was no great flood only local ones same as today. Second we know how the Egyptians built the pyramids theirs no mystery there any more.We found the tools they used we found there quarries and we found the actual tombs of the workers and they tell us what they did. As far as god using physics to create the universe if he can create physics why go thru the trouble why not just create what you want in the first place. Your going to rely on chance to create your vision you could end up waiting a very long time.

GargIndia
I have a feeling that you have accorded a "god" status to Einstein. So whatever he said is gospel for you.

I'm not superfrog but I'm willing to bet that isn't the case.

Let me tell you something about belief. You believe in every theorem in your science book, but have you tried all the experiments yourself? Of course not.

You believe the theorems are correct because you trust the people who conducted the experiment.

It is the same with religious belief. People have religious belief because they trust the person who said what they believe.

Actually there is more to it than that. Usually with science many people have conducted the experiment and they share their results. With religion there is usually just one.

For example Moses didn't talk to a burning bush in front of everybody else. He went away and came back telling his story of what had happened without anybody being able to duplicate the experience.

There are many simple experiments that one can carry out to confirm much of what science is saying. You don't just have to take somebodies word.

The biggest difference is that if you stumble upon an error you have the chance to show that an error was made in previous experiments. Members of ATS have asked you to share why you think the atomic clock experiments are wrong. That is a perfect example of this.

I happen to think that there may be something wrong and even got into a bit of a debate over it with a college professor but I could not explain it then and I still can't. You have not either.

The point being that there is a certain group of people who are willing to listen to alternatives but there has to be something to it, something that can back up the claim, otherwise it just doesn't have the strength to topple something which kind of explains it, even if that explination is not complete.

GargIndia
My problem is I have no idea which stories from "3000 years ago" you are talking about?

Any of the Bronze Age fairy tales from the Bible/Koran/Torah/Vedas/etc.

At least you agree that your ancestors lived through the bronze age. So you do have a history.

Why would I not? You were the one who made this strawman argument to begin with.

Historical tales may be correct or incorrect, but every civilization likes to know its history. It is same with Indians.

Historical tales are historic because of evidentiary proof. Apocryphal tales from religious texts (physics-defying boats, flying craft, magical prophets, etc.) are not because there is no evidentiary proof.

GargIndia
I have a feeling that you have accorded a "god" status to Einstein. So whatever he said is gospel for you.

Just as daskakik already said, that is not the case. If you knew anything about Einstein, you would know that more than once he was wrong, his theories did not work...

GargIndia
Let me tell you something about belief. You believe in every theorem in your science book, but have you tried all the experiments yourself? Of course not.

Hey, you got it right! Of course it is impossible to do all experiments myself, but for your info, there is that thing called collaboration as well research papers. Experiment has to be repeatable and result should be the same - basic principle of science. Reading about all of those experiments is research as well, I believe we have already established that....

GargIndiaYou believe the theorems are correct because you trust the people who conducted the experiment.

It is the same with religious belief. People have religious belief because they trust the person who said what they believe.

No, you got it wrong this time. I believe the theorems are correct because I have opportunity to do exactly the same experiment and will come to the same conclusion. I don't trust the people just because of their name or prefix next to their name, there is no need for that.

Let's have Tim Minchin explain better what I mean:

If anyone can show me one example in the history of the world of a single
Psychic who has been able to prove under reasonable experimental conditions that they are able to read minds

And if anyone can show me one example in the history of the world of a single
Astrologer who has been able to prove under reasonable experimental conditions that they can predict events by interpreting celestial signs

And if anyone can show me one example in the history of the world of a single
Homeopathic Practitioner who has been able to prove under reasonable experimental conditions that solutions made of infinitely tiny particles of good stuff dissolved repeatedly into relatively huge quantities of water has a consistently higher medicinal value than a similarly administered placebo

And if anyone can show me just one example in the history of the world of a single
Spiritual or religious person who has been able to prove either logically or empirically the existence of a higher power that has any consciousness or interest in the human race or ability to punish or reward humans for there moral choices or that there is any reason - other than fear - to believe in any version of an afterlife

I’ll give you my piano, one of my legs, and my wife

See opportunity there to get really good piano and couple of other things?

dragonridr
You have alot of misconceptions

Indeed..

first we do know there was no great flood only local ones same as today.

Clearly an embellishment of a major "regional" flood, probably not much different than a huge tsunami which to folks surviving such an ordeal back then might have thought to characterize it as "great" and world wide

Second we know how the Egyptians built the pyramids theirs no mystery there any more.We found the tools they used we found there quarries and we found the actual tombs of the workers and they tell us what they did.

Well let's not kid anyone here. We still don't know "how" they actually did it using only those copper chisels and stone hammers. All we have are guesses.... seems to be a common theme around these parts. Since when are guesses synonymous with facts?

As far as god using physics to create the universe if he can create physics why go thru the trouble why not just create what you want in the first place. Your going to rely on chance to create your vision you could end up waiting a very long time.

Why should your questioning of the logic behind how the God decided to create this thing we call the universe automatically disprove the God in the first place. I think it's fair to assume that you, nor anyone else, have not the slightest idea why a God would do anything. Or what it is. Or where it is. Or when it is. Or even if it is.... all guesses, either way. You get my point?

An what of chance? Supposing I play more devils advocate here...
How does one go about proving that this whole thing is just by chance?
You know, with all that fine tuning that people like to talk about.
(I suppose this is where you tell me that the scientists who claim fine tuning are wrong, am I right?)

reply to post by SuperFrog


"Hey, you got it right! Of course it is impossible to do all experiments myself, but for your info, there is that thing called collaboration as well research papers. Experiment has to be repeatable and result should be the same - basic principle of science. Reading about all of those experiments is research as well, I believe we have already established that.... "

What you say is just theory - like something that works in ideal conditions. Most people (99.99%) are just learning from books.
How many experiments you conducted yourself? Can you name the experiments.

"No, you got it wrong this time. I believe the theorems are correct because I have opportunity to do exactly the same experiment and will come to the same conclusion. I don't trust the people just because of their name or prefix next to their name, there is no need for that."

Oh really? Again, can you name the experiments you have conducted yourself?
Let me ask a question to test your knowledge of science. The following link en.wikipedia.org... publishes mass of an electron. Please describe the method to find the mass of an electron.

"Let's have Tim Minchin explain better what I mean."

Your words are good enough for me. I am not having this conversation with Tim Minchin. So I cannot question this guy, so your quote is pretty much meaningless.

"If anyone can show me one example in the history of the world of a single
Psychic who has been able to prove under reasonable experimental conditions that they are able to read minds."

Please describe your "reasonable experimental conditions". We shall see then how to take this further.

"And if anyone can show me one example in the history of the world of a single
Astrologer who has been able to prove under reasonable experimental conditions that they can predict events by interpreting celestial signs"

Veda is against astrology. The subject taught in Vedic education is Astronomy, not Astrology. I know nothing about Astrology, so I cannot comment.

"Homeopathic Practitioner" - I have no idea as Vedic education does not include Homeopathy.

My problem is you mix too many things together. You have no focus.

reply to post by WASTYT


"Clearly an embellishment of a major "regional" flood, probably not much different than a huge tsunami which to folks surviving such an ordeal back then might have thought to characterize it as "great" and world wide"

There was a worldwide flood around 5200 years back which sunk the city of Dwarka in Gujarat, India. The flood was due to a sudden melting of continental ice at the end of last ice age.

The "Noah's arc" as a Biblical story is symbolical story which says that Jews survived this flood. The story does not have to be completely accurate as our ancestors were as much given to hyperbole as we are.

"Second we know how the Egyptians built the pyramids theirs no mystery there any more.We found the tools they used we found there quarries and we found the actual tombs of the workers and they tell us what they did."

Oh really! So you found ALL the tools? Very interesting. How do you know for sure?
If a woodcutter uses a bronze axe to cut trees, that does not mean entire society at that time is using Bronze tools.
You miss a very important point. The ancient society was a non-industrial society. They produced metal but at a very low rate. Everybody knows that iron objects rust very fast. You are not going to find a lot of very old objects made of iron even if such objects were actually used.

"As far as god using physics to create the universe if he can create physics why go thru the trouble why not just create what you want in the first place. Your going to rely on chance to create your vision you could end up waiting a very long time."

First of all, you have no understanding of God. Your statement reeks of ignorance.
Both soul and God are called divine matter in 'Veda'. The intelligence is due to that.

Your intelligence is because of your soul, not due to your brain. Your brain is just a processor. For example a computer processes information and converts into a form that can be easily understood by a human. But computer has no ability to understand that information by itself.

All natural processes exhibit certain well defined patterns. All natural processes are repetitive. This denotes intelligence, not lack of it.

GargIndia

Oh really? Again, can you name the experiments you have conducted yourself?
Let me ask a question to test your knowledge of science. The following link en.wikipedia.org... publishes mass of an electron. Please describe the method to find the mass of an electron.

Are you looking for the mass of an electron at rest or an electron in motion? Perhaps you're not as familiar with the parameters of the experiment yourself? Surely someone of your intellect wouldn't be so inspecific about such a precise experiment no? But just because I'm nice like that you use this formula-

GargIndia

There was a worldwide flood around 5200 years back which sunk the city of Dwarka in Gujarat, India. The flood was due to a sudden melting of continental ice at the end of last ice age.

The "Noah's arc" as a Biblical story is symbolical story which says that Jews survived this flood. The story does not have to be completely accurate as our ancestors were as much given to hyperbole as we are.

As given as we are today perhaps?

Could you give some specifics on this claim?

peter vlar

GargIndia

Oh really? Again, can you name the experiments you have conducted yourself?
Let me ask a question to test your knowledge of science. The following link en.wikipedia.org... publishes mass of an electron. Please describe the method to find the mass of an electron.

Are you looking for the mass of an electron at rest or an electron in motion? Perhaps you're not as familiar with the parameters of the experiment yourself? Surely someone of your intellect wouldn't be so inspecific about such a precise experiment no? But just because I'm nice like that you use this formula-

The only thing I can expect to see from a person of low intellect like you is a Wiki quote.

Is this all you are capable of. I feel sorry for you.

I asked this question to a person who was not you. Let that person come back with an answer.