Creator god or intelligent design, the facts that inform the theory?

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I think there is always the misconception that proof must be provided. However, where is your common sense?

If you look all around you, there is beautiful natural events that to most we would assume is so perfect, it could not just be by chance. Yet in the same breath, ignore all the disease, deformities of plants, humans the world and the in-balance of many natural things.

Nothing is perfect but atleast for us, it is perfect. Enough to live.

Going back to common sense. You can trace back with a clear line where most of life as we know it now takes from its ancestors. As proof goes, DNA structure alone shows similarities with that of a slug or even a lettuce. Yet you and many others would not like to be rounded up with having a connection with a slug or lettuce. This cannot be mixed up as our DNA is like maths, it is as it reads, there is no bending facts of our DNA.

Humans share 50% DNA with bananas

The ignorance is not surprising as our very own history has so many holes in it, that we cannot fully trace it back. Our existence is probably far FAR older then anyone on this planet could ever fathom.

We have probably relived this same argument in the past.

We exist as we are because the elements around us, permit us to exist as we are.

a reply to: chr0naut

Nice post. I've asked this question before and have not gotten an answer: What if the "god" turns out to be an alien in another universe modeling his theories on a computer - like a video game? Your belief in a god is grounded in the Judeo/Christian concept where good and evil are defined by the god. The god expects you to worship him/her/it and pay homage your entire life so that at the end of your days you return to the god (I guess in Heaven). Alternatively, if you're a bad person, you go to Hell. These are human constructs. The reality might be frighteningly different.

Godel's ontological proof is far from mathematically rigorous. His proof is a set of five axioms which lead to a conclusion. That conclusion may be completely wrong. Why? Because just like the theoretical physicist, the proof of the pudding is in the hard evidence. There is no hard evidence for a god. It's fine to believe in one but it's incorrect to say that it has been proven. Proven in someone's mind perhaps, but not in the laboratory.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Nobody including physicists have cosmological evidence of original origin.

Agreed.

Nobody has evidence their wife lives them.

I have plenty of evidence supporting claims that people love me, their actions, behaviour towards me, decisions they make which may influence my life etc.
That belief in love from human friends and family is based on experience, which is more than can be said for any gods lol.

Again this isn't true. Some people feel they feel God for various reasons.

Your friends and family can also be explained as mutually beneficial, social contract, or in the case of sociopaths totally manipulative....

Some people take dmt and experience things..

Again there is no proof one way or the other.

Unless you say pray heals or something and then it doesn't. Or I can walk on water and I can't.

When a person claims they can feel god’s love, they must first demonstrate that god exists. And therefore even able to feel.

I can convince you that someone’s wife exists pretty easily, and then by evaluating her actions and her own claims, one can be reasonably convinced that she loves him or not.

We could also hook her up to a brain imaging device and have hard evidence of whether her brain patterns support he claims of love.

Brain patterns don't prove love, they prove either hormone release or parts of the brain that respond to a stimulus. For instance you can hook up an actor playing a character and find the same brain patterns.


A person is in no way required to prove anything to anyone. That is your ego speaking.

The problem here is most people have never thought deeply about any of the meaningsame of observation or how they are altered by the mind and by the senses. Nouema and phenomenon as kant would say.

The ultimate skeptic Hume presents how can you prove anything exists.

Hawkin's last paper was on a 2 d universe. If this is true the whole of our perception is entirely wrong. If we live in a simulation again we are not understanding a epistemological nature.

I am not a true believer. But I find great fault in these simple discussions and thoughts people try to use to dismantle deeper subjects.

a reply to: Phantom423

The only proof that exists has to be perceived by the mind. When we find one tiny piece of reality the human ego says "this is it" we found it. Then 70 years later they realize well it doesn't apply to the quantum world or to xy or z.

A bee sees reality as ultraviolet and magnetic field reality. We are bound by our faculties as well.

We can't really prove in a lab what happened before the big bang even if we can reproduce it. We still wouldn't be sure yes this happened.

Cosmology is a hard subject to just say yes this is the only outcome that could be.

So god and metaphysics are even harder. I do understand your point. But humans need to observe and experience things to constitute them into their reality. The meaning of that alone is profound.

a reply to: Deetermined

I'm not busted at all, I'm asking for verifiable evidence to support god claims. Do you have any?

a reply to: chr0naut

Nice to see my favorite Christian philosopher scientist enter the debate. Someday I would love to debate you on the other side. But it seems I am always trying to explain the actual arguments that philosopher Christians make. Then people assume I am arguing my point.

I say I hope to debate you someday just so people can see it isn't about ahuh nuhuh yeah uh nohuh....

It's about actually listening to the argument of your opponent understanding it and rebuttals from understanding. Not I gotcha.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Deetermined

I'm not busted at all, I'm asking for verifiable evidence to support god claims. Do you have any?

A door is solid right? Or is that your limited perception? Because a door is a lot of empty space and probability patterns.

What does that mean?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Nobody including physicists have cosmological evidence of original origin.

Agreed.

Nobody has evidence their wife lives them.

I have plenty of evidence supporting claims that people love me, their actions, behaviour towards me, decisions they make which may influence my life etc.
That belief in love from human friends and family is based on experience, which is more than can be said for any gods lol.

Again this isn't true. Some people feel they feel God for various reasons.

Your friends and family can also be explained as mutually beneficial, social contract, or in the case of sociopaths totally manipulative....

Some people take dmt and experience things..

Again there is no proof one way or the other.

Unless you say pray heals or something and then it doesn't. Or I can walk on water and I can't.

When a person claims they can feel god’s love, they must first demonstrate that god exists. And therefore even able to feel.

I can convince you that someone’s wife exists pretty easily, and then by evaluating her actions and her own claims, one can be reasonably convinced that she loves him or not.

We could also hook her up to a brain imaging device and have hard evidence of whether her brain patterns support he claims of love.

Brain patterns don't prove love, they prove either hormone release or parts of the brain that respond to a stimulus. For instance you can hook up an actor playing a character and find the same brain patterns.


A person is in no way required to prove anything to anyone. That is your ego speaking.

The problem here is most people have never thought deeply about any of the meaningsame of observation or how they are altered by the mind and by the senses. Nouema and phenomenon as kant would say.

The ultimate skeptic Hume presents how can you prove anything exists.

Hawkin's last paper was on a 2 d universe. If this is true the whole of our perception is entirely wrong. If we live in a simulation again we are not understanding a epistemological nature.

I am not a true believer. But I find great fault in these simple discussions and thoughts people try to use to dismantle deeper subjects.

Your feelings are brain patterns. As well as your thoughts.

a reply to: BlackProject

So you have no verifiable evidence to support claims of creator gods then?
Just pure speculation and blind faith lol

a reply to: luthier

It means that you have no verifiable evidence of any gods lol

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Deetermined

I'm not busted at all, I'm asking for verifiable evidence to support god claims. Do you have any?

A door is solid right? Or is that your limited perception? Because a door is a lot of empty space and probability patterns.

What does that mean?

I think we all understand that the world of matter is made of electromagnetic fields. So when someone says that a door is solid, it is understood that it is solid compared to the air around it.

That is the definition of solid. You cannot pass through it. Although we know that on a molecular scale, things appear differently. It does not change the definition of the word solid.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Nobody including physicists have cosmological evidence of original origin.

Agreed.

Nobody has evidence their wife lives them.

I have plenty of evidence supporting claims that people love me, their actions, behaviour towards me, decisions they make which may influence my life etc.
That belief in love from human friends and family is based on experience, which is more than can be said for any gods lol.

Again this isn't true. Some people feel they feel God for various reasons.

Your friends and family can also be explained as mutually beneficial, social contract, or in the case of sociopaths totally manipulative....

Some people take dmt and experience things..

Again there is no proof one way or the other.

Unless you say pray heals or something and then it doesn't. Or I can walk on water and I can't.

When a person claims they can feel god’s love, they must first demonstrate that god exists. And therefore even able to feel.

I can convince you that someone’s wife exists pretty easily, and then by evaluating her actions and her own claims, one can be reasonably convinced that she loves him or not.

We could also hook her up to a brain imaging device and have hard evidence of whether her brain patterns support he claims of love.

Brain patterns don't prove love, they prove either hormone release or parts of the brain that respond to a stimulus. For instance you can hook up an actor playing a character and find the same brain patterns.


A person is in no way required to prove anything to anyone. That is your ego speaking.

The problem here is most people have never thought deeply about any of the meaningsame of observation or how they are altered by the mind and by the senses. Nouema and phenomenon as kant would say.

The ultimate skeptic Hume presents how can you prove anything exists.

Hawkin's last paper was on a 2 d universe. If this is true the whole of our perception is entirely wrong. If we live in a simulation again we are not understanding a epistemological nature.

I am not a true believer. But I find great fault in these simple discussions and thoughts people try to use to dismantle deeper subjects.

Your feelings are brain patterns. As well as your thoughts.

You can't prove that. You can only prove what happens to our biological functions when people are asked questions.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Deetermined

I'm not busted at all, I'm asking for verifiable evidence to support god claims. Do you have any?

A door is solid right? Or is that your limited perception? Because a door is a lot of empty space and probability patterns.

What does that mean?

I think we all understand that the world of matter is made of electromagnetic fields. So when someone says that a door is solid, it is understood that it is solid compared to the air around it.

That is the definition of solid. You cannot pass through it. Although we know that on a molecular scale, things appear differently. It does not change the definition of the word solid.

So we won't one day know how to pass through a solid door?

So again you don't understand the argument. You want to rebuttell without asking what does that mean.

Thankfully people do ask that question and that is how we get new theories in physics.

a reply to: Phantom423

I've asked this question before and have not gotten an answer: What if the "god" turns out to be an alien in another universe modeling his theories on a computer - like a video game?

Then the alien wouldn't be God. God doesn't deal in theories and wouldn't need a computer to model them on.

We have an invisible God who was capable of physically manifesting himself as Jesus, who then created all physical things, most likely through sound.

In the Bible, Genesis 1:3 states "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. " It simply shows the power of God speaking. In John 1: 1-3 it also states "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. " He was the Word, a spoken form of sound.

There is quite a bit of evidence that sound waves were crucial in creating the universe. Think about it, scientists all agree that there was a big bang, a massive sound! It jump started the entire creation process and propelled all these elements into the depth of space. That big bang was probably the loudest that could ever be heard in the universe, until the end of time.

www.theodysseyonline.com...

The Bible also tells us that the end of the world as we know it will end with a great noise.

2 Peter 3:10

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

What is verifiable evidence?

Again you don't understand philosophy and how it grades arguments. Your assumption is its all woo.

Which shows you haven't ever understood reason

a reply to: Woodcarver

Your feelings are brain patterns. As well as your thoughts.

Patterns created by who/what?!

a reply to: luthier

No, all your replies are woo, I'm asking for evidence which can be verified to support claims of gods and you have none lol
EDIT
Speculation and philosophical argument is not evidence.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Deetermined

I'm not busted at all, I'm asking for verifiable evidence to support god claims. Do you have any?

You ignored my post about the Bible stating that man was created from the dust of the earth and how science is recognizing that we all share the same living organisms that are found in soil. In fact, someone else just made a similar post about DNA. While you may not believe that the Bible is inspired by God, what is your explanation for how people came to that conclusion way back then?

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Do you believe you live in a 3d world? 4d? 10d? 26d

How many dimensions do you believe exist in reality?

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

No, all your replies are woo, I'm asking for evidence which can be verified to support claims of gods and you have none lol
EDIT
Speculation and philosophical argument is not evidence.

Yep, when you can't read the language you can't find the answer..

Unfortunately it seems you have no no idea where science comes from, what philosophy is, and how to judge an argument as valid.