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

originally posted by: Woodcarver

Why would i not believe in pain and suffering? I don’t consider them abstract at all. They can easily be quantified. We know what can cause it, and what can remedy it, in most cases the cause is readily identified, and the effects measured when compared to other feelings like happiness and contentment. Although our individual likes and dislikes can vary greatly, many of them span the entire human experience. If i hit your hand with a ruler, all observers would agree that this will likely illicit a response of pain. There would be very few who would disagree, but it should always be accepted that there is always the potential for outliers.

If you can accept pain and suffering as effects of some reactions, then why can't you accept life and death is effect of God's reaction?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
The bible is clearly a compiled collection of older tales from earlier cultures. Sumerian, Hindu, and Buddhist to name a few. I am always interested to discuss comparative religion.

So you conclude nothing is true?

a reply to: Woodcarver

why would you want someone to experience such a terrible thing? Do you just want me to suffer in some way? Is that what you wish for other people? Pain and torture? That seems very dark.

In your real honest opinion, is it acceptable to wish such horrible things on people?

Is it acceptable for you to believe that everyone should die in ignorance? It doesn't really matter what the poster thinks or wants, does it?

a reply to: Woodcarver

I was afraid of that. Wording under duress.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: chr0naut
I have read through some of your posts.

Have you presented any evidence for your opinions on any post on ATS?

I make no claims based on any faith so I'm not required to provide any evidence. I just challenge those who do make speculative claims based on faith.
That is a reasoned position to take.

So... you have no evidence?

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

chrOnaut buddy,

St. Anselm's ontological argument, in its most succinct form, is as follows:
"God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist."

A more elaborate version was given by Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716); this is the version that Gödel studied and attempted to clarify with his ontological argument. Gödel left a fourteen-point outline of his philosophical beliefs in his papers. Points relevant to the ontological proof include:
4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind;
5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived;
13. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science;
14. Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.

en.wikipedia.org...

The wiki also speaks of the logical criticisms of such a view.

Gödel's ontological proof is nothing more than a 'faith' based position digger.

Coomba98

Apparently the clue is in the name.

Ontological Proof.

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

You mentioned intelligent design.

One of the tenets of intelligent design is that irreducible complexity underpins most of the observed biome. There are many instance of species interdependence and rapid genetic change that cannot be explained by evolutionary gradualism or anything other than that the processes of biological change and diversity was 'directed' towards maximum variability in the minimum time.

There is also ample proof of irreducible complexity in number theory, infinite series and chaotic systems. It does exist and is strongly represented in nature, yet there are those who would consider themselves 'scientific' and yet deny such obvious and overtly evidenced proof (perhaps because science itself is a reductionist process and so is useless in determining anything that doesn't fit is myopic view).

I mean if science can't explain it, it can't exist (like turbulent flow, chaotic determinancy and the natural sequence of prime numbers). < - - sarcasm.

Similarly, the laws of thermodynamics point to a system that can only degrade, tending towards a state of pure entropy. Yet somehow things ordered themselves and became complex and have contined to do so over a period of 13.4 billion years (which by now should have negated any original 'accidental' instances of order).

Also, in nature as observed, all systems tend towards the lowest energy solution. You mix chemicals A and B and get simple mixtures, not rainbows of incredible variety. By theoretically tweaking the primary constants and variables of physics and seeing how the universe plays out, we usually generate very boring and single state outcomes. Yet the reality of the particular balance of forces and values that underlie this universe, leads to incredible observed variety.

Then we look at probabiliy. The universe expresses incredible levels of improbability on all scales, everywhere we may choose to look. How does that work?

But if the observed universe doesn't conform to complete explanation by science (which is a mathematical impossibility according to Incompleteness), then it is obvious that the universe is what is wrong? < - - more sarcasm.

... and as for proofs of God, there are several, perhaps the strongest and most mathematically rigourous being Gödel's ontological proof.

If you care to search on Amazon for "Proof of the existence of God" you will find there are nearly 200 books, so it would appear that insistence on there being 'no proof ofthe existence of God', is probably an extremely ill informed opinion. < - - irony?

Except irreducible complexity is bull#...and your examples are vague and unspecific....

What a cogent refutation.

originally posted by: EasternShadow

originally posted by: Woodcarver

Why would i not believe in pain and suffering? I don’t consider them abstract at all. They can easily be quantified. We know what can cause it, and what can remedy it, in most cases the cause is readily identified, and the effects measured when compared to other feelings like happiness and contentment. Although our individual likes and dislikes can vary greatly, many of them span the entire human experience. If i hit your hand with a ruler, all observers would agree that this will likely illicit a response of pain. There would be very few who would disagree, but it should always be accepted that there is always the potential for outliers.

If you can accept pain and suffering as effects of some reactions, then why can't you accept life and death is effect of God's reaction?

With pain, the path of cause and effect is clearly laid out. I hit my hand with a hammer, my nerves sense it and send a signal through my nervous system to my brain, and i experience pain. All of this is observable, testable, and measure-able. If i hit my hand lightly, i feel less pain than if i really slam it.

Life and death is effect of god’s reaction?

I don’t know what that even means. I assume there is some kind of language barrier here. But i really can’t tell what point you are making.

Maybe you see god in everything, but asserting that god does certain things is not the same as demonstrating that god is actually doing these things.

I clearly laid out why pain and suffering are observable and quantifiable. Can you do the same with your position on god doing specific acts?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

You mentioned intelligent design.

One of the tenets of intelligent design is that irreducible complexity underpins most of the observed biome. There are many instance of species interdependence and rapid genetic change that cannot be explained by evolutionary gradualism or anything other than that the processes of biological change and diversity was 'directed' towards maximum variability in the minimum time.

There is also ample proof of irreducible complexity in number theory, infinite series and chaotic systems. It does exist and is strongly represented in nature, yet there are those who would consider themselves 'scientific' and yet deny such obvious and overtly evidenced proof (perhaps because science itself is a reductionist process and so is useless in determining anything that doesn't fit is myopic view).

I mean if science can't explain it, it can't exist (like turbulent flow, chaotic determinancy and the natural sequence of prime numbers). < - - sarcasm.

Similarly, the laws of thermodynamics point to a system that can only degrade, tending towards a state of pure entropy. Yet somehow things ordered themselves and became complex and have contined to do so over a period of 13.4 billion years (which by now should have negated any original 'accidental' instances of order).

Also, in nature as observed, all systems tend towards the lowest energy solution. You mix chemicals A and B and get simple mixtures, not rainbows of incredible variety. By theoretically tweaking the primary constants and variables of physics and seeing how the universe plays out, we usually generate very boring and single state outcomes. Yet the reality of the particular balance of forces and values that underlie this universe, leads to incredible observed variety.

Then we look at probabiliy. The universe expresses incredible levels of improbability on all scales, everywhere we may choose to look. How does that work?

But if the observed universe doesn't conform to complete explanation by science (which is a mathematical impossibility according to Incompleteness), then it is obvious that the universe is what is wrong? < - - more sarcasm.

... and as for proofs of God, there are several, perhaps the strongest and most mathematically rigourous being Gödel's ontological proof.

If you care to search on Amazon for "Proof of the existence of God" you will find there are nearly 200 books, so it would appear that insistence on there being 'no proof ofthe existence of God', is probably an extremely ill informed opinion. < - - irony?

Except irreducible complexity is bull#...and your examples are vague and unspecific....

What a cogent refutation.

I noticed you never commented on my rebuttal of that same post.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Woodcarver

I was afraid of that. Wording under duress.

What does that mean?

originally posted by: EasternShadow

originally posted by: Woodcarver
The bible is clearly a compiled collection of older tales from earlier cultures. Sumerian, Hindu, and Buddhist to name a few. I am always interested to discuss comparative religion.

So you conclude nothing is true?

huh? You are going to have to make your point a little clearer.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver

why would you want someone to experience such a terrible thing? Do you just want me to suffer in some way? Is that what you wish for other people? Pain and torture? That seems very dark.

In your real honest opinion, is it acceptable to wish such horrible things on people?

Is it acceptable for you to believe that everyone should die in ignorance? It doesn't really matter what the poster thinks or wants, does it?

Huh? Die in ignorance? I don’t want anyone to die, and i don’t wish ignorance on anyone either. I wish this little team of yours could put a sentence together that i can understand.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Here’s a fact we don’t get something from nothing ever.

So the universe popped into existence from nothing? Or Is it infinite?

Here’s another, that the second law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created or destroyed. So energy must be infinite. If all matter is in fact energy as science tells us, then what does that tell you about the material universe?

Energy needs to be be fed into a system unless entropy will take over.

Just look around.

People are idiots.

But have the spark of divinity in them. lol.

a reply to: luthier

I don’t have to prove that God communicates through channeling and prophets as that is the central claim to most religions, it is how they justify their beliefs. I personally find it to be hogwash and I was just giving an experiment as an example of why that is.

I actually agree with the other possibilities you present, such as the simulation theory, but that would likely be created by a design team, not a single designer and no divine beings involved.

I don’t think people remember the same thing they experience, which is yet another reason not to trust channelers and prophets - there is human error and even bias in translating divine words into writings of ones own words.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Woodcarver

I was afraid of that. Wording under duress.

What does that mean?

It means I tried to choose my words well
and failed. When I mentioned having a goal
I used the word "Wonder" instead of miracle.

Just whatever man it was a good thing.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0naut

Sorry pal, you've got no verifiable evidence to support claims of gods creating the universe, nice try though.

EDIT
You have faith and speculation, nothing more.

and you have squat also.

Something from nothing and the chicks for free?

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

All of these have been debunked multiple times, and i’m sure that you have seen it done more than a few times in these threads.

Apparently evolutionary theory has also been debunked once or twice on ATS.

You mentioned intelligent design.

One of the tenets of intelligent design is that irreducible complexity underpins most of the observed biome. There are many instance of species interdependence and rapid genetic change that cannot be explained by evolutionary gradualism or anything other than that the processes of biological change and diversity was 'directed' towards maximum variability in the minimum time.

Irreducible complexity is a poor way to argue for ID or against evolution. The most common example used is the eyeball, but it has been shown that many versions of the organ can be seen in many stages of developement, from single cells that can detect light, to a cupped area that can tell which direction that light is coming from, to a crude lense that covers that cup, to color resolving rods and cones, to muscles that allow focus and zooming abilities. At each point the ability to see gets a little better, all the way up to eagle abilities to spot a mouse from half a mile away. If you have any more examples, i will gladly talk you through them.

I was not arguing against evolution. I was arguing that biological change, as observed, proceeds with a speed and direction that is inexplicable, far more compliant with directed evolution, not against it.

There is also ample proof of irreducible complexity in number theory, infinite series and chaotic systems. It does exist and is strongly represented in nature, yet there are those who would consider themselves 'scientific' and yet deny such obvious and overtly evidenced proof (perhaps because science itself is a reductionist process and so is useless in determining anything that doesn't fit is myopic view).

i have never heard this argument, could you please expand on this?

Take, for example, the sequence of primes. For centuries the mathematical function that explains the positions of the primes has eluded us. The sequence is infinite and according to current research, a chaotic fractal. This means that the specific sequence is incalculable and we can only determine boundaries into which the variability will fit (which is pretty much where we are now). This is a classic example of irreducable complexity.

I mean if science can't explain it, it can't exist (like turbulent flow, chaotic determinancy and the natural sequence of prime numbers). < - - sarcasm.

Sarcasm? Why?

I dont know, Im just a crazy guy who uses all sorts of forms of communication.

Similarly, the laws of thermodynamics point to a system that can only degrade, tending towards a state of pure entropy. Yet somehow things ordered themselves and became complex and have contined to do so over a period of 13.4 billion years (which by now should have negated any original 'accidental' instances of order).

Systems only degrade when they are a closed loop. We have this enormous amount of energy that we can draw fuel from that allows life thrive and to be as diverse as it is. It feeds plants, which then feed animals, which then feeds us. Nearly unlimited amount of fuel to power our 4 billion years of evolution.

Aside from the fact that you can present no evidence that there is anything outside the universe, the best evidence is that it is a closed system (by reasoning that it includes itself and everything else).

Also, in nature as observed, all systems tend towards the lowest energy solution. You mix chemicals A and B and get simple mixtures, not rainbows of incredible variety. By theoretically tweaking the primary constants and variables of physics and seeing how the universe plays out, we usually generate very boring and single state outcomes. Yet the reality of the particular balance of forces and values that underlie this universe, leads to incredible observed variety.

sure, but we are not mixing just A and B. We have unlimited amounts of molecules that we can mix together to create nearly unlimited combinations.

So, there's 'a lot of stuff', in the explanation of where its abundance and variety came from, saying that there is 'a lot of it' seems like you missed the point, which was precisely that.

Then we look at probabiliy. The universe expresses incredible levels of improbability on all scales, everywhere we may choose to look. How does that work?

rare things happen a lot in a universe as expanse as ours. Stars explode at an average rate of 1 per galaxy per every hundred years. But, since there are 100’s of billions of galaxies, we can observe them every day. To calculate how probable an event is, we must first observe it, or calculate based on other related observations

Stars no doubt explode every day but we don't actually observe that frequency (because our observational bit of the universe is comparitively small). However, when some probability values exceed the inverse of number of atoms in the known universe, then the likelihood that those events will occur is flat-out impossible, or very near to it.

But if the observed universe doesn't conform to complete explanation by science (which is a mathematical impossibility according to Incompleteness), then it is obvious that the universe is what is wrong? < - - more sarcasm.

i’m going to answer this as if you are not being sarcastic.

The universe does not need to conform to science. Our theories need to conform to our observations of the universe. Without observations there would be no science. It is true that there are things that we can not observe. Some parts of our universe have traveled far beyond our ability to observe, but there is no reason to think that those parts act any differently than the parts we can observe.

If the science does not conform to the universe, then doesn't that make science unreliable?

As mentioned, irreducibly complex systems must (and do) occur, yet science is reductionist in process and is forever incapable of definition of things incompliant with its tools.

... and as for proofs of God, there are several, perhaps the strongest and most mathematically rigourous being Gödel's ontological proof.

ontological arguments are not “proofs” for anything. They require you to accept absurd assumptions at the beginning of the process. Therefore could be used to argue for any unfounded claim, making them useless.

So, the fact that they are called proofs, is whimsy?

Deductive reasoning is part of science.

Deductive arguments, produced by reasoning, are the very definition of a proof (especially in mathematics).

until you ask people to lay these proofs on the table, and that table remains empty in perpetuity.

The 'table' is clearly laden with books and mathematical proofs. To say it is empty requires a massive degree of dedlusion.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

You mentioned intelligent design.

One of the tenets of intelligent design is that irreducible complexity underpins most of the observed biome. There are many instance of species interdependence and rapid genetic change that cannot be explained by evolutionary gradualism or anything other than that the processes of biological change and diversity was 'directed' towards maximum variability in the minimum time.

There is also ample proof of irreducible complexity in number theory, infinite series and chaotic systems. It does exist and is strongly represented in nature, yet there are those who would consider themselves 'scientific' and yet deny such obvious and overtly evidenced proof (perhaps because science itself is a reductionist process and so is useless in determining anything that doesn't fit is myopic view).

I mean if science can't explain it, it can't exist (like turbulent flow, chaotic determinancy and the natural sequence of prime numbers). < - - sarcasm.

Similarly, the laws of thermodynamics point to a system that can only degrade, tending towards a state of pure entropy. Yet somehow things ordered themselves and became complex and have contined to do so over a period of 13.4 billion years (which by now should have negated any original 'accidental' instances of order).

Also, in nature as observed, all systems tend towards the lowest energy solution. You mix chemicals A and B and get simple mixtures, not rainbows of incredible variety. By theoretically tweaking the primary constants and variables of physics and seeing how the universe plays out, we usually generate very boring and single state outcomes. Yet the reality of the particular balance of forces and values that underlie this universe, leads to incredible observed variety.

Then we look at probabiliy. The universe expresses incredible levels of improbability on all scales, everywhere we may choose to look. How does that work?

But if the observed universe doesn't conform to complete explanation by science (which is a mathematical impossibility according to Incompleteness), then it is obvious that the universe is what is wrong? < - - more sarcasm.

... and as for proofs of God, there are several, perhaps the strongest and most mathematically rigourous being Gödel's ontological proof.

If you care to search on Amazon for "Proof of the existence of God" you will find there are nearly 200 books, so it would appear that insistence on there being 'no proof ofthe existence of God', is probably an extremely ill informed opinion. < - - irony?

Except irreducible complexity is bull#...and your examples are vague and unspecific....

What a cogent refutation.

I noticed you never commented on my rebuttal of that same post.

Sorry, I have a life.

I have now remedied the situation.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: luthier

I don’t have to prove that God communicates through channeling and prophets as that is the central claim to most religions, it is how they justify their beliefs. I personally find it to be hogwash and I was just giving an experiment as an example of why that is.

I actually agree with the other possibilities you present, such as the simulation theory, but that would likely be created by a design team, not a single designer and no divine beings involved.

I don’t think people remember the same thing they experience, which is yet another reason not to trust channelers and prophets - there is human error and even bias in translating divine words into writings of ones own words.

Sure nowadays it’s all digital not like the old days.

One on one.

If you don’t believe in God it doesn’t matter what medium He uses.

God =35470900 D chess.

:

Infinite D chess.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

I'm not making any claims so I do not require supporting evidence.
If you are making claims then I expect verifiable supporting evidence or I'll assume it's faith based bull#.