Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

I usually don't chime in on threads like this for personal reasons but I was interested in how it evolved. A lot of those who believe in intelligent design feel this way and feel very strongly that this is credible evidence to prove intelligent design. I know because I've heard it in many sermons and mission trips. Unfortunately the truth is it proves nothing but a series of extremely fortunate events. The evidence IS circumstantial at best and shouldn't really be used as taken as anything else. However I am aware of the powerful effects of being in a positive environment and psychology, if people want to gather together, sing, help others, commune and do good in the name of God through science I'm for it.

But that doesn't make it the truth. The truth is at this point....no one knows. Or atleast there is no universal proof of anything. We are just scratching the surface of knowledge yet it seems like everyone has an answer for everything.

Lastly i'd like to add that I consider myself spiritual and believe that the good in humans can change the world but it seems good is a very subjective term based on what I've seen and read.

Someone posted this to my profile thought it would make a good addition as well.



Cheers,

NAM

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Atheists have a strong bias and an ax to grind I've discovered and there's nothing that can be done about it. I've tried to bridge that divide many many times and it never goes anywhere that's productive. Therefore the reader must sift through what's being presented and simply decide for themselves who's making sense and who's being unreasonable.

How so, as an atheist, I don't care that people believe in god, many people I know do. I do not try and prove that god does not exist to them or any one, asides from being impossible to prove a negative, I respect their belief system. However most religious feel they need to "prove" god to me or anyone who will listen, I merely point out that what they propose is not proof, and in my opinion if god is a result of or is nature, then natural laws are adequate in themselves at explaining creation.

reply to post by Redarguo

It's very very difficult to fathom the intelligent design conclusion I realize, but a truly honest investigative inquiry leads in that direction, so many will turn away of it without giving it due consideration by claiming that it's not evidence, not proof. But what's the alternative?

It reminds me of the Sherlock Holmes quote (Arthur Conan Doyle)

when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Remember, I am not defining God here in this thread, only describing the evidence of intelligent design in the earth-moon-sun system and referring to the designer as an unknown creative agency of infinite intelligence (to anticipate such a resulting effect from an initial cause, by design).

Before looking further at the earth-moon-sun system we need to take a good look at the strong and the weak anthropic principal, which will be the last resort of those who cannot accept intelligent design as a logical, rational and reasonable conclusion, but it's unsatisfying in the face of the data and our own observation of it, because such a proposition renders the data meaningless and of no significance whatsoever, even though it is a good thing that there is what is and that it's not nothing at all, so the anthropic principal, by virtue of our own existence, and the nature of the design under consideration must be seen for what it is, which is absurd.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Redarguo

 

It's very very difficult to fathom the intelligent design conclusion I realize, but a truly honest investigative inquiry leads in that direction, so many will turn away of it without giving it due consideration by claiming that it's not evidence, not proof. But what's the alternative?

Not true. Due consideration has been given, at least on my part, and your argument fails. Just because you can't think of an alternative doesn't make this theory true.

It reminds me of the Sherlock Holmes quote (Arthur Conan Doyle)

when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

But don't forget:

"I had," he said, "started with completely the wrong idea. This shows, my dear Watson, that it is dangerous to try to think logically without enough information."

It just looks like you are making excuses and once again placing the blame on the reader for finding holes in your theories.

Isn't it more that to work like it does. Earth moon and whatever. It's not breaking down. It works.

I'd say that makes it very likely, to see perfect math and geometry. Just like that. Cause if it's weird and stuff...It doesn't balance and fall apart.


I do like to know where people stand . Creation of what ? The universe ? The planet? Life ? All 3 ? Is bit overcompensation...

reply to post by daskakik

In the face of the data, what would you propose then as a viable alternative?

The beauty of this inquiry, framed as it is by an eternity, when made deeply, openly, and honestly, is that in either case, whether it's arisen as an unintended chance occurrence without purpose, meaning or significance (which I personally find quite humorous) or, intentionally and thus by design with anticipation (of infinite intelligence) (even more humorous perhaps), the very act of making such an inquiry produces a mind-blowing shift in perspective capable of restoring our deep appreciation of life on earth, and thus our place in the midst of it all.

Furthermore it doesn't really make much difference since both hypothesis bring us to awareness of an awesome unknown, the only difference, in the case of intelligent design by an unknown creative agency, perhaps, is that there is an answer or at least a partial answer to the question of, why? which is obviously in order so that a shared mutual experience, namely the one that we're having, might be made possible, including the opportunity to make the inquiry in the first place!

Our awareness, our self awareness in the midst of it all relative to the unknown unknown, if that's the purpose according to ID (that "it pleased our father to share his kingdom with all his children") and that reality, at every level, was/is made by consciousness for conciousness (see sacred geometry videos posted earlier in the thread), then the how, precisely, that no longer entirely matters now that it's been realized in eternity, and "God" therefore as the realization of experience and impressioned existence at all levels once realized no longer needs to be God anyway, since it would appear, from the ID POV that God is love as the motive force and catalyst to creation, by loving creative action (movement) in order so that our mutually shared experience can be made manifest.

As an experience it's mixed and blended with awe and wonderment at the sheer mystery of the magnitude of the unknown, and also with appreciation and gratitude (no matter what you "believe") or joy, and that leads us to an increased awareness in the knowledge of personal experience if only of the deep mystery of it (our life) in the domain of an unknown within which we find ourselves already immersed even as an intrinsic and integral, evolutionary, part of.

It's an absolute wonder in either case. There's nothing cynical or half-hearted about it (lol), because it's extraordinary, even that there is something rather than nothing and that's it's better that there's something than nothing and nothing, that is not.

But after the metaphysical epiphany of wonderment and awe in a domain of an unknown unknown (including the ID person relative to the unknown creative agency, maybe with the exception of an aspect of the creative agency's intent or why i.e.: the reason, as love, and the desire for shared experience) - we still are brought back, when considering first/last causes, to this veruy intriguing earth-moon-sun configuration and the nature of its fundamental mystery and its secrets (secrets the ancients seem to have been aware of.. even if only to a degree). Thus this thread with an ill-conceived title that brings forth the ire of atheists (sorry, bad title).

And it doesn't really matter, either way, you see, since the very process of the inquiry brings about a change in our perception and awareness such that life on earth, framed by the cosmos, can no longer be taken for granted, and that's something maybe even something special, who knows...

If this thread has helped people think outside the box in examining the wonder of the earth-moon-sun configuration and the life it has evolved, then it's served it's purpose, and if the title produced a "bad reaction" but drew a readership then so be it if it's brought people to look at, examine and deeply contemplate these deep fundamental questions that we as a human species have been asking since the dawn of human history.

It's important to look at this more closely, but if it (earth-moon-sun configuration) does have the hallmarks of super-infinite-intelligent design, then well that's just too cool to even begin to contemplate, even if the unknown creative agency remains forever an unknown but one that can continue to be explored in one form or another, maybe even forever now that there's something here and not nothing at all..


Best regards,

NAM

After 500 posts explain to me how we are different than a piece of grass, or a rock in my back yard? Explain to me how we can't be just a natural order of things. Why do you all think you are so special when broken down you are just the 6th element of 93 natural elements... you are not special in any way, and in fact I find some rock formations much more interesting than many people...go figure.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

In the face of incomplete data any alternative is relatively "viable", as long as it can accommodate the known data. The thing is that this does not exclude a one in a trillion random chance.

I think Sinter Klaas posted a good question, "Creation of what?".

A farmer might "create" a habitat suitable for raising animals for consumption. That is intelligent design but does that make him a "god". Is he an infinite intelligence? Does he do it out of love or necessity? That might lead to "viable" alternatives without all the love and shared experience that you seemed to have taken out of thin air and woven into your theory.

Also, it isn't just an ill-conceived title that prompted member's like Phage to chime in but your claim of the "perfection" the earth, sun, moon relationship and your conclusion that it is necessary for the development of life. The fact is that we don't know if life as complex and diverse as earth exists on planets with totally different configurations.

So while you might see atheists attacking your theory because they are atheists I see, and I hope the other readers see, rational people asking, "how did he come to that conclusion when the truth is we don't know?"

reply to post by Xtrozero

Consciousness. Self awareness. But in terms of varied impressioned experience, I cannot say that, at some level, a rock doesn't have some sort of mineral consciousness. Highly evolved consciousness, let us say. Not a "thing" but an experience and a process. I don't think the human being as a being can be relegated to the status of a "thing" it doesn't fit with conscious experience or even the conceptions of modern science.

reply to post by daskakik

It needn't be unique to serve as evidence of intelligent design that's a false assumption.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

You missed some points.

We know it doesn't have to be unique to be ID but you went on about it as if it were. It also doesn't have to be a work of love or of an infinite intelligence and in the end it also doesn't exclude random chance.

Your coming to conlcusions based on incomplete data. That's it. It isn't some agenda or failure to grok.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

You missed some points.

No. He didn't, he's covered all the bases.

Perfection is evidence of intelligent design.
Imperfection is evidence of intelligent design.
Uniqueness is evidence of intelligent design
Non-uniqueness is evidence of intelligent design.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Sorry man I just can't buy in to the story that the moon and the sun and the earth were all created just for us. We (humans) have only been here for 200K years. We are but a blip on the cosmic radar. To think that it was all just for us is pretty self centered and small minded. Outside of this "pale blue dot" we are nothing.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


The problem is that your evidence is subjective. If you believe that ID is possible and that these coincidences point towards that, that's fine, that shows why you place your faith as you do. But to claim that any of it is objective or actual tangible physical evidence of intelligent design, then you are way off base. The problem is people don't seem to understand the difference between objective and subjective evidence. To prove anything at all, evidence has to be objective. It is not circumstantial nor is it open to interpretation. It either directly proves something or it doesn't. Measurement coincidences and appearance of complexity is not objective. Objective evidence of a creator would be a group of people observing 'god' or a designer creating something. Objective evidence of a creator would be experiments that repeatedly confirm it. You can't just say that something 'appears to be' designed as it relies on your subjective interpretation.

This is why threads like this using words like "undeniable proof" are way off base. I simply don't understand why people can't say "Why I believe intelligent design" or "Why ID is possible". Everyone has to go around acting like it's objectively proven throwing around catch phrases like "undeniable proof" when it's not even close and holds no credibility whatsoever in the scientific community. Honestly, that seems like an ego problem to me. Everyone wants to be special but there's no evidence. People dismiss your claims because they are subjective and circumstantial. If every planet in the universe had the same measurement coincidences you might be on to something, but thus far we are the only planet where this math applies so it really proves nothing except we got lucky.

Originally posted by Barcs

so it really proves nothing except we got lucky.

Unless life is the purpose of cosmic evolution, then it is significant.

It was a very poorly conceived thread title I was just rather "over the moon" about it when I found out about it and I might have gotten a little carried away at the time, my bad.

But it's INTERESTING, very very interesting and intriguing and it offers a new perspective by posing the question, so I'm still glad I made the thread who cares if it's been a little controversial at times.

And there are whole round number integers (forthcoming as objective evidence) and ratios which apply only to the earth moon and sun, in other words a type of relationship which is not seen in any of the other lunar-planet configurations, so it (design element) is unique to the earth-moon-sun system within our own solar system, as if some fine-tuning went on in the final selection, yes as if the whole damn thing was made FOR life on earth since life on earth is definitely included and even including we ourselves in the whole ball of wax in this eternally unfolding present moment. It's true, the only fact we really know with any certainty, that I am, this is, you are.

And so here we are, part and parcel in that whole process even intrinsic and integral to it (included not excluded) as a cosmic, evolutionary process. There's no denying the very fact of our own existence as much as some people might like to.

What makes it significant is the experience of being alive and closing the circle in observation and awareness.

It has changed the way I look at the world, in either case and I play around with both conceptions, either of which are enough to cause any sane and rational, reasonable person, to burst out laughing.

If an unintended chance fluke coincidence, life, then that's absurd and extraordinary!

If by intelligent design as some sort of intelligent subtraction or limitation from the Absolute then that too is equally absurd and extraordinary, if not a little bit moreso (more joy and humor in it, imho).

But I think when we look at the byproduct, LIFE, that it's rather hard not to think that Life was it's purpose and intent, not the byproduct of a random chance, fluke occurrence by some astronomical coincidence of the farthest reaching proportions in which case the expectation of other earth-like worlds in our galaxy diminishes by many orders of magnitude, whereas if ID is to be accepted as at cause with Life itself intended by anticipation, then the expectation that God has more tricks up his sleeve where that one (Earth) came from, goes up by many MANY orders of magnitude, even though it still resides in the domain of an unknown even an unknown unknown.

It's an either/or proposition though, and I'm sorry for the title please set that aside in considering this data-set we have here before us.

I have a hard time fathoming the notion that this life (held in the arms of the earth-moon-sun configuration) was an "accident", a fluke, a one time only or very very very rare occurrence, for no reason whatsoever. How can we say when we look at the entire cosmological evolutionary frame of reference that life was not intended or meant to occur as it has? That just doesn't make any sense to me when I look at the data-set, and there's a little bit more evidence of the objective variety that I still need to put forward and yes it shows a unique "coincidence" factor or whole series of them as it relates exclusively to the earth-moon and sun.

The jury's still out (obviously), but in the face of the data, chance-fluke I'm not certain is the stronger hypothesis.. seems ridiculous in a way, when life is quite obviously the purpose of cosmic evolution and therefore something that was anticipated, by design, and therefore with intent.

Unknown creative agency - is still an unknown.

But it's not blind to the evidence all around us either, and it does not ask that other people to put those blinders on. I'm just asking that people really take a look at the data and consider the two opposing propositions as to it's meaning and significance, or lack thereof.

It sure looks intelligent, that's for sure. The cosmos and nature isn't a dead mindless thing, it's fully informed and creative, and that's also intelligence, because it selectively chooses and cancels and limits the unlimited in order so that experience can be made possible.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

Consciousness. Self awareness. But in terms of varied impressioned experience, I cannot say that, at some level, a rock doesn't have some sort of mineral consciousness. Highly evolved consciousness, let us say. Not a "thing" but an experience and a process. I don't think the human being as a being can be relegated to the status of a "thing" it doesn't fit with conscious experience or even the conceptions of modern science.

I think we are fooling ourselves into thinking we have a lot more than we do. Our brain is a master at filling in the blanks all the time and it wasn't until I was much older did I really realize just how little consciousness and awareness we have. But once again why is that any more special than a colony of bees...different, yes, special, no.

Its like we are so special only intelligent design could do it...REALLY? We do know that there are many animals with some level of intelligence, so this means on earth there will be the most capable and lest capable, we just happen to be the most. I guess since the cheetah is so fast its running ability must be intelligent design too...

reply to post by Xtrozero


It all rides on the same axis, so yes, it would include the fast-running Cheetah



Cheetah - where'd we ever get that name for it? Sounds absurd when you say it a few times, doesn't do the animal justice to even give it a name. Magnificent!