Intelligent Design

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Everyone has doubts. I read and study because of them. I most certainly have mine.

That’s good to hear, and a sign that you are more than just a sheep blindly trusting in your emotions rather than in reasoning and common sense. No offense, but there are a lot of religious people who refuse to truly consider the possibility that they might be wrong.

I was just saying that all observable systems were set in motion by some initial interaction. I don’t see why the universe would be different.

Why an initial interaction? If you are willing to accept the possibility of a highly evolved, ultimately complex being that had no beginning, why not accept the possibility of a universe that had no beginning?

I don’t think either of us can pretend to wrap our mind around either a higher being, or eternal existence of the universe, so I don’t think anyone can make an educated guess about which is more likely.

Infinity is implied in both cases, but a higher being is by definition more complex and less likely than the fundamental components of matter and energy.

It makes more sense to me that the universe, like every observable system has a beginning.

Do you realize that you’re only begging the question by saying this? If something outside of the present universe created the present universe, didn’t that something exist in its own universe?[/quote]

The only response I have is that’s a definite maybe.

I disagree with a lot of what is done in the name of Christ.

I’ve already said I don’t believe the entirety of the Bible to be literal, because common sense tells me otherwise. I think God gave use reason and curiosity and it’s a shame some Christians believe it a sin to use them.

382

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
If your mother tells you to do something you don’t want to do. And she comes back 20 minutes later and asks you why it’s not done. You respond “I didn’t hear you”. What “hear” is that? Really it makes more sense that you didn’t realize she even spoke, than you didn’t understand what she said? I’m really having a hard time seeing what logical flaw you are pointing out.

Dude, it’s obvious that you understood what your mom said. You didn’t just hear an ambient noise in the background, you heard the message and chose to ignore it.[/quote]

Yes, you heard the message, but you would deny even knowing you were asked to do something. At least I used to.

383

That passage honestly makes 100% sense to me.

If you want to bring up some other stuff more related, bring up the Nephilim or something. That is actually part of Genesis and none of the explanations I’ve ever found make any sense to me.

384

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The only response I have is that’s a definite maybe.[/quote]

More than a definite maybe, isn’t it a logical necessity? In order for something to exist outside of our particular universe, wouldn’t it have to be in its own universe? What other possibility is there?

As my friend Thomas Jefferson put it:

[b]“Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.”

Thomas Jefferson[/b]

385

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, you heard the message, but you would deny even knowing you were asked to do something. At least I used to.[/quote]

But that’s not remotely what Paul said. He said absolutely nothing about people hearing the prophet, but pretending not to hear him.

He specifically said people who do not hear the prophet will be destroyed.

Do you see what I mean about people using convolutions and verbal gymnastics to explain scriptures in a way that justifies their faith?

386

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, you heard the message, but you would deny even knowing you were asked to do something. At least I used to.

But that’s not remotely what Paul said. He said absolutely nothing about people hearing the prophet, but pretending not to hear him.

He specifically said people who do not hear the prophet will be destroyed.

Do you see what I mean about people using convolutions and verbal gymnastics to explain scriptures in a way that justifies their faith?[/quote]

No, people who WILL not to me says an act of refusal.

And yes I agree, I just don’t think that’s a good example. Like I said, the Nephilim.

387

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, people who WILL not to me says an act of refusal.

And yes I agree, I just don’t think that’s a good example. Like I said, the Nephilim.[/quote]

Obviously it is an act of refusal. The point is they are refusing to hear the message of the prophet, and thus it has nothing to do with hearing the physical voice of the prophet.

Regardless, since you brought up the Nephilim and have agreed other biblical stories are just fables rather than facts, my point stands.

How then do you differentiate between those stories that are fables and those that are real? Isn’t everything called into question at this point?

388

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
No, people who WILL not to me says an act of refusal.

And yes I agree, I just don’t think that’s a good example. Like I said, the Nephilim.

Obviously it is an act of refusal. The point is they are refusing to hear the message of the prophet, and thus it has nothing to do with hearing the physical voice of the prophet.

Regardless, since you brought up the Nephilim and have agreed other biblical stories are just fables rather than facts, my point stands.

How then do you differentiate between those stories that are fables and those that are real? Isn’t everything called into question at this point?[/quote]

I never said that anything was directly false. Like I said before I think it contains what we need. I think the human mind needs a creation story (other than you apparently). And God explaining his motives or mechanisms is impossible, so you get Genesis.

Like explaining to a small child macro economics as the reason they only get 1 action figure for Christmas. I don’t think they are lies just because the whole true doesn’t convert to human consciousness.

389

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I never said that anything was directly false. Like I said before I think it contains what we need. I think the human mind needs a creation story (other than you apparently). And God explaining his motives or mechanisms is impossible, so you get Genesis.

Like explaining to a small child macro economics as the reason they only get 1 action figure for Christmas. I don’t think they are lies just because the whole true doesn’t convert to human consciousness.[/quote]

What about the possibility that Jesus, his miracles and teachings are just a story for conveying the underlying truth that people should love one another rather than something that actually happened?

390

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I never said that anything was directly false. Like I said before I think it contains what we need. I think the human mind needs a creation story (other than you apparently). And God explaining his motives or mechanisms is impossible, so you get Genesis.

Like explaining to a small child macro economics as the reason they only get 1 action figure for Christmas. I don’t think they are lies just because the whole true doesn’t convert to human consciousness.

What about the possibility that Jesus, his miracles and teachings are just a story for conveying the underlying truth that people should love one another rather than something that actually happened?[/quote]

Possible, but I think there is good evidence he did at least exist. Much the way the Hebrews did have an exodus from Egypt of some sort.

391

I agree there is pretty good historical evidence for a man named Jesus, I just don’t buy into all the miracles any more than I buy into the miracles of the old testament or other holy books.

Anyway, it sounds like you aren’t a biblical literalist, and accept the possibility that there might not be a “god”, so my earlier comments about believing in fairy tales don’t really apply.

392

[quote]forlife wrote:
I agree there is pretty good historical evidence for a man named Jesus, I just don’t buy into all the miracles any more than I buy into the miracles of the old testament or other holy books.

Anyway, it sounds like you aren’t a biblical literalist, and accept the possibility that there might not be a “god”, so my earlier comments about believing in fairy tales don’t really apply.[/quote]

And I really hate to make this argument, and I’m not saying God isn’t real. But belief itself is a powerful thing. If I am a happier more content person being a Christian, then even by atheist logic, I should be one. Even if it were a false purpose for my life it is still a purpose that satisfies a spiritual necessity for me.

People will eat without understanding nutrition. I chose to believe in God without being able to fully understand it. You don’t always have to have facts and research to prove the right course. That instinctual hunger for food is correct. Maybe my instinctual hunger for God is too.

393

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
NO I NEVER SAID ANYTHING WAS A FABLE.

Then answer my questions. For example, do you believe that:

  1. Moses parted the Red Sea?

  2. Noah built an ark and put every species of animal on it, to preserve them from a world-wide flood?

  3. God sent a bear to devour a few children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head?

  4. God caused the sun to stand still so Joshua could vanquish his enemies?

  5. Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, and multiplied a few loaves of bread to feed five thousand people?

Do you believe that by sheer random chance and the act of nothing or no one, some huge balls of gas poofed into existence out of nothing, collided, created the universe, created the fundamental laws of existence and matter, formed the earth, and spontaneously generated life and eventually consciousness?

The way you framed that question is very telling. Framing the question in that manner makes it seem virtually impossible that we were not designed by an intelligent creator.

You seem to be misinterpreting the nature of “random chance” and observation. Imagine if you observed someone rolling a dice 100 times and they rolled a six every single time. The probability of this happening is extremely low, so you would most likely assume that it was not due to random chance, but was more likely caused by a trick die.

What if you then found out that the dice had actually been rolled many trillions of times, but for some reason you were only able to observe the sequence of 100 sixes. Due to random chance it was actually inevitable that such a sequence would eventually occur, although it would not seem this way to the observer.

This is what we are faced with when we consider the existence of the laws of the universe, the formation of the Earth, our own consciousness etc.

We have no way of knowing how many universes may have existed with different combinations of fundamental laws that did not result in the formation of life. The only universe that we get to observe is the one that resulted in our ability to observe it.

It is not completely logical to simply work back from the point of our own existence and say “The universe is just too perfect to arise without a designer”.

I framed it that way on purpose, mimicking forelife’s questions, I meant no offense.

You honestly believe that if you sit around observing nothingness long enough and give it no input eventually something will happen. Because the dice rolling you are talking about is nothingness.

I think the very fact you framed it as someone giving an input to a situation that results in events occurring is very telling. I feel that observable science suggests God’s input in the creation of the universe. There is no observable system that when at steady state, and void of all action suddenly changes into action without some input.

Something had to be introduced to the system by something outside of it to. That doesn’t mean that it had to be the Christian God, or the Buddhist one,or even that it’s still around, but there has to be something outside our universe that gave action to this one.[/quote]

Lol, I certainly wasn’t offended. Just bored stiff at work, so I decided to attempt to address an interesting question.

I sort of agree with what you are saying here. My point was simply that we can’t just assume that everything is so complex that randomness could not have played a significant role in the creation of the universe.

Personally, I don’t see how anyone could believe in god based purely on logic. I feel the same way about believing that there is no god.

394

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And I really hate to make this argument, and I’m not saying God isn’t real. But belief itself is a powerful thing. If I am a happier more content person being a Christian, then even by atheist logic, I should be one. Even if it were a false purpose for my life it is still a purpose that satisfies a spiritual necessity for me.
[/quote]

That you even acknowledge the possibility that your belief doesn’t reflect objective reality says a lot. As a devout Mormon, I was nowhere close to that level of honest scrutiny. I believed irrefutably that my faith was based on facts, was convinced that God had spoken to me, and refused to consider that I might be wrong.

I agree that belief is a powerful thing. It’s a philosophical question whether it is better to have happiness based on illusion vs. misery based on truth. The Matrix describes it as choosing the red or blue pill.

I choose the red pill, but can’t blame people that make a different choice. For me, truth has its own value beyond any happiness it does or doesn’t provide. Fortunately, as a general rule truth and happiness tend to correlate positively, but that isn’t always the case, and when it isn’t I would still rather have the truth.

395

The truth is we will not know until death whether there is or isn’t a God. So the real question is would you rather live serving a being that may not exist or suffer the consequences if he does exist?

Everyone just interprets things differently. Some people find it easier to swallow our creation is by chance some by choice of a creator.

We will never know who is right in this life.

396

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The truth is we will not know until death whether there is or isn’t a God. So the real question is would you rather live serving a being that may not exist or suffer the consequences if he does exist?
[/quote]

That’s true, although I think you can gauge the probability of various hypotheses about the origin and purpose of life, and adjust your life accordingly.

As the saying goes, an atheist is someone that believes in only one less god than you do. We are all atheists in that sense. Your question about suffering the consequences applies to the thousands of other gods that people have worshipped over the millenia. Clearly, you can’t worship all of them so you need to narrow it to a few (or in my case, none).

397

The scientific background you described here is not quite accurate and it sets the stage for further bias.

[quote]entheogens wrote:
Science uses quantitative methods to discover certain rules governing the universe, make predictions based upon those rules and produce technologies.

As such, it occurs to me that if we accept the notion that God could not be described using quantitative measures that the best science can say is that science cannot prove the existence of God.

[/quote]

Most of the issue here is the gap between theory and application. There is a grand canyon size whole between predicting results based on ‘universal truths’ and what actually occurs.

This is where applied science and theoretical science part ways. In other words, saying a scientific model that cannot be testing in a controlled setting is only valid as a theory or concept, not that it is valid in terms of repeatable controlled evidence.

For example, there is no way to test the concept of the big bang, yet it fits with current belief and within the current universal truths. So we believe it to be true without any actual controlled studies or other repeatable data to support it.

On the other hand, we have medical science. Medical science also has theories that are consistent with the universal truths, but they would not dare apply those theories as valid until repeatedly tested over and over again. The obvious reason is that people would die if they moved forward with an idea that was not thoroughly tested.

So when we talk about science in terms of the existence of God or the origin of the universe this ‘science’, IMO, is clearly not as valid as science that can validate their assumptions in a repeatable control manner.

So I don’t see a big difference between theoretical science saying that God doesn’t exist or ID science saying God does exist. Both of these ideas are based on theories and data that cannot be verified in a controlled and repeatable manner. As such, they are both just as valid given the available data.

So the correct statement, IMO, would be that theoretical science cannot disprove nor validate the existence of God. And in all honestly, it cannot disprove nor validate the origin or the universe either.

398

[quote]forlife wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
The truth is we will not know until death whether there is or isn’t a God. So the real question is would you rather live serving a being that may not exist or suffer the consequences if he does exist?

That’s true, although I think you can gauge the probability of various hypotheses about the origin and purpose of life, and adjust your life accordingly.

As the saying goes, an atheist is someone that believes in only one less god than you do. We are all atheists in that sense. Your question about suffering the consequences applies to the thousands of other gods that people have worshipped over the millenia. Clearly, you can’t worship all of them so you need to narrow it to a few (or in my case, none).[/quote]

I think, give the nature and emotional maturity of most Gods you are on the safer side worshiping no God that accidentally whorshipping the wrong one.

Exodus 20:4-6

4 ?You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

399

[quote]orion wrote:
you are on the sa[/quote]n[quote]er side worshiping no God[/quote]

Fixed your typo.

400

I guess we’ll see