Intelligent Design

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
401

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
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.
[/quote]

It’s not a black and white methodology, where you either know the truth with 100% certainty or are completely ignorant. All scientific hypotheses (including the god hypothesis) can be formulated, tested, and conclusions drawn based on the probability of them being correct.

The most honest and accurate approach is to go with the most probable hypothesis given what we currently know, and to keep an open mind to new evidence as it becomes available.

402

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
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.

It’s not a black and white methodology, where you either know the truth with 100% certainty or are completely ignorant. All scientific hypotheses (including the god hypothesis) can be formulated, tested, and conclusions drawn based on the probability of them being correct.

The most honest and accurate approach is to go with the most probable hypothesis given what we currently know, and to keep an open mind to new evidence as it becomes available.[/quote]

There is only circumstantial evidence either way and yes, that goes both ways.

Science can in no way apply itself to the hypothesis of a god. It is in no way testable. If you are making a guess then using anecdotal evidence to advance your guess as best you can, it isn’t science.

Much like how you keep bringing up Occam’s Razor to justify your notions. That is NOT science.

Occam’s Razor is a philosophical principle, not a scientific law. If you use this philosophical principal in scientific quandaries, you are biasing your investigation based on a philosophy. This is the same kind of “science” religious nuts do.

There are many things in science that violate Occam’s Razor. For example, evolution. The natural state of a species tends towards the more advanced (complicated)

403

[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]

So it’s basically based on fear of the unknown. Fantastic.

404

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I guess we’ll see[/quote]

I guess we will. Enjoy being worm food.

405

[quote]Makavali wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I guess we’ll see

I guess we will. Enjoy being worm food.[/quote]

It must suck not truely believing in love. Believing that it is only a highly developed survival instinct, leading to better success in child raising. Going day in and day out knowing you can never love anyone or have anyone love you. Because without God, and a higher purpose, love is only a chemical reaction that isn’t real. Enjoy a life void of love.

406

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Makavali wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I guess we’ll see

I guess we will. Enjoy being worm food.

It must suck not truely believing in love. Believing that it is only a highly developed survival instinct, leading to better success in child raising. Going day in and day out knowing you can never love anyone or have anyone love you. Because without God, and a higher purpose, love is only a chemical reaction that isn’t real. Enjoy a life void of love.[/quote]

…right, nice justification there (-: What you experience and Mak experiences is exactly the same thing, but you like to dress it up as a god experience that IN YOUR MIND greatly magnifies the experience. It is this belief that is nothing, as in not real. That doesn’t mean that what you experience is not real, but the same goes for Mak’s experience. See how that works?

407

:open_mouth:

408

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Science can in no way apply itself to the hypothesis of a god. It is in no way testable.[/quote]

That’s not exactly true. You can’t observe gravity, but you can scientifically document the effects of it. In the same way, even if there was an invisible “god” floating in the sky you could theoretically measure its effects.

For example, I remember one study where the recovery rate of hospital patients being prayed for was compared with the recovery rate of patients not being prayed for. Not surprisingly, the prayer had no effect. If an effect had been noted though, that would have been one piece of evidence for the presence of a higher power.

I think you’re confused about Occam’s Razor. It doesn’t say that all theories must be simple, only that when two competing theories have equal supporting evidence, the more simple theory should take precedence.

Evolution requires far fewer assumptions and is far simpler in scope than the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, superbeing that magically created the planet and the rest of the universe.

409

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It must suck not truely believing in love. Believing that it is only a highly developed survival instinct, leading to better success in child raising. Going day in and day out knowing you can never love anyone or have anyone love you. Because without God, and a higher purpose, love is only a chemical reaction that isn’t real. Enjoy a life void of love.[/quote]

Wow. Do you seriously believe people can’t love one other truly, deeply, and passionately unless they believe in a “god”?

From my perspective, it must suck believing that love depends on the intervention of a superbeing floating in the sky, that will bless or destroy you based on how closely you follow its demands.

It seems to me that love born of a person’s own heart is far more real, more powerful, and more enduring than love contrived from the idea of a supernatural source.

410

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Makavali wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I guess we’ll see

I guess we will. Enjoy being worm food.

It must suck not truely believing in love. Believing that it is only a highly developed survival instinct, leading to better success in child raising. Going day in and day out knowing you can never love anyone or have anyone love you. Because without God, and a higher purpose, love is only a chemical reaction that isn’t real. Enjoy a life void of love.[/quote]

You crack me up.

It’s the same chemical reaction designed to spread my seed that everyone experiences. Just because I don’t like organized religion, doesn’t mean I don’t believe in a higher power. See how that works?

Even if I refused to accept the existence of a higher being (and doing so would be very unscientific), I’d still enjoy the feeling.

So… yeah. You fail.

411

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Science can in no way apply itself to the hypothesis of a god. It is in no way testable.

That’s not exactly true. You can’t observe gravity, but you can scientifically document the effects of it. In the same way, even if there was an invisible “god” floating in the sky you could theoretically measure its effects.

For example, I remember one study where the recovery rate of hospital patients being prayed for was compared with the recovery rate of patients not being prayed for. Not surprisingly, the prayer had no effect. If an effect had been noted though, that would have been one piece of evidence for the presence of a higher power.

There are many things in science that violate Occam’s Razor. For example, evolution. The natural state of a species tends towards the more advanced (complicated)

I think you’re confused about Occam’s Razor. It doesn’t say that all theories must be simple, only that when two competing theories have equal supporting evidence, the more simple theory should take precedence.

Evolution requires far fewer assumptions and is far simpler in scope than the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, superbeing that magically created the planet and the rest of the universe.

[/quote]

You most certainly observe gravity and quantitatively measure it. You can also run and design tests even with a control.

Actually technically, Occam’s razor doesn’t have anything to do with simplicity of a theory. It has to do with assumptions made and dependence on data outside of the situation. Regardless, it isn’t science.

412

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
It must suck not truely believing in love. Believing that it is only a highly developed survival instinct, leading to better success in child raising. Going day in and day out knowing you can never love anyone or have anyone love you. Because without God, and a higher purpose, love is only a chemical reaction that isn’t real. Enjoy a life void of love.

Wow. Do you seriously believe people can’t love one other truly, deeply, and passionately unless they believe in a “god”?

From my perspective, it must suck believing that love depends on the intervention of a superbeing floating in the sky, that will bless or destroy you based on how closely you follow its demands.

It seems to me that love born of a person’s own heart is far more real, more powerful, and more enduring than love contrived from the idea of a supernatural source.[/quote]

My point was, that without something higher, emotions and feelings are chemical reactions and nothing more. Even consciousness and life is nothing but a chemical reaction. Morals don’t exist. You can’t claim Hitler or the Nazis were any more immoral than anyone else.

Without a god, the concept of love is a completely imaginary term used to describe the effect of a certain chemical in your brain. (no different than eating chocolate so the myth goes). If you do not believe in something higher, you can’t truely believe in the concept of love.

Further, I don’t think inalienable human rights and atheism go together. If pain and existence is just a chance accident of chemical reactions, how does the arguement for basic human rights work?

Even things like pain is just a neurological response to certain stimuli. How can it be morally wrong to walk up and punch you in the mouth? What is a moral without something higher? They are made up. Why is pleasure any better than pain for someone?

If life is not a gift from something higher, it can’t logically be justified as a right. How is it “bad” if I kill. Infact, there can be no bad or good, right or wrong, only what happens. There is no baseline comparison for actions people take.

413

[quote]Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Makavali wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I guess we’ll see

I guess we will. Enjoy being worm food.

It must suck not truely believing in love. Believing that it is only a highly developed survival instinct, leading to better success in child raising. Going day in and day out knowing you can never love anyone or have anyone love you. Because without God, and a higher purpose, love is only a chemical reaction that isn’t real. Enjoy a life void of love.

You crack me up.

It’s the same chemical reaction designed to spread my seed that everyone experiences. Just because I don’t like organized religion, doesn’t mean I don’t believe in a higher power. See how that works?

Even if I refused to accept the existence of a higher being (and doing so would be very unscientific), I’d still enjoy the feeling.

So… yeah. You fail.[/quote]

Yeah, sorry to direct that at you, but I still believe it. You say you enjoy something. Enjoyment is a made-up concept if it’s not a gift. You are now just using another word to describe something undefinable without the existence of something higher.

Love for an atheist has to be the release of chemicals and a dependence on and desire for those chemicals. You stay with your wife because you are addicted to the chemical release she provides in your brain. If you believe love is more than that, I would question your non-belief in something higher.

414

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
It must suck not truely believing in love. Believing that it is only a highly developed survival instinct, leading to better success in child raising. Going day in and day out knowing you can never love anyone or have anyone love you. Because without God, and a higher purpose, love is only a chemical reaction that isn’t real. Enjoy a life void of love.

Wow. Do you seriously believe people can’t love one other truly, deeply, and passionately unless they believe in a “god”?

From my perspective, it must suck believing that love depends on the intervention of a superbeing floating in the sky, that will bless or destroy you based on how closely you follow its demands.

It seems to me that love born of a person’s own heart is far more real, more powerful, and more enduring than love contrived from the idea of a supernatural source.

My point was, that without something higher, emotions and feelings are chemical reactions and nothing more. Even consciousness and life is nothing but a chemical reaction. Morals don’t exist. You can’t claim Hitler or the Nazis were any more immoral than anyone else.

Without a god, the concept of love is a completely imaginary term used to describe the effect of a certain chemical in your brain. (no different than eating chocolate so the myth goes). If you do not believe in something higher, you can’t truely believe in the concept of love.

Further, I don’t think inalienable human rights and atheism go together. If pain and existence is just a chance accident of chemical reactions, how does the arguement for basic human rights work?

Even things like pain is just a neurological response to certain stimuli. How can it be morally wrong to walk up and punch you in the mouth? What is a moral without something higher? They are made up. Why is pleasure any better than pain for someone?

If life is not a gift from something higher, it can’t logically be justified as a right. How is it “bad” if I kill. Infact, there can be no bad or good, right or wrong, only what happens. There is no baseline comparison for actions people take.[/quote]

On the other hand, you cannot simply make up a God just to have a final reason for any ethical system.

The natural rights idea also does not really need a God, because the argument is that these rights necessarily follow from the nature of man, whoever of whatever created man.

415

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You can’t claim Hitler or the Nazis were any more immoral than anyone else.[/quote]

Gold.

I CAN say his actions were immoral because killing humans en masse with no good reason kinda runs contrary to our desire to breed and spread the species.

416

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Love for an atheist has to be the release of chemicals and a dependence on and desire for those chemicals. You stay with your wife because you are addicted to the chemical release she provides in your brain. If you believe love is more than that, I would question your non-belief in something higher.[/quote]

Oh wow. Still fail. Re read my post PLEASE. I said I don’t believe in ORGANIZED RELIGION. I also went on to stipulate that NOT believing in a HIGHER POWER would be very unscientific.

417

The same logic above can apply to anyone…

Love for a deist has to be the release of chemicals and a dependence on and desire for those chemicals. You stay with your wife because you are addicted to the chemical release she provides in your brain.

…

Belief in God has to be the release of chemicals and a dependence on and desire for those chemicals. You stay with your belief because you are addicted to the chemical release it provides in your brain.

418

[quote]vroom wrote:

Belief in God has to be the release of chemicals and a dependence on and desire for those chemicals. You stay with your belief because you are addicted to the chemical release it provides in your brain.
[/quote]

Exactly! My system is built so that I’m hopelessly compelled to religion by my chemical and neural makeup. I’m religiously orientated you religionphobes! I’m having a damn parade and going shopping! Well, shopping for a bible.

419

[quote]Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You can’t claim Hitler or the Nazis were any more immoral than anyone else.

Gold.

I CAN say his actions were immoral because killing humans en masse with no good reason kinda runs contrary to our desire to breed and spread the species.[/quote]

depends, some might call it removing waste from the gene pool, kind of like when a mother dog burries the runt or eats it after birth.

In the view of a true evolutionist, hitler was not a bad person.

420

Evolution is not about mass killings.

Don’t make me have to scrub my eyes after reading this crap.