Intelligent Design

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We do believe in an all powerful God. So of course restoring a limb would be doable.

Sure. Pigs could fly too.

The day limb regeneration happens, it will be because men have figured out how to make it happen.

If you rely on god and pray for it, it never will.

And birth defects aren’t exactly foreign to Christians. We do a lot of charitable work with children’s hospitals, after all.

Well that’s nice. Why are you trying to prevent your god’s will from being accomplished? If it sees fit to inflict some horrible disease on a kid, who are you to try and reverse that decision?
[/quote]

Maybe god gives some many the gift of an incredible analytical brain so he can take frog DNA and get people to regrow limbs. God gave him the brain and the frog DNA though.

Many years down the road society becomes much more advanced to the point science can create human beings at will creating DNA and life itself out of ordinary matter. Science gets really good at this and starts engineering humans, seemingly free of genetic defects.

One particular scientist gets really cocky and boasts the claim that he can do a much better job than god at creating man.

Just then god appears before the scientist and issues him a challenge. He Challenges the scientist to see who can build the best human using nothing but dirt.

The scientist smirks and accepts the challenge. He then bends down and begins to scoop up a big handful of dirt. Just then god’s booming voice thunders “HEY! Get your own dirt.”

[quote]Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t think you know very much about science.

You claim religions try and twist facts to justify their preconceived notions while twisted your failed grasp on science to justify yours.

You demand scientific proof and evidence for beliefs unlike your own while simultaneously excusing yours as beyond the scope of science.

And probably call religious folks hypocrites fairly often.

So…
Science = Able to admit some things are outside it’s current scope.
Religion = Everything in this fairy tale collection is right, we said so.[/quote]

If you are asking me specifically, I have already claimed that scientific knowledge is outside the scope of religion and religious knowledge is outside the scope of science. I don?t think religion should be used to impart the scientific knowledge of things like how the world started, and on the same token, science can?t be used to disprove god.

What I?m pointing out is the hypocrisy of forelife?s claims. That he can use science application to discredit religion and god while claiming his spiritual beliefs about existence, love, laws of nature, ect. are excused from questioning.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Not trying to be an ass. However, you really don’t seem to understand alot about our view of man’s relationship with God, and God with the world. Christianity is nowhere near monolithic on how, when, and if God intercedes in any measurable way on our physical world today. In my case, I maintain that I have been the beneficiary on divine intercession. That I have had a personal revelation that you would call supernatural. Well, you would probably call it crazy. Fine. But I can’t dismiss it.

You may be shocked to hear this, but I don’t call the experience crazy. Ever. Because it’s not supposed to be called crazy, and to imply that it is would be insulting.

It’s called Di-Methyl-Tryptamine.[/quote]

Oh, I’m no loser drug user, now.

Oh. And, I thought you were hindu for some reason, Mak?

[quote]pat wrote:
How is is that you arrived that the universe is infinite in time and space? How did it get that way? [/quote]

How about the possibility that it has always been that way? Is that any more of a stretch than making up a superbeing that has always been that way?

You’re trying to impose a start date on the universe, to create a straw man argument that something can’t be created from nothing.

However, if you applied the same standard to your own creation theory, you are left with the same straw man.

Something can’t be created from nothing, so the logical conclusion is that something has always existed.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, I’m saying you can’t categorically state either way the way those studies do.

There are things in nature exactly like that though. The movement of matter according to quantum is that way. Matter travels as a wave, unless you try to measure it. If you measure it, it losses it’s wavelike properties.[/quote]

Recovery from an illness is not like quantum movement. It is a discrete, measurable outcome.

Either your god helps people recover from illness more than expected by chance alone, or he/she/it does not. If more people do recover from illness by virtue of believing in your particular god, then that is a measurable outcome that can be scientifically addressed.

Of course, the studies have proven that more people do not in fact recover from illness by virtue of prayer.

Which begs the question: if their god doesn’t actually help them in any measurable way, why are they worshipping him/her/it in the first place?

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
How is is that you arrived that the universe is infinite in time and space? How did it get that way?

How about the possibility that it has always been that way? Is that any more of a stretch than making up a superbeing that has always been that way?

You’re trying to impose a start date on the universe, to create a straw man argument that something can’t be created from nothing.

However, if you applied the same standard to your own creation theory, you are left with the same straw man.

Something can’t be created from nothing, so the logical conclusion is that something has always existed.[/quote]

Infinite, eternal existence makes no more sense than something coming from nothing. Neither can currently be comprehended. You are replacing “straw man” with “chicken and egg”.

You can’t logically figure out whether the chicken or egg was first, so you claim there has always been a chicken that laid each egg, and an egg that hatched each chicken because that’s the way it is now.

Saying that matter exists each moment leading up till now, because it existed the moment before doesn’t answer the question.

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
No, I’m saying you can’t categorically state either way the way those studies do.

There are things in nature exactly like that though. The movement of matter according to quantum is that way. Matter travels as a wave, unless you try to measure it. If you measure it, it losses it’s wavelike properties.

Recovery from an illness is not like quantum movement. It is a discrete, measurable outcome.

Either your god helps people recover from illness more than expected by chance alone, or he/she/it does not. If more people do recover from illness by virtue of believing in your particular god, then that is a measurable outcome that can be scientifically addressed.

Of course, the studies have proven that more people do not in fact recover from illness by virtue of prayer.

Which begs the question: if their god doesn’t actually help them in any measurable way, why are they worshipping him/her/it in the first place?[/quote]

The studies equate amount of god in a situation to amount of prayer. Go even learn what DOE is and get back to me. You have so many uncontrolled variables in your “study” it’s absurd. Quit trying to prove things with science you don’t even understand.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, you can’t probe photons? analyze language? physically verify algebra?[/quote]

Photons are not the color blue, only the constituent components. Russian and algebra are languages we have created, which have no matter or energy.

Meaning, values, attitudes, and emotions can all be studied indirectly by virtue of surveys, physiological measures, etc. but obviously they cannot be studied directly because they don’t exist in the physical universe.

The problem with your fairy tales is that they make claims about the nature of the physical universe. You aren’t just talking about meaning, values, attitudes, and emotions. You are claiming that a superbeing actually exists somewhere in the universe, and that this superbeing created the universe, performs tangible miracles, etc.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You demand scientific proof and evidence for beliefs unlike your own while simultaneously excusing yours as beyond the scope of science.
[/quote]

Lame. What claims do I make about the objective universe which I excuse as beyond the scope of science?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You have to have controllable measurable inputs to preform an experiment. This logic does not apply to god, or your spiritual beliefs.[/quote]

While it would be convenient to excuse your fairy tale beliefs from the scrutiny of science, you don’t get off that easily. Any claims you make about the nature of the physical universe, like the claim that your god heals people, are subject to scientific study.

[quote]Doyle wrote:
You are assuming that for something to exist it must be perceivable buy our current means and subject to our current understanding.
Watt if the being did not exist in a physical universe, but rather in a separate spiritual state which does not require time or space? [/quote]

Which is a more credible hypothesis:

  1. Energy and matter have always existed, as supported by a boatload of research confirming the first law of thermodynamics.

  2. Energy and matter haven’t always existed, but were created ex nihilo by a superbeing that lives in a spiritual universe which is devoid of time and space.

Theoretically, either is possible…but logic and integrity require going with the more likely hypothesis, keeping an open mind should evidence prove otherwise.

[quote]Scrotus wrote:
If god healed people more often than expected by chance alone, how would we know? Could we say, “Hey god, could you cut out that healing people bullshit so we can see if you are healing people faster than would be expected by chance alone?” Or wait, since we are talking to god now, lets just ask god. [/quote]

As pointed out earlier, here is one way:

[quote]Praying for the health of strangers who have undergone heart surgery has no effect, according to the largest scientific study ever commissioned to calculate the healing power of prayer.

In fact, patients who know they are being prayed for suffer a noticeably higher rate of complications, according to the study, which monitored the recovery of 1,800 patients after heart bypass surgery in the US.

The findings of the decade-long study were due to be published in the American Heart Journal next week, but the journal published the report on its website yesterday as anticipation grew.

The power of intercessory prayer has been studied by doctors for years in America, but with no conclusive results. This $2.4 million study, funded in large part by the John Templeton Foundation, which seeks “insights at the boundary between theology and science”, was intended to cast some clear light on the matter.

aBut the study “did not move us forward or backward” in understanding the effects of prayer, admitted Dr Charles Bethea, one of the co-authors and a cardiologist at the Integris Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City. “Intercessory prayer under our restricted format had a neutral effect,” he said.

Members of three congregations - St. Paul’s Monastery in St. Paul; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Massachussetts; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City - were asked to pray for the patients, who were divided into three groups: those who would be told they were being prayed for, those who would receive prayers but not know, and those who would not be prayed for at all.

The worshippers starting praying for the patients the night before surgery and for the next two weeks, asking God to grant “a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications”.

The study found no appreciable difference between the health of those who did not know they were being prayed for and those who received no prayers. Fifty-two per cent of patients in both groups suffered complications after surgery. But 59 per cent of those who knew they were prayed for went on to develop complications.

The reports authors said they had no explanation for the difference beyond a possibility that the prayers made people anxious about their ability to recover.

“Did the patients think, ?I am so sick that they had to call in the prayer team?”? said Dr Bethea.

The results of the study provoked discord among doctors and scientists in the US, many of whom questioned the wisdom of subjecting prayer to the conditions of a research project.

Dr Richard Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia and the author of a forthcoming book, Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine, told The New York Times: “The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion.”

But Paul Kurtz, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, and chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, had a simpler response when asked why the study had found no evidence for the power of prayer. “Because there is none,” he said. “That would be one answer.”

Dr. David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, told the AP that he believed intercessory prayer could influence people’s health, but that scientists were not equipped to measure the phenomenon.

“Do we control God through prayer? Theologians would say absolutely not. God decides sometimes to intervene, and sometimes not,” he said. As for the new study, he said, “I don?t think… it?s going to stop people praying for the sick.”[/quote]

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
So, you can’t probe photons? analyze language? physically verify algebra?

Photons are not the color blue, only the constituent components. Russian and algebra are languages we have created, which have no matter or energy.

Meaning, values, attitudes, and emotions can all be studied indirectly by virtue of surveys, physiological measures, etc. but obviously they cannot be studied directly because they don’t exist in the physical universe.

The problem with your fairy tales is that they make claims about the nature of the physical universe. You aren’t just talking about meaning, values, attitudes, and emotions. You are claiming that a superbeing actually exists somewhere in the universe, and that this superbeing created the universe, performs tangible miracles, etc.
[/quote]

No, blue is the term given to a photon of a certain wavelength. It is observable and measurably true.

What you are saying is you can’t study a computer because silicon and circuits don’t embody the idea of computation inherent to the word.

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You demand scientific proof and evidence for beliefs unlike your own while simultaneously excusing yours as beyond the scope of science.

Lame. What claims do I make about the objective universe which I excuse as beyond the scope of science?[/quote]

Love, morals, laws of nature, every time you use words like better/worse/right/wrong.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
6+ billion people from everywhere on the globe will never agree on even the simplest, most basic things.[/quote]

That is true regardless of whether or not their morals are derived from one of the thousands of religions that exist. You will find common threads, like the value of loving others, but those exist irrespective of whether or not the moral code has a religious source.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Doyle wrote:
You are assuming that for something to exist it must be perceivable buy our current means and subject to our current understanding.
Watt if the being did not exist in a physical universe, but rather in a separate spiritual state which does not require time or space?

Which is a more credible hypothesis:

  1. Energy and matter have always existed, as supported by a boatload of research confirming the first law of thermodynamics.

  2. Energy and matter haven’t always existed, but were created ex nihilo by a superbeing that lives in a spiritual universe which is devoid of time and space.

Theoretically, either is possible…but logic and integrity require going with the more likely hypothesis, keeping an open mind should evidence prove otherwise.[/quote]

I think it’s more logical that every system has a beginning personally.

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You have to have controllable measurable inputs to preform an experiment. This logic does not apply to god, or your spiritual beliefs.

While it would be convenient to excuse your fairy tale beliefs from the scrutiny of science, you don’t get off that easily. Any claims you make about the nature of the physical universe, like the claim that your god heals people, are subject to scientific study.
[/quote]

Then come up with a scientifically credible study.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t think religion should be used to impart the scientific knowledge of things like how the world started, and on the same token, science can?t be used to disprove god.[/quote]

If you don’t think religion should be used to impart the scientific knowledge of things like how the world started, why are you claiming that your god created the world?

[quote]What I’m pointing out is the hypocrisy of forelife’s claims. That he can use science application to discredit religion and god while claiming his spiritual beliefs about existence, love, laws of nature, ect. are excused from questioning.
[/quote]

Who the hell said anything about spiritual beliefs? Is the color blue or the enjoyment I feel from hearing Mahler’s 5th spiritual because it doesn’t consist of matter/energy?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Infinite, eternal existence makes no more sense than something coming from nothing. Neither can currently be comprehended. You are replacing “straw man” with “chicken and egg”.
[/quote]

Infinite existence of matter and energy makes perfect sense, if you know even the rudimentary basics of physics.

What doesn’t make sense is the idea of a magical superbeing that lives completely outside of time and space, and has always existed.