Intelligent Design

[quote]John S. wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Most organized religions and atheism are inherently unscientific. They both deal in absolutes with no scientific proof.

But the fact remains that secular civilization has gone leaps and bounds beyond religious civilizations. Religion used to be a necessary force to run a country and advance society, but now it isn’t.

Why I say this is because intelligent design is nothing more than poorly disguised creationism. Even in this small thread on a small corner of the interwebz, we have people talking about their faith and how it’s better than science.

If you want to learn creationism, or want your kids to learn it then teach it to them yourselves or send them to Sunday school. Last time I checked there are no laws to stop you from doing so.

I don’t think anyone here is saying faith is better then science. Science helps me improve my faith, I love learning about the laws of the universe. Theorys have there place but I will not believe in them till they can be proven and that is what Science is all about.[/quote]

Honest question: you say you have/use faith, which requires the existence of doubt. Yet you won’t believe in scientific theories because they haven’t been proven yet (doubt exists)?

Not sure if this will work, but this picture always makes me chuckle

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/232/religionkv0.png&imgrefurl=http://www.theinternationalrules.com/2008/09/international-rule-of-spookery.html&usg=__yEfSUA-S4EznDXjUO4lFaO7tlWg=&h=700&w=894&sz=73&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=9vMp1vK4ZZ5JAM:&tbnh=114&tbnw=146&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dreligion%2Bvs%2Bscience%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
John S. wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Most organized religions and atheism are inherently unscientific. They both deal in absolutes with no scientific proof.

But the fact remains that secular civilization has gone leaps and bounds beyond religious civilizations. Religion used to be a necessary force to run a country and advance society, but now it isn’t.

Why I say this is because intelligent design is nothing more than poorly disguised creationism. Even in this small thread on a small corner of the interwebz, we have people talking about their faith and how it’s better than science.

If you want to learn creationism, or want your kids to learn it then teach it to them yourselves or send them to Sunday school. Last time I checked there are no laws to stop you from doing so.

I don’t think anyone here is saying faith is better then science. Science helps me improve my faith, I love learning about the laws of the universe. Theorys have there place but I will not believe in them till they can be proven and that is what Science is all about.

Honest question: you say you have/use faith, which requires the existence of doubt. Yet you won’t believe in scientific theories because they haven’t been proven yet (doubt exists)? [/quote]

Its quite simple. I don’t have faith in science. I believe science should have no faith involved in it. If you can prove it great, if you can’t then I have no reason to believe it. Which is why you see me staying to the first law so much.

Just because you can’t understand the proof doesn’t mean that there is no proof.

The mathmatical proof is that the change in energy multiplied by change in time is roughly equal to planks constant over 2pi.

If you mean scientific proof then here is one from last week Researchers measure elusive repulsive force f | EurekAlert!

Now give me a mathematical forumula and a peer reviewed study proving God exists and we may just be on an even keel.

…be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are far fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers.

–Saint Augustine

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Just because you can’t understand the proof doesn’t mean that there is no proof.

The mathmatical proof is that the change in energy multiplied by change in time is roughly equal to planks constant over 2pi.

If you mean scientific proof then here is one from last week Researchers measure elusive repulsive force f | EurekAlert!

Now give me a mathematical forumula and a peer reviewed study proving God exists and we may just be on an even keel.[/quote]

Well they just disproved the first law, things are about to get interesting it looks like I need to start researching it again. In these next few years things are going to change a lot. I would suggest reading HH’s post in GAL forum you may also find that interesting.

I am now very interested to see how the scientific community will deal with this.

Thanks, I’ll read that post. And you are in for some really interesting reading on this subject.

The scientific community should have no issues with the 1st law being broken because the first law is talking about things on a different scale.

It’s like Newtonian Physics, if it works on the level that you are working on then you use it, if you need to go to a higher level, you use quantum mechanics. The apple still falls from the tree regardless of why Gravity works.

It’s interesting how this post seems to be a snowball fight between those who accept a spiritual realm and a God, creator, existing and those who believe in only the existence of what “scientists” tell us is measurable. Either case has valid points but none are able to provide sufficient evidence.

History is not provable, it is only capable of being understood by faith in the evidence that we posit is a true reflection of the time period. So get over it, nobody can prove the big bang created the universe except by the same faith I use to state God created and arranged matter and energy into existence. The difference being purposelessness or purposefulness, having been reasoned into existence.

I don’t use emotion to guide my beliefs. Anybody that does may be getting fooled. I use science to validate my belief, and I have seen no science that has not validated my belief, only provided me with more evidence that the universe is divinely inspired and controlled by meticulous design. Until we start running “big bang” experiments and can create mini-universes in labs such as particle accelerators you’ll have no such evidence.

I think if this post does anything for a rational mind it should show how little each of us knows about the universe we live in, whether it be on the grand scale of the cosmos interacting or the miniature scale of quantum physics where we can only observe part of the particles behavior (where the other part operates in a different dimension).

You can use what we know about science (in the last few hundred years? or even last 100, or even last 10) to create faith in your own knowledge - or in parts of the scientific communities knowledge - as being sufficient to prove everything created is a self-caused existence, but I believe that to be a limiting theory as well. Because how much more is there to discover beyond matter and energy if there is a God?

We will be discovering for eternity, but each generation will only have a limited piece of the understanding of the future. Regardless of the scientific discoveries, none will prove fatal to theism, because the preface of creationism is that God created the very universe we are observing.

However, if there is someone who can show that non-living matter has generated living matter - then I concede to giving atheism some rationality for existing. Until then, the creation of biological organisms are just as much faith based as matter itself.

Nobody knows, so stop claiming to be sure of your own idiocy from your dusty books on the shelf. The brains capacity is like floppy disk trying to contain all the information on the internet. The words of the wise begin like: “the way I see the world is…” “the evidence I see gives me confidence that…” “what I find to be true based on my interpretations of the world and the application of science…”

“In an almost infinite universe with endless possibilities, given enough time, the chance of life evolving from nothing is 1/1”

[quote]flea333 wrote:
So get over it, nobody can prove the big bang created the universe except by the same faith I use to state God created and arranged matter and energy into existence. The difference being purposelessness or purposefulness, having been reasoned into existence. [/quote]

It’s not the same “faith” at all. I don’t believe the universe was created from the big bang. I only see that as one of many theoretical possibilities.

The difference is that you do believe in a “god”. You have chosen to have faith in something for which there is little supporting evidence, at the exclusion of other possibilities.

Existence of God does not automatically exclude anything discovered. To me it includes everything and anything discovered. I don’t see any limitation on a God given the fact that a being exists outside the natural realm. A God could have created the universe in a variety of ways. I certainly don’t know how He did it, but I’d love for science to discover how it appears to have been created.

Until we can witness a self-creating event, either in life or non-life, ie big bang in a box, than I have no real reason to believe creation was Godless.

The problem with your logic is that you are presuming a god created the universe in the first place. Instead of seeing it as just one of many possible explanations, you jump to the conclusion that you find most desirable, presumably because it provides a sense of purpose to your life.

Also, your argument about a self-creating event is a red herring since, as already pointed out, a godless universe doesn’t require or even imply an ex-nihilo explanation.

I could care less about purpose in my life. I don’t need a purpose to feel happy. I accept the belief in God because it makes the most sense to me.

[quote]flea333 wrote:
I could care less about purpose in my life. I don’t need a purpose to feel happy. I accept the belief in God because it makes the most sense to me.[/quote]

That’s the difference between you and me. You accept a belief as true, and I choose not to accept anything as true without strong proof. Unless you do so, any fairy tale becomes fair game.