If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.
Evidence for Design #1 - Complexity, irreducible and otherwise
- Thread starter Seymour Flops
- Start date
Is it your belief that the theory of natural selection is random?
Actually I'm agnostic on that issue. I don't know how the universe was created but don't see any intellectual intent on display. Without evidence to the contrary, I'll stick with what I do know and predict the answer will be devoid of intent.
Yes. Both science and religion studies bring me to the same conclusion. The universe is a product of nature not supernature.
I have been studying the issue since I was 12 and determined then, and have had no reason to change my mind, that a realistic perception of God is an oxymoron. I know what is the general perception but I don't share it.
Thanks Matthew but I think you and Seymour Flops have started from a place of faith and have worked backwards from there. You both share the same log, it is called the Bible.
Nothing random about it, neither is there any intent either.
If you don't know how the universe was created then you can't know that any intellectual intent wasn't on display as YOU have no evidence either way. In other words, you are contradicting yourself and showing your bias.
Can you be more specific? What did you learn from science that led you to your belief?
Supernatural is defined as some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. So wouldn't anything outside of our universe be considered supernatural?
Can you prove it?
What was your deciding factor? And if you literally have no perception of God how can you know that you didn't create a self fulfilling prophecy that there must be no God. Because I wouldn't believe in your perception of God because you never had a perception of God that was based on anything other than fairy tales.
My perception of God is that there is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.
Did you look for this perception of God?
Last edited:
That would be incorrect. My starting point was the observation that man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. From there it proceeded to a study of the origin of the universe.
Exactly. It was entirely logical. Life and intelligence were preordained to exist by the laws of nature. Rules laws and information are signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence.
No offense intended but your argument does seem like it's the argument of a twelve year old. Don't you think it's time to update your evaluation using adult objectivity rather than being clouded by your religious experience as a child?
No, I started off saying I was agnostic. There may be intellectual intent and you may see it but I do not.
Everything I have ever encountered has had an naturalistic explanation. No burning bushes.
Not if the known laws of nature hold sway outside of our universe? How do you know?
Now why would I be offended? I have not yet been impressed by the sophistication of your point of view so I guess we're even.
It is not a math problem, so no. But your evidence to the contrary has not convinced me otherwise.
Poetic but can you prove any of it? What's the evidence besides you logical excursion?
A semantic construct? No.
Utopian, I'm sure Marx would agree, but the reality says you're dreaming.
You stated you are agnostic on how the universe was created and then proceeded to say it couldn't have been created intentionally. That is inconsistent. You are literally making an affirmative statement after admitting you can't make any affirmative statements.
You can define the word logic any way you want but to me it is not the opposite of random.
What I said was there was no evidence it was created intentionally.
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
The Great Mistake- The Re Election of Trump based on the belief he could create a great economy- Started by IM2
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Trump Says Little Girls Can Only Have "2 Dolls" Because Of His Insane Tariffs....But He Gets To Keep The $400 Million Jet, Thank You Very Much!!!- Started by Dr. Phosphorous
- Replies: 26
-
