Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We could use more of both.

Absolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.

 

[progressive hunter]

We could use more of both.

Abaolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.

well you believe we came from a rock with no evidence,,,,

you have your religion and they have theirs,,,

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We could use more of both.

Abaolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.

well you believe we came from a rock with no evidence,,,,

you have your religion and they have theirs,,,

For the love of god, would somebody PLEASE give this poor troll some attention? I can't seem to scrape him off of my shoe....

 

[progressive hunter]

We could use more of both.

Abaolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.

well you believe we came from a rock with no evidence,,,,

you have your religion and they have theirs,,,

For the love of god, would somebody PLEASE give this poor troll some attention? I can't seem to scrape him off of my shoe....

well I'm right,,,,

 

[Hollie]

We could use more of both.

Abaolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.

well you believe we came from a rock with no evidence,,,,

you have your religion and they have theirs,,,

For the love of god, would somebody PLEASE give this poor troll some attention? I can't seem to scrape him off of my shoe....

well I'm right,,,,

Life never came from a rock,,,,

That’s a nonsense slogan you spam multiple threads with,,,,

It displays a profound, willful ignorance on your part,,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

We could use more of both.

Abaolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.

well you believe we came from a rock with no evidence,,,,

you have your religion and they have theirs,,,

For the love of god, would somebody PLEASE give this poor troll some attention? I can't seem to scrape him off of my shoe....

well I'm right,,,,

Life never came from a rock,,,,

That’s a nonsense slogan you spam multiple threads with,,,,

It displays a profound, willful ignorance on your part,,,,

OK youre right,,,

its a rock soup,,,

 

[Hollie]

Abaolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.

well you believe we came from a rock with no evidence,,,,

you have your religion and they have theirs,,,

For the love of god, would somebody PLEASE give this poor troll some attention? I can't seem to scrape him off of my shoe....

well I'm right,,,,

Life never came from a rock,,,,

That’s a nonsense slogan you spam multiple threads with,,,,

It displays a profound, willful ignorance on your part,,,,

OK youre right,,,

its a rock soup,,,

People point and laugh at you for a reason,,,,

 

[DOTR]

Flood myths are quite common in ancient cultures around the world.

List of flood myths - Wikipedia

This could be for two reasons ...

a) a global flood occurred

Or, more likely,

b) It's a great story and one that people were eager to integrate into their oral histories (like resurrection stories)

Dying-and-rising deity - Wikipedia

Little more than surface similarities and most of them aping Christianity.

 

[Capri]

We could use more of both.

Absolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.

There's abundant evidence for the existence a Creator Force. There's no proof but there's definitely evidence. I reiterate: Religion and intellectualism aren't mutually exclusive. More intellectualism would bring better understanding of our world. More religion would bring better treatment of each other.

Flood myths are quite common in ancient cultures around the world.

List of flood myths - Wikipedia

This could be for two reasons ...

a) a global flood occurred

Or, more likely,

b) It's a great story and one that people were eager to integrate into their oral histories (like resurrection stories)

Dying-and-rising deity - Wikipedia

Little more than surface similarities and most of them aping Christianity.

What makes the Biblical flood story distinct is it's emphasis on morality. Immorality brings the destruction. Morality brings salvation from destruction, not only for the individual but for all life on Earth.
Most likely, myths developed around an actual occurrence. Ancient peoples created stories; Genesis presents a lesson in the ultimate importance of moral behavior and the grave consequences of the alternative.

 

[Hollie]

Abaolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.

well you believe we came from a rock with no evidence,,,,

you have your religion and they have theirs,,,

For the love of god, would somebody PLEASE give this poor troll some attention? I can't seem to scrape him off of my shoe....

well I'm right,,,,

Life never came from a rock,,,,

That’s a nonsense slogan you spam multiple threads with,,,,

It displays a profound, willful ignorance on your part,,,,

OK youre right,,,

its a rock soup,,,

Apparently,,,, you’re not concerned with making yourself the subject of ridicule,,,,

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There's abundant evidence for the existence a Creator Force.

There is none. Not a shred. But i do notice your new use term "creator force". The goalposts are already moving, as you sense you are inching closer to being asked for your "evidence".

More religion would bring better treatment of each other.

No. Less religion would better accomplish that. As it has in modern, western society. Get rid of Islam...poof, the world is instantly better. No more Judaism or Islam? Peace in the middle east wouldn't be far behind.

 

[james bond]

We could use more of both.

Absolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.

Nah, you're usually wrong. I'll go with both.

 

[james bond]

I think a lot of abiogenesis and primordial is still based on Miller-Urey experiments which required constant lightning strikes.

"The Miller-Urey experiment required constant lightning strikes. While lightning was very common on early Earth, it wasn't constant. This means that although making amino acids and organic molecules was possible, it most likely did not happen as quickly or in the large amounts that the experiment showed. This does not, in itself, disprove the hypothesis. Just because the process would have taken longer than the lab simulation suggests does not negate the fact building blocks could have been made. It may not have happened in a week, but the Earth was around for more than a billion years before known life was formed. That was certainly within the timeframe for the creation of life.

A more serious possible issue with the Miller-Urey primordial soup experiment is that scientists are now finding evidence that the atmosphere of early Earth was not exactly the same as Miller and Urey simulated in their experiment. There was likely much less methane in the atmosphere during Earth's early years than previously thought. Since methane was the source of carbon in the simulated atmosphere, that would reduce the number of organic molecules even further.

What Is Primordial Soup?

What is a coincidence is the Bible states Satan fell to Earth like lightning.

 

[Hollie]

I think a lot of abiogenesis and primordial is still based on Miller-Urey experiments which required constant lightning strikes.

"The Miller-Urey experiment required constant lightning strikes. While lightning was very common on early Earth, it wasn't constant. This means that although making amino acids and organic molecules was possible, it most likely did not happen as quickly or in the large amounts that the experiment showed. This does not, in itself, disprove the hypothesis. Just because the process would have taken longer than the lab simulation suggests does not negate the fact building blocks could have been made. It may not have happened in a week, but the Earth was around for more than a billion years before known life was formed. That was certainly within the timeframe for the creation of life.

A more serious possible issue with the Miller-Urey primordial soup experiment is that scientists are now finding evidence that the atmosphere of early Earth was not exactly the same as Miller and Urey simulated in their experiment. There was likely much less methane in the atmosphere during Earth's early years than previously thought. Since methane was the source of carbon in the simulated atmosphere, that would reduce the number of organic molecules even further.

What Is Primordial Soup?

What is a coincidence is the Bible states Satan fell to Earth like lightning.

What a coincidence that science understands the natural forces that produce lightning. We don’t need to let fear and superstition lead us to believe that angry gods are punishing humanity.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

We could use more of both.

Absolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.

You apparently believe that mankind's morals and ethics without religion are better when the very nature and history of mankind belies that.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Capri]

(Example of: we don't know how we got from point A to point B so it must be God)

(Example of: we can't do this ourselves so it must be God)

If you're going to wedge everything into one of you're very broad categories, which you've predetermined are inherently insufficient, no evidence will ever be of interest to you. That may be your intent. The examples are of intelligent design and intelligence within the universe.

Your approach to dismissing evidence for God and justifying your non-belief is essentially to establish that there is no God a priori: "We don't understand how or why, the existence of an intelligent creator would explain it, but there is no intelligent creator, therefore an intelligent creator isn't the explanation."

Whoever says this either doesn't understand natural selection, statistics/probability, or both.

No offence intended, but the scientists and statisticians who said it probably know more about natural selection and probability than you or I.

Do you have any examples of consciousness being outside the physical body?

They're all over the place and have been for ages. Most of us dismiss them as supernatural, metaphysical, superstitious hooey, and most or all of them probably are. Either way, it's not relevant to the point I was making:
The human brain has been neurologically mapped in fine detail. Never has consciousness been located. It's nowhere in our neural network, as far as modern neuroscience knows, yet it exists. This, just this fact, all by itself, is evidence of consciousness being outside the physical body. It's also evidence that consciousness didn't develop through the random mutation of brain cells.

If mind is also not separate from space-time or e=mc2 matter, it would explain much in particle physics. (Example of: ???) I have no clue what you're claiming or why you're claiming it. Clarification?

Atomic particles exhibit awareness. No one knows how that's possible. An intelligence within the universe would explain it.
I can't do more on an online forum than give some examples in brief. If you're not familiar with developments in quantum physics and are sincerely interested in exploring the topic, the two best introductions for non-cientists I can suggest are "The Hidden Face of God" by Gerard Schroeder and "What The bleep Do We Know" by William Arntz.

My contention here is that there's evidence of intelligent design in the universe. I've presented sound reasoning and supported examples, with references cited. The three arguing in opposition have basically presented three positions:
- "No there isn't. You're an idiot and a liar and so's everyone who believes as you"
- "There is no intelligent designer so there's no evidence for an intelligent designer"
- "There no definitive proof of an intelligent creator, there is or may someday be other explanations for the evidence that might indicate one, and there's stuff in the Bible that bothers me, so I don't believe in an Intelligent Creator""

The first isn't an argument but only contradiction, ignorance, and aggression.
The second is an unsupported conclusion permitting no real debate.
The third is a reasonable position and makes for some interesting conversation but ultimately demands what can't be given.

How about we give y'all an opportunity to actually present solid and pertinent arguments...
Resolved: The universe exists, therefore it was created, and therefore it had a creator. The universe contains complexity, sophistication, intelligence, and consciousness; therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent. There is nothing in modern science that disproves this.

Convince me otherwise.

 

[Hollie]

(Example of: we don't know how we got from point A to point B so it must be God)

(Example of: we can't do this ourselves so it must be God)

If you're going to wedge everything into one of you're very broad categories, which you've predetermined are inherently insufficient, no evidence will ever be of interest to you. That may be your intent. The examples are of intelligent design and intelligence within the universe.

Your approach to dismissing evidence for God and justifying your non-belief is essentially to establish that there is no God a priori: "We don't understand how or why, the existence of an intelligent creator would explain it, but there is no intelligent creator, therefore an intelligent creator isn't the explanation."

Whoever says this either doesn't understand natural selection, statistics/probability, or both.

No offence intended, but the scientists and statisticians who said it probably know more about natural selection and probability than you or I.

Do you have any examples of consciousness being outside the physical body?

They're all over the place and have been for ages. Most of us dismiss them as supernatural, metaphysical, superstitious hooey, and most or all of them probably are. Either way, it's not relevant to the point I was making:
The human brain has been neurologically mapped in fine detail. Never has consciousness been located. It's nowhere in our neural network, as far as modern neuroscience knows, yet it exists. This, just this fact, all by itself, is evidence of consciousness being outside the physical body. It's also evidence that consciousness didn't develop through the random mutation of brain cells.

If mind is also not separate from space-time or e=mc2 matter, it would explain much in particle physics. (Example of: ???) I have no clue what you're claiming or why you're claiming it. Clarification?

Atomic particles exhibit awareness. No one knows how that's possible. An intelligence within the universe would explain it.
I can't do more on an online forum than give some examples in brief. If you're not familiar with developments in quantum physics and are sincerely interested in exploring the topic, the two best introductions for non-cientists I can suggest are "The Hidden Face of God" by Gerard Schroeder and "What The bleep Do We Know" by William Arntz.

My contention here is that there's evidence of intelligent design in the universe. I've presented sound reasoning and supported examples, with references cited. The three arguing in opposition have basically presented three positions:
- "No there isn't. You're an idiot and a liar and so's everyone who believes as you"
- "There is no intelligent designer so there's no evidence for an intelligent designer"
- "There no definitive proof of an intelligent creator, there is or may someday be other explanations for the evidence that might indicate one, and there's stuff in the Bible that bothers me, so I don't believe in an Intelligent Creator""

The first isn't an argument but only contradiction, ignorance, and aggression.
The second is an unsupported conclusion permitting no real debate.
The third is a reasonable position and makes for some interesting conversation but ultimately demands what can't be given.

How about we give y'all an opportunity to actually present solid and pertinent arguments...
Resolved: The universe exists, therefore it was created, and therefore it had a creator. The universe contains complexity, sophistication, intelligence, and consciousness; therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent. There is nothing in modern science that disproves this.

Convince me otherwise.

One of the mistakes made by theists Is to attach human attributes to their gods as they attach human attributes to nature.

The statement : “Resolved: The universe exists, therefore it was created, and therefore it had a creator.” Is a classic fallacy.

Similarly, the statement: “The universe contains complexity, sophistication, intelligence, and consciousness; therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent. There is nothing in modern science that disproves this”
This is another classic fallacy used by theists in that they insist they are correct until proven wrong.

Well, I can counter the “prove it isn’t” challenge with “yes, science disproves you claim. Disprove it”. I am using your standards of disproof. Since I have disproof of your claims, it falls to you to disprove my disproof.

I’m just holding you to your own “standard”, such as it is.


All of your testimony presupposes that your god is the true god. All religions make this claim. I see nothing that advances your claim above the others.

Big bang, evolution, science ... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Faith on the other hand ... well, I think I'll let the more courageous souls here trailblaze that watery path across the sea. When it comes to "evidence of things unseen" ... the examples devolve quickly into personal experience, which, by the way forms the basis of my comments ... but that'll wait.

Let the new revelation illuminate the old, cast aside prejudices, the truth can stand the closest scrutiny.

We both have our a priori assumptions (everyone does), and though some may accuse me of it, I am not dogmatic in the least! I recognize and in fact trumpet the fluid nature of science, that knowledge grows and changes and tomorrow facts we think we know may get re-written. I find that exhilarating, not oppressive. But theists are the ones who believe in a less or not-at-all fluidity of their worldviews. And if anything aggravates me, it's theists who do not realize their "immutable word" -- in reality -- is just as likely to be changed as any tenet of science.

You find cohesion into assigning to the ultimate level a personable, intelligent being who authored things to be as they are. The flaw I have with that faith is that it turns around on itself:

You are arguing that intelligence and order cannot come out of nature, and so it needs to have come from an ordered/intelligent metaphysical being. But you premise collapses from its assertion because you are left with having to account for the intelligence that has sprung up out of nature in any event. You are saying your problem is solved by your problem.

Now in fact that is totally fine with me-- I'm not here to tell you, you are wrong about embracing that belief, anymore than I am wrong embracing the fact that it's not needed that there be a "designer".

The second problem with the assertion is that even if intelligence is at the core, that doesn't support a contention of a gods or any sort of eternal being. It still doesn't account for an approachable, loving, involved god, nor does it account for the Judeo-Christian gods-- it could be any number of gods, or ones that haven't been con-or-perceived yet, or it could have been a "god" with a limited lifespan (and is now dead). So still the atheist has cause (good cause in fact) to not embrace the theistic paradigm.

 

[Capri]

One of the mistakes made by theists Is to attach human attributes to their gods as they attach human attributes to nature.

Agreed.
Intelligence and consciousness are the two human attributes I suggested are shared by the Creator. They're non-physical attributes. Their presence in the universe suggests their presence in a Creator. I've argued nothing more than that.

The statement : “Resolved: The universe exists, therefore it was created, and therefore it had a creator.” Is a classic fallacy.
Similarly, the statement: “The universe contains complexity, sophistication, intelligence, and consciousness; therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent. There is nothing in modern science that disproves this”
This is another classic fallacy used by theists in that they insist they are correct until proven wrong.

Okay. You've identified my view as fallacious. You haven't presented support for that position.

Well, I can counter the “prove it isn’t” challenge with “yes, science disproves you claim. Disprove it”. I am using your standards of disproof. Since I have disproof of your claims, it falls to you to disprove my disproof.
I’m just holding you to your own “standard”, such as it is.

Yes, you are. However, it's not my standard but the one demanded of me here. I just turned it around to give those who's views differ from mine the opportunity to advance their positions.

All of your testimony presupposes that your god is the true god.

It doesn't. Nothing I've posted here presupposes that at all.

I've intentionally avoided the use of "God" as much as I could in favor of "Intelligent Creator" and similar terms, trying to restrict "God" to when we've discussed Biblical morality and then only in the context of Scripture, which obviously, presupposed the existence of the Scriptural God.

Most of what I've seen in this thread presupposes the non-existence of a Creator Intelligence and offers no argument to support that supposition.

Big bang, evolution, science ... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars.

Indeed. I contend that none of that disproves the existence of an intelligent creator. No one has yet shown otherwise.

the examples devolve quickly into personal experience

Not one example of evidence for an intelligent creator force that I've given has been from personal experience. All have been observed, real-world phenomena as documented by credentialed scientists.

Let the new revelation illuminate the old, cast aside prejudices, the truth can stand the closest scrutiny.

Well said! That's precisely what I've been trying to accomplish here.

But theists are the ones who believe in a less or not-at-all fluidity of their worldviews. And if anything aggravates me, it's theists who do not realize their "immutable word" -- in reality -- is just as likely to be changed as any tenet of science.

I'm quite sure I've already spoken here of a living and imminent Deity that guides the evolution of human understanding. You assume all theists are the same when there's actually a breadth of viewpoints.

You find cohesion into assigning to the ultimate level a personable, intelligent being who authored things to be as they are. The flaw I have with that faith is that it turns around on itself:

You are arguing that intelligence and order cannot come out of nature, and so it needs to have come from an ordered/intelligent metaphysical being. But you premise collapses from its assertion because you are left with having to account for the intelligence that has sprung up out of nature in any event. You are saying your problem is solved by your problem.

Thought I'd already addressed that. Maybe I didn't.

I'm not arguing that intelligence or order cannot come out of nature; I'm arguing that nature's order and intelligence is evidence of a creator and that the presence of intelligence, consciousness, and mind in the universe can't -- at least, as yet -- be accounted for by natural selection or any biological or physical process.

By definition, the creator intelligence didn't spring up out of nature. By definition, it is the creator of nature, matter, energy, and time and, therefore, cannot be of any of those things. Asking who created God or asserting that it takes matter energy, and time to create anything so there's no creator of matter, energy, and time is a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire "God" concept.

Now in fact that is totally fine with me-- I'm not here to tell you, you are wrong about embracing that belief, anymore than I am wrong embracing the fact that it's not needed that there be a "designer".

You've never said that I was wrong for holding my belief, nor have I seen you do so with others. That's appreciated and I've tried to be equally as courteous.

The second problem with the assertion is that even if intelligence is at the core, that doesn't support a contention of a gods or any sort of eternal being. It still doesn't account for an approachable, loving, involved god, nor does it account for the Judeo-Christian gods-- it could be any number of gods, or ones that haven't been con-or-perceived yet, or it could have been a "god" with a limited lifespan (and is now dead). So still the atheist has cause (good cause in fact) to not embrace the theistic paradigm.

If intelligence is at the core of the universe, it supports (doesn't prove but supports) the contention that there is or was an intelligence that created it.

I respect you and enjoy talking with you about this, Hollie, so please don't take it as a negative comment about you or your opinion when I say that you haven't addressed my argument other than to contradict it, restate portions of of your position that don't really address it, and misrepresent the views I've expressed.

 

[Hollie]

One of the mistakes made by theists Is to attach human attributes to their gods as they attach human attributes to nature.

Agreed.
Intelligence and consciousness are the two human attributes I suggested are shared by the Creator. They're non-physical attributes. Their presence in the universe suggests their presence in a Creator. I've argued nothing more than that.

The statement : “Resolved: The universe exists, therefore it was created, and therefore it had a creator.” Is a classic fallacy.
Similarly, the statement: “The universe contains complexity, sophistication, intelligence, and consciousness; therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent. There is nothing in modern science that disproves this”
This is another classic fallacy used by theists in that they insist they are correct until proven wrong.

Okay. You've identified my view as fallacious. You haven't presented support for that position.

Well, I can counter the “prove it isn’t” challenge with “yes, science disproves you claim. Disprove it”. I am using your standards of disproof. Since I have disproof of your claims, it falls to you to disprove my disproof.
I’m just holding you to your own “standard”, such as it is.

Yes, you are. However, it's not my standard but the one demanded of me here. I just turned it around to give those who's views differ from mine the opportunity to advance their positions.

All of your testimony presupposes that your god is the true god.

It doesn't. Nothing I've posted here presupposes that at all.

I've intentionally avoided the use of "God" as much as I could in favor of "Intelligent Creator" and similar terms, trying to restrict "God" to when we've discussed Biblical morality and then only in the context of Scripture, which obviously, presupposed the existence of the Scriptural God.

Most of what I've seen in this thread presupposes the non-existence of a Creator Intelligence and offers no argument to support that supposition.

Big bang, evolution, science ... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars.

Indeed. I contend that none of that disproves the existence of an intelligent creator. No one has yet shown otherwise.

the examples devolve quickly into personal experience

Not one example of evidence for an intelligent creator force that I've given has been from personal experience. All have been observed, real-world phenomena as documented by credentialed scientists.

Let the new revelation illuminate the old, cast aside prejudices, the truth can stand the closest scrutiny.

Well said! That's precisely what I've been trying to accomplish here.

But theists are the ones who believe in a less or not-at-all fluidity of their worldviews. And if anything aggravates me, it's theists who do not realize their "immutable word" -- in reality -- is just as likely to be changed as any tenet of science.

I'm quite sure I've already spoken here of a living and imminent Deity that guides the evolution of human understanding. You assume all theists are the same when there's actually a breadth of viewpoints.

You find cohesion into assigning to the ultimate level a personable, intelligent being who authored things to be as they are. The flaw I have with that faith is that it turns around on itself:

You are arguing that intelligence and order cannot come out of nature, and so it needs to have come from an ordered/intelligent metaphysical being. But you premise collapses from its assertion because you are left with having to account for the intelligence that has sprung up out of nature in any event. You are saying your problem is solved by your problem.

Thought I'd already addressed that. Maybe I didn't.

I'm not arguing that intelligence or order cannot come out of nature; I'm arguing that nature's order and intelligence is evidence of a creator and that the presence of intelligence, consciousness, and mind in the universe can't -- at least, as yet -- be accounted for by natural selection or any biological or physical process.

By definition, the creator intelligence didn't spring up out of nature. By definition, it is the creator of nature, matter, energy, and time and, therefore, cannot be of any of those things. Asking who created God or asserting that it takes matter energy, and time to create anything so there's no creator of matter, energy, and time is a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire "God" concept.

Now in fact that is totally fine with me-- I'm not here to tell you, you are wrong about embracing that belief, anymore than I am wrong embracing the fact that it's not needed that there be a "designer".

You've never said that I was wrong for holding my belief, nor have I seen you do so with others. That's appreciated and I've tried to be equally as courteous.

The second problem with the assertion is that even if intelligence is at the core, that doesn't support a contention of a gods or any sort of eternal being. It still doesn't account for an approachable, loving, involved god, nor does it account for the Judeo-Christian gods-- it could be any number of gods, or ones that haven't been con-or-perceived yet, or it could have been a "god" with a limited lifespan (and is now dead). So still the atheist has cause (good cause in fact) to not embrace the theistic paradigm.

If intelligence is at the core of the universe, it supports (doesn't prove but supports) the contention that there is or was an intelligence that created it.

I respect you and enjoy talking with you about this, Hollie, so please don't take it as a negative comment about you or your opinion when I say that you haven't addressed my argument other than to contradict it, restate portions of of your position that don't really address it, and misrepresent the views I've expressed.

Ultimately, I can’t address the theistic position that presumes one or more gods / intelligent designers and requires that others disprove such entities.

Writing for myself only, I don’t presuppose the non-existence of a “creator Intelligence”. The positive assertion of something falls to the presenter to support the claim. So, when the statement is made: “therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent”, there is an obligation of the part of the claimant to provide a supported, testable argument.

There is a human tendency to create gods / intelligent designers. Human history has shown that as knowledge increases, the role of those gods has diminished with most of those gods being relegated to being superfluous and now, looked upon as mere myth and legend. While great Hindu philosophers have done more with mathematics, great Greek pantheistic philosophers more with medicine, great Buddhist (and Taoist) philosophers more with chemistry …. every last one of them has been superseded by entirely secular scholars as the boundaries of knowledge have been pushed back by specialized researchers.

The day of the pre-eminent religious/philosophical/scientific polymath has come and gone. I don't call it good or bad. I call it truth.

There’s no reason not to conclude that existence could simply be an ongoing proces infinite in both directions. BTW, this is a naturalistic explanation for something theists are quite content to accept supernaturally, i.e., that their gods exist as an infinity. So there's nothing about the naturalistic paradigm that the theist doesn't already embrace. There is no evidence though that requires one to add sentience and other anthropomorphic attributes to the infinite nature of nature. Therefore, the theistic worldview unnecessarily complicates a simple concept in order to assign the infinite nature with a quasi-comforting personality.

There has never been a discovery about the natural world which suggested a supernatural cause. I don't have any reason to presuppose that intelligence and a sentient sense of “self” has sprung up out of nature, I accept the evidence that existence has naturalistic underpinnings.

 

[Capri]

One of the mistakes made by theists Is to attach human attributes to their gods as they attach human attributes to nature.

Agreed.
Intelligence and consciousness are the two human attributes I suggested are shared by the Creator. They're non-physical attributes. Their presence in the universe suggests their presence in a Creator. I've argued nothing more than that.

The statement : “Resolved: The universe exists, therefore it was created, and therefore it had a creator.” Is a classic fallacy.
Similarly, the statement: “The universe contains complexity, sophistication, intelligence, and consciousness; therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent. There is nothing in modern science that disproves this”
This is another classic fallacy used by theists in that they insist they are correct until proven wrong.

Okay. You've identified my view as fallacious. You haven't presented support for that position.

Well, I can counter the “prove it isn’t” challenge with “yes, science disproves you claim. Disprove it”. I am using your standards of disproof. Since I have disproof of your claims, it falls to you to disprove my disproof.
I’m just holding you to your own “standard”, such as it is.

Yes, you are. However, it's not my standard but the one demanded of me here. I just turned it around to give those who's views differ from mine the opportunity to advance their positions.

All of your testimony presupposes that your god is the true god.

It doesn't. Nothing I've posted here presupposes that at all.

I've intentionally avoided the use of "God" as much as I could in favor of "Intelligent Creator" and similar terms, trying to restrict "God" to when we've discussed Biblical morality and then only in the context of Scripture, which obviously, presupposed the existence of the Scriptural God.

Most of what I've seen in this thread presupposes the non-existence of a Creator Intelligence and offers no argument to support that supposition.

Big bang, evolution, science ... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars.

Indeed. I contend that none of that disproves the existence of an intelligent creator. No one has yet shown otherwise.

the examples devolve quickly into personal experience

Not one example of evidence for an intelligent creator force that I've given has been from personal experience. All have been observed, real-world phenomena as documented by credentialed scientists.

Let the new revelation illuminate the old, cast aside prejudices, the truth can stand the closest scrutiny.

Well said! That's precisely what I've been trying to accomplish here.

But theists are the ones who believe in a less or not-at-all fluidity of their worldviews. And if anything aggravates me, it's theists who do not realize their "immutable word" -- in reality -- is just as likely to be changed as any tenet of science.

I'm quite sure I've already spoken here of a living and imminent Deity that guides the evolution of human understanding. You assume all theists are the same when there's actually a breadth of viewpoints.

You find cohesion into assigning to the ultimate level a personable, intelligent being who authored things to be as they are. The flaw I have with that faith is that it turns around on itself:

You are arguing that intelligence and order cannot come out of nature, and so it needs to have come from an ordered/intelligent metaphysical being. But you premise collapses from its assertion because you are left with having to account for the intelligence that has sprung up out of nature in any event. You are saying your problem is solved by your problem.

Thought I'd already addressed that. Maybe I didn't.

I'm not arguing that intelligence or order cannot come out of nature; I'm arguing that nature's order and intelligence is evidence of a creator and that the presence of intelligence, consciousness, and mind in the universe can't -- at least, as yet -- be accounted for by natural selection or any biological or physical process.

By definition, the creator intelligence didn't spring up out of nature. By definition, it is the creator of nature, matter, energy, and time and, therefore, cannot be of any of those things. Asking who created God or asserting that it takes matter energy, and time to create anything so there's no creator of matter, energy, and time is a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire "God" concept.

Now in fact that is totally fine with me-- I'm not here to tell you, you are wrong about embracing that belief, anymore than I am wrong embracing the fact that it's not needed that there be a "designer".

You've never said that I was wrong for holding my belief, nor have I seen you do so with others. That's appreciated and I've tried to be equally as courteous.

The second problem with the assertion is that even if intelligence is at the core, that doesn't support a contention of a gods or any sort of eternal being. It still doesn't account for an approachable, loving, involved god, nor does it account for the Judeo-Christian gods-- it could be any number of gods, or ones that haven't been con-or-perceived yet, or it could have been a "god" with a limited lifespan (and is now dead). So still the atheist has cause (good cause in fact) to not embrace the theistic paradigm.

If intelligence is at the core of the universe, it supports (doesn't prove but supports) the contention that there is or was an intelligence that created it.

I respect you and enjoy talking with you about this, Hollie, so please don't take it as a negative comment about you or your opinion when I say that you haven't addressed my argument other than to contradict it, restate portions of of your position that don't really address it, and misrepresent the views I've expressed.

Ultimately, I can’t address the theistic position that presumes one or more gods / intelligent designers and requires that others disprove such entities.

Writing for myself only, I don’t presuppose the non-existence of a “creator Intelligence”. The positive assertion of something falls to the presenter to support the claim. So, when the statement is made: “therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent”, there is an obligation of the part of the claimant to provide a supported, testable argument.

...

There has never been a discovery about the natural world which suggested a supernatural cause. I don't have any reason to presuppose that intelligence and a sentient sense of “self” has sprung up out of nature, I accept the evidence that existence has naturalistic underpinnings.

My position doesn't presume an intelligent designer. My position is that there's evidence in nature for an intelligent designer.
I haven't asked anyone to disprove that there's an intelligent designer. I've asked for a refutation of my assertion that there's evidence in nature for an intelligent designer.
There are an ample number of discoveries about the natural world which suggest a supernatural cause. I've noted several and supported them with examples of observed, tested, and documented phenomena, and included references from credentialed scientists to those and more examples. This evidence is reason not to conclude that existence is simply a natural process.