Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?

[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 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.

If there is evidence for an intelligent designer, why not present that evidence? It’s not the role of a disbeliever to disprove what is not supported. I have never seen such “observed, tested, and documented phenomena” that point to a supernatural designer. How would anyone test for supernatural design, designed by a supernatural designer? Can you link to some peer reviewed data?

How do we examine the hierarchy of supernatural designers who designed the subordinate designer? I think you can see I’m being facetious here but why presume one intelligent designer when none are needed and a logical presumption to an intelligent designer is a hierarchical structure of designers.

We know that gods have tended to breed when mankind needed explanations for natural phenomenon (but had none). We know that various cultures have invented various gods / designers who controlled various aspects of existence. Can you identify what separates and makes preeminent the western versions of gods / creators vs. the others?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If there is evidence for an intelligent designer, why not present that evidence?

Because there actually is none. Once you get past the prancing and dancing and flowery word salads and insults, the evidence presented will be, "Just open your eyes, it's all around you!". Every time.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

That's supposedly contrary to the prancing and dancing and flowery word salads and insults presented as evidence by some enlightened SJW who believes his atheistic stance is the only truth and only wants to insult those who believe in God instead of attempt intelligent discussion.

*****SMILE*****



.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's supposedly contrary to the prancing and dancing and flowery word salads and insults presented as evidence by some enlightened SJW who believes his atheistic stance is the only truth and only wants to insult those who believe in God instead of

Damn you are such a crybaby. For an insulting fuck, you sure have some thin skin.

And i ridicule your magical nonsense. Since you have nothing to support it except "because I say so", you take this ridicule as a personal attack. That's YOUR problem, not mine, crybaby.

 

[Capri]

If there is evidence for an intelligent designer, why not present that evidence?

Hollie, I HAVE presented that evidence. Several examples of it, multiple times. I've also given, multiple times, information on where to read about more such evidence.

I have never seen such “observed, tested, and documented phenomena” that point to a supernatural designer.

You could read about them. Maybe try one of the books I've cited several times.

How would anyone test for supernatural design, designed by a supernatural designer?

*sigh* There is no test for supernatural design, obviously. As I've said and said again, and again, and again: Observed, tested, and documented phenomena in biology and physics that, at this time, are not understood, can be explained by the existence of intelligent design. I gave examples, referenced those examples, and gave sources for more examples. This is evidence of an intelligent creator. No one so far has refuted this.

Can you link to some peer reviewed data?

As I've said, multiple times, the information I've presented comes from books. I gave their titles, authors, and links to them at booksellers.

Can you identify what separates and makes preeminent the western versions of gods / creators vs. the others?

Yes, but that's not the point under consideration. I'll be happy to discuss it another time if you'd like.
The point under consideration right now is whether there exists evidence of an intelligent creator in our universe.
Where we stand on this right now is that I've asserted that there is, presented some examples of that evidence, referenced detailed treatments of those examples and further examples, and offered the opportunity for anyone to counter the assertion. No counter has been offered or attempted. Evasion and deflection and refusal to acknowledge information already presented no more constitute a refutation or counter argument than the contradiction and browbeating that are one of your fellow nonbeliever's stock-in-trade.

If you'd like to concede the point, drop it, and move on, that would be fine. I'm sure we can have stimulating conversations about other, related topics.
If anyone else would like to address the point, that would be great, too.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hollie, I HAVE presented that evidence. Several examples of it, multiple times.

No, you have presented none at all. Saying you have evidence is not evidence.

 

[Hollie]

If there is evidence for an intelligent designer, why not present that evidence?

Hollie, I HAVE presented that evidence. Several examples of it, multiple times. I've also given, multiple times, information on where to read about more such evidence.

I have never seen such “observed, tested, and documented phenomena” that point to a supernatural designer.

You could read about them. Maybe try one of the books I've cited several times.

How would anyone test for supernatural design, designed by a supernatural designer?

*sigh* There is no test for supernatural design, obviously. As I've said and said again, and again, and again: Observed, tested, and documented phenomena in biology and physics that, at this time, are not understood, can be explained by the existence of intelligent design. I gave examples, referenced those examples, and gave sources for more examples. This is evidence of an intelligent creator. No one so far has refuted this.

Can you link to some peer reviewed data?

As I've said, multiple times, the information I've presented comes from books. I gave their titles, authors, and links to them at booksellers.

Can you identify what separates and makes preeminent the western versions of gods / creators vs. the others?

Yes, but that's not the point under consideration. I'll be happy to discuss it another time if you'd like.
The point under consideration right now is whether there exists evidence of an intelligent creator in our universe.
Where we stand on this right now is that I've asserted that there is, presented some examples of that evidence, referenced detailed treatments of those examples and further examples, and offered the opportunity for anyone to counter the assertion. No counter has been offered or attempted. Evasion and deflection and refusal to acknowledge information already presented no more constitute a refutation or counter argument than the contradiction and browbeating that are one of your fellow nonbeliever's stock-in-trade.

If you'd like to concede the point, drop it, and move on, that would be fine. I'm sure we can have stimulating conversations about other, related topics.
If anyone else would like to address the point, that would be great, too.

I’m afraid we have different standards for a supportable argument. A relatively obscure author who writes a book claiming “proof” for a supernatural designer (and makes a profit on those books), is far different than a researcher who submits a body of work to a science journal for peer review.

A book is no more “proof” of a supernatural entity than someone who will gainsay an argument and fail to offer testable evidence. The books written by the author you referenced earlier present a philosophical argument that appeals to a religious commitment but is not defendable in the realm of peer reviewed science. Philosophy (as it’s employed by those to support a religious belief) is among the most hopeless of positions that can be used to argue the mechanics of religion. It delivers essentially nothing of true utility. It can be used to support virtually any position since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

 

[Capri]

Hollie, I HAVE presented that evidence. Several examples of it, multiple times.

No, you have presented none at all. Saying you have evidence is not evidence.

Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?
Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?
et al

 

[Capri]

claiming “proof” for a supernatural designe

Evidence. Not proof; evidence. Fact-based evidence.

I’m afraid we have different standards for a supportable argument.

So be it. I look forward to stimulating conversations with you on other topics.

 

[Capri]

Articles and links to further reading presenting evidence in support of intelligent design:
Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design
Science, Evidence, and Research | Intelligent Design
Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design
Yes, Intelligent Design Is Detectable by Science | Evolution News
How Do We Know Intelligent Design Is a Scientific "Theory"? | Evolution News
Scientists Prove Again that Life is the Result of Intelligent Design

Peer-reviewed papers in peer-edited scientific journals supporting intelligent design as of July, 2017:
https://www.discovery.org/m/2018/12/ID-Peer-Review-July-2017.pdf

 

[Damaged Eagle]

That's supposedly contrary to the prancing and dancing and flowery word salads and insults presented as evidence by some enlightened SJW who believes his atheistic stance is the only truth and only wants to insult those who believe in God instead of

Damn you are such a crybaby. For an insulting fuck, you sure have some thin skin.

And i ridicule your magical nonsense. Since you have nothing to support it except "because I say so", you take this ridicule as a personal attack. That's YOUR problem, not mine, crybaby.

Did I address you??? No. It would seem you're the one with thin skin. Do you feel personally attacked in your supposed enlightenment at the alter of scientific consensus. Perhaps if you get enough scientists singing together they'll come up with enough people to support their theories instead of demanding others take them at their word. Last time I checked though that's not how a theory is proven to hold validity. Just as taking you at your word is like listening to the underwear boy sitting in his momma's basement. Have you saved those unicorns from the flood waters yet so you can have a rainbow?

*****CHUCKLE*****