Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[Foxfyre]

You can't argue against options A and B and in favor of C when C includes A or B. In creationism you have to conclude a god created himself or has always existed.

Using the cause and effect argument, it is a logical conclusion that some form of deisgn intelligence has always existed. Using scientific logic, Argument A is illogical and a scientific impossibility.

Using the science that we know, if we accept Argument B, we have to throw out a whole lot of science that we have accepted as settled science.

That leaves us with Argument C which is a very strong and scientific argument for the existance of intelligent design.

You'd have to "throw out" all the same science for C that you threw out for B.

Why? C is an entirely different conclusion based on scientific extrapolation.

 

[Foxfyre]

As previously posted, one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the existence of God is in the fact that a concept of God or higher intelligence has existed and exists within every culture that we can identify in the historical record of Earth.

I guess dragons are real, too then.

You do not find a concept of dragons in more than a very few, interrelated cultures. You find some sense of a God in all cultures everywhere.

In short it requires dismissal of far more science to disbelieve in God than it does to believe in some sort of intelligent design.

It requires far more faith to disbelieve in God or some sort of intelligent design than it does to believe.

That science has not yet devised a method to prove the existence of God is not at all proof or even a good argument that there is no God. It is a good argument for the limitations of science.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Using the cause and effect argument, it is a logical conclusion that some form of deisgn intelligence has always existed. Using scientific logic, Argument A is illogical and a scientific impossibility.

Using the science that we know, if we accept Argument B, we have to throw out a whole lot of science that we have accepted as settled science.

That leaves us with Argument C which is a very strong and scientific argument for the existance of intelligent design.

You'd have to "throw out" all the same science for C that you threw out for B.

Why? C is an entirely different conclusion based on scientific extrapolation.

What science is there that there's an eternal being capable of having lasted forever?

 

[Dr.Drock]

As previously posted, one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the existence of God is in the fact that a concept of God or higher intelligence has existed and exists within every culture that we can identify in the historical record of Earth.

I guess dragons are real, too then.

You do not find a concept of dragons in more than a few few, interrelated cultures. You find some sense of a God in all cultures everywhere.

I'm still not sure how that can be accepted as scientific evidence.

And a lot of people have thought the Sun or other basic components in nature was a god, and the sun is actually something that exists.

 

[Foxfyre]

You'd have to "throw out" all the same science for C that you threw out for B.

Why? C is an entirely different conclusion based on scientific extrapolation.

What science is there that there's an eternal being capable of having lasted forever?

Again, the inability of science to prove existence of intelligent design is a limitation of science, not intelligent design. Science is limited to cause-effect in repeatable phenomena based on careful observation and study. So far it cannot explain cause-effect for one time events such as the 'big bang' or even such mundane components that go into criticial thought or human personality.

Proof such as existence of a person, or occurrence of one-time events requires legal or historical evidence: oral testimony, written testimony, exhibits. Evidence is examined, and a verdict is concluded based on the weight of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt).

There is much in life and the universe that is known by the historical evidence and that cannot be proved by scientific methods.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Why? C is an entirely different conclusion based on scientific extrapolation.

What science is there that there's an eternal being capable of having lasted forever?

Again, the inability of science to prove existence of intelligent design is a limitation of science, not intelligent design. Science is limited to cause-effect in repeatable phenomena based on careful observation and study. So far it cannot explain cause-effect for one time events such as the 'big bang' or even such mundane components that go into criticial thought or human personality.

Proof such as existence of a person, or occurrence of one-time events requires legal or historical evidence: oral testimony, written testimony, exhibits. Evidence is examined, and a verdict is concluded based on the weight of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt).

There is much in life and the universe that is known by the historical evidence and that cannot be proved by scientific methods.

I appreciate that but I need evidence to back hearsay (especially when the hearsay is so totally different), scientific evidence.

Until that happens I won't believe a god exists, nor will I say science can disprove a god exists.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

As previously posted, one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the existence of God is in the fact that a concept of God or higher intelligence has existed and exists within every culture that we can identify in the historical record of Earth.

I guess dragons are real, too then.

You do not find a concept of dragons in more than a very few, interrelated cultures.

Sure, if by "very few" you mean "most of the world" (Europe AND Asia) and if by "interrelated culture", you mean not very related at all (as in Europe and Asia during the early middle ages)

 

[Foxfyre]

I guess dragons are real, too then.

You do not find a concept of dragons in more than a very few, interrelated cultures.

Sure, if by "very few" you mean "most of the world" (Europe AND Asia) and if by "interrelated culture", you mean not very related at all (as in Europe and Asia during the early middle ages)

There is no lore of dragons among most of the cultures in Africa, Australia, islanders who were not exposed to the Roman Empire either by physical presence or via trade relationships. No concept of dragons evident in the historical record of North and South American ancient cultures.

Yet a concept of some sort of god or gods is evident in all.

 

[Foxfyre]

What science is there that there's an eternal being capable of having lasted forever?

Again, the inability of science to prove existence of intelligent design is a limitation of science, not intelligent design. Science is limited to cause-effect in repeatable phenomena based on careful observation and study. So far it cannot explain cause-effect for one time events such as the 'big bang' or even such mundane components that go into criticial thought or human personality.

Proof such as existence of a person, or occurrence of one-time events requires legal or historical evidence: oral testimony, written testimony, exhibits. Evidence is examined, and a verdict is concluded based on the weight of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt).

There is much in life and the universe that is known by the historical evidence and that cannot be proved by scientific methods.

I appreciate that but I need evidence to back hearsay (especially when the hearsay is so totally different), scientific evidence.

Until that happens I won't believe a god exists, nor will I say science can disprove a god exists.

Well only if you count logic as hearsay.

Look at the argument again:

Taking the cosmological (cause and effect) argument for an intelligent designer alone:

Through our imperical experience and observation, we can rationally conclude that the universe exists. And that allows for three possibilities:
(a) It created itself
(b) It always existed
(c) It was created by an eternal being

Argument (a) is irrational as if nothing created itself, it had to be something and nothing at the same time, which violates the scientific law of contradiction.

Argument (b) is a possibility; however, the science that we have strongly suggests that the universe had a beginning. If we conclude that there was no beginning, we are going to have to throw out a whole lot of science books.

That leave us with Argument (c) that the universe came about as a result of a self-existent being. In short, the universe is an effect, and a self-existent force, intelligence, or "God" is its cause. That is the most rational of the three arguments.

Where is the hearsay?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You do not find a concept of dragons in more than a very few, interrelated cultures.

Sure, if by "very few" you mean "most of the world" (Europe AND Asia) and if by "interrelated culture", you mean not very related at all (as in Europe and Asia during the early middle ages)

There is no lore of dragons among most of the cultures in Africa, Australia, islanders who were not exposed to the Roman Empire either by physical presence or via trade relationships. No concept of dragons evident in the historical record of North and South American ancient cultures.

Yet a concept of some sort of god or gods is evident in all.

The Piasa or Piasa Bird is a Native American dragon depicted in one of two murals painted by Native Americans on bluffs (cliffsides) above the Mississippi River

Piasa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Foxfyre]

You'd have to "throw out" all the same science for C that you threw out for B.

Why? C is an entirely different conclusion based on scientific extrapolation.

What science is there that there's an eternal being capable of having lasted forever?

None, just as there is no science to even indicate, much less prove, that the stuff of the universe has always existed. And if there is, then all the science pointing to there being a beginning point for the universe is all in error.

So, all we are discussing is the limitations that exist related to science and that there is no evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer other than the logic that if there isn't one, then most of the sciene we have makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Foxfyre]

I guess dragons are real, too then.

You do not find a concept of dragons in more than a few few, interrelated cultures. You find some sense of a God in all cultures everywhere.

I'm still not sure how that can be accepted as scientific evidence.

And a lot of people have thought the Sun or other basic components in nature was a god, and the sun is actually something that exists.

It is human nature to try to find ways to explain or describe phenomena that they do not understand, and because human beings experience or perceive things differently, there are almost as many concepts and explanations for a god or gods as there are people. But something had to prompt the inclination to come up with a concept or explanation. And since essentially every culture that has ever existed as done so is pretty good evidence that there is something real that provoked that reponse.

It is a quite scientific conclusion.

 

[Montrovant]

As previously posted, one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the existence of God is in the fact that a concept of God or higher intelligence has existed and exists within every culture that we can identify in the historical record of Earth. And for those who choose not to believe in God or a higher intelligence, there are few, if any, things on Earth that produce more passion and determination to deny that something exists.

Then we begin narrowing down concepts in such a way that such a brilliant mind as Einstein, who did not accept the concept of a personal God who is specifically mindful of him, came to the conclusion that the very order of the universe was such to belie any reasonable mathematical possibility of it all happening purely by chance. His conclusion is that there is an intelligence within the whole guiding the process.

Taking the cosmological (cause and effect) argument for an intelligent designer alone:

We can rationally conclude that the universe exists. And that allows for three possibilities:
(a) It created itself
(b) It always existed
(c) It was created by an eternal being

Argument (a) is irrational as if nothing created itself, it had to be something and nothing at the same time, which violates the scientific law of contradiction.

Argument (b) is a possibility; however, the science that we have strongly suggests that the universe had a beginning. If we conclude that there was no beginning, we are going to have to throw out a whole lot of science books.

That leave us with Argument (c) that the universe came about as a result of a self-existent being. In short, the universe is an effect, and a self-existent force, intelligence, or "God" is its cause. That is the most rational of the three arguments.

You can't argue against options A and B and in favor of C when C includes A or B. In creationism you have to conclude a god created himself or has always existed.

Using the cause and effect argument, it is a logical conclusion that some form of deisgn intelligence has always existed. Using scientific logic, Argument A is illogical and a scientific impossibility.

Using the science that we know, if we accept Argument B, we have to throw out a whole lot of science that we have accepted as settled science.

That leaves us with Argument C which is a very strong and scientific argument for the existance of intelligent design.

I think this argument is flawed.

Your possibilities are limited; they assume that the only option other than the universe existing is nothingness. Why could it not be that the universe had a beginning, but that before the universe began there was still something, perhaps something we do not have the knowledge or ability to comprehend?

Further, I consider the wording of option A biased. The universe may not have created itself, but it may have come about through a natural process rather than an intelligence.

 

[Cammmpbell]

How many planets has the Hubble been able to closely observe, YWC? The Hubble is not some magical device which allows us to determine if any planet is potentially able to sustain life. Our reach in the universe is incredibly small. We have observed very few planets closely enough to have much of an idea of their conditions.

And yes, life would be rough.....in space. However, if there are other planets similar to Earth, life would be less rough within their atmospheres.

You really should stay away from these discussions. They do nothing to support your points and show off how little you appreciate the vastness of the universe, as well as how much you overestimate man's knowledge.

Trust me I don't over estimate man's knowledge of the universe. But there is none, zero evidence of a planet being similar to earth. There is zero evidence of life existing on other planets. Just because the universe is vast does not mean there is another planet like earth out there and it supports life.

It actually looks worst coming from your side because the universe is so vast there is no reason believe life does not exist out there or there is no planet out there like this one. The main reason to make a claim like this is to try and take away the uniqueness of this planet.

About the hubble telescope they can see galaxies that supposedly formed shortly after the big bang about 13.1 billion years away and you don't think they can see near by planets if life exists on them ? Or an enviornment that could even support life ?

Hubble telescope finds farthest galaxy protocluster ever seen (Wired UK)

Do you realize how much closer mars and saturn are from earth ?

Just couldn't handle it could you. Why don't you respond when you've been nailed
Would you like for me to post it again.........

 

[bayoubill]

I refuse to believe that the universe and everything in it happened "by accident"...

imho, there's something bigger driving the whole thing... something beyond our ability to comprehend...

 

[Foxfyre]

You can't argue against options A and B and in favor of C when C includes A or B. In creationism you have to conclude a god created himself or has always existed.

Using the cause and effect argument, it is a logical conclusion that some form of deisgn intelligence has always existed. Using scientific logic, Argument A is illogical and a scientific impossibility.

Using the science that we know, if we accept Argument B, we have to throw out a whole lot of science that we have accepted as settled science.

That leaves us with Argument C which is a very strong and scientific argument for the existance of intelligent design.

I think this argument is flawed.

Your possibilities are limited; they assume that the only option other than the universe existing is nothingness. Why could it not be that the universe had a beginning, but that before the universe began there was still something, perhaps something we do not have the knowledge or ability to comprehend?

Further, I consider the wording of option A biased. The universe may not have created itself, but it may have come about through a natural process rather than an intelligence.

It would have had to have come through a natural process out of nothingness, however. Either the universe has always existed or it had a beginning. Science can deduce that a 'big bang' is scientifically plausible, but there still had to be a causation for it. Science cannot answer that.

Certainly the three ponts of logic I offered are not the only arguments for the existence of God or intelligent design. Those three points are from the "Cause and Effect" or "the cosmological" rationale for the existence of God. We also touched on the Ontological argument that some concept of god or gods has existed in all cultures.

We haven't even touched on the moral arguments or telelogical arguments.

 

[Montrovant]

Using the cause and effect argument, it is a logical conclusion that some form of deisgn intelligence has always existed. Using scientific logic, Argument A is illogical and a scientific impossibility.

Using the science that we know, if we accept Argument B, we have to throw out a whole lot of science that we have accepted as settled science.

That leaves us with Argument C which is a very strong and scientific argument for the existance of intelligent design.

I think this argument is flawed.

Your possibilities are limited; they assume that the only option other than the universe existing is nothingness. Why could it not be that the universe had a beginning, but that before the universe began there was still something, perhaps something we do not have the knowledge or ability to comprehend?

Further, I consider the wording of option A biased. The universe may not have created itself, but it may have come about through a natural process rather than an intelligence.

It would have had to have come through a natural process out of nothingness, however. Either the universe has always existed or it had a beginning. Science can deduce that a 'big bang' is scientifically plausible, but there still had to be a causation for it. Science cannot answer that.

Certainly the three ponts of logic I offered are not the only arguments for the existence of God or intelligent design. Those three points are from the "Cause and Effect" or "the cosmological" rationale for the existence of God. We also touched on the Ontological argument that some concept of god or gods has existed in all cultures.

We haven't even touched on the moral arguments or telelogical arguments.

Why would the universe have to come from nothingness? Why couldn't there have been something else, something other than the universe, perhaps something other than matter and energy as we understand them, and from that sprang the universe? That's the problem I have, your assumption that the only things that can be are our universe and nothing. Even by the ID/god argument, there was something before the universe; the designer.

The fact that science cannot explain what existed before the big bang (assuming that is the way the universe came to be) is neither evidence of design nor evidence against natural causes. It's simply a lack of knowledge and understanding.

An intelligence may have created the universe. The fact that humanity has not figured out everything is not evidence of that.

 

[code1211]

A concept of one single "true" God is not uniform among all cultures, however, and that is a different debate. I prefer to start with the evidence of a concept of God tht does not need the Jewish or Christian scriptures to support that concept. There is no point in discussing the nature of God unless one is convinced that some form of a concept of God exists.

"Is convinced" and "accepts that" are two very different things.

Being convinced implies that an overwhelming assault of facts has left you converted.

Accepting that something "is" is just that.

How can one be convinced of a matter of faith?

 

[code1211]

Judaism and Christianity are two different belief systems. They the Jerws are still waiting for their messiah and the messiah already came.

The Jews no longer have a Temple and havn't had one for almost two thousand years ,that should tell the Jews something is not right.

The question was on the existence of life on other worlds.

 

[code1211]

Why ? With that vast universe and that matter being spread throughout the universe ? Just another theory that defies logic.

There could be life elsewhere, but there is no proof that there is life elsewhere.

Logic can be logical, but it doesn't have to reflect reality.