Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[QuestioningMind]

as I said: there is the principle of parsimony which allows for a loving creator God.... but not for evolution to explain why we see the depicted countryside as something beautiful.

principle of parsimony

phrase of parsimony

1. the scientific principle that things are usually connected or behave in the simplest or most economical way, especially with reference to alternative evolutionary pathways.

How the heck do you think that this principle in ANY WAY allows for a 'loving creator god'?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence is the design itself. It is easy to see the patterns, at least the surface level patterns, once you see the very basics. Then everything begins to fall into place. I am not surprised that most people do not see them. It is often necessary, even with the smartest of us, to be shown or taught.

Alright, that is not "evidence". In the sciences there is a clear definition of what evidence is:

"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

For those that hate Wiki I can find quite a few other science based sources that use the same definition. The reason that this definition was formed is because of vague handwaving arguments as you just used. One has to put one's money where one's mouth is in the sciences. One must lay out a clear argument that is testable (a scientific hypothesis) to even begin to have evidence. Then one has to find specific observations or tests that confirm (and remember confirmation is not "proof") or opposes one's hypothesis (observations of evidence against is very often deadly to a hypothesis). Once one has taken the risk of putting one's idea in that form observations that support it are evidence for it.

 

[Skywalker]

Another nonsensical term is "fully formed". It is meaningless since all life is "fully formed" including transitional forms.

Let's try not to use garbage terms in a debate.

Transitional forms are not fully formed because they are intermediates.

 

[janesix]

That is mere word salad. Let's see you explain them if you understand them. I think that you are merely grabbing some terms that sound impressive to you. But go ahead and support your claims. You might start with what the phrase "canonical numbers" means.

Canonical numbers are the sets of numbers that are used to create our balanced, harmonic universe. They are embedded into the geometry of the universe. The "surface" numbers, those which are the most obvious, come in two sets that interact. The first, nearly unnoticeable, is the "twos" or doubling, with 12 being the most important. Then there are the "threes", starting with the cubed three, or 27. This number is then doubled in a progression, 27, 54, 108, 216, 432, 864 and beyond. These most obvious numbers are embedded in geometry, the solar system, etc. They are found in the platonic solids (example, the total number of angles in the cube is 2160) and the same number is found in the diameter of the moon(2160 miles). Also in the nautical miles of the Earth's circumference (216, 000) And again in an age of precession of the equinoxes (2160 years). These numbers are found in holy texts, beliefs and rituals, showing the ancients had at least some knowledge of the holy canon.

Then it gets deeper and more complicated, with special numbers like the square roots of 2, 3 and 5, phi, pi, and the trinity of 33-153-273. These numbers begin to show how they relate to life. If you want more, I will go on.

 

[janesix]

Alright, that is not "evidence". In the sciences there is a clear definition of what evidence is:

"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

For those that hate Wiki I can find quite a few other science based sources that use the same definition. The reason that this definition was formed is because of vague handwaving arguments as you just used. One has to put one's money where one's mouth is in the sciences. One must lay out a clear argument that is testable (a scientific hypothesis) to even begin to have evidence. Then one has to find specific observations or tests that confirm (and remember confirmation is not "proof") or opposes one's hypothesis (observations of evidence against is very often deadly to a hypothesis). Once one has taken the risk of putting one's idea in that form observations that support it are evidence for it.

I often test my hypotheses. For instance, I thought that other star systems, since they were also created by God, would have some sort of basic geometric relationship with ours.
Turns out I was correct, and there are basic geometric relationships, such as the square root of 2 and the canonical number progression.

 

[Skywalker]

The term "orderly" is very debatable though.
But in any case, your question, first of all, reveals a major argument from ignorance. It implies that UNLESS there is another explanation, the "god dun it" should be accepted. This is obvious nonsense.

But to answer your question: evolution. Not that it matters though.
For the sake of argument, I'm happy to say that it is "unknown" where it comes from (eventhough it isn't....).

That doesn't advance your "morals come from my god" case for even an inch.
Arguments from ignorance are a very poor way to argue.




If you mean the "laws" we find in the bible, then I can only say that all of us, including you, are vastly morally superior to the immoral barbarity found therein.

Since our secular 21st century morals are vastly superior to the ones we find in this millenia old barbarian text and NOT found therein, clearly morality doesn't come from said immoral text.

The moral laws in the Bible are givens about respecting oneself and others. I believe that in the end times, people will say what's wrong is right and what's right is wrong. Not lying, stealing, living together before marriage, are common sense moral rules that people know even without the Bible.

 

[metis]

Sounds similar to my homemade marinara that I got from the New York Times. No almonds, but otherwise very similar. I start with a cold iron skillet. Put in one quarter cup of EVOO, seven cloves of garlic that have been slivered. A bit of red pepper flakes. Not too many. Turn on the heat. When the garlic starts to sizzle add 28 ounces of good quality Italian canned tomatoes, heat to boiling. About a half a cup of water that I use to rinse out all of the sauce from the cans. A good amount of fresh basil. Not individual leaves but about two or three stalks of fresh. Salt and pepper to taste. After about 15 minutes fish out the basil leaves. You can add fresh chopped Italian parsley at the end. It is soooooo good. And of course if I make home made meatballs they finish in the sauce for a few minutes.

And of course, fresh grated parmesan is a must.

Sounds good, but the difference is yours is cooked a bit whereas ours isn't at all. However, what I have done is with leftover sauce, I'll usually save it for lunch and then heat it up to boiling whereas it gives at least a bit of variation. We also do eat the basil as we cut it in strips.

This is from Sicily, btw, and there's another recipe that I'll give ya that I just love. Skin & cube eggplant; cube some potato; lightly fry in some olive oil; poor 1+ cans of diced tomatoes in with eggplant & potato; add salt, garlic, pepper flakes, basil; simmer for 1/2 to 1 hour; serve over hot pasta. The eggplant tends to sweeten the sauce, so you'll not ,miss the meat.

BTW, speaking of which, Sicilians tend to add some sugar to their sauce, which took me a while to get used to.

Another BTW: ever have fried pasta with sauce & parmesan? It's a tasty leftover that's fried like hash-browns.

 

[Polymath257]

Transitional forms are not fully formed because they are intermediates.

Wrong. They are fully functional, fully formed organisms. They are *still* intermediate between their ancestors and their progeny. ALL of which are 'fully formed'.

 

[Polymath257]

I do understand them. They are design in canonical numbers and geometry.

Care to describe exactly what you mean by a 'canonical number'?

Or why they have anything to do with a deity?

 

[janesix]

People have been teaching all sorts of contradictory nonsense for thousands of years. What makes you think your understanding is the correct one?
Your theological beliefs don't stand up to observations, testing or reason, nor do they follow logically.
They may be the laws of the universe, but why do you attribute them to an invisible, intentional magician? Show your reasoning, please.

I haven't always attributed the laws of nature to God. I think it could just be how the universe is, naturally. I am about 50 percent believing. The thing is, I know there is a god due to experience. I just figure, sometimes, that he is also the creator. I go back and forth on this all the time. There is a being that is showing me these things, ha been for ten years. This being is I call "The Universe". I do not think this being is God, but a part of the universe that is conscious. And controls what information I get through synchronicities, and presenting me with information. This being seems to have a sense of humor.

 

[Polymath257]

The combination of all the circumstances involving that word give it a connection to the animal.

No, it is the *convention* adopted by the people that gives the connection to the animal. Nothing about the sound or the animal are necessarily connected to each other.

 

[Polymath257]

The evidence is the design itself. It is easy to see the patterns, at least the surface level patterns, once you see the very basics. Then everything begins to fall into place. I am not surprised that most people do not see them. It is often necessary, even with the smartest of us, to be shown or taught.

The structures are orderly. That doesn't mean they are designed. There are other ways to get orderly structures than design by an intelligence.

Once again, MOST of the universe has spontaneously formed structures. Those produced by humans are the exception, not the rule. So 'design' is very much the exception.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds good, but the difference is yours is cooked a bit whereas ours isn't at all. However, what I have done is with leftover sauce, I'll usually save it for lunch and then heat it up to boiling whereas it gives at least a bit of variation. We also do eat the basil as we cut it in strips.

This is from Sicily, btw, and there's another recipe that I'll give ya that I just love. Skin & cube eggplant; cube some potato; lightly fry in some olive oil; poor 1+ cans of diced tomatoes in with eggplant & potato; add salt, garlic, pepper flakes, basil; simmer for 1/2 to 1 hour; serve over hot pasta. The eggplant tends to sweeten the sauce, so you'll not ,miss the meat.

BTW, speaking of which, Sicilians tend to add some sugar to their sauce, which took me a while to get used to.

Another BTW: ever have fried pasta with sauce & parmesan? It's a tasty leftover that's fried like hash-browns.

Yeah, I used to make a very unhealthy Americanized carbonara. One pound of bacon and one pound of dry spaghetti for starters. Some of the left overs would be cooked into a fritata. Fry some left overs a bit, get a nice bit of crunch on it, pour over a mixture of beaten eggs and milk. Dang! I just had breakfast and now am hungry again.

I do want to try to make a "real carbonara" some day. Though I will probably learn how to using bacon before I go all out and do it with more expensive and correct ingredients. Specifically guanciale.

 

[Skywalker]

How did he do that, and why do you believe it?
So why did he have to die? Why couldn't he just change the rules?
But they do work automatically. How do you explain that?
We can observe it happening. The mechanisms are commonsense, predictive and tested. Complexity does not need planning and conscious manipulation. It does not need magic.
But they don't. You're presuming. You're ignoring contrary evidence.
You have a fixed idea and mythology. You presume everything contradicting it is wrong.

Fact: Your mythology is unsubstantiated. There is no empirical evidence supporting it.
The scientific explanation, on the other hand, is based on observed, tested facts. It's evidenced.
Tested, observable, predictive evidence trumps folklore.
????? -- what's that mean?
Huh? It's not a human creation? So where did it come from?
Christianity claims historicity, but the claim's unsubstantiated, as even biblical scholars will admit, and many biblical myths are clearly false.
Because the natural mechanisms that created them are well known.
I say everything I see in nature is natural, ie: sans intentional design or purpose. Everyone knowledgeable on the subject agrees with this. Your insistence on a magical manipulator behind it all is entirely faith-based and mythological. You're presuming your own myth and rejecting anything not in agreement, no matter what the supporting evidence.

Marijuana exists because of original sin?! This I've got to hear -- please explain.
The Big Bang/Inflation. There is no who. Why would there have to be a who?
Show your equations, professor. The natural laws appear to be a chance artifact of inflation. There is neither evidence of design nor any reason to think it necessary.
That's just absurd. It's as ridiculous as saying sight has no survival value. Why would you think they weren't the product of natural selection, like all the other senses?
?????
The origin of water is the same as that of any other compound. There's nothing special about a water molecule. Why could simple chemistry not explain the compound?
Oh jeez, not this old trope.
What the heck is a "kind?" Kind is not a taxonomic designation. It's a designation made up by creationists.

What stops small changes accumulating into big changes? How does evolution know when to stop changing, so as to avoid becoming a new species? What would stop the changing? Most species that existed are now extinct. Most current species did not exist five or ten million years ago. Did they just pop into existence? Why do we never observe this magic poofing, if it occurs all the time? What mechanism would explain it? How do you explain the species we've observed emerging only recently? How do you explain ring species?

If French was once Latin, why didn't God prevent it from evolving into an entirely new language; a new "kind?" Why do small changes accumulate in language but not in biology?

Marijuana exists because God cursed the ground after people sinned. A judge can't just change the laws to exempt someone from a legal punishment because the law doesn't work that way.

Christianity is historical. It has a timeless message. The Bible does relate to us today. All the authors wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He doesn't make mistakes, and He is always timely and eternal, It was written by 66 different authors, all with the same message. What are the chances of that? They all had the same themes of redemption, seeking God, making God a part of your life, the Messiah. The Bible applies to people in all cultures, all generations, all races, and all situations, circumstances, and social stratas. The Bible is about real people, places, and things-archaeologists are revealing more and more about the accuracy of the Bible. The Bible is the most studied and researched book in the history of mankind, and what it says has been shown to be true again and again. The commandments of the Bible are the absolutes of God-His opinions on sin, judgement, righteousness, obedience, forgiveness, and holiness have not changed and will not change.

Regarding the claims of the Bible being unsubstantiated and some Bible stories being myths, it's possible stories like Adam and Eve are allegories. I don't have a fully formed opinion on whether Genesis is an allegory because it's not important. That doesn't disprove the Bible. Whether Genesis is an allegory doesn't detract from the message. When you begin to discount or dismiss the Word of God, you'll find that there's no end to discounting it or dismissing its value. On what basis can you say that some of the Bible is true but other parts aren't? On what basis can you say that you believe some of the miracles but not all of the miracles? On what basis can you say that the love of God is good to believe but the justice and righteousness of God aren't good to believe?

 

[Polymath257]

I often test my hypotheses. For instance, I thought that other star systems, since they were also created by God, would have some sort of basic geometric relationship with ours.
Turns out I was correct, and there are basic geometric relationships, such as the square root of 2 and the canonical number progression.

We expect resonances between planets to involve the ratios of small integers. Gravity tends to drive systems to such.

The square root of 2 is, again, something to be expected because of 1:2 resonances and the inverse square law of gravity.

Can you give some specifics that are NOT easily explained without the need of a deity?

 

[Audie]

It's very possible organisms can arrive fully formed. Think cymatics. The most I will allow for in evolution is orthogenesis. I haven't decided yet. I do know that NEODarwinian evolution is complete bs. Impossible.

Cool. You know more than any scientist on earth.

 

[Polymath257]

Marijuana exists because God cursed the ground after people sinned. A judge can't just change the laws to exempt someone from a legal punishment because the law doesn't work that way.

Christianity is historical. It has a timeless message. The Bible does relate to us today. All the authors wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He doesn't make mistakes, and He is always timely and eternal, It was written by 66 different authors, all with the same message. What are the chances of that? They all had the same themes of redemption, seeking God, making God a part of your life, the Messiah. The Bible applies to people in all cultures, all generations, all races, and all situations, circumstances, and social stratas. The Bible is about real people, places, and things-archaeologists are revealing more and more about the accuracy of the Bible. The Bible is the most studied and researched book in the history of mankind, and what it says has been shown to be true again and again. The commandments of the Bible are the absolutes of God-His opinions on sin, judgement, righteousness, obedience, forgiveness, and holiness have not changed and will not change.

Regarding the claims of the Bible being unsubstantiated and some Bible stories being myths, it's possible stories like Adam and Eve are allegories. I don't have a fully formed opinion on whether Genesis is an allegory because it's not important. That doesn't disprove the Bible. Whether Genesis is an allegory doesn't detract from the message. When you begin to discount or dismiss the Word of God, you'll find that there's no end to discounting it or dismissing its value. On what basis can you say that some of the Bible is true but other parts aren't? On what basis can you say that you believe some of the miracles but not all of the miracles? On what basis can you say that the love of God is good to believe but the justice and righteousness of God aren't good to believe?

Actually, parts of the Bible have been shown to be true. Other parts have been shown to be false. other parts are simply morality tales with no actual truth value. stories are about real people. Some are about fictional people.

I would encourage you to actually look into the archeology of the lands of the Bible and what the professionals say. You might be surprised.

 

[Skywalker]

I can only inform you that this belief of yours is clearly and obviously incorrect.



Neither means a god exists.

If there is no God, why is there a sense of right and wrong and a creation all around us? The creation declares the majesty of God. A building reveals that there was a builder.

 

[Polymath257]

The moral laws in the Bible are givens about respecting oneself and others. I believe that in the end times, people will say what's wrong is right and what's right is wrong. Not lying, stealing, living together before marriage, are common sense moral rules that people know even without the Bible.

Actually, living together before marriage should be encouraged. It leads to happier and healthier relationship unless those involved are programmed by some religion. Lying and stealing are simple violations against society.

But recall that slavery is endorsed in the Bible. But people today would say it is immoral. In this, I would say that people today are correct and the Biblical rules are wrong.

 

[Skywalker]

Actually, parts of the Bible have been shown to be true. Other parts have been shown to be false. other parts are simply morality tales with no actual truth value. stories are about real people. Some are about fictional people.

I would encourage you to actually look into the archeology of the lands of the Bible and what the professionals say. You might be surprised.

Do you think that the evidence that Sodom and Gommorah was found is a fabrication? I don't think the people who said it had much to gain They were already archaeologists.