Evidence God Is

[WalterTrull]

I believe there is one. When there is one, I don’t classify being self-aware as intelligence.

However, when we attempt to segment the concept of one in an attempt to analyze it, we create the appearance of cause and effect. If we accept cause and effect as premise, intelligent design seems a logical conclusion.

 

[Woberts]

Nice post, @nPeace.

Even Einstein realized there was a “superior reasoning power” behind the complexity.

Excerpt from (Barnett, L.,) "The Universe and Dr. Einstein", Victor Gallancz Ltd, London, UK, p. 95, 1953.—
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
(Capitalization of 'Himself' and 'God' were in the book.
Bold type is mine, to highlight.)

Is this supposed to be a "Gotcha, atheists!"?
Einstein wrote a letter in 1954, shortly before his death, that said:
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish,"

Also, Stephen Hawking was an atheist. He realized that there is no "superior reasoning power" behind the complexity.
Funny how the smartest people in the world almost always seem to disagree with ya.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It looks so haphazard, some strange intelligence to it. But i fail to see divine workings in these molecular machines.

What do you mean, then, by "intelligence"?

 

[nPeace]

Yes.

Yes? That's it?
No argument? Nothing?
Okay.

This theory has been torn apart dozens of times, but the same statements still get made. What is the point of even trying when no one listens in the first place.

What theory is that?

The human body is NOT a good design.

• Why do we have a blind spot
• Why do males have nipples
• Why do we have a tail bone
• Why don't wisdom teeth fit in our mouths anymore?
• The backbone was not designed for upright walking; that's why so many humans have back problems.
• Why are the male genitalia so 'designed' - why put the reproductive system next to the waste disposal system.

I could go on but if we were designed (we weren't) then the designer needs to go back to the drawing board.

You thinks it's a bad design, because you don't understand why its design is as it is?
Whether to you, it's a good or bad design, its design allows for its function - an efficient one.
Or perhaps we can try making a few adjustments, and see what results. Would you volunteer as the first guinea pig?
Thousands of centuries have passed, and no one has proposed such a thing. Why?
Is it because the design has the requirements necessary for its components to properly function, and reach its intended purpose.
That why when things really are not good, doctors operate, in order to make things function as they ought to.

So my computer has a virus.
I suggest that the computer is a bad design, and the designer needs to take it back, and go crawl under a rock and die.

 

[nPeace]

How did you draw conclusion of a deitt based on lifes complex design? and how, within the design, does it point tp the christian god?

I didn't draw any conclusion about any deity based on life's complex design.
We recognize its design - I'm glad we agree on that.
So we realize then, there is a designer.
Whoever or whatever that designer is for you is fine by me.
I just pointed to what the most ancient text on the designer proclaimed.
I happen to believe what this ancient text says, because on close examination of it, it appears to be sound.
Romans 1:18-23 says, 18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles.
Yeah that pretty much sums up the truth to me.

The Bible says that Jehovah God did not leave himself without witness in that he did good, giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying you with food and filling your hearts with gladness. (Acts 14:17)
We see that don't we? At least, that's what I see.

My main point though was, that there is design in creation.
Who, or whatever is the designer, each one will make up their mind what they believe.
However, if the Bible is true... that would be Jehovah God - which I believe.

Hey @Hockeycowboy, thanks.

 

[nPeace]

Check out these exquisite designs

Hey, thanks. What do you think about these designs?

 

[Cacotopia]

Altfish laid out some pretty obvious ones. But the eye has been in development for quite some time in evolution. from sensing light and shadow to multicelled eyes to binocular stereoscopic vision. And a human's eye is nowhere near the best example of a highly functioning eye out there, the octopus' eye is perhaps more "fine tuned" (to use your terminology) than our ever has been.

 

[viole]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. - Genesis 1:1

The earth is a planet of a second generation star. Does not look like having been there at the beginning. At all.

By the way, if God has not been designed, it follows He is very simple. A divine Simpleton. Right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

The hearing ear and the seeing eye —Jehovah has made both of them. Proverbs 20:12

The Ear
The ear consists of three parts: the outer ear, the middle ear, and the inner ear.
The middle ear is a small chamber that begins with the eardrum and leads to the maze of passageways that constitute the inner ear.

Besides its function in connection with hearing, the inner ear also possesses organs having to do with balance and motion.

The use of two ears greatly helps a person to locate the source and direction of sounds.
The human ear detects sounds within the range of about 20 to 20,000 cycles per second.
The ears of many animals are sensitive to tones of higher pitch that are inaudible to the human ear. The range of sound energy perceived by the human ear is remarkable. The loudest sound that the ear can tolerate without danger is two million million times as powerful as the least perceptible sound. The human ear has the maximum sensitivity that it is practical to possess, for if the ears were any keener they would respond to the unceasing molecular motions of the air particles themselves.

The outer ear is precisely designed with a specially designed structure of curves, and an opening designed to catch and channel sound waves into the inner ear.

Spoiler: Auditory Transduction

The Eye
The eye is a highly efficient, self-adjusting “camera” that transmits impulses to the brain, where the object focused on the eye’s retina is interpreted as sight.

The possession of two eyes, as in the human body, provides stereoscopic vision. Sight is probably the most important channel of communication to the mind.

The retina contains 120 million rods - allowing us to detect shapes and intensity, and 7 million cones for detecting color.

The rods and cones convert the visuals into nerve messages to be transported to the brain, which then translates those messages.

Spoiler: A Journey Through the Human Eye: How We See

Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; All its parts were written in your book Regarding the days when they were formed, Psalms 104:16
Before any of them existed.

Is there any question of design?

To be continued...

Oh dear. Never heard of evolution by natural selection?

You know, the one that explains why we are in the likeness and image of hairless gorillas.

Not even after it has been scientific orthodoxy for, how long, 150 years?

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

I think it’s strong, too. Just by looking at the complexity, as you said.



How about one Creative Spirit? And here’s why:

Because all life has the same building “codes”! Even totally disparate organisms, share genes and processes so similar, they are all thought to descend from one organism!

Well I think the nature spirits or whatever term are all part of the ONE/God/Brahman.

I am a so-called pantheist in that I believe in non-dualism (meaning God/Brahman and creation are not-two). We are all part of God/Brahman.

 

[George-ananda]

But the complexity is explainable by natural processes. Why posit magic?

Even the existence of so-called 'natural processes' at some point posits magic somewhere.

My belief that intelligence is one of the processes involved in life comes not just from certain complexities better explained with intelligent fostering but also from my philosophical studies of those that claim insights/perspectives beyond the gross physical level of our senses.

 

[nPeace]

Impressive! A remarkable collection of debunked "arguments," nPeace.

I appreciate that you put argument in quotation marks, since I see no collection of argument.
I do see a few presented facts. So perhaps you might want to point out those "arguments", and show me how they have been debunked - especially too, since most people think that a counter argument somehow automatically debunks an argument.

But the complexity is explainable by natural processes. Why posit magic?
Do you think it's strong, or feel it's strong? Why do you find the natural explanation inadequate?

I think he is arguing for the fact

that there is intelligence in the design of life

It is strong because that is the correct conclusion we arrive at, since design requires a designer.
Since planning goes into the construction, then intelligence is involved.

Take for example, our own designs.
Was the camera designed?

Scientist say, the eye is like a camera.
Of course the camera was designed as a mimic of the eye.

Why is the eye a more sophisticated design?
It is due to the most complex organ in the universe - the brain.

Without the brain, the eye could not reach its intended purpose, but would be a useless function.
Without its primitive components, the eye would be useless.
A set of requirements are necessary for the eye to function.
What enables the eye to see?
Its design.

Thus, like the camera, the eye has a designer.
The hearing ear and the seeing eye — Jehovah has made both of them. Proverbs 20:12
If a simple house requires a builder, how much more so a far more complex object. Hebrews 3:4

Could this be the reason some scientist are proposing a more simple suggestion to the origin of life?

 

[leroy]

How did you draw conclusion of a deitt based on lifes complex design? and how, within the design, does it point tp the christian god?

The conclusion is not “God” the conclusion is “an intelligent designer” (that may or may not be God)

If you go to another planet and find “some stuff” what method would you use to determine if it was designed?

 

[leroy]

Yes? That's it?
No argument? Nothing?
Okay.


What theory is that?


You thinks it's a bad design, because you don't understand why its design is as it is?
Whether to you, it's a good or bad design, its design allows for its function - an efficient one.
Or perhaps we can try making a few adjustments, and see what results. Would you volunteer as the first guinea pig?
Thousands of centuries have passed, and no one has proposed such a thing. Why?
Is it because the design has the requirements necessary for its components to properly function, and reach its intended purpose.
That why when things really are not good, doctors operate, in order to make things function as they ought to.

So my computer has a virus.
I suggest that the computer is a bad design, and the designer needs to take it back, and go crawl under a rock and die.

Correct, something doesn’t have to be perfect in order to infer design, …bad design in humans would at most rise some theological issues, but scientifically speaking it wouldn’t drop the design inference.

 

[Altfish]

You thinks it's a bad design, because you don't understand why its design is as it is?
Whether to you, it's a good or bad design, its design allows for its function - an efficient one.
Or perhaps we can try making a few adjustments, and see what results. Would you volunteer as the first guinea pig?
Thousands of centuries have passed, and no one has proposed such a thing. Why?
Is it because the design has the requirements necessary for its components to properly function, and reach its intended purpose.
That why when things really are not good, doctors operate, in order to make things function as they ought to.

So my computer has a virus.
I suggest that the computer is a bad design, and the designer needs to take it back, and go crawl under a rock and die.

We are a bad design.
What is the reason that a large proportion of the population suffer from bad backs? Is that all part of god's plan? What is the purpose of the bad backs?

My knees are knackered, I'm having new ones, so in some respects I am having 'god's parts' replaced with human ones. Not exactly a guinea pig as others have gone before.
Thousands of centuries may have passed but we can only do knee operations in the last 20-years or so.

I said nothing about your god dying; I just said if he was the designer, he wasn't very good. I don't want to punish them BUT if they were any good they'd update the design.

 

[j1i]

The hearing ear and the seeing eye —Jehovah has made both of them. Proverbs 20:12

The Ear
The ear consists of three parts: the outer ear, the middle ear, and the inner ear.
The middle ear is a small chamber that begins with the eardrum and leads to the maze of passageways that constitute the inner ear.

Besides its function in connection with hearing, the inner ear also possesses organs having to do with balance and motion.

The use of two ears greatly helps a person to locate the source and direction of sounds.
The human ear detects sounds within the range of about 20 to 20,000 cycles per second.
The ears of many animals are sensitive to tones of higher pitch that are inaudible to the human ear. The range of sound energy perceived by the human ear is remarkable. The loudest sound that the ear can tolerate without danger is two million million times as powerful as the least perceptible sound. The human ear has the maximum sensitivity that it is practical to possess, for if the ears were any keener they would respond to the unceasing molecular motions of the air particles themselves.

The outer ear is precisely designed with a specially designed structure of curves, and an opening designed to catch and channel sound waves into the inner ear.

Spoiler: Auditory Transduction

The Eye
The eye is a highly efficient, self-adjusting “camera” that transmits impulses to the brain, where the object focused on the eye’s retina is interpreted as sight.

The possession of two eyes, as in the human body, provides stereoscopic vision. Sight is probably the most important channel of communication to the mind.

The retina contains 120 million rods - allowing us to detect shapes and intensity, and 7 million cones for detecting color.

The rods and cones convert the visuals into nerve messages to be transported to the brain, which then translates those messages.

Spoiler: A Journey Through the Human Eye: How We See

Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; All its parts were written in your book Regarding the days when they were formed, Psalms 104:16
Before any of them existed.

Is there any question of design?

To be continued...

Thank you brother for the topic and I wish you health and success

If you have a box, then you put inside it, piece of iron, plastic, leather and some metal
Then you closed and start shook up the box
If you open it, will you get me a BMW car?
It will not be made without a maker
The universe is more complicated than a BMW

please for Atheists who believe in nature
Teach me how to take the box and get a luxury BMW
Please I want to get a BMW
My car is a bit old

with respect for all

note
But I believe that God is only above the heaven that created the heavens and is not there in the earth
Because the existence of a belief in the existence of God in the land will push people to ridicule and also think of their ability to bypass the God through the escape of other galaxies
God has the ability to hold you (catch) wherever you are and his services are not only on the planet

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The conclusion is not “God” the conclusion is “an intelligent designer” (that may or may not be God)

If you go to another planet and find “some stuff” what method would you use to determine if it was designed?

No method. It is what it is. We draw conclusions on how, but unless we made it ourselves, its always a mystery. Some make it sacred, others dont. Depends.

 

[nPeace]

Altfish laid out some pretty obvious ones. But the eye has been in development for quite some time in evolution. from sensing light and shadow to multicelled eyes to binocular stereoscopic vision. And a human's eye is nowhere near the best example of a highly functioning eye out there, the octopus' eye is perhaps more "fine tuned" (to use your terminology) than our ever has been.

Are you not placing your faith in men and their educated guesses?
No one has seen an eye evolve, have they? Are you not having faith in what you haven't seen, nor can see.
Looking also at the fact that the complexity of life, was seen from the very start, is a headache as to how complex life evolved. Of course, they seek to fix these with their various theories. They always do.

_________________________________________________________________________
How did complex life evolve?
Scientists have long pondered the question of how simple “prokaryotic” cells, like bacteria, which are little more than a membrane-bound sack, evolved into more complex eukaryotic cells, which contain numerous internal membrane compartments.

Why complex life probably evolved only once
The universe may be teeming with simple cells like bacteria, but more complex life – including intelligent life – is probably very rare. That is the conclusion of a radical rethink of what it took for complex life to evolve here on Earth.

It suggests that complex alien life-forms could only evolve if an event that happened just once in Earth’s history was repeated somewhere else.

All animals, plants and fungi evolved from one ancestor, the first ever complex, or “eukaryotic”, cell. This common ancestor had itself evolved from simple bacteria, but it has long been a mystery why this seems to have happened only once: bacteria, after all, have been around for billions of years.

There are so many baffling questions for the naturalist that it calls for one who refuses to acknowledge the designer of life, needs to put faith in educated guesses
An age old question? Or has it already been answered?
How Did Life Arise on Earth?
...some scientists think life appeared the moment our planet's environment was stable enough to support it.
The earliest evidence for life on Earth comes from fossilized mats of cyanobacteria called stromatolites in Greenland that are about 3.7 billion years old. Ancient as their origins are, these bacteria (which are still around today) are already biologically complex - they have cell walls protecting their protein-producing DNA, so scientists think life must have begun much earlier. In fact, there are hints of life in even more primeval rocks: 4.1-billion-year-old zircons from Western Australia contain high amounts of a form of carbon typically used in biological processes. [7 Theories on the Origin of Life]

...scientists are still far from answering how it appeared.
"Many theories of the origin of life have been proposed, but since it's hard to prove or disprove them, no fully accepted theory exists," said Diana Northup, a cave biologist at the University of New Mexico.

The answer to this question would not only fill one of the largest gaps in scientists' understanding of nature, but also would have important implications for the likelihood of finding life elsewhere in the universe.

Lots of ideas
Today, there are several competing theories for how life arose on Earth. Some question whether life began on Earth at all, asserting instead that it came from a distant world or the heart of a fallen comet or asteroid. Some even say life might have arisen here more than once.

"There may have been several origins," said David Deamer, a biochemist at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "We usually make 'origins' plural just to indicate that we don't necessarily claim there was just a single origin, but just an origin that didn't happen to get blasted by giant [asteroid] impacts."

Most scientists agree that life went through a period when RNA was the head-honcho molecule, guiding life through its nascent stages. According to this "RNA World" hypothesis, RNA was the crux molecule for primitive life and only took a backseat when DNA and proteins - which perform their jobs much more efficiently than RNA - developed.

"A lot of the most clever and most talented people in my field have accepted that the RNA World was not just possible, but probable," Deamer said.
RNA is very similar to DNA, and today carries out numerous important functions in each of our cells, including acting as a transitional-molecule between DNA and protein synthesis, and functioning as an on-and-off switch for some genes. [Extreme Life on Earth: 8 Bizarre Creatures]

But the RNA World hypothesis doesn't explain how RNA itself first arose. Like DNA, RNA is a complex molecule made of repeating units of thousands of smaller molecules called nucleotides that link together in very specific, patterned ways. While there are scientists who think RNA could have arisen spontaneously on early Earth, others say the odds of such a thing happening are astronomical.

[Despite clear evidence of design, requiring a designer, many put faith in their theories.]

The anthropic principle
But "astronomical" is a relative term. In his book, The God Delusion, biologist Richard Dawkins entertains another possibility, inspired by work in astronomy and physics.
Suppose, Dawkins says, the universe contains a billion billion planets (a conservative estimate, he says), then the chances that life will arise on one of them is not really so remarkable.
Furthermore, if, as some physicists say, our universe is just one of many, and each universe contained a billion billion planets, then it's nearly a certainty that life will arise on at least one of them.
As Dawkins writes, "There may be universes whose skies have no stars: but they also have no inhabitants to notice the lack."

Shapiro doesn't think it's necessary to invoke multiple universes or life-laden comets crashing into ancient Earth. Instead, he thinks life started with molecules that were smaller and less complex than RNA, which performed simple chemical reactions that eventually led to a self-sustaining system involving the formation of more complex molecules.
"If you fall back to a simpler theory, the odds aren't astronomical anymore," Shapiro told Live Science.

Trying to recreate an event that happened billions of years ago is a daunting task, but many scientists believe that, like the emergence of life itself, it is still possible.
"The solution of a mystery of this magnitude is totally unpredictable," said Freeman Dyson, a professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University in New Jersey. "It might happen next week or it might take a thousand years."

Editor's Note: This article was first published in 2007. Tia Ghose contributed updates to this report.
______________________________________________________________________________

@viole, and Cacotopia... So what are you guys trying to say, that your faith is better?
Consider the OP.
The definition for design is clear to see - no need to read between the lines.
All life on earth fit into the definition of design. Therefore all life on earth was designed, and thus has a designer.

This explanation for the complex life forms on earth, is simple - no rocket science needed.

Doesn't that make my faith sound?
Psalm 100:3 Know that Jehovah is God. He is the one who made us...

 

[Jose Fly]

This theory has been torn apart dozens of times, but the same statements still get made. What is the point of even trying when no one listens in the first place.

Or more relevant to the people making these arguments at RF, what's the point when they just ignore most of the rebuttals (some via straight up ignoring, and some via abandoning threads, waiting a few days or weeks only to return to new threads making the same debunked arguments).

That's why I don't take any of this very seriously. It's mostly just about the entertainment value that comes from watching people's reactions when the arguments they were so confident in get shredded to pieces.

 

[Jose Fly]

If "complexity = design", what then do we conclude about this?

The life cycle of the plasmodium parasite (causes malaria) is extremely complex. So are we forced to conclude that it was specifically "designed" by God to infect and kill humans?

Now watch every creationist here completely ignore this.