Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Sapiens]

Not always. It can be but not always.

OK, ignorant is sometimes curable, stupid is always life long.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

OK, ignorant is sometimes curable, stupid is always life long.

When I was younger I was a young earth creationist. When I was slightly older I was an old earth creationist. When I was slightly older still I left the religion of Christianity and delved into paganism. And then older still I gave up entirely on the concept of god. I would say I was both stupid and ignorant as a child but I grew out of it. Part of why I am an atheist is to some degree due to the debates I've had with atheists online and the sound arguments made.

 

[Sapiens]

When I was younger I was a young earth creationist. When I was slightly older I was an old earth creationist. When I was slightly older still I left the religion of Christianity and delved into paganism. And then older still I gave up entirely on the concept of god. I would say I was both stupid and ignorant as a child but I grew out of it. Part of why I am an atheist is to some degree due to the debates I've had with atheists online and the sound arguments made.

Sounds to me like you were never stupid and that your early ignorance was cured.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes we can test and observe electrons but we can't see electron.

I am waiting for a fellow creationist to describe how things are chosen in the universe.

Where is your idea about it?

 

[McBell]

I am waiting for a fellow creationist to describe how things are chosen in the universe.

Where is your idea about it?

GodDidIt

 

[FearGod]

So it doesn't make any difference that your god had no hand in bringing about the initial condition of our universe? That it was not god-created?

For me it is God, for you it is a thing

 

[FearGod]

I am waiting for a fellow creationist to describe how things are chosen in the universe.

Where is your idea about it?

What do you mean by chosen ?

 

[McBell]

For me it is God, for you it is a thing

You did not answer the question.

 

[David M]

So we're just supposed to accept that "freedom" exists, with no other substantiating evidence other than you saying that it does, and/or bias towards the acceptance of freedom?

Also without a viable and exact definition of "Freedom" (or "Choosing" for that mater).

 

[David M]

I am just reading a book saying how Hamilton's quaternions were / are rejected in physics for +150 years, while they are central to the way the universe operates. As an example of how mainstream science can simply be wrong, 150 years and continuing to be wrong.

Hamilton's work was widely used until about 2 decades after his death when they were supplanted by other methods that better suited the purpose at the time. However his work was not rejected as you claim but remained valid but sidelined until new work in other fields found good use of them.

So yet another example of you misrepresenting the facts. sorry... opinions.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What do you mean by chosen ?

Bad question. You are a creationist supposedly, you support intelligent design theory, you should know what choosing is.

What is the logic of choosing as used in common discourse? That is what choosing is.

 

[David M]

One question and to be answered straight.

Do you believe that nothingness can create a thing ?

We don't have to believe it, at a quantum level its a fact.

Of course the position in not that nothingness can create a thing because both terms are just not applicable, its equally valid to say that everything created things.

 

[Skwim]

For me it is God, for you it is a thing

God was the initial singularity? Interesting. Assuming that god was indeed the initial singularity you say he was then I assume it's safe to concluded that, like the BB, it took some kind of quantum fluctuation, and rapidly expansion and subsequent inflation to bring him to his present state of being. God was initially the singularity and then about 13.8 billion years ago suddenly blossomed into an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being. Essentially his old identity was dumped for a completely new and different one. That about it?

 

[shawn001]

I said to you that God can't be tested similar to the way we test electrons and it depends on your confidence whether to believe that creation were due to ID or by the inanimate nature.

Nature is not inanimate and we know there was a time when Atoms themselves didn't exist yet.

Well if its by ID, which is of course another term for God, why are humans becoming able to self evolve and make the design better?


Dr. Peter H. Diamandis — Intelligent Self-directed Evolution

Curiosity - Episode 11: Can You Live Forever?
Discovery Channel, Adam Savage (host)

Curiosity - Can You Live Forever? | Adam Savage On ...

 

[shawn001]

I don't have any images for God.

Who said image, do you believe in an organized religion?

 

[shawn001]

Yes we can test and observe electrons but we can't see electron.

Femto-Photography: Visualizing Photons in Motion at a
Trillion Frames Per Second

Visualizing Light at Trillion FPS, Camera Culture, MIT Media
Lab

 

[FearGod]

We don't have to believe it, at a quantum level its a fact.

Of course the position in not that nothingness can create a thing because both terms are just not applicable, its equally valid to say that everything created things.

And even in the quantum level still it's a thing, nothingness means non at all and in all levels.

 

[FearGod]

God was the initial singularity? Interesting. Assuming that god was indeed the initial singularity you say he was then I assume it's safe to concluded that, like the BB, it took some kind of quantum fluctuation, and rapidly expansion and subsequent inflation to bring him to his present state of being. God was initially the singularity and then about 13.8 billion years ago suddenly blossomed into an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being. Essentially his old identity was dumped for a completely new and different one. That about it?

I didn't say that God is the singularity but it 's how he choose to create the universe and which is beyond our human mind to understand.

 

[FearGod]

Femto-Photography: Visualizing Photons in Motion at a
Trillion Frames Per Second

Visualizing Light at Trillion FPS, Camera Culture, MIT Media
Lab

The crux of it that there are things that existed that we can't see by our naked eyes, God isn't of our nature and nothing that we know is equivalent to him.

 

[Skwim]

I didn't say that God is the singularity but it 's how he choose to create the universe and which is beyond our human mind to understand.

Let's see how it unfolded.

(1) I said:

So it doesn't make any difference that your god had no hand in bringing about the initial condition of our universe? That it was not god-created?

(2) You said:

For me it is God, for you it is a thing

Your "it" obviously has to refer to a thing, and the only "thing" I mentioned was initial condition of our universe (the initial singularity) .

(3) So, referring to this thing (the initial singularity) I said:

God was the initial singularity? Interesting. Assuming that god was indeed the initial singularity you say he was then I assume it's safe to concluded that, like the BB, it took some kind of quantum fluctuation, and rapidly expansion and subsequent inflation to bring him to his present state of being. God was initially the singularity and then about 13.8 billion years ago suddenly blossomed into an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being. Essentially his old identity was dumped for a completely new and different one. That about it?

(4) Then you said:

I didn't say that God is the singularity but it 's how he choose to create the universe and which is beyond our human mind to understand.

But you did say god is the singularity when you referred to it as "it" in (2).​