Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I'm 100% certain God does not exist, yet its best to leave things open until its conclusive.
The fact that there is no consensus should tell you where the issue lays in that regard.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is DNA a sign of Intelligent design?
- Thread starter Ostronomos
- Start date
The fact that there is no consensus should tell you where the issue lays in that regard.
As mentioned, depends on point of view and the story you want to tell. Signs and portends are often very personal and the interpretation of them is the responsibility of the individual. I will grant that many individuals pass off this responsibility to external authorities rather than doing the thinking for themselves. Also, granting that it is not really an either-or - generally it is a combination of self-determination in interpretation and external mediating factors that informs human decision-making. Depending on one's philosophical assumptions, as always.
What would you say it is a sign of, and why? What are some other ways you might interpret what is going on, and why?
Ignatius A
Well-Known Member
So if I understand you correctly DNA could be a sign of the
"... point of view and the story you want to tell. Signs and portends are often very personal and the interpretation of them is the responsibility of the individual. I will grant that many individuals pass off this responsibility to external authorities rather than doing the thinking for themselves. Also, granting that it is not really an either-or - generally it is a combination of self-determination in interpretation and external mediating factors that informs human decision-making. Depending on one's philosophical assumptions, as always. ". Is that correct so far?
DNA, if anything, is a very strong piece of evidence towards the hypothesis that life arose spontaneously in this planet and with no conscious planning whatsoever.
Pretty much everything in Biology is.
Pretty much everything in Biology is.
Ignatius A
Well-Known Member
What's the probability that DNA arose spontaneously?
Vastly higher than a God arising sontaneously. After all, DNA actually exists.
About 100%, given known facts.
Beyond that, a honest look at its nature and properties all but screams that it has arisen by chance (and selected by its random ability to create copies of itself). There is high chance that some sort of precursor molecule existed before it, of course.
Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
Again, unlike an atheist who simply guesses that God does not exist, I am 100% sure He does exist. He occupies a timeless, spaceless and formless realm. Now I know that some of you may be opposed to this statement, but that is just you clamoring out of the depths of your confusion.
It's a mutually exclusive statement. I.e. since I am 100% sure He does exist, then this means that every single person who is an atheist is clueless as to the nature of God's existence.
As I sit here in my knowledge of God's existence, and the transcendent nature of this deistic Being, any atheist who opposes this truth is simply living in pretentious squalor. I am one of the few people in the world who can claim to know with 100% certainty, along with Langan.
Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
Even if life arose spontaneously, it would still not do away with the existence of an omnipotent God. Who gave rise to creation and provided all that is necessary for its existence. How would you explain the miraculous existence of the Great Genius of Nostradamus prophecy, who lives among us today, and who proved the existence of God? Like all great geniuses, I too have proven the existence of God.
I.e. God is real because He is proven using logic.
Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
No, you are not. Logically speaking, this is a far cry from your false claim to knowledge.
Last edited:
Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language
(Redirected from SCSPL)Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL is the meta-mathematical structure to which the universe is isomorphic. SCSPL is the language of the universe, a language so expressive that the universe creates itself and evolves through using it. The universe is in every way, everywhere, identical to SCSPL.
Normally, languages are considered to be in the minds of people and they work on the basis of moving symbols around mentally, where said symbols represent things in the "outside world". By attempting to represent things in the "outside world" with language, one gets closer and closer in accuracy of description to the things one attempts to describe the more expressive/powerful the language is. What would happen if a language was so expressive that it contained every piece of information on the thing it wishes to describe, to the highest resolution possible? You would have the SCSPL "coding" of that object in the universe, which is identical to the object itself. Thought about in another way, if one asks themselves "what does the SCSPL coding of a tennis ball look like?"; the answer is the tennis ball itself! One can say that Mind=Reality=Language since mind and reality intersect at language, as the content of both. It is through language that the source (mind) maps to the target (reality).
Other languages that SCSPL provides a syntactic covering for (see description of syntactic covering and Human Cognitive Syntax) include; the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, the expressions of the human mind or HCS.
Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language - CTMU Wiki
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Oh I am certain there is no God. People pull this ridiculous sky daddy nonsense out of their butts every day and the notion of a god is one of them. There was no god then, there is no God now, and there will be no God tomorrow.
However I do approach it from a scientific and agnostic viewpoint, leaving anyone who can alternately provide sufficient evidences to prove me wrong, and if they can, I'll gladly accept any evidences to the contrary.
I agree with that. My belief in God includes that creation included all the laws of nature and that those laws such as evolution have acted to create the world we know. Everything we see and know such as DNA come about through the natural laws that were present in the very beginning. To put it another way, my heart contains God, my mind contains natural law. There is no conflict.
Many including famous scholars have tried to prove God by logic. It does not work. Read through The Ontological Argument and you'll see the attempt to apply logic and the problems such an approach brings.
The designers are intelligent but not perfect. Think like 'Nature Spirits' developing things over lang stages.
I think intelligent designers (think teams of Nature Spirits) is the more believable explanation than random activity. But neither side has proof that will satisfy the other.
To me you come across as far too arrogant so why would it bother me in not accepting what you seem to believe? And you appear to be no different from many others who have passed through RF.
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
Please show your math.
Include the sources for the numbers used.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
I'm not really sure what you mean. Could you clarify?
Human beings are creative, if that's what you mean. We create things. I don't think there's any disputing that.
We didn't create the universe. That's for sure. Again, I'm not really sure what you're asking.
True, but also meaningless and pointless.
You can always assume an omnipotent god that just doesn't do anything, after all.
To answer the one question, No.