How do I know you are not an app?
-
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!
Putting God's Design In Perspective
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Timothy Spurlin
Active Member
What objective evidence do you have that your god is real? What objective evidence do you have that your god created the universe?
Jollybear
Hey
Its not direct evidence (seeing God) its indirect by seeing design.
Also, if you fund research to test the paronormal, then you can come up with a variety of tests. If you dont do the research because you presuppose theres nothing there, thats called BIAS.
> INDIRECT < evidence.
Why are you making this silly argument? This is a misrepresentation of the issues. Pink unicorms are not God and pink unicorns are not order and design in the universe. If your gonna make an argument make one that represents the real issue.
There is indirect evidence. Indirect means its not proven.
How has intelligent design been shown to not be INDIRECT evidence?
I didnt say conspiracy (although i would not put it out of thought). Im saying theres a strong bias against anything paranormal. In fact, i think theres a combination of bias, stupid and conspiracy.
No, i became a christian after having some spiritual experiences, plus seeing design in nature myself. Those spiritual experiences by the way wer not beliefs, they wer experiences. As for my reading of the bible, my parrents did not get me to read it, nor did any christian lead me to it. I read it all on my own volition. It amazes me that two people can read that book, one it turns them into a atheist and the other it turns them into a dieheart believer.
What are you talking about? Your misrepresenting AGAIN. Intelligent design does not say WHO the designer is, it says theres evidence of design within the physical world. Anyone can adhere to intelligent design, a theist, a deist, a polytheist, those who believe aliens made us, christians, jews or muslims.
ID deals with the physical evidence. It sees design, order and information and then infers a intelligent cause.
I didnt respond to that because i didnt understand it, and still dont.
Ok, thats a contradiction then. The "details" ARE the claims.
Fine tuning, Design, order and information are all verified and infered to be actual, rather then illusory.
I dont think you truely know what your saying here. I want to know your reasons for belief in God. You know my reasons. My reasons for belief are based on evidence of design. You have issue with my reasons. So, i ask you, whats your reasons for belief so i can see if your reasons are better then mine. Whats so hard about that?
Fit? How do you determine whos fit to judge your reasons?
I didnt ask you for evidence of your belief in God, i asked you for your reasons for belief in God. So?
No, its to call your reasons for belief into question. Its not to call into question your actual belief itself. The God belief i agree with, so why would i question that which i agree with? Think man. Your questioning my reasons for belief, so i want to see if your reasons for belief are better then mine. Lets hear it already.
Look, heres what i find really odd, you believe in God, that he created the universe. Yet, you dont believe he designed it or fine tuned it or anything. That to me dont add up. And you told me your a christian too, so your not a deist, your a theist. Theism means God had an active role in the creation of the universe. Unlike deism where God makes the laws, stands back and lets it go like dice. So, explain your reasons for belief. Your not making any STAND. For all intents and purposes you attack the very thing you say you believe in. That boggles the hell out of my mind.
Thats correct, yes.
Now you just contradicted yourself. The "apparent" design IS the evidence.
Inference is belief, yes, but its inference based on apparent design.
Atheists or naturalists will INFER no design and say the apparent design is only illusory.
Where did behe admit that? Cough up the source.
Stephen myer would not agree even if behe did admit that. But, cough it up, i wanna see it.
In otherwords they say its illusion. You keep contradicting yourself. Saying its from natural forces (none intelligence) is the same as saying design is illusion.
More misrepresentations. Just keep pounding away at that strawman.
My point EXACTLY! The evidence of design and information does not say WHO the designer is, it just says there is a designer.
Just like you dont know if im a app or a person. But either way, the evidence is a form of intelligence via the information you see in the posts.
Same with intelligent design in the universe.
Last edited:
I am a geologist and soil scientist with a strong background in math statistics, biochemistry, and evolution. A Masters in Environmental Geology.
This is the wall between were the world of science, and the world of philosophy and theology begins.
No not everyone can do that, and 'signs' as you describe them are not evidence.
The standards of science remain the falsifiability of theories and hypothesis by positive objective verifiable evidence.
First nothing is proven in science. Your presenting a BIG IF, which has not presently been remotely achieved in the scientific literature.
Your presenting the problem falsifiability of of the negative, which is not science,
Last edited:
Timothy Spurlin
Active Member
What is indirect evidence? Is that your way of saying you have no objective evidence for a designer? I must apply xenoview's razor to your claims of a designer.
Science is not in the business of testing for the supernatural. How do you test for the supernatural?
Xenoview's razor
Objective claims requires objective evidence
Jollybear
Hey
Nice.
Ok...
I dont mean literally everyone. But, all scientists and some laymen can verify the indirect evidence of design.
This is where its starting to get blured.
Break down a bit more how the "standards" of science are determined or made?
Also break down what constitutes a view to be falsifiable?
Ok, so if nothing is proven in science and ID is a very good explanation of the available evidence, why then is ID rejected?
Break that down more?
Jollybear
Hey
Its like saying my post to you is indirect evidence i exist. Because of the information. You dont have direct evidence through seeing me.
How do you test for anything? By getting creative, asking different questions and coming up with methods to test.
As an example. The program remote viewing, they did lots of tests. One of the statistical scientists, jessica utts concluded ESP was real because the HITS wer above chance. While hyman, the hyper skeptic concluded it was merely an anomoly.
Jessica showed many independent labs produced the same average hits, above chance. She concluded also that if the government would continue funding we could ask different questions and do different testings then prior in order to gain a better understanding of HOW it works.
Define objective?
Timothy Spurlin
Active Member
Objective, exist outside of the mind. Objective evidence is testable evidence.
Jollybear
Hey
This statement presuposes God and a spirit realm does not exist in order to test it. It also assumes the nature of these things are going to be just as easy to test as would PHYSICAL matter.
Look at my example with jessica utts on remote viewing. The tests wer creative using different questions.
Happy birthday!
Timothy Spurlin
Active Member
This statement presuposes God and a spirit realm does not exist in order to test it. It also assumes the nature of these things are going to be just as easy to test as would PHYSICAL matter.
Look at my example with jessica utts on remote viewing. The tests wer creative using different questions.
Happy birthday!
Thank you, turned 52 today.
If god was real, then there would be objective evidence it was real.
Maybe esp is real, more testing needs to be done.
If the supernatural was easy to test for science would have found it.
From: Falsifiability - Wikipedia
falsifying hypotheses - A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability (or is falsifiable) if it is contradicted by a basic statement, which, in an eventual successful or failed falsification, must respectively correspond to a true or hypothetical observation. The criteria of demarcation define the limits of falsifiability.
Popper uses falsification as a criterion of demarcation to draw a sharp line between those theories that are scientific and those that are unscientific. It is useful to know if a statement or theory is falsifiable, if for no other reason than that it provides us with an understanding of the ways in which one might assess the theory. One might at the least be saved from attempting to falsify a non-falsifiable theory, or come to see an unfalsifiable theory as unsupportable. Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific.
The Popperian criterion excludes from the domain of science not unfalsifiable statements but only whole theories that contain no falsifiable statements; thus it leaves us with the Duhemian problem of what constitutes a 'whole theory' as well as the problem of what makes a statement 'meaningful'. Popper's own falsificationism, thus, is not only an alternative to verificationism, it is also an acknowledgement of the conceptual distinction that previous theories had ignored."
ID remains theological/philosophical proposition that an 'outside intelligent source created our physical existence and life.
ID is not rejected off hand nor absolutely. Simply the scientists at the Discovery Institute hae not come up with a falsifiable hypothesis that demonstrates ID. There is no imaginary barrier that prevents scientists from trying.
The argument by ID scientists is that ID must be considered as an alternative. Yes, it can be if they come up with falsifiable hypothesis that may be falsified by objective evidence. At present the claims of indirect evidence have not provided a sufficient basis for falsification.
For example: The hypothesis of 'irreducible complexity' claims that complex mechanisms and organs cannot be explained by step by step formation by natural processes. The claim of 'cannot be' is a negative claim, and essentially an attempt at arguing from ignorance of what science cannot explain. Behe proposed that the flagellum was an example of irreducible complexity. At the time science did not have and explanation for how the flagellum evolved by step by step natural processes. Since scientists have described in detail how the flagellum formed in a step by step natural evolving process.
syo
Well-Known Member
He was lonely.
leroy
Well-Known Member
.
Up until relatively recently people considered our solar system and the stars above (whatever they were) to be thee center of god's creation. Eventually some of the dots in the sky were recognized to be planets that revolved around our earth, as did the Sun, all of which made up our solar system. This was corrected when it was confirmed that the Earth and these other planets went around the Sun. Some time later it was discovered that the stars were just like our sun: our Sun was a star. With better equipment, astronomers then found that some of the other "stars" were actually great "clouds" of light, which they called nebulae. Further investigation revealed that these nebulae were actually tremendous accumulations of stars, which they termed galaxies. (The term "nebula" has since been changed to denote great clouds of interstellar dust and other ionized gasses.) And there are trillions of these galaxies. So our "universe" went from being a solar system, to include the vast reaches of space, But the structure of our universe doesn't end there. The gravity between galaxies has drawn them into enormous clumps, which in turn form galaxy superclusters---our Milky Way galaxy is part of the Laniakea supercluster. Moreover, the distances between all these elements of the universe are enormous, which are denoted in light years; the distance light travels in one year. The closest spiral galaxy to us is the Andromeda Galaxy (M31), which is two million light years away.
To give you an idea of how immense the universe is,
"Right now, the observable universe is thought to consist of roughly:
10 million superclusters
25 billion galaxy groups
350 billion large galaxies
7 trillion dwarf galaxies
30 billion trillion (3×10^22) stars, with almost 30 stars going supernova every second"
source
Within the Milky Way galaxy our star is 1 among 100-400 billion other stars.
And:
So, the question is, "Why"? Why did god bother with it all? While the existence of our plant and the life on it depend on the configuration of our solar system, they don't depend on the existence of neighboring stars, the Milky Way, other galaxies, galaxy superclusters or any other far reaching structures of the universe.
Of course, I don't expect any answer to be more than speculation, but I am looking to see how one squares the enormity of the universe, both in size and content, with the contention that it was all designed by god.
.
I would like to make 4 comments
1 we actually do need all the stars and all the galaxies, we need all that mass, if there where less mass in the universe the total gravity would be weaker and the universe would expand too fast, making the formations of stars and planet impossible.
2 big universes like ours require lower entropy (more fine tuning) than small universes, maybe God created a big universe just to make atheism look more ridiculous.
3 Even if all these stars and galaxies where truly useless, God could have created them for the same reasons human artists and architects create useless stuff. (some useless stuff simply looks nice) for example Egyptians didn’t really need these colossal pyramids to burry a single body, but nobody would argue “poor design” we all understand that these unnecessarily complexity had a purpose that goes beyond the function of buried a dead body.
4 perhaps humans in the future (or Aliens) will use all these stars and galaxies for a purpose,
leroy
Well-Known Member
The problem is that each of the supposed “steps” is actually a series of complex proteins interacting In the correct place and order with other preexisting proteins….each of the supposed “steps” is too complex to have occurred in 1 (or few) generations.
But hey, the argument is falsifiable; all you have to do is show that the “steps” are actually simple and achievable in 1 generation. … it shouldn’t be hard, after all there are other examples of things that “evolve” on a step by step basis, (for example resistance to antibiotics) this has been observed in the lab and we can even identify each of the steps that lead to resistance to antibiotics. … so why can’t you do the same with the flagellum?.....after all supposedly you only need like 15 steps, (15 mutations) it shouldn’t be hard to grow a fully formed flagellum (or at leats an partially formed flagellum) in a lab
Science has never proposed that the "steps" took place in or a few generations. This ia bogus ID argument.
Again, Science has never proposed that the "steps" took place in or a few generations. This ia bogus ID argument.
All the Intelligent Design advocates 'simply' need to do is propose a falsifiable hypothesis to support Intelligent Design, which they have failed to do.
Last edited:
This is a very interesting set of responses. A study of contradiction, misrepresentation, logical fallacies, confusion and projection.
I agree that it could be indirect evidence, but nature or any aspect of it has to be shown as designed in order for it to be indirect evidence of a designer. This has not been done. Intelligent design remains a claim without objective support. That is the bottom line.
Research into the paranormal has been funded. It has been conducted. Nothing useful has been the overarching result of that effort. The Soviets spent a lot of resources on the paranormal to see if it could be used for covert operations or even weaponized. Where is the Soviet Union now?
You really do not understand what evidence, indirect and direct evidence are do you. You are just claiming it is indirect evidence without the benefit of establishing that design exists.
Design is subjective. If multiple observers view the same object there is no objective evidence that would lead them to conclude design.
You say designed based on your bias.
It is in direct reference to your demand that science study things that cannot be seen or are not known to exist. You made the erroneous statement that science is not allowed to ask questions about things that cannot be identified. You recognize that invisible pink unicorns cannot be identified, but your bias blinds you to things that are the same as invisible pink unicorns, yet you make positive claims about those things. It was your silly demand to begin with.
If it is not proven, then how is it evidence? Proof is not a criteria of science.
Indirect evidence is circumstantial evidence. It is evidence upon which inference can be made. It is not the direct evidence of observation. Something may be established by indirect evidence, but intelligent design simply does not have that evidence. You are using it to make a circular claim. You see design (subjective) and therefore there is a designer. You know there is a designer, so design must be there too. Circular.
Let us say that you live in a house. Not one with talking ants or giant faces, but a regular house. One morning you look outside and you see the grass is wet, the drive is wet and there are puddles in your lawn. You think, "It rained". You are using the indirect evidence to draw the conclusion that it rained.
Now I live in another city in a house. That morning I hear a pitter patter on my roof, the forecast had called for rain. I look outside and it is raining. Seeing the rain is direct observation that it is raining.
But wait. There's more.
There are other things that could leave a lawn and drive wet and cause puddles. A garden hose. A sprinkler system.
What you are doing is saying that I am not seeing rain. It is a sprinkler system.
You do not get that.
Intelligent design is the claim, not the evidence. There is no verified instance of an example of intelligent design that has been shown to be designed. Look it up. Use actual science sights that have refuted irreducible complexity. Look at Kitzmiller v Dover where Behe had to admit that experiments to show his claims would end up being experiments demonstrating evolution.
I did not suspect the idea of a conspiracy would be very far from your thought.
Because it remains un-established conjecture. The paranormal remains unexplained.
But not on the side of the skeptics.
Then you are contradicting your claim that your belief is based on the intelligent design the movement. I reject the claims of the movement, not God. Those claims have failed to produce fruit.
All of which has nothing to do with whether design has been established and the intelligent design movement is science. If you claim it is science, then your beliefs, my beliefs, have nothing to do with any objective knowledge stemming from intelligent design. The failure is that intelligent design has not explained any objective evidence. It just claims it does. It is a scheme to inject one version of Christianity into public education. It is an elaborate God of the gaps argument.
No. I am not. You said that you became a Christian because of intelligent design. You are claiming that the designer is God. This goes against your subsequent claim that the designer is not God. Which of your contradictory statements am I to consider to be the correct one?
The contradiction, yet again. Yes it claims there is evidence for design, but fails to produce that evidence. The id movement is about God and not some un-described entity.
Not according to you. Not according to the movement. Of course you keep contradicting yourself, so it is both according to you and not according to you. Which is it?
Subjective.
These are observed but intelligent design fails to explain them under the non-scientific theory of intelligent design.
It makes unsupported claims based on a subjective and biased examination of the evidence.
Clearly not.
You are confused about what I was clearly referring to. The details of your embrace of Christianity, or mine, are not relevant to the objective acceptance of intelligent design.
Fine tuning and design are unverified. Order and information are verified. The inference of a designer is unsupported by the evidence. It is just a claim. Apparent design in nature is not illusory, it is the result of natural physical properties.
I know that you do not. That is part of the problem here.
I know. I can see only one reason for requesting that information and it has nothing to do with the argument for or against intelligent design.
I did not ask for them. I do not need to know them to establish and maintain my argument.
Were I to take this position, I would have to ask myself if my belief was based on faith and experience or it was predicated on claims that intelligent design is science and one that has established the connection and explanation that a designer is verified. I do not think my belief is so fragile that it requires a pseudoscience to support it.
You are making another straw man. I have issue with your claims and the fact that they are contradicted by the failure of intelligent design to establish itself as science and to establish the existence of designer based on evidence.
So you do intend to set yourself up as my judge. Why am I not surprised?
Is it just me or is this something you do with any Christian that disagrees with you?
Let me just say that I have not seen anything you have provided that would lead me to conclude that you would be the best fit for the job.
A dead horse. Do you intend to beat it some more?
Exactly. As predicted. And you said it was not to attack me personally. False witness is a sin.
My reasons for believing are part of my belief. I believe you have said something similar. Another contradiction from you then.
Its not to call into question your actual belief itself. The God belief i agree with, so why would i question that which i agree with? Think man. Your questioning my reasons for belief, so i want to see if your reasons for belief are better then mine. Lets hear it already.[/QUOTE]Questioning my belief is not going to change the fact that intelligent design has failed to live up to its claims.
Straw man. I never said that I do not believe God designed or fine tune the universe. I have been clear about that. Your bias confuses you and you cannot separate the belief in God from what can be verified in the natural world. You are making specific claims that you fail to support. It is those claims that I disagree with. What you believe about God has nothing to do with it.
It is your straw man, why would it add up.
Did you know that deism is a form of theism. God takes an active role in both. It is just how active that is different. How do you not know this?
Your incredulity is not a valid criticism of my beliefs.
We agree that the claim is made. Then you subjectively see things that you cannot demonstrate to others and the agreement ends.
No. Maybe it is that you do not understand what "contradict" and the forms of that word mean. I have not contradicted myself. You are claiming that intelligent design is science. The design remains apparent only and until it the positive claims of intelligent design are demonstrated. Your problem and your failure to understand is that intelligent design the movement has failed to do this. Over and over.
No. Inference is a logical conclusion supported by indirect evidence.
Apparent, not established as actual design.
I disagree. There is no evidence that the design in nature is anything but natural. There is nothing beyond that for them to infer.
Kitzmiller v Dover. Look it up.
Stephen Meyer. LOL. Another biologist that is not a biologist. And one that has failed in his arguments so far. Your bias just does not let you see that.
No. The design is established based on what can be observed and that is natural causes. Your view that it can be established that God (I thought you said it was not God) did the designing is an illusion for you.
You keep contradicting yourself and then projecting that onto me.
No. It is not. The structure, complexity and order exist. How can they be illusions. It is the cause that you claim and cannot support that is the illusion. Remember, you are claiming this is all science. Or is it religion. You go back and forth on that.
More of your projection.
How is that your point? You were claiming to be YOU based on the indirect evidence of this forum and not any of a number of other possibilities. There are other possibilities. That was my point and you failed to grasp it. The fact is, the evidence available here that you are you is not enough for a reasonable person to accept that claim. I believe you are you, but I cannot demonstrate it.
I think we have said all that we can here. Anything more and it is just beating a dead horse. You have failed to establish that intelligent design is science. You have failed to establish that the design you claim to see in nature is anything more than your subjective opinion. Your personal beliefs are your own and I have no issue with them. I am not challenging your belief in God. I am challenging your claims about intelligent design. Neither your personal beliefs regarding God or mine are relevant to establishing or abolishing intelligent design under those claims.
Have a good day.
He is arguing that the circumstantial evidence of apparent design is actual design and therefore intelligent design is established as a science and the existence of an intelligent designer is established.
He has neglected to demonstrate how apparent design is established as actual design. There is the usual equivalence of human design having a designer, but that failed for William Paley a long time ago.
Mostly it is his subjective claim for design, which establishes only that he believes he sees intelligent design, but does not objectively establish intelligent design.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Ok if the “steps” where not achieved in one generation then these “steps” are not really steps right? …. I mean this is semantics but a “step” by definition has to be something that can be achieved at once
The claim is falsifiable, all you have to do is grow a flagellum in a lab (or at least part of it) if things like antibiotic resistance has been observed to evolved in a lab, and we even can identify the “steps” why can’t you do the same with flagellums?
