Putting God's Design In Perspective

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you read rashly? And respond rashly? God is infinite i said, not the universe.



I get so tired of these meaningless dialogues. ID posits an intelligence, thats it. Thats all, no more too it. What one thinks the intelligence is, is on them. Understand? For the thousanth time already.

I failed to include that you are also contradicting your claims that intelligent design is science here also. You provide this in more of your contradictory claims. On one hand you say it is a logical impossibility for finite aliens--presumably you mean natural and physical by this--to create the universe. Then you claim that intelligent design is claiming any intelligence as the designer. This would include your finite aliens that you say could not be the designer. Then you go on about it really just being God that is the intelligent designer in your story about angels being the engineers following God's design. Yet a third contradictory claim.



Based on all of that you have said, the only rational conclusion of this evidence is that claims of an intelligent designer are theological and not science.

 

[shunyadragon]

What are the attributes of Gods creation?

As the foundation of Creation simple the Laws of Nature and the nature of our physical existence. In humanity such as love, justice, compassion, and knowledge.

If creation represents belief in God, why don't all believe in God?

The nature of being a fallible human.

I don't understand. Explain more?

Design is a fallible human construct on trying how to make things like watches and Boeing 707 airplanes. God Creates by the nature of being God.

 

[Jollybear]

You believe a lot of things, but you cannot demonstrate any of it.

Here is what we know about NDE's. Some people have described an experience that they had near death. There is a similarity in some of those descriptions.

Everything else is interpretation of those descriptions. Descriptions that are subjective and could have been caused naturally by chemical and physiological changes occurring near death. You jump to a biased conclusion. Declare that conclusion is the truth. Then use your unverified and speculative conclusions as evidence for some other unverified and speculative conclusion.

Everything else is not interpretation of those discriptions.

Saying everything else is interpretation is like saying the differences in 10 witness accounts of a car crash are interpretation and thats foolish. The ten people seen the crash at different angles, so there experiences are going to have some similarities and some uniqueness.

Its the same with NDEs, theres similarities and uniqueness because everyone has there OWN experience.

Then it would not be logically impossible for physically extant aliens to create a limited universe and this refutes your first claim about logical impossibilities.

If aliens created the universe, they would have to be MASSIVE giants. Im talking as big or bigger then the universe itself. And God, bigger then them, obviously because hed be infinite. "Nephilim" anyone?

I can understand the fatigue that you must experience having your unsupported claims shot down so frequently.

No, thats not why im fatigued. Im fatigued for two reasons. 1, because i come on here and i got about 10 posts or so to respond to and i dont know how long it would take you to respond to that many posts, but me, a good while. 2nd reason is you are not refuting my arguments, thinking you have is pure delusional. You hop around the issues too much and THAT is whats tiring. Not too long ago i made a thread asking "is debating pointless?" I asked that due to these problems.

But you are not following what the intelligent design movement claims on paper, you are making a specific claim that it is God who is the designer. Therefore, your previous claims that it could be just any intelligence, which includes some unknown alien agent, are refuted.

Your not listening. Heres whats going on, your telling me what im saying, then knocking that down. We call that a strawman argument.

Let me tell you what i am saying. Dont hop around the issue, address it head on.

Order, complexity, information, functionality and NDEs all are evidence of a intelligence behind our world. i INFER from this evidence that an intelligence is actually behind it.

Now, i happen to believe the intelligence is God. Others can believe its aliens.

We all are to some extent. Unlike you, I try to minimize my own.

Oh mr high superior minamizes his own, but accuses me i dont try to minamize mine. Then you say i attack you, but you dont attack me? Ya....keep tellin yourself that.

Some are just more biased and do not seem very discriminating in what they will accept as fact without support which they later apply as fact. Still others do not seem to recognize the difference between subjective belief and objective reality. I consider you to be highly biased based on what I have read so far.

Let me approuch this by asking you this: if i am highly biased, why do you think this is?

Second, whats the difference between subjective and objective? Define each? This is extremely high priority question from me to you right now. If anything you respond to in this post, respond to this as top priority.

I learn new things all the time. The difference is that I do not take an observation or new knowledge and jump to irrational conclusions that I label as truth and then attack others for not accepting my new truth.

You believe God created the world, you believe the bible. You believe Jesus is your Lord, being a christian and all. Those are your conclusions of what are true. Do you consider your conclusions rational, yes or no?

Heres what im seeing in you, you think honesty is to appear honest by coming accross as skeptical; but you fail to realize that its not. Because you cant honestly believe something and yet not believe something at the same time.

Jesus himself attacks this. Remember thomas? He attacked him for doubting. He said "stop doubting and believe. Blessed are those that dont see me, yet believe". Translation? > quit being a hyper skeptic, its NOT rational. Stop thinking that assertion of belief is still belief if actions show disbelief.

Also he said this in revelation 3:15-16

"15“I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish that you were one or the other! 16But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!"

Do you believe Jesus words? Hes your Lord, right?

And here is the attacks that I predicted. You have set yourself up as judge of other people and other Christians. It has nothing to do with answers to the many questions you have dodged. It is just your way of avoiding honesty with the logical fallacy of ad hominem attack.

Im avoiding honesty by attacking your inconsistency? And on top of it you attack ID on the merit of motive rather then its evidence and logical inference. You really dont see your blindness do you?

Interestingly, the very next verse in revelation 3:17-18 after it talked about lukewarm mentioned this very blindness.

"17You say, ‘I am rich. I have everything I want. I don’t need a thing!’ And you don’t realize that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.18So I advise you to buy gold from me—gold that has been purified by fire. Then you will be rich. Also buy white garments from me so you will not be shamed by your nakedness, and ointment for your eyes so you will be able to see. 19I correct and discipline everyone I love. So be diligent and turn from your indifference."

I accept you are a Christian, because you have claimed you are. That is all I have to work with. I cannot read your mind and do not know of anyone that can. I cannot tell what is in your heart and do not know anyone that can.

Jesus said "you know by the fruit". Translation? Action speaks louder then words.

Heres the kicker. As much as i disagree with skism, the guy with the Popeye evator, atleast he takes a consistent stand in his position and defends it. While you on the other hand attack everything you say you believe in. Then you complain that i attack you, yet you attack me by calling me dishonest, yet you wanna say im using ad hominums.

My interest here has nothing to do with what you choose to believe. I support your right to believe as you choose. The nature of that belief is your own business and between you and God. He is your judge. Not me.

Let me ask you this: if christianity hypothetically wer outlawed tomorow, would you still be a christian? Or would you recant?

My interest has to do with the assertions that you keep making and cannot support, yet use to attack claims that can be supported. In that area, I have the same right to evaluate it on the logic and evidence and respond accordingly that anyone has.

You are completely delusional and dont "see" it.

You even replied to your own post. Did you do that by accident or on purpose?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Everything else is not interpretation of those discriptions.

Saying everything else is interpretation is like saying the differences in 10 witness accounts of a car crash are interpretation and thats foolish. The ten people seen the crash at different angles, so there experiences are going to have some similarities and some uniqueness.

Its the same with NDEs, theres similarities and uniqueness because everyone has there OWN experience.

You do not do well with analogies. They are not very good.

You read rashly and miss what the writer says. The interpretations are what you and others have done with the claims of those that had the experience. Just because someone says they had the experience, it does not mean the experiences are what you claim they are. No one knows what they mean.

If aliens created the universe, they would have to be MASSIVE giants. Im talking as big or bigger then the universe itself. And God, bigger then them, obviously because hed be infinite. "Nephilim" anyone?

This does not make any sense. We build stuff that is bigger than us. Bigger than thousands of people.

The point remains, you can no longer state that intelligent design is about any intelligence. You cannot claim that it is when you have eliminated some of those potential intelligent agents because of height requirements.

No, thats not why im fatigued. Im fatigued for two reasons. 1, because i come on here and i got about 10 posts or so to respond to and i dont know how long it would take you to respond to that many posts, but me, a good while. 2nd reason is you are not refuting my arguments, thinking you have is pure delusional. You hop around the issues too much and THAT is whats tiring. Not too long ago i made a thread asking "is debating pointless?" I asked that due to these problems.

I just refuted another one of your arguments.

It is pointless to debate someone like you if the point was to have someone like you listen and off valid debate and discussion. With all your intractable bias, logical fallacies, setting in judgement of others, and failure to support a single claim you make beyond repetition of the assertion.

I do it for other reasons. Trying to get anywhere otherwise, would be pointless.

Your not listening. Heres whats going on, your telling me what im saying, then knocking that down. We call that a strawman argument.

No. Here's what is going on. You post assertions that you do not support. Often those claims are irrational. You claim them as some sort of fact that is obvious and it is not. When challenged, you have reverted to straw man arguments, ad hominem attack and other logical fallacies. You do not listen to what others post and often do not seem to comprehend it.

Let me tell you what i am saying. Dont hop around the issue, address it head on.[/QUOTE]I forgot to mention your projection. I am not hopping around. I address your points directly. You dance around.

Order, complexity, information, functionality and NDEs all are evidence of a intelligence behind our world. i INFER from this evidence that an intelligence is actually behind it.

Except that it has been explained to you many times why it is not the evidence you claim it is. You just do not want to listen, because of your bias.

Now, i happen to believe the intelligence is God. Others can believe its aliens.

Believing it is a supernatural agent automatically removes it as science. You can no longer argue that it is.

Oh mr high superior minamizes his own, but accuses me i dont try to minamize mine. Then you say i attack you, but you dont attack me? Ya....keep tellin yourself that.

Here is that ad hominem attack I mentioned. I limit my responses to what you are claiming.

Let me approuch this by asking you this: if i am highly biased, why do you think this is?

I have no idea. There are many possible reasons. Not being able to diagnose the origins of your bias does not mean it does not exist.

Second, whats the difference between subjective and objective? Define each? This is extremely high priority question from me to you right now. If anything you respond to in this post, respond to this as top priority.

You do not know the difference between these? You have asked others. Surely you know by now.

I will respond to posts as I choose to.

You believe God created the world, you believe the bible. You believe Jesus is your Lord, being a christian and all. Those are your conclusions of what are true. Do you consider your conclusions rational, yes or no?

All of this is irrelevant to the discussion. You debate atheists that believe none of this. You debate people of other religions that believe none of it. If it is irrelevant for them, it is irrelevant for Christians too.

what im seeing in you, you think honesty is to appear honest by coming accross as skeptical; but you fail to realize that its not. Because you cant honestly believe something and yet not believe something at the same time.

I think honesty is not answering what I see with intractable dogma and irrational claims. I think honesty is not recognizing there is evidence that is contradictory and not choosing to ignore it and go with dogma. I think honesty is listening to others and evaluating them critically while trying to minimize my own bias.

Jesus himself attacks this. Remember thomas? He attacked him for doubting. He said "stop doubting and believe. Blessed are those that dont see me, yet believe". Translation? > quit being a hyper skeptic, its NOT rational. Stop thinking that assertion of belief is still belief if actions show disbelief.

Also he said this in revelation 3:15-16

"15“I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish that you were one or the other! 16But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!"

Do you believe Jesus words? Hes your Lord, right?

You tried this attack tactic before and failed. I am not doubting God or Jesus. I am doubting your claims. Are you trying to tell me that you believe you are God?

You fail to support your claims and when I have logically challenged those claims you turn on me.

avoiding honesty by attacking your inconsistency? And on top of it you attack ID on the merit of motive rather then its evidence and logical inference. You really dont see your blindness do you?

You have provided no evidence. You just keep repeating claims. Now you are repeating false accusations.

Interestingly, the very next verse in revelation 3:17-18 after it talked about lukewarm mentioned this very blindness.

It is false equivalence. You are saying that your words in this debate are the words of God. They are your words.

"17You say, ‘I am rich. I have everything I want. I don’t need a thing!’ And you don’t realize that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.18So I advise you to buy gold from me—gold that has been purified by fire. Then you will be rich. Also buy white garments from me so you will not be shamed by your nakedness, and ointment for your eyes so you will be able to see. 19I correct and discipline everyone I love. So be diligent and turn from your indifference."[/QUOTE]Irrelevant to this discussion as demonstrated.



Jesus said "you know by the fruit". Translation? Action speaks louder then words.[/QUOTE]Your actions are speaking to me.

Heres the kicker. As much as i disagree with skism, the guy with the Popeye evator, atleast he takes a consistent stand in his position and defends it. While you on the other hand attack everything you say you believe in. Then you complain that i attack you, yet you attack me by calling me dishonest, yet you wanna say im using ad hominums.[/QUOTE]I have taken a consistent stand. I have seen others take the same stand. You are attacking me. It is clear. You spent most of this post making it about me and not answering one question I asked or providing any support for your claims about intelligent design.

Let me ask you this: if christianity hypothetically wer outlawed tomorow, would you still be a christian? Or would you recant?



You are completely delusional and dont "see" it.

You even replied to your own post. Did you do that by accident or on purpose?

Do you really not know that you are attacking me? That is funny.

Rejecting a human claim on logic, reason and evidence does not mean that a person is not a Christian. Religious beliefs are not relevant to rejecting a claim for lack of evidence. Bringing them into this is done to attack the person rejecting the failed claims.

 

[Jollybear]

As the foundation of Creation simple the Laws of Nature and the nature of our physical existence.

Whats the evidence that the laws of nature and the nature of our existence is a creation of God?

In humanity such as love, justice, compassion, and knowledge.

How is love, justice, compassion and knowledge evidence of God?

The nature of being a fallible human.

So if some dont believe, why is belief evidence of God?

Design is a fallible human construct on trying how to make things like watches and Boeing 707 airplanes. God Creates by the nature of being God.

Explain more how God creates by his nature? Break that down more.

 

[shunyadragon]

Whats the evidence that the laws of nature and the nature of our existence is a creation of God?

Actually it is not based on what we would call objective verifiable belief in the methods of science. I believe humans have to seek the universal of the witness of God in Creation and human nature and not cling to ancient world views like Christianity, Judaism and Islam. and accept the results of the knowledge of science based on the objective verifiable evidence God does not Create conflicts between the evidence and reality.

How is love, justice, compassion and knowledge evidence of God?

It simply is.

So if some dont believe, why is belief evidence of God?

Belief in and of itself is not evidence for the existence. Belief is the fallible human choice to believe in God

[/quote] Explain more how God creates by his nature? Break that down more.[/QUOTE]

God Creates without the need for human explanation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you debating me now, is that useful?

Not for me. You have a tendency to not responsively address the answers given to your questions and comments. For example, after you asked what science does, I answered, "You are communicating with me and others thanks to several of the gifts of science." Your next comment was, "By studying DESIGN in nature, engineers can learn to engineer more advanced technology. And theres two kinds of science, technology and understanding nature."

How is that related to your question and my answer?

Anyway, that comment of yours was the end of that subthread, and I still don't know why you asked what science does if you already knew the answer. None of that is useful to me.

And how do you determine or know [that "Order, complexity, and form are the natural results of mindless physical laws acting on matter".]?

Observation. one can subject lifeless elements of nature such as water molecules that then organize themselves into complex forms such as snowflakes under preset circumstances without any external input. Others might imagine intelligent agents such as gremlins or pixies scurrying about building these structures, but they need not. Mindless matter can do this itself..

Consider the complexity in a mountain. How many parameters would need to be provided to specify a particular mountain? - its contours, it fractures, its density in various locations of the mountain, its minerals and their arrangements throughout the mountain, etc..

Complexity can exist without intelligence, as can form. Planets arrange themselves into roughly spherical form and orbit stars in predictably elliptical paths with no intelligent input simply by blindly obeying the laws of physics.

The ID people understood that complexity is not a infallible indicator of intelligence, which is why they sought irreducible or specified complexity as evidence of an intelligent designer.

Concluding a God from studying nature makes you a clear thinker.

No, it makes you guilty of a logical fallacy called a non sequitur - the conclusion doesn't follow from what came before. And it's clear to me that people do not conclude that there is a god by studying nature. They believe in gods by faith, not empirical evidence, and then try to fit nature into their faith-based premise as you are doing here - selectively choosing aspects of nature that you think support a faith-based assumption about the existence of a god and backloading a argument made to look like gods are its conclusion when that was actually assumed right from the start - a premise offered as a conclusion, or what I like to call a pseudo-conclusion.

Theres a good number of scientists who conclude God.

I disagree for the reasons just stated. They assume gods a priori and believe in them by faith. Today, with modern science offering alternatives not involving gods, observing nature does not give one reason to conclude that an intelligent designer was involved in its creation

Why not say newton was a unclear thinker?

Newton only thought clearly when he left his faith-based assumptions at the door. His work in areas like mathematics, optics, celestial mechanics, and gravitation, which employ's no faith-based assumptions, was useful then as it is now.

But living on the cusp of modernity, Newton also had a foot in medieval traditions like alchemy, a faith based system. His work there is only of historical interest, and never had any other value.

Only scientists that can learn to compartmentalize their religious beliefs and exclude them from their professional work are able to make lasting and useful contributions to science. As soon as gods creep into the thinking, you get pseudoscience, as with the ID people. Their work is sterile. It has produced no evidence of an intelligent designer, but has been repeatedly embarrassed by making claims of irreducible complexity in biological systems such as the eye, the flagellum, the hemostatic cascade, and the immune system, each of which has been shown to be a false claim.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How do you know [the world] runs on its own?

This was shown to us by the first wave of scientists, who revealed the clockwork universe - people like Kepler, Newton, Ampere, Volta, Galileo, Lavoisier, and Bernoulli. We learned from them that planets orbit suns not because angels or gods like Apollo pushed them, but because they passively and blindly submitted to the force of gravity. Currents go through wires under the proper circumstances (a conducting circuit and an electromotive force) without an intelligence monitoring or causing the movement.

Yea, codes and information or instructions are still caused by intelligence whether you understand the codes or not.

Not always. If you are including DNA, then I disagree. There is no known reason why DNA could not have arisen naturalistically. And I've already explained to you why form such as the shape of a strand of DNA is different from information, which implies a conscious agent's understanding - a point that you chose to ignore only to repeat your already refuted claim. The argument given then still stands now.

When DNA uncoils and its two strands attract complimentary bases to form two strands of DNA identical to the original (except perhaps for a few new mutations), it is a matter of physical form and force acting passively to create physical structures. The shape of the DNA strand is form, not information. Information doesn't exist until one introduces a conscious agent capable of being informed by the forms of nature impacting his sensorium and generating ideas (information about the forms of external reality).

Yes theres lots of reasons to believe, but you ignore them. The question is, why do you ignore them?

I am aware of no reason to believe in gods. I have ignored none of the reasons offered, including yours (order, complexity, form). I merely reject them as being evidence suggesting or supporting the existence of a god.

God can be detected, but not directly.

Disagree. That which we observe can be understood without injecting gods into the explanation.

Explain [reality] naturalistically then?

I'll summarize it as a three-part program, the first of which has already been mentioned here - the earliest scientists who described how the universe runs daily without the input of a god.

The second part was to describe how the universe came to be this way from seeds such as the universe's singularity and the first living cell population. The luminaries in this second wave of scientific discovery included the likes of Darwin, Hubble, and the scientists that gave us the Big Bang theory and the standard model for cosmology.

The last prong will be to account for those seeds, the twin origins problems, for which we have naturalistic hypotheses such as the multiverse hypothesis and abiogenesis. No gods are needed in any of this.

I just told you, if proof was given the universe came from nothing or was eternal and NDEs with ESPs are chance and halucinations, then id be convinced theres no God.

I asked you for a finding that would falsify ID. What could a scientist find tomorrow analogous to the precambrian rabbit capable of falsifying Darwin's theory that would falsify ID were it ever found. There is none for ID.

And I'm sure that you have already been told that science is not in the proving business.

Furthermore, even if reality is godless, there is probably no way to demonstrate this - another way of saying that ID is not falsifiable. There is likely always going to be the possibility that a god that chooses to be undetectable was involved. This is what makes god claims unfalsifiable - they can be wrong, but nothing that might be found in nature could demonstrate that. The best we can hope for is to show how our universe could have come to be as it is without an intelligent designer.

But this above all - those who come to their present understanding by faith rather than reason applied to evidence cannot be budged from that position by reason applied to evidence. No evidence can impact or modify a belief held by faith, as explained by many faith-based thinkers such as Ken Ham. The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?" Scientist Bill Nye answered, "Evidence." Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian."

I've come to understand in venues like this one that one cannot make a man see what he has a stake in not seeing.

Let me ask you a question that I've asked many believers: If you were wrong, how could discover that fact? You mentioned proving that the universe arose without the help of a god, but what could possibly do that for you were it the case? Most theists give no responsive answer. The merely reassert that they are not incorrect.

Anyway, thanks for your interest, effort, and good cheer.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Why would God destroy evidence that he made us?

Your god can't be detected by science. Which means there is no objective evidence that your god is real. All you have is subjective evidence from your mind that a god exist.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Everything else is not interpretation of those discriptions.

Saying everything else is interpretation is like saying the differences in 10 witness accounts of a car crash are interpretation and thats foolish. The ten people seen the crash at different angles, so there experiences are going to have some similarities and some uniqueness.

Its the same with NDEs, theres similarities and uniqueness because everyone has there OWN experience.



If aliens created the universe, they would have to be MASSIVE giants. Im talking as big or bigger then the universe itself. And God, bigger then them, obviously because hed be infinite. "Nephilim" anyone?



No, thats not why im fatigued. Im fatigued for two reasons. 1, because i come on here and i got about 10 posts or so to respond to and i dont know how long it would take you to respond to that many posts, but me, a good while. 2nd reason is you are not refuting my arguments, thinking you have is pure delusional. You hop around the issues too much and THAT is whats tiring. Not too long ago i made a thread asking "is debating pointless?" I asked that due to these problems.



Your not listening. Heres whats going on, your telling me what im saying, then knocking that down. We call that a strawman argument.

Let me tell you what i am saying. Dont hop around the issue, address it head on.

Order, complexity, information, functionality and NDEs all are evidence of a intelligence behind our world. i INFER from this evidence that an intelligence is actually behind it.

Now, i happen to believe the intelligence is God. Others can believe its aliens.



Oh mr high superior minamizes his own, but accuses me i dont try to minamize mine. Then you say i attack you, but you dont attack me? Ya....keep tellin yourself that.



Let me approuch this by asking you this: if i am highly biased, why do you think this is?

Second, whats the difference between subjective and objective? Define each? This is extremely high priority question from me to you right now. If anything you respond to in this post, respond to this as top priority.



You believe God created the world, you believe the bible. You believe Jesus is your Lord, being a christian and all. Those are your conclusions of what are true. Do you consider your conclusions rational, yes or no?

Heres what im seeing in you, you think honesty is to appear honest by coming accross as skeptical; but you fail to realize that its not. Because you cant honestly believe something and yet not believe something at the same time.

Jesus himself attacks this. Remember thomas? He attacked him for doubting. He said "stop doubting and believe. Blessed are those that dont see me, yet believe". Translation? > quit being a hyper skeptic, its NOT rational. Stop thinking that assertion of belief is still belief if actions show disbelief.

Also he said this in revelation 3:15-16

"15“I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish that you were one or the other! 16But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!"

Do you believe Jesus words? Hes your Lord, right?



Im avoiding honesty by attacking your inconsistency? And on top of it you attack ID on the merit of motive rather then its evidence and logical inference. You really dont see your blindness do you?

Interestingly, the very next verse in revelation 3:17-18 after it talked about lukewarm mentioned this very blindness.

"17You say, ‘I am rich. I have everything I want. I don’t need a thing!’ And you don’t realize that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.18So I advise you to buy gold from me—gold that has been purified by fire. Then you will be rich. Also buy white garments from me so you will not be shamed by your nakedness, and ointment for your eyes so you will be able to see. 19I correct and discipline everyone I love. So be diligent and turn from your indifference."



Jesus said "you know by the fruit". Translation? Action speaks louder then words.

Heres the kicker. As much as i disagree with skism, the guy with the Popeye evator, atleast he takes a consistent stand in his position and defends it. While you on the other hand attack everything you say you believe in. Then you complain that i attack you, yet you attack me by calling me dishonest, yet you wanna say im using ad hominums.



Let me ask you this: if christianity hypothetically wer outlawed tomorow, would you still be a christian? Or would you recant?



You are completely delusional and dont "see" it.

You even replied to your own post. Did you do that by accident or on purpose?

Objective exist outside of the mind
Subjective exist in the mind

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

No. Indirect and direct. NDEs are independent of the brain due to some veridical or ESP type NDEs.

You have no objective evidence for your claims of NDE's. All you have is subjective evidence from your mind.

 

[Jollybear]

Ok, i got alot of new posts to refute on this thread. Its gonna take some time. So, everyone be patient as jollybear builds his refutations one post at a time. Put your seatbuilts on, im gonna slam dunk all your points. Its coming. Yaul ruffled the fur of the rabbit so its no holds bare from here!

 

[Prometheus85]

Good question.

Let me anser that like this: when ANY intelligence is doing work, what or how does it do it? It does it by communication or engineering. It isnt just humans that engineer, beavers making a dam or ants building there mountain colony or a bird making its nest out of straw, ect. All of those things are intelligence at work. Humans just have more greater or sophisticated intelligence over bugs or animals. But, also DNA has a code and enzymes and cells read the code and go to work building body parts.

So, in the case for intelligent design of the universe, we see order, complexity, functionality and or design. Then we infer a designer or intelligence was behind the making or building of the universe and things in it.

Now, the sight of design and information like the blueprints for DNA does not SHOW us directly WHO or WHAT the designer is, it just shows evidence through the hallmarks of design, that an intelligent cause was behind this.

To get at WHO the designer is you have to leave the arena of the physical or structural design in nature and then delve into philosophy or logic and spiritual experiences. NDEs are good to look at for showing a direct link to the designer.

But, theres people who believe aliens wer the intelligent designer, while some others believe God was and yet others believe a different God was.

But, to sum up, intelligent design simply works how any intelligence was. Like how im working to type out my message and order its points. Same thing.

Like, one dont need to be religious to abserve intelligent design in the world. You dont need to say a bunch of prayers, go to church or sacrifice pigeons, lol. Design and information is just an abservable byproduct of the world.

So if you don’t know who the designer is how do u know the universe was designed? Your argument is order and complexity?

Order? How can something that arose form a BANG! Be orderly?

Complexity? So by your logic, while some systems and organs can be explained by evolution, those that are irreducibly complex cannot, and therefore an intelligent designer must be responsible? Your logic is faulty because it fails to take into account numerous other pathways that a particular ability can evolve through.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Everything else is not interpretation of those discriptions.

Saying everything else is interpretation is like saying the differences in 10 witness accounts of a car crash are interpretation and thats foolish. The ten people seen the crash at different angles, so there experiences are going to have some similarities and some uniqueness.

Its the same with NDEs, theres similarities and uniqueness because everyone has there OWN experience.



If aliens created the universe, they would have to be MASSIVE giants. Im talking as big or bigger then the universe itself. And God, bigger then them, obviously because hed be infinite. "Nephilim" anyone?



No, thats not why im fatigued. Im fatigued for two reasons. 1, because i come on here and i got about 10 posts or so to respond to and i dont know how long it would take you to respond to that many posts, but me, a good while. 2nd reason is you are not refuting my arguments, thinking you have is pure delusional. You hop around the issues too much and THAT is whats tiring. Not too long ago i made a thread asking "is debating pointless?" I asked that due to these problems.



Your not listening. Heres whats going on, your telling me what im saying, then knocking that down. We call that a strawman argument.

Let me tell you what i am saying. Dont hop around the issue, address it head on.

Order, complexity, information, functionality and NDEs all are evidence of a intelligence behind our world. i INFER from this evidence that an intelligence is actually behind it.

Now, i happen to believe the intelligence is God. Others can believe its aliens.



Oh mr high superior minamizes his own, but accuses me i dont try to minamize mine. Then you say i attack you, but you dont attack me? Ya....keep tellin yourself that.



Let me approuch this by asking you this: if i am highly biased, why do you think this is?

Second, whats the difference between subjective and objective? Define each? This is extremely high priority question from me to you right now. If anything you respond to in this post, respond to this as top priority.



You believe God created the world, you believe the bible. You believe Jesus is your Lord, being a christian and all. Those are your conclusions of what are true. Do you consider your conclusions rational, yes or no?

Heres what im seeing in you, you think honesty is to appear honest by coming accross as skeptical; but you fail to realize that its not. Because you cant honestly believe something and yet not believe something at the same time.

Jesus himself attacks this. Remember thomas? He attacked him for doubting. He said "stop doubting and believe. Blessed are those that dont see me, yet believe". Translation? > quit being a hyper skeptic, its NOT rational. Stop thinking that assertion of belief is still belief if actions show disbelief.

Also he said this in revelation 3:15-16

"15“I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish that you were one or the other! 16But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!"

Do you believe Jesus words? Hes your Lord, right?



Im avoiding honesty by attacking your inconsistency? And on top of it you attack ID on the merit of motive rather then its evidence and logical inference. You really dont see your blindness do you?

Interestingly, the very next verse in revelation 3:17-18 after it talked about lukewarm mentioned this very blindness.

"17You say, ‘I am rich. I have everything I want. I don’t need a thing!’ And you don’t realize that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.18So I advise you to buy gold from me—gold that has been purified by fire. Then you will be rich. Also buy white garments from me so you will not be shamed by your nakedness, and ointment for your eyes so you will be able to see. 19I correct and discipline everyone I love. So be diligent and turn from your indifference."



Jesus said "you know by the fruit". Translation? Action speaks louder then words.

Heres the kicker. As much as i disagree with skism, the guy with the Popeye evator, atleast he takes a consistent stand in his position and defends it. While you on the other hand attack everything you say you believe in. Then you complain that i attack you, yet you attack me by calling me dishonest, yet you wanna say im using ad hominums.



Let me ask you this: if christianity hypothetically wer outlawed tomorow, would you still be a christian? Or would you recant?



You are completely delusional and dont "see" it.

You even replied to your own post. Did you do that by accident or on purpose?

I have been going to church since I was a baby. I found Christ at about 12 and was baptized. My mother had high hopes that I might enter the ministry, because I am kind, compassionate, I listen to people, am exceptionally intelligent and I love fried chicken. But over that entire time, I was totally unaware that in order to be a "true" Christian, I had to pass muster with you and ace your tests. How did you come to be the one that decides who is and who is not Christian? And you not even knowing what animals lay eggs and which watch over them and which do not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You have no objective evidence for your claims of NDE's. All you have is subjective evidence from your mind.

I have never seen anything indicating that anyone knows what NDE's are. Most just believe and then consider their belief to be objective facts when it has not been established.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Objective exist outside of the mind
Subjective exist in the mind

A quick and dirty way to consider objective is "true for all" and subjective is "true for you". It is not perfect, but it conveys the meaning about as well as anything.

Local weather stations indicate that the temperature is 12 degrees C. True for all (at least within the area of the weather stations). I say it feels like its freezing. Hyperbole, but still only true for me.

Another way is that 72% of people tested prefer vanilla in a national taste test. Objective and under the conditions of the test, true for all.

I think chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream. True for me (subjective).

Jollybear does not seem to understand the distinction. Everything he believes in is objective whether is or is not.

 

[Jollybear]

You read rashly and miss what the writer says. The interpretations are what you and others have done with the claims of those that had the experience. Just because someone says they had the experience, it does not mean the experiences are what you claim they are. No one knows what they mean.

Ya, we do know what NDEs mean. They mean conciousness is independent of the physical brain. We know that because some NDEs experience extra sensory knowledge that the experiencer verifies. Those kinds of NDEs are named "veridical NDEs."

This does not make any sense. We build stuff that is bigger than us. Bigger than thousands of people.

The point remains, you can no longer state that intelligent design is about any intelligence. You cannot claim that it is when you have eliminated some of those potential intelligent agents because of height requirements.

Why dont you listen? Stop twisting my words.

The DNA is a code of instructions. This implies an intelligence behind it. Who the intelligence is, is a seperate question then whether DNA is information that comes from intelligence.

I believe the universe is WAY to big for aliens to build it. Thus a infinite God had too.

As far as aliens biologically designing some other smaller things i have no problem with.

All of this is irrelevant to the DNA itself, by itself being a code which implies intelligence behind it.

No. Here's what is going on. You post assertions that you do not support.

How are they unsuported?

Often those claims are irrational.

How are they irrational?

You claim them as some sort of fact that is obvious and it is not.

I never said my position is proven fact. I said it has evidence and logical inference to it. Its pretty solid ALMOST to the point of proven. But, its not proven.

When challenged, you have reverted to straw man arguments, ad hominem attack and other logical fallacies. You do not listen to what others post and often do not seem to comprehend it.

What strawman argument did i use?

As for ad hom, have you called me dishonest? Yes or no?

Except that it has been explained to you many times why it is not the evidence you claim it is. You just do not want to listen, because of your bias.

No, your not explaining why ID is not evidence. Please, explain it. Addressing motives and nit picking ID with creationism is not explaining how IDs evidence is not evidence.

Believing it is a supernatural agent automatically removes it as science. You can no longer argue that it is.

Me and you are intelligence, yet wer not supernatural. DNA implies intelligence.

Here is that ad hominem attack I mentioned. I limit my responses to what you are claiming.

No you dont because youv called me dishonest in a earlyer post.

I have no idea. There are many possible reasons. Not being able to diagnose the origins of your bias does not mean it does not exist.

If you dont know the reason all you see is a symptom. You dont know if im biased or if im putting my bias in check. You have no idea. So, address the evidence, not my "bias". Like you claimed above, you deal with my claims, well let your action live up to that and forget about biases.

You do not know the difference between these? You have asked others. Surely you know by now.

I will respond to posts as I choose to.

Amazing, top priority question delebarately ignored.

If you wer smart enough you would realize i was not asking you to define the difference between objective and bias and subjective because i dont know, but because this is a debate around a sensitive subject and those terms need to be used the same way by both sides.

Somehow i think you wer smart enough to know i was not asking out of ignorence but you played dumb just to annoy me. And thats not cool. That means your delebarately wasting time.

All of this is irrelevant to the discussion. You debate atheists that believe none of this. You debate people of other religions that believe none of it. If it is irrelevant for them, it is irrelevant for Christians too.

Yes, ill debate atheists about this, but when a christian tells me they dont believe in ID, that for me opens a whole other branch of dimention to the subject because frankly, thats just DAM WEIRD.

As a christian you believe the bible. Ok, well, how do you interpret this passage about ID> romans 1:20

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse"?

I think honesty is not answering what I see with intractable dogma and irrational claims. I think honesty is not recognizing there is evidence that is contradictory and not choosing to ignore it and go with dogma. I think honesty is listening to others and evaluating them critically while trying to minimize my own bias.

If i wer to isolate this statement outside our debate, i would whole heartedly agree with this statement, that this is what honesty means. However, given the context of this debate, you are not living up to that statement. In fact, me claiming there is evidence of ID in the DNA due to its code, THIS is NOT dishonest on my part to claim that.

You tried this attack tactic before and failed. I am not doubting God or Jesus. I am doubting your claims. Are you trying to tell me that you believe you are God?

Oh really, your not doubting God or jesus, ok, why not? Whats your REASONS for belief? What convinces you of those things SO WELL that you dont even DOUBT?

Do tell, this should be good.

You fail to support your claims and when I have logically challenged those claims you turn on me.

You havent logically challenged ID, you attack only the word and motives of its proponents and handwave away its evidence.

And i never turned on YOU. I merely out of GREAT curiosity asked your reasons for belief in God since its obviously not due to ID.

You have provided no evidence. You just keep repeating claims. Now you are repeating false accusations.

See what i mean? You just handwave away, yet you say you challenge my claims and dont ad hom me. How can you challenge what ive said when all you do is deny i gave evidence?

It is false equivalence. You are saying that your words in this debate are the words of God. They are your words.

No, its the other way around. You say you believe in God, you say God made the world. But, then you deny ID. So, you indirectly are saying God made the world to not show evidence he made it. When i say there is evidence, you say no.

Your voice is the voice of authoritative assertion on these things. Therefore your words are the words of God for you.

Also, your belief is based on just belief. So, your saying you got the truth and you conclude this just because. Therefore YOUR word IS Gods word.

You dont base your beliefs on solid reasoning.

Rejecting a human claim on logic, reason and evidence does not mean that a person is not a Christian. Religious beliefs are not relevant to rejecting a claim for lack of evidence. Bringing them into this is done to attack the person rejecting the failed claims.

Wrong. Im asking your reasons because you claim to believe in God, yet reject design. That makes no sense to me.

Also, this is the only post im gonna respond to. Im not responding to the others you made. Ill respond to the one you make of this one though. My reasons im not gonna respond to the other ones are because points are being repeated. Plus, any other points is not gonna be answered, not because i dont have an answer, but because of time issues and i need to respond to the other posters too.

Although, the next post will be tomorow or in few hours. I spent enough time on this one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ya, we do know what NDEs mean. They mean conciousness is independent of the physical brain. We know that because some NDEs experience extra sensory knowledge that the experiencer verifies. Those kinds of NDEs are named "veridical NDEs."


Why dont you listen? Stop twisting my words.

The DNA is a code of instructions. This implies an intelligence behind it. Who the intelligence is, is a seperate question then whether DNA is information that comes from intelligence.

I believe the universe is WAY to big for aliens to build it. Thus a infinite God had too.

As far as aliens biologically designing some other smaller things i have no problem with.

All of this is irrelevant to the DNA itself, by itself being a code which implies intelligence behind it.


How are they unsuported?


How are they irrational?


I never said my position is proven fact. I said it has evidence and logical inference to it. Its pretty solid ALMOST to the point of proven. But, its not proven.


What strawman argument did i use?

As for ad hom, have you called me dishonest? Yes or no?



No, your not explaining why ID is not evidence. Please, explain it. Addressing motives and nit picking ID with creationism is not explaining how IDs evidence is not evidence.



Me and you are intelligence, yet wer not supernatural. DNA implies intelligence.



No you dont because youv called me dishonest in a earlyer post.



If you dont know the reason all you see is a symptom. You dont know if im biased or if im putting my bias in check. You have no idea. So, address the evidence, not my "bias". Like you claimed above, you deal with my claims, well let your action live up to that and forget about biases.



Amazing, top priority question delebarately ignored.

If you wer smart enough you would realize i was not asking you to define the difference between objective and bias and subjective because i dont know, but because this is a debate around a sensitive subject and those terms need to be used the same way by both sides.

Somehow i think you wer smart enough to know i was not asking out of ignorence but you played dumb just to annoy me. And thats not cool. That means your delebarately wasting time.



Yes, ill debate atheists about this, but when a christian tells me they dont believe in ID, that for me opens a whole other branch of dimention to the subject because frankly, thats just DAM WEIRD.

As a christian you believe the bible. Ok, well, how do you interpret this passage about ID> romans 1:20

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse"?



If i wer to isolate this statement outside our debate, i would whole heartedly agree with this statement, that this is what honesty means. However, given the context of this debate, you are not living up to that statement. In fact, me claiming there is evidence of ID in the DNA due to its code, THIS is NOT dishonest on my part to claim that.



Oh really, your not doubting God or jesus, ok, why not? Whats your REASONS for belief? What convinces you of those things SO WELL that you dont even DOUBT?

Do tell, this should be good.



You havent logically challenged ID, you attack only the word and motives of its proponents and handwave away its evidence.

And i never turned on YOU. I merely out of GREAT curiosity asked your reasons for belief in God since its obviously not due to ID.



See what i mean? You just handwave away, yet you say you challenge my claims and dont ad hom me. How can you challenge what ive said when all you do is deny i gave evidence?



No, its the other way around. You say you believe in God, you say God made the world. But, then you deny ID. So, you indirectly are saying God made the world to not show evidence he made it. When i say there is evidence, you say no.

Your voice is the voice of authoritative assertion on these things. Therefore your words are the words of God for you.

Also, your belief is based on just belief. So, your saying you got the truth and you conclude this just because. Therefore YOUR word IS Gods word.

You dont base your beliefs on solid reasoning.



Wrong. Im asking your reasons because you claim to believe in God, yet reject design. That makes no sense to me.

Also, this is the only post im gonna respond to. Im not responding to the others you made. Ill respond to the one you make of this one though. My reasons im not gonna respond to the other ones are because points are being repeated. Plus, any other points is not gonna be answered, not because i dont have an answer, but because of time issues and i need to respond to the other posters too.

Although, the next post will be tomorow or in few hours. I spent enough time on this one.

I started to answer this post, but then I realized what a monumental waste of time it was. There is no valid argument in support of any claim here. Your evidence is just you repeating claims that you fail to support.

I see no point in continuing this. It is clear that you have nothing and most of what you post is your personal belief with no evidence or logical reason for others to consider it more than just that.

There is no point in writing a book to someone that cannot read.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, i got alot of new posts to refute on this thread. Its gonna take some time. So, everyone be patient as jollybear builds his refutations one post at a time. Put your seatbuilts on, im gonna slam dunk all your points. Its coming. Yaul ruffled the fur of the rabbit so its no holds bare from here!

You may want to learn what the word refute means. It does not mean repeating your beliefs as assertions over and over.

 

[tas8831]

It is part of a long discussion. tas8831 and I agreed that you have a maximum of 50,000 beneficial mutations to explain the difference between chimps and humans

MISREPRESENTATION.

I never agreed to that number (that you fabricated) at all.

Why do creationists so frequently engage in these dishonest antics?

YOU claimed that that was TOO FEW.

Do you not think we can read and remember?