Putting God's Design In Perspective

[shunyadragon]

The question is, why do the laws exist?

This a matter of 'belief' as a theological question, why? if one proposes some 'Source' existing that is the cause beyond the evidence of simply the objective verifiable evidence of our physical existence itself. You may believe this, but there is no evidence to support this belief,

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's the claims Christians and others make for the universe: that it was designed. The incredible vastness of the universe and its innumerable objects implies a designing mind that simply ran amok and couldn't help but create more, more, more, and more. To me it doesn't make sense that a being capable of design would do such a thing. Hence my question: "Why"? Why did god bother with it all?

.

.

I understand the desire that what I believe be confirmed by some real world evidence, but I do not just throw out something, claim it is and then hide behind it or, worse, use it against others that are engaging in reasonable and valid quests for knowledge.

The universe as we continue discovered it, does sort of make me feel small in some ways. It gives me hope at the same time as well. To the possibilities.

From a perspective of a designer it does not make sense in a lot of ways to me either. That is why I chose to offer the best answer I have. Nothing else I could offer would be more than speculation or based on something I believe is true and not something I can show to be true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As fine tuned? Are they fine tuned in a general sense to you then?

There is no common claim by physicists that everything that even the claimed parameters are actually fine tuned. We do not know everything and cannot eliminate the possibility of the impact of what we do not know.

It is another God of the gaps argument, just on a grander scale.




QUOTE="Jollybear, post: 5964656, member: 21529"]Fair.



This statement dont make coherent sense to me.

The evidence for fine tuning and intelligent design is more sound then tuna being evidence for extra terestrials.[/QUOTE]Not really. There is no evidence supporting intelligent design. There are only claims.

There is no evidence explaining if there is ESP or NDE's or what things like that really mean. It is all conjecture from people that want it to exist and mean what they want it to mean.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This a matter of 'belief' as a theological question, why? if one proposes some 'Source' existing that is the cause beyond the evidence of simply the objective verifiable evidence of our physical existence itself. You may believe this, but there is no evidence to support this belief,

That is about as fine an edge as you can put on it.

 

[shunyadragon]

From a Christia
In perspective, I look and wonder what God's is up to with regards to how things exist, but I do not fill the gaps in my understanding with unverified and unsupported speculation and call that real.

Confirms the problem is universal that . . . 'Obvious problem for ALL who claim to believe and not believe.'

I believe the ancient religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam face harder questions why when faced with the more universal perspective of the world today

 

[Jollybear]

This a matter of 'belief' as a theological question, why?

I think asking where did the laws come from is a anybody question. Its not just theological, its a scientific question too. Why wouldent it be? Science is the quest for knowledge, right?

if one proposes some 'Source' existing that is the cause beyond the evidence of simply the objective verifiable evidence of our physical existence itself. You may believe this, but there is no evidence to support this belief,

Define hypotheses and evidence for me?

 

[Jollybear]

That is about as fine an edge as you can put on it.

You believe in God right?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Confirms the problem is universal that . . . 'Obvious problem for ALL who claim to believe and not believe.'

I believe the ancient religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam face harder questions why when faced with the more universal perspective of the world today

I think trying to explain it is going to be a problem for many religions. Well, except maybe for those that decided to include aliens in their back story.

I look at the stars and am astounded at the vastness of the scale. It is beautiful and terrible all at once. I cannot help but wonder at why God would design it the way he has and then I wonder at why He would let us think so wrongly about it for so long. But all that tells you is that I am astounded by the universe and have questions. It is not evidence that what I believe is correct.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You believe in God right?

I believe in God. I do not believe I know the mind of God. I do not believe that just because another believer says it, it is true. Belief in God is not immunity from ignorance.

 

[Jollybear]

I believe in God. I do not believe I know the mind of God. I do not believe that just because another believer says it, it is true. Belief in God is not immunity from ignorance.

Ok, you believe in God. Good. We agree there. We have that PART in common.

Now, two questions:

1, why do you believe in God?
2, wouldnt it make sense if God created it all, that thered be evidence for it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, you believe in God. Good. We agree there. We have that PART in common.

Now, two questions:

1, why do you believe in God?
2, wouldnt it make sense if God created it all, that thered be evidence for it?

My perspective has nothing to do with why I believe in God. It has everything to do with claims of others that believe in God make.

All I know is that there is no evidence that can be attributed to God or the actions of God. If it were that easy, we would not be having these debates and there would be one religion in the world.

 

[Jollybear]

My perspective has nothing to do with why I believe in God. It has everything to do with claims of others that believe in God make.

All I know is that there is no evidence that can be attributed to God or the actions of God. If it were that easy, we would not be having these debates and there would be one religion in the world.

Lol, so, you believe in God out of a vacume?

You believe just because?

Why wouldnt God leave evidence?

 

[shunyadragon]

I think asking where did the laws come from is a anybody question. Its not just theological, its a scientific question too. Why wouldent it be? Science is the quest for knowledge, right?

Actually NO! Methodological Naturalism cannot obviously ask the question 'Why?,' because Methodological Naturalism can only falsify hypothesis when there is objective verifiable evidence concerning our physical existence.

The reason why it is a Theological/philosophical question, because 'Why?' remains an anecdotal subjective question, that has many conflicting different answers based on what one 'believes from Theism, Deism or Atheism or whatever.

Define hypotheses and evidence for me?

Objective verifiable evidence by its nature can only refer to tangible evidence for our physical existence. Hypothesis relate only to scientific methods that rely on falsification to answer questions concerning the nature of our physical existence.

 

[Kenny]

Molds were used in ancient times for the same purpose in treating people even in ancient Egypt. Also those tasty moldy cheese. There were scientists writing about their use before penicillin, just that they made a breakthrough where you couldn't go back anymore. Of course people die of molds and even penicillin still today.

Yes... and how many people has penicillin saved?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, you believe in God. Good. We agree there. We have that PART in common.

Now, two questions:

1, why do you believe in God?
2, wouldnt it make sense if God created it all, that thered be evidence for it?

When I say no evidence, I mean evidence that can be shared, independently verified, communicated and holds up to scrutiny. There are many that believe and I believe myself. If I chose, I could share my experiences, but they are mine and I do not have a way of verifying them so that others could see that it was valid evidence for them to make decisions with.

I have met many people in my life and I have met no one that has that evidence. I do not have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is when someone comes along claiming they have the evidence, but it is on belief only and even then, I would be ok, but then they decide to take action on that belief.

I find a lot of people have difficulty understanding the difference between claims based on belief and those based on actual physical evidence. Really wanting to believe that intelligent design is science is not evidence that it is science or that it is correct. Pointing that out is an honest assessment of the evidence and not a statement against Christianity or God. My doubt is in what people say in the name of God and not with God.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lol, so, you believe in God out of a vacume?

You believe just because?

Why wouldnt God leave evidence?

Now you are turning the discussion to an attack on my beliefs. How unexpected.

Why I believe in God has nothing to do with my interest in educating others on the false basis of their actions and claims.

 

[Jollybear]

Actually NO! Methodological Naturalism cannot obviously ask the question 'Why?,' because Methodological Naturalism can only falsify hypothesis when there is objective verifiable evidence concerning our physical existence.

So, basically science sets a rule that some questions are off limits.

How can methodological naturalism falsify something if there not first alowed to ask a question, let alone directly research it?

The reason why it is a Theological/philosophical question, because 'Why?' remains an anecdotal subjective question, that has many conflicting different answers based on what one 'believes from Theism, Deism or Atheism or whatever.

Ok, so basically, reject the question because they dont want to seek the answer?

Objective verifiable evidence by its nature can only refer to only tangible evidence for our physical existence.

So basically assume the physical world is all that exist. Set rules on not asking questions if theres a spiritual world. Set more rules to not research it. Got it.

Hypothesis relate only to scientific methods that rely on falsification to answer questions concerning the nature of our physical existence.

Our PHYSICAL existence. So, questions of whether intelligence made it all or questions if a spirit realm exists are off limits.

Your posts are confirming to me why i hate the mainstream in science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lol, so, you believe in God out of a vacume?

You believe just because?

Why wouldnt God leave evidence?

How much of your unsupported speculation in those two questions about my belief in God is going to become the "facts" for you? That is the problem I see with creationists. They speculate facts into existence and then attack others for not seeing those facts themselves.

How is the quality of my Christianity a relevant question in this discussion? Would knowing it verify fine tuning in some way or show there is a scientific evidence of a designer?

 

[Jollybear]

Now you are turning the discussion to an attack on my beliefs. How unexpected.

How can i attack your belief in God when i just told you our belief in God we have in common. Why would i attack the very thing i defend?

Also, how can i attack your reasons for belief when you never even answered the question "why do you believe in God?"

Why I believe in God has nothing to do with my interest in educating others on the false basis of their actions and claims.

Youd educate me better by telling me why you believe in God then, since your reasons for belief are obviously NOT because of fine tuning or intelligent design or NDE experiences, ect.

 

[Jollybear]

How much of your unsupported speculation in those two questions about my belief in God is going to become the "facts" for you? That is the problem I see with creationists. They speculate facts into existence and then attack others for not seeing those facts themselves.

How is the quality of my Christianity a relevant question in this discussion? Would knowing it verify fine tuning in some way or show there is a scientific evidence of a designer?

Its a logical question. If you reject my reasons for belief in God, well, let me know your reasons so i can evaluate if there better reasons then mine that you reject.

Make sense?