• 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

Dan From Smithville

For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky
Staff member
Premium Member
So, basically science sets a rule that some questions are off limits.
No.

How can methodological naturalism falsify something if there not first alowed to ask a question, let alone directly research it?
How do you falsify an hypothesis about invisible pink unicorns ability to help us find lose change. What evidence do you use?



Oh, so basically, reject the question because they dont want to seek the answer?
Is this another instance where we see your speculation about someone become a fact for you. There are questions that science has no way of asking meaningfully, because there is nothing to test.



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.
You got it wrong.



Our PHYSICAL existence. So, questions of whether intelligence made it all or questions if a spirit realm exists are off limits.
You are a proponent of intelligent design and you are trying to force that belief into science without evidence. You claim to have it, but your evidence is really your speculation about something that intrigues you and is mysterious. Your conclusions are presumptive and without evidence to support them with regards to your evidence and what that evidence means. All that can be said is that it is unexplained. You can say that ghosts are evidence of something, but we cannot even verify ghosts or that your explanation of them is the explanation.

Your posts are confirming to me why i hate the mainstream in science.
You are able to voice that dissent using the products of mainstream science whatever that is.
 

Dan From Smithville

For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky
Staff member
Premium Member
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?
It has nothing to do with anything we are discussing. I do not need to know why you believe in order to respond to points you make. I accept that you believe and that is all I need and all I can get.

I am not rejecting your reasons for believing in God. I am challenging your claims about intelligent design. Specifically that you have evidence to support it.

Trying to be my judge about my personal belief in God is just an attack on me that has nothing to do with the discussion.
 

Dan From Smithville

For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky
Staff member
Premium Member
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?"



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.
It has nothing to do with the discussion. Do you have a scale of belief where I would fit in and that would tell you if my views on illogical claims is more or less valid? If I do not pass your test, does that mean you can dismiss me outright? What is the value of knowing something like you requested and how is it germane to whether intelligent design is valid or not?

Can we stop talking about me and get back to your evidence for your claims?
 

Dan From Smithville

For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky
Staff member
Premium Member
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?
Does the intelligent design movement claim that the designer is a specific designer?
 

Dan From Smithville

For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky
Staff member
Premium Member
Everyone thinks rabbits LOOK cute.

So, if there not designed, WHY do they LOOK cute?
So you are claiming there is an inherent condition of cuteness and rabbits possess this condition and that only designed things would possess this condition. Therefore cute rabbits are evidence for design.

Part of your evidence is that everyone thinks that rabbits look cute. How did you determine this? I know that many people do think that rabbits look cute, but many is not everyone. Are you saying that there does not exist a single person that finds rabbits ugly, terrifying or view them with some other negative description?

What about the effect of culture and the media on establishing our view of rabbits? How do you think this has impacted "everyone's" view of rabbits?

Is there nothing in human psychology and the human mind that would contribute to your universal view of cuteness in rabbits?

Are you saying that any living thing that elicits an emotional feeling in people is evidence of design? Is this limited to warm feelings or do other feelings establish an emotional feeling as evidence for design? What about fear of scary wolves? Everyone knows that wolves are scary right?

What about flowers? They must have been designed, since everyone thinks they are pretty.

Are there other factors that would explain these conditions besides a designer? How have you eliminated them?
 

shunyadragon

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

Well, ah . . . yes, because there are simply limits to the questions science can answer. The existence of Gods, fairies, dragons, and purple people eaters just simply cannot be verified without objective verifiable evidence.

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

It is not a matter of being allowed. Science by its nature addresses questions related to the nature of our physical existence.

Ok, so basically, reject the question because they don;t want to seek the answer?

No, it is everyone's responsibility to answer the questions 'why?' and other theological/philosophical questions, but not with science.

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

No, you do not got it.

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

Off limits for science, but not one's personal responsibility to deal with the questions.

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

Actually, it does not do any good to hate math nor science, because math and science could care less.

There is no mainstream nor other stream in science. Simply science is science.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Jollybear said:
Everyone thinks rabbits LOOK cute.

So, if there not designed, WHY do they LOOK cute?

Black widow and Brown Recluse spiders are not cute, neither are Turanchulla spiders. Some are deadly and some are harmless, but no need to design what naturally evolves.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
The belief that Genesis is literal does consider Creation taking place in either 7 days or 7 thousand years. Clearly I said the majority. As noted only one argued for a symbolic representation of Creation; St. John Chrysostom. Origin apparently may have believed in Old Age Creationism, but still believed in a literal Genesis.

From: ECG: Creation and the Church Fathers

"These leaders were known as the Church Fathers and they wrote to encourage believers, mainly during the period of AD 96 – 430 (Clement to Augustine). Of the 24 Church Fathers that I examined, 14 clearly accepted the literal days of Creation; 9 did not mention their thoughts on this subject, and only one held to a clearly figurative belief, which he imbued from the Jewish liberal philosopher, Philo, who had, in turn, been greatly influenced by the pagan Greeks.

The first Church Father who mentions the days of Creation is Barnabas (not Paul’s companion) who wrote a letter in AD 130. He says:

“Now what is said at the very beginning of Creation about the Sabbath, is this: In six days God created the works of his hands, and finished them on the seventh day; and he rested on that day, and sanctified it. Notice particularly, my children, the significance of ‘he finished them in six days.’ What that means is, that He is going to bring the world to an end in six thousand years, since with Him one day means a thousand years; witness His own saying, ‘Behold, a day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, my children, in six days – six thousand years, that is – there is going to be an end of everything.” (The Epistle of Barnabas 15)2.

Barnabas is referring here to the traditional view of both the Jewish Rabbis and the early church leaders, that the days of Creation were literal six days, but that Psalm 90:4 (and for the Christians, 2 Peter 3:8) prophetically pointed to the coming of the Messiah after 6,000 years (and for the Christians, the return of Christ).3 This is not to be confused with the modern idea in the church, which wrenches verses out of context and makes the days of Creation to be evolutionary billions of years. Such a view has nothing to do with traditional Christianity; it is an attempt to make the Bible palatable to the masses who have been indoctrinated by the pagan religion of evolutionism.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (AD 120 – 202), was discipled by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had himself been taught by the Apostle John. He tells us clearly that a literal Adam and Eve were created and fell into sin on the literal first day of Creation (an idea influenced by the Rabbis). He writes:

“For it is said, 'There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day.' Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die.”4

When he refers to Adam sinning and bringing death to the human race on the sixth day, he also points out that Christ also died on the sixth day in order to redeem us from the curse of sin. It is impossible to manipulate the text to make Irenaeus look as if he believed in the long-age days of the modernist theologians.

Agreeing with Barnabas, he explains that the literal six-day Creation points to six thousand years of history before Christ’s return:

“And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works. This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.”5

Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, near Rome (AD 170 – 236), was trained in the faith by Irenaeus, and like his mentor, he held to literal Creation days. He writes:

“And six thousand years must needs be accomplished… for 'a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.' Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled.”6

Lactantius, a Bible scholar (AD 260 – 330) who tutored Emperor Constantine’s son, Crispus, taught the official Christian doctrine of the traditional church. He wrote:

“To me, as I meditate and consider in my mind concerning the creation of this world in which we are kept enclosed, even such is the rapidity of that creation; as is contained in the book of Moses, which he wrote about its creation, and which is called Genesis. God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days…. In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night….”7

As with the other church leaders at the time, he accepted the prophetic days of 2 Peter 3:8, and tells us:

“Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.”8.

The authors that compiled the gospels from other sources do believe in a literal genesis, because of their use of the Cretion account in Genesis. The early Church Fathers were the likely final compilers of the gospels.
More to follow . . .
Okay. So you don't know.
You could say that, you know. It won't hurt.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Okay. So you don't know.
You could say that, you know. It won't hurt.

By the historical records the Church Fathers believed in a literal Genesis. Based on the gospel's text whoever wrote or compiled the gospels believed in a literal Genesis.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
From: Biblical cosmology - Wikipedia

"Biblical cosmology is the biblical writers' conception of the cosmos as an organised, structured entity, including its origin, order, meaning and destiny.[1][2] The Bible was formed over many centuries, involving many authors, and reflects shifting patterns of religious belief; consequently, its cosmology is not always consistent.[3][4] Nor do the biblical texts necessarily represent the beliefs of all Jews or Christians at the time they were put into writing: the majority of those making up Hebrew Bible or Old Testament in particular represent the beliefs of only a small segment of the ancient Israelite community, the members of a late Judean religious tradition centered in Jerusalem and devoted to the exclusive worship of Yahweh.[5]

The ancient Israelites envisaged a universe made up of a flat disc-shaped earth floating on water, heaven above, underworld below.[6]Humans inhabited earth during life and the underworld after death, and the underworld was morally neutral;[7] only in Hellenistic times (after c.330 BCE) did Jews begin to adopt the Greek idea that it would be a place of punishment for misdeeds, and that the righteous would enjoy an afterlife in heaven.[8] In this period too the older three-level cosmology in large measure gave way to the Greek concept of a spherical earthsuspended in space at the center of a number of concentric heavens.[6]

The opening words of the Genesis creation narrative (Genesis 1:1-26) sum up a view of how the cosmos originated: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"; Yahweh, the God of Israel, was solely responsible for creation and had no rivals.[9] Later Jewish thinkers, adopting ideas from Greek philosophy, concluded that God's Wisdom, Word and Spirit penetrated all things and gave them unity.[10]Christianity in turn adopted these ideas and identified Jesus with the Logos (Word): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1)."
What's this for? Is this supposed to be the truth?
Obviously the writers of this article, are in no better position than you are.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
.

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.

latest

And:

space-perspective-1200x600.jpg


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.

.
Like those of medieval times, you are confusing what is truly from a scientific pov (which I accept) from the existential pov, the mythic pov (which I also accept).

Can you understand the following statement by Black Elk? I stood at the center of the world, and the center of the world was the Black Hills, and the center of the world was everywhere.

When you can understand that, you will see how it can be true that the earth is not at the center of a solar system which is not at the center of a galaxy which is not is not at the center of the universe, and how the very place you now sit is at the center of everywhere.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I didn't ask for the opinions of the church fathers, as I said before.

Regardless of what you say are opinions it is well documented that the Church Fathers believed as they were cited.

I don't see that, and you don't know.

Based on the gospel's text whoever wrote or compiled the gospels believed in a literal Genesis. You need glasses.
 
No.

How do you falsify an hypothesis about invisible pink unicorns ability to help us find lose change. What evidence do you use?

How can you falsify or unfalsify it if your not first alowed to ask and research the question? Common sense.

Is this another instance where we see your speculation about someone become a fact for you. There are questions that science has no way of asking meaningfully, because there is nothing to test.

So assume theres nothing there, then effort dont need to be done to do tests to figure it out. Ya, that makes a whole lot of sense! Not.

You are a proponent of intelligent design and you are trying to force that belief into science without evidence.

Lol, i cant help but laugh. Its a mantra, theres no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence. The reality is, there is evidence, lots of it. Very strong evidence. Not proof, but yes, evidence.

You are able to voice that dissent using the products of mainstream science whatever that is.

The ones in power that set the rules for what science is or does. Thats the mainstream.

It has nothing to do with anything we are discussing. I do not need to know why you believe in order to respond to points you make. I accept that you believe and that is all I need and all I can get.

I am not rejecting your reasons for believing in God. I am challenging your claims about intelligent design. Specifically that you have evidence to support it.

One of my reasons for believong in God IS intelligent design, which YOU reject. Therefore, yes, you reject my reasons for why i believe in God, yes you do. Yet you wanna say im attacking your reasons for belief in God, when in fact you never gave a reason. So how can i attack it?

Trying to be my judge about my personal belief in God is just an attack on me that has nothing to do with the discussion.

Thats false. Im not attacking you at all and you should know that. I asked you a simple question which was why do you believe in God? Why i believe, one of my reasons is intelligent design, which you reject. So, tell me your reasons so i may see if there better reasons then my reasons?

It has nothing to do with the discussion.

Oh but it does because we both believe in God, but, apparently you have perhaps better reasons for belief then my reasons which you reject. So, do tell?

Do you have a scale of belief where I would fit in and that would tell you if my views on illogical claims is more or less valid? If I do not pass your test, does that mean you can dismiss me outright? What is the value of knowing something like you requested and how is it germane to whether intelligent design is valid or not?

I wont dismiss you, but depending on your reasons for belief, i may or may not dismiss those reasons. I would evaluate your reasons just as you evaluate my reasons, which is intelligent design is one of my reasons.

Can we stop talking about me and get back to your evidence for your claims?

Im not talking about you, im talking about your reasons for belief in God.

What are the the parameters of the various universal physical constants and how do we know they are fine tuned and not just giving the appearance of fine tuning?

Intelligent design infers actual design. While naturalism infers merely an illusion of design.

How is the inference that design is an illusion any more scientific then infering actual design?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Regardless of what you say are opinions it is well documented that the Church Fathers believed as they were cited.



Based on the gospel's text whoever wrote or compiled the gospels believed in a literal Genesis. You need glasses.
Do you wear glasses? They don't help you, in this case, because reading has nothing to do with what you choose to believe, just because you want to, and not because it is shown to be the truth.
I can see just fine, and you still don't know what you claim.
Denying it and not wanting to admit it won't help you either.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Do you wear glasses? They don't help you, in this case, because reading has nothing to do with what you choose to believe, just because you want to, and not because it is shown to be the truth.
I can see just fine, and you still don't know what you claim.
Denying it and not wanting to admit it won't help you either.

Your response does not make any sense.

Simple, the authors of the gospels and the early Church Fathers believed in a literal Genesis as cited.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Your response does not make any sense.

Simple, the authors of the gospels and the early Church Fathers believed in a literal Genesis as cited.
It doesn't?
Okay. How do you know that the authors of the gospels and the early Church Fathers believed in a literal Genesis?
 
Top