The Mystery Thread

[Bird123]

If you know your Bible well you know that God created Michael first and then he created everything else; the spiritual heavens, the "angels," the physical heavens, including earth, and then he made the earth habitable for life, and finally creating all plants, creatures and mankind on earth.

The angles had a great deal of time to mature, intellectually and otherwise. Then mankind were afforded a great period of time in which they too, could mature likewise.

True Bible believers don't need evolution to rationalize their intelligence level.

Perhaps, it comes down whether one chooses to settle with mere beliefs or one chooses to Discover what actually exists. As I see it, beliefs merely point a direction by which one can search to Discover the Real Truth. If one values beliefs over facts, one is not choosing reality.

 

[Jollybear]

So...everything is designed??

Correct. Everything is designed.

 

[sayak83]

Correct. Everything is designed.

Then the word designed is useless....as we know of no entity or phenomena that is not designed. Your definition is totally uninformative.

 

[Jollybear]

Then the word designed is useless....as we know of no entity or phenomena that is not designed. Your definition is totally uninformative.

Ok....so, this is what you mean by unfalsifiable?

Well, heres the thing. If God is infinite, eternal as in no beginning, is before space, time and matter, then the universe he creates by default has to be ALL designed. Why? Because no part of the universe can be outside of God. No part of the universe can make itself. No part can come from an uncaused nothing.

Now, this dont mean that parts of his design cant go haywire and break down either. It can. Like mutations, or asteriod hitting earth, ect.

Again, allegory > the semi truck im asigned, starter went bad on it. So, i couldent start the truck. So....i had to put it in the shop to get it fixed. Few months later, the brand new starter went bad, in fact, cought fire. I could smell burning comming from the cab fans. So, put er in the shop again and got another new starter, lol. So far so good.

Likewise, Gods design is no exemption, it can break down.

Why else do we need doctors? Those are the machanics for Gods design.

The angels i believe are Gods engineers. And God is the mastermind with the blueprints.

 

[sayak83]

Ok....so, this is what you mean by unfalsifiable?

Well, heres the thing. If God is infinite, eternal as in no beginning, is before space, time and matter, then the universe he creates by default has to be ALL designed. Why? Because no part of the universe can be outside of God. No part of the universe can make itself. No part can come from an uncaused nothing.

Now, this dont mean that parts of his design cant go haywire and break down either. It can. Like mutations, or asteriod hitting earth, ect.

Again, allegory > the semi truck im asigned, starter went bad on it. So, i couldent start the truck. So....i had to put it in the shop to get it fixed. Few months later, the brand new starter went bad, in fact, cought fire. I could smell burning comming from the cab fans. So, put er in the shop again and got another new starter, lol. So far so good.

Likewise, Gods design is no exemption, it can break down.

Why else do we need doctors? Those are the machanics for Gods design.

The angels i believe are Gods engineers. And God is the mastermind with the blueprints.

As you yourself said...this proposition of yours is unfalsifiable. There can be no evidence either for it or against it.

 

[Jollybear]

As you yourself said...this proposition of yours is unfalsifiable. There can be no evidence either for it or against it.

Well, everything i have been saying IS the evidence for ID. Its not full proof, just in the same sense you say theres not full proof of evolution.

But, that aside, there is one way that i thought of that can falsify ID.

If scientists can PROVE that something and design can get created out of nothing and chance, this then would falsify it.

 

[gnostic]

Perhaps, it comes down whether one chooses to settle with mere beliefs or one chooses to Discover what actually exists. As I see it, beliefs merely point a direction by which one can search to Discover the Real Truth. If one values beliefs over facts, one is not choosing reality.

The differences between truth and fact is that “fact” required evidences for it to be true, whereas evidences are not essential, nor requirement for “truth”.

Although truth and fact can correlate and can be one and the same, but that’s not always the case.

Truth is a matter of perspective, therefore it is always subjective - subjective like personal opinion and personal belief.

Fact uses evidences. The number of evidences (used in probability) will determine either verify/validate or refute/debunk any premise.

 

[Jose Fly]

Be happy too. Very good, tight and objective questions your asking too.

The when is at the beginning of the universe. I define universe as all that exists. As for a year, i cannot pin that down whether it was 20 million years ago, or 20 trillions years ago, or heck, 20 thousand years ago. But, all this design and creating DID have a BEGINNING at some point in time in the past. The time i dont think is as important as knowing there was a beginning. Since everything has a cause, everything then has a beginning. So too, the universe.


Im going to lump these two questions together. Im doing this because i believe the mechanism and the WHO are the same thing in the creation and design of the universe.

First ill define God, since thats the WHO or mechanism.

Well we can just stop right there. If you're positing God as the designer, then you have removed "design" from the realm of science. The reason should be obvious.....God, by definition, can do absolutely anything imaginable. Thus, there no way to scientifically test whether or not something was designed/created by God. God can make things simple, complex, chaotic, ordered.....God can even create something one way, but make it seem like it was created completely differently. God can cause something like a global flood but then miraculously erase all traces of it. God can create everything last Thursday, but make it seem as if everything's been around for 13.7 billion years.

You see the point? For you, "intelligent design" is just a euphemism for "God did it". That's fine for a religious belief, but it's a non-starter for science. God simply is not scientifically testable. While I appreciate the effort you put into your post, there really isn't anything more to this.

But, that aside, there is one way that i thought of that can falsify ID.

If scientists can PROVE that something and design can get created out of nothing and chance, this then would falsify it.

No. Remember, there's absolutely nothing God cannot do, which means it's possible that God created everything to look like it came about "out of nothing and chance", when it really didn't. Or it could be that God actually did create "out of nothing and chance".

Again, because there's nothing God cannot do, there cannot be anything that falsifies "God did it"/"design", and therefore design (as you've defined it) cannot be science.

 

[gnostic]

Well, everything i have been saying IS the evidence for ID. Its not full proof, just in the same sense you say theres not full proof of evolution.

But, that aside, there is one way that i thought of that can falsify ID.

If scientists can PROVE that something and design can get created out of nothing and chance, this then would falsify it.

Everything you wrote, above is wrong.

First off, you are confusing evidence and proof, as if they are one and the same.

They are not the same...they are the same, in the scientific communities and in the scientific conventions.

Proofs are logical statements in the form of mathematical statements, like equations, formulas or constants. They are abstract but logical tools, that only provide abstract solutions, like a logical model, and models are only representation of the real world.

PROOF = equation or formula or constant​

Mathematicians as well as theoretical scientists used PROOFS. Mathematicians are the ones who “prove” or “disprove” their equations or formulas.

It is not the job of scientists to “prove” or “disprove” the proofs.

Although, maths are important to real science (eg experimental science, empirical science), and scientists use equations, formulas and constants in their falsifiable hypotheses and scientific theories, that’s not how scientists determine which theories or hypotheses are “science” and which are pseudoscience or debunked rubbish.

Scientists (except theoretical scientists) used the tests that followed the requirements of Scientific Method: empirical evidences, test results from repeated and rigorous experiments.

These are real world solutions, not merely mathematical models. They provide measurable and testable observations, quantifiable evidences.

Second, Intelligent Design is religion or a religious concept (creationism), not science.

ID isn’t science, because of the following reasons:

1. ID isn’t falsifiable for the very reason why religion isn’t falsifiable, you cannot observe, measure, quantify or test the DESIGNER, just like you can’t with Creator or with gods or with fairies.
2. Since ID isn’t falsifiable, ID can never be falsifiable hypothesis. Hypothesis (which include explanation and predictions) has to be falsifiable, regardless if it is true or false. ID isn’t a hypothesis and never been a hypothesis, because the DESIGNER has never been clearly defined by creationists, hence ID failed.
3. ID has never been repeatedly or rigorously tested as required and specified in the Scientific Method. Since ID ultimately required the existence of the DESIGNER, then the Designer itself must be testable, but no ID advocates (creationists) have been able to test this nonexistent DESIGNER.

You and Earthling, the main members/contributors that followed and support ID, like other creationists (eg Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, and that of Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, who are authors of Of Panda and People), have never tested their ID creationism. All any of above have done, including you and Earthling, have only IMPLIED the DESIGNER is real because of “complexity” IMPLIED “designs”, and “designs” IMPLIED “DESIGNER”.

Implying “DESIGNER” isn’t evidence.

Science, real science, don’t used this faulty rationality of series of “implied”.

You and Earthling, as well as all creationist members, seemed to refuse to understand this distinction between proof and evidence, and refused to understand what evidences are...so I will not be surprised that if you don’t learn from your mistakes.

 

[Bird123]

The differences between truth and fact is that “fact” required evidences for it to be true, whereas evidences are not essential, nor requirement for “truth”.

Although truth and fact can correlate and can be one and the same, but that’s not always the case.

Truth is a matter of perspective, therefore it is always subjective - subjective like personal opinion and personal belief.

Fact uses evidences. The number of evidences (used in probability) will determine either verify/validate or refute/debunk any premise.

Is Truth really subjective? I think not!! Maybe, like many, you mistake belief as truth. As I see it, Truth is based on evidence. Many have recited beliefs for so long these beliefs are assumed to be the Truth. At this point, people no longer question. Truth and even long held truth must always be questioned for at some point in time one might discover they had only beliefs all the time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's one of the problems, ID reviewers approving works of other ID authors. That wouldn't be "critical review" on literature.

None of the authors from the Discovery Institute (DI) wrote any falsifiable hypothesis and the Discovery Institute are no place to review any literature of actual scientific hypotheses.

If the people of DI have any integrity, they cannot objectively critical review texts that support authors' works on ID.

One of the dishonesty that ID supporters can be exhibited with Michael Behe and the ID book, Of Panda and People (1989) written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis.

Behe was involved in the 3rd edition, which was renamed to The Design of Life (1993), where he contributed to the chapter regarding to blood clotting. It was revealed that he was not only co-author of Of Panda, but also listed as one of the "critical reviewers".

How can Behe possibly reviewed work critically, when he was co-author?

Biased much?

They (DI) also have their people to write review on every editions Of Panda, with positive reviews.

The lack of integrity among the ID advocates are simply staggering.

They use this to fool people unfamiliar with science and who know nothing of the review process or what it means. ID review is believers telling other believers that they like what they believe and the scientific validity is immaterial.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then the word designed is useless....as we know of no entity or phenomena that is not designed. Your definition is totally uninformative.

I see a lot of redefinition on the fly to match the tenor of the post at hand. God is described as all powerful and outside of space and time while at the same time, God is fallible and His designs are flawed. Design means something to do with complexity and multiple parts. I take it simple designs are not really designs based on his definition. A point drawn in sand by a person is a design, but not according to the definition that was offered.

There is a lot incredulity and arguments from unverified opinion. The definitions stretch beyond useful meaning.

 

[gnostic]

Is Truth really subjective? I think not!! Maybe, like many, you mistake belief as truth. As I see it, Truth is based on evidence. Many have recited beliefs for so long these beliefs are assumed to be the Truth. At this point, people no longer question. Truth and even long held truth must always be questioned for at some point in time one might discover they had only beliefs all the time.

Fact is strictly evidence-based.

While Truth isn’t necessarily evidence-based. It can be, but evidences aren’t strict requirements for truth. Truth can be anything that anyone or any religion want to be truth.

Every religions believed they have the sole ownership of “truth”, and each on them reject the truths of other religions, believing they are the only one to have it.

And it is the same for every philosophies. They (philosophers) rationalize they have the truth, and are the only ones who are right about it.

Metaphysics is one of the most overrated philosophies and most fallacious of recent philosophy, which is why in recent years I have come to loathe metaphysics. I also find metaphysicists or metaphysicians to be pretentious bunch.

All of them, whether they be believers or philosophers, they are only using their personal views, hence subjective perception of what they perceive to be true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is Truth really subjective? I think not!! Maybe, like many, you mistake belief as truth. As I see it, Truth is based on evidence. Many have recited beliefs for so long these beliefs are assumed to be the Truth. At this point, people no longer question. Truth and even long held truth must always be questioned for at some point in time one might discover they had only beliefs all the time.

I see truth as both subjective--true for me--and objective--true for all. Chocolate ice cream is the best flavor ice cream made. True for me. But obviously not true for all. Chocolate ice cream A has a higher butter fat content than all the ice cream tested including all the varieties of vanilla. This should be true for me and you regardless of which we like the most.

I have had spurious instances in my life where I came to believe certain trivial and insignificant pieces of information were true and later came to find out that they were not. These things entered my thinking from failure to review them or sloppy review. I seem fond of ignorantly mispronouncing words learned from reading and later learning how badly I had butchered them. So--with this in mind--I make an effort to learn how to pronounce new words--especially names--and add that to my vocabulary.

 

[Jollybear]

Well we can just stop right there. If you're positing God as the designer, then you have removed "design" from the realm of science.

Here is the problem....im asked for "evidence" of design. I provide it in the form of order, patterns of consistency and complexity with many parts that serve different functions. Then i do what ALL science does, i use INFERERENCE and infer actual design.

So, then you ask, whos the designer. Ok, NOW i dive into giving you a PHILOSOPHICAL answer to that. There also is a science called the philosophy of science. But, going into WHO the designer is, does not do away with the ACTUAL evidence and inference for design itself.

The reason should be obvious.....God, by definition, can do absolutely anything imaginable.

Wait, hold on.....no, he cannot. Remember, you asked me WHO the designer is. Ok, the who is NOT the kind of God you just described. Atleast not according to my philosophical answer.

i dont believe God can do just anything. That makes no logical sense. Heres why: if God could do anything, then he could make himself non existent. But, that makes zero sense. I dont believe, on philosophical grounds that God can do that. Can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it? Again, no he cannot. Can God give free will and yet fully know what we will do with it? Again, no. He can predict based on factors, but no absolute knowledge, unless he took the will away and made robots. Can God create and design a universe (design has order, complexity and many functioning parts) and then make it LOOK like its simple, with no parts, no order? Again, no, God CANNOT do that. That makes no sense and would make God appear rediculious. Theres no soundness to the philosophical idea that God can do anything like that. The God i believe in, the "who is the designer" is NOT that kind of God your describing.

Thus, there no way to scientifically test whether or not something was designed/created by God.

Yes, there is, look at the hallmarks of design in the world.

God can make things simple, complex, chaotic, ordered.....

I agree with this now. God COULD have created everything simple. But, if he did that, we wouldent be here talking about it. Why? Because we are complex.

God can even create something one way, but make it seem like it was created completely differently.

I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with that. With all my might and soul do i disagree.

Not only would that be illogical, plus, impossible, it would also make God a deciever too. On so many grounds this makes no sense. To add, there is no conceivable motive for God to create everything complex, then make it appear like its simple. What motive would God have that you posit here?

God can cause something like a global flood but then miraculously erase all traces of it.

Only if he sliced off the surface of earth and made another one, or made a new earth and put noah on it.

Again, motive?

God can create everything last Thursday, but make it seem as if everything's been around for 13.7 billion years.

I dont doubt your sincerely in discussing these things, i really dont, but, this philosophical argument i think is unsound. Theres no motive, its illogical and impossible.

You see the point? For you, "intelligent design" is just a euphemism for "God did it". That's fine for a religious belief, but it's a non-starter for science. God simply is not scientifically testable. While I appreciate the effort you put into your post, there really isn't anything more to this.

And everything ive said, combined together is evidence that God did it.

But, heres the crux of the matter, "evolutionary theory" is a euphemism for "nothing+chance+time" did it.

That's fine for a religious belief, but it's a non-starter for science. "Nothing+chance+time" simply is not scientifically testable. While I appreciate the effort you put into your post, there really isn't anything more to this.

No. Remember, there's absolutely nothing God cannot do, which means it's possible that God created everything to look like it came about "out of nothing and chance", when it really didn't. Or it could be that God actually did create "out of nothing and chance".

Thats akin to an artist throwing paint on a canvas and hoping without guiding, that it creates mountains, bunnies and deer and a log cabin.

Again, because there's nothing God cannot do, there cannot be anything that falsifies "God did it"/"design", and therefore design (as you've defined it) cannot be science.

Again, because there's nothing "nothing+chance+time" cannot do, there cannot be anything that falsifies "nothing+chance+time" did it. And therefore "nothing+chance+time" cannot be science.

But, yes, i did mention something can falsify God. If science could prove "nothing+chance+time" did it, this would falsify God did it.

Ever hear of the coin flippin machine? Everytime we flip a coin we say 50/50 chance it lands on heads or tails. But this coin flippin machine was engineered to flip a coin and cause it to land the same side up, the same distence EVERY SINGLE TIME.

The point? Chance dont exist, only FACTORS DO.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here is the problem....im asked for "evidence" of design. I provide it in the form of order, patterns of consistency and complexity with many parts that serve different functions. Then i do what ALL science does, i use INFERERENCE and infer actual design.

So, then you ask, whos the designer. Ok, NOW i dive into giving you a PHILOSOPHICAL answer to that. There also is a science called the philosophy of science. But, going into WHO the designer is, does not do away with the ACTUAL evidence and inference for design itself.



Wait, hold on.....no, he cannot. Remember, you asked me WHO the designer is. Ok, the who is NOT the kind of God you just described. Atleast not according to my philosophical answer.

i dont believe God can do just anything. That makes no logical sense. Heres why: if God could do anything, then he could make himself non existent. But, that makes zero sense. I dont believe, on philosophical grounds that God can do that. Can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it? Again, no he cannot. Can God give free will and yet fully know what we will do with it? Again, no. He can predict based on factors, but no absolute knowledge, unless he took the will away and made robots. Can God create and design a universe (design has order, complexity and many functioning parts) and then make it LOOK like its simple, with no parts, no order? Again, no, God CANNOT do that. That makes no sense and would make God appear rediculious. Theres no soundness to the philosophical idea that God can do anything like that. The God i believe in, the "who is the designer" is NOT that kind of God your describing.



Yes, there is, look at the hallmarks of design in the world.



I agree with this now. God COULD have created everything simple. But, if he did that, we wouldent be here talking about it. Why? Because we are complex.



I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with that. With all my might and soul do i disagree.

Not only would that be illogical, plus, impossible, it would also make God a deciever too. On so many grounds this makes no sense. To add, there is no conceivable motive for God to create everything complex, then make it appear like its simple. What motive would God have that you posit here?



Only if he sliced off the surface of earth and made another one, or made a new earth and put noah on it.

Again, motive?



I dont doubt your sincerely in discussing these things, i really dont, but, this philosophical argument i think is unsound. Theres no motive, its illogical and impossible.



And everything ive said, combined together is evidence that God did it.

But, heres the crux of the matter, "evolutionary theory" is a euphemism for "nothing+chance+time" did it.

That's fine for a religious belief, but it's a non-starter for science. "Nothing+chance+time" simply is not scientifically testable. While I appreciate the effort you put into your post, there really isn't anything more to this.



Thats akin to an artist throwing paint on a canvas and hoping without guiding, that it creates mountains, bunnies and deer and a log cabin.



Again, because there's nothing "nothing+chance+time" cannot do, there cannot be anything that falsifies "nothing+chance+time" did it. And therefore "nothing+chance+time" cannot be science.

But, yes, i did mention something can falsify God. If science could prove "nothing+chance+time" did it, this would falsify God did it.

Ever hear of the coin flippin machine? Everytime we flip a coin we say 50/50 chance it lands on heads or tails. But this coin flippin machine was engineered to flip a coin and cause it to land the same side up, the same distence EVERY SINGLE TIME.

The point? Chance dont exist, only FACTORS DO.

All you have done is list some properties and declare they are evidence of design. You have not explained how they are evidence of design.

It is as if you have pointed out a car and declared that Bob is the owner without any other reason or connection to the car. The car could belong to Cindy, Dick, Jane, Sally or no one for all we know from your declaration.

You can describe properties of the car, but those properties do not establish ownership. The car is red does not point to an owner. The presence of a high performance 12 cylinder engine does not point to an owner. The fact that the car is an ordered and complex system with numerous parts does not establish ownership.

Nothing can falsify God or any claimed god. Not even establishing your made up "nothing+chance+time" cause, whatever that means. You already said that God is outside of time and space, so you nullified your own answer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here is the problem....im asked for "evidence" of design. I provide it in the form of order, patterns of consistency and complexity with many parts that serve different functions. Then i do what ALL science does, i use INFERERENCE and infer actual design.

So, then you ask, whos the designer. Ok, NOW i dive into giving you a PHILOSOPHICAL answer to that. There also is a science called the philosophy of science. But, going into WHO the designer is, does not do away with the ACTUAL evidence and inference for design itself.



Wait, hold on.....no, he cannot. Remember, you asked me WHO the designer is. Ok, the who is NOT the kind of God you just described. Atleast not according to my philosophical answer.

i dont believe God can do just anything. That makes no logical sense. Heres why: if God could do anything, then he could make himself non existent. But, that makes zero sense. I dont believe, on philosophical grounds that God can do that. Can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it? Again, no he cannot. Can God give free will and yet fully know what we will do with it? Again, no. He can predict based on factors, but no absolute knowledge, unless he took the will away and made robots. Can God create and design a universe (design has order, complexity and many functioning parts) and then make it LOOK like its simple, with no parts, no order? Again, no, God CANNOT do that. That makes no sense and would make God appear rediculious. Theres no soundness to the philosophical idea that God can do anything like that. The God i believe in, the "who is the designer" is NOT that kind of God your describing.



Yes, there is, look at the hallmarks of design in the world.



I agree with this now. God COULD have created everything simple. But, if he did that, we wouldent be here talking about it. Why? Because we are complex.



I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with that. With all my might and soul do i disagree.

Not only would that be illogical, plus, impossible, it would also make God a deciever too. On so many grounds this makes no sense. To add, there is no conceivable motive for God to create everything complex, then make it appear like its simple. What motive would God have that you posit here?



Only if he sliced off the surface of earth and made another one, or made a new earth and put noah on it.

Again, motive?



I dont doubt your sincerely in discussing these things, i really dont, but, this philosophical argument i think is unsound. Theres no motive, its illogical and impossible.



And everything ive said, combined together is evidence that God did it.

But, heres the crux of the matter, "evolutionary theory" is a euphemism for "nothing+chance+time" did it.

That's fine for a religious belief, but it's a non-starter for science. "Nothing+chance+time" simply is not scientifically testable. While I appreciate the effort you put into your post, there really isn't anything more to this.



Thats akin to an artist throwing paint on a canvas and hoping without guiding, that it creates mountains, bunnies and deer and a log cabin.



Again, because there's nothing "nothing+chance+time" cannot do, there cannot be anything that falsifies "nothing+chance+time" did it. And therefore "nothing+chance+time" cannot be science.

But, yes, i did mention something can falsify God. If science could prove "nothing+chance+time" did it, this would falsify God did it.

Ever hear of the coin flippin machine? Everytime we flip a coin we say 50/50 chance it lands on heads or tails. But this coin flippin machine was engineered to flip a coin and cause it to land the same side up, the same distence EVERY SINGLE TIME.

The point? Chance dont exist, only FACTORS DO.

All a coin flipping machine has demonstrated is that inept people are the source of chance in a coin flip. It has not eliminated the existence of chance.

You are cherry picking and leaving out the other half of the story.

 

[Jose Fly]

Here is the problem....im asked for "evidence" of design. I provide it in the form of order, patterns of consistency and complexity with many parts that serve different functions.

If God is the designer, why are "order, patterns of consistency and complexity with many parts that serve different functions" evidence of God's design? Below you acknowledge that God can create things with no order, inconsistency, and simplicity"; you just don't think, for philosophical reasons, that God did.

See, in science if you're going to predict that we should see X, Y, and Z under a scenario, then X, Y, and Z must be necessary under said scenario. You can't say "we should see X, Y, and Z, but it is possible that we might also seen Not X, Not Y, and Not Z...I just don't think we will for philosophical reasons".

So, then you ask, whos the designer. Ok, NOW i dive into giving you a PHILOSOPHICAL answer to that. There also is a science called the philosophy of science. But, going into WHO the designer is, does not do away with the ACTUAL evidence and inference for design itself.

But in positing God as the designer, you're invoking the supernatural. So let's keep this simple....can you name any branch of science that includes supernatural causation?

Wait, hold on.....no, he cannot. Remember, you asked me WHO the designer is. Ok, the who is NOT the kind of God you just described. Atleast not according to my philosophical answer.

i dont believe God can do just anything. That makes no logical sense. Heres why: if God could do anything, then he could make himself non existent. But, that makes zero sense. I dont believe, on philosophical grounds that God can do that. Can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it? Again, no he cannot. Can God give free will and yet fully know what we will do with it? Again, no. He can predict based on factors, but no absolute knowledge, unless he took the will away and made robots. Can God create and design a universe (design has order, complexity and many functioning parts) and then make it LOOK like its simple, with no parts, no order? Again, no, God CANNOT do that. That makes no sense and would make God appear rediculious. Theres no soundness to the philosophical idea that God can do anything like that. The God i believe in, the "who is the designer" is NOT that kind of God your describing.

Logic puzzles aside, you're kind of missing the point. God, being all-powerful and supernatural, is not scientifically testable. Thus, "God did it" cannot be a scientific explanation. If you can't test it, it's not science.

Yes, there is, look at the hallmarks of design in the world.

Nope. Your "hallmarks of design" are all based on your religious beliefs about the existence of God and the nature of that God. That's not science.

I agree with this now. God COULD have created everything simple.

There ya' go....complexity and order are therefore not necessary under "design".

I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with that. With all my might and soul do i disagree.

Not only would that be illogical, plus, impossible, it would also make God a deciever too. On so many grounds this makes no sense. To add, there is no conceivable motive for God to create everything complex, then make it appear like its simple. What motive would God have that you posit here?

Again you're putting religiously-based limits on your proposal. You acknowledge that God could do things opposite to what you've proposed, but that wouldn't be compatible with your religious beliefs so you dismiss it.

That's not science.

Only if he sliced off the surface of earth and made another one, or made a new earth and put noah on it.

Again, motive?

Same thing.

I dont doubt your sincerely in discussing these things, i really dont, but, this philosophical argument i think is unsound. Theres no motive, its illogical and impossible.

No, it's not impossible for a God to do. You just don't believe God would for religious reasons.

That's not science.

And everything ive said, combined together is evidence that God did it.

It doesn't seem that way at all, especially when you recognize that it's possible for God to have done things in the complete opposite manner.

But, heres the crux of the matter, "evolutionary theory" is a euphemism for "nothing+chance+time" did it.

That's fine for a religious belief, but it's a non-starter for science. "Nothing+chance+time" simply is not scientifically testable. While I appreciate the effort you put into your post, there really isn't anything more to this.

Nice try, but we're discussing ID creationism here.

But, yes, i did mention something can falsify God. If science could prove "nothing+chance+time" did it, this would falsify God did it.

Why? Is it impossible for God to create via "nothing+chance+time"? And I don't mean impossible as in "I don't believe God would do such a thing", I mean it actually being impossible for God to do.

Ever hear of the coin flippin machine? Everytime we flip a coin we say 50/50 chance it lands on heads or tails. But this coin flippin machine was engineered to flip a coin and cause it to land the same side up, the same distence EVERY SINGLE TIME.

The point? Chance dont exist, only FACTORS DO.

Irrelevant to the fundamental problem with your argument.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If God is the designer, why are "order, patterns of consistency and complexity with many parts that serve different functions" evidence of God's design? Below you acknowledge that God can create things with no order, inconsistency, and simplicity"; you just don't think, for philosophical reasons, that God did.

See, in science if you're going to predict that we should see X, Y, and Z under a scenario, then X, Y, and Z must be necessary under said scenario. You can't say "we should see X, Y, and Z, but it is possible that we might also seen Not X, Not Y, and Not Z...I just don't think we will for philosophical reasons".


But in positing God as the designer, you're invoking the supernatural. So let's keep this simple....can you name any branch of science that includes supernatural causation?


Logic puzzles aside, you're kind of missing the point. God, being all-powerful and supernatural, is not scientifically testable. Thus, "God did it" cannot be a scientific explanation. If you can't test it, it's not science.


Nope. Your "hallmarks of design" are all based on your religious beliefs about the existence of God and the nature of that God. That's not science.


There ya' go....complexity and order are therefore not necessary under "design".


Again you're putting religiously-based limits on your proposal. You acknowledge that God could do things opposite to what you've proposed, but that wouldn't be compatible with your religious beliefs so you dismiss it.

That's not science.


Same thing.


No, it's not impossible for a God to do. You just don't believe God would for religious reasons.

That's not science.


It doesn't seem that way at all, especially when you recognize that it's possible for God to have done things in the complete opposite manner.


Nice try, but we're discussing ID creationism here.


Why? Is it impossible for God to create via "nothing+chance+time"? And I don't mean impossible as in "I don't believe God would do such a thing", I mean it actually being impossible for God to do.


Irrelevant to the fundamental problem with your argument.

Along with a host of logical fallacies, he is conflating the evolution of life with the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

 

[Jose Fly]

Along with a host of logical fallacies, he is conflating the evolution of life with the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

I sometimes think that's a requirement for internet creationists.