The Mystery Thread

[IndigoChild5559]

In reality, your opinions on evolution are only meaningful to you. So if you're okay with it, does anything else matter?

The problem arises when creationists want to include their non-scientific ideas in the science curriculum in schools, which messes up kids. Then it's no longer a personal thing.

 

[ecco]

The 2 alternatives to God (aka supernatural) is "nothing+chance+time" did it....... OR........the universe was always here in one form or another.

These alternatives are MORE MAGICAL and fantastical then the God hypothesis due to the fact that from nothing, nothing comes.

That's true only if you intentionally ignore current physics.

 

[ecco]

Also, the universe being eternal is equally fantastical due to infinite regression of causes would mean all events would take forever to happen, hence never would.

Would you care to discuss infinite regression when it comes to your god?

From a scientific standpoint, all we need is energy always existing.

From a religious standpoint you need:
A highly complex omni-all entity always existing.
-or-
A highly complex omni-all entity poofing itself into existence.

 

[ecco]

No, not religious reasons, LOGICAL REASONS.

Can God create a rock so big he cannot lift it?

Whose logical reasons? Yours? The logic of a mere mortal man? Do you really believe that you are qualified to comment on the logic of an omni-all god?

 

[ecco]

What could one learn from watching God's Actions?? Truth?? Maybe more than one could possibly imagine.

God's actions like undersea earthquakes and rockslides that kill hundreds of thousands of people?

God's actions like volcanic eruptions that kill hundreds of thousands of people?

Specifically, from which of God's actions can we learn truth?

 

[Jollybear]

Exactly. As long as God can create with simplicity, then complexity cannot be a necessary outcome of "design", which means "design" cannot be falsified on the basis of complexity or simplicity.

Incorrect. God can create with simplicity, but he dont for logical reasons.

Next, simplicity also dont need a designer, but complexity DOES.

Allegory: if you splash paint on a canvas, it will make simple lines BY ITSELF. Those lines dont require the painter to make.

However, if the canvas makes mountains, a cabin, trees, deer and bunnies, THEN it requires the painter.

And as before you're just imposing your philosophical preferences onto your proposal, which is entirely unscientific.

Why is it unscientific to use inference, logic and philosophy in science? Is that logical, or should the RULES change? Well, it appears with the evolutionists, the rules dont apply to them.

Not in the way you're doing it. If you disagree, then provide a specific example.

See what i mean? When i use inference and logic and philosophy then im doing it wrong, but when evolutionists use it, they are right. So the rules dont apply to them. Thats not consistent and is not fair.

Why are those "alternatives to God"? Are you saying God cannot create something out of nothing? God cannot create using chance? God cannot create within time?

Thats what im saying, yes. God cannot create from nothing, chance, because its akin to saying a painter can make a picture of mountains, trees, cabin, lake, deer and bunnies on a canvas WITHOUT PAINT and without a brush. Its not logical.

Those are interesting assertions, but at this point that's all they are. If you truly think scientists are invoking "magic" in their explanations, provide a specific example (and not just you asserting such, but a link or citation to where we can all directly see them doing so).

Invoking "nothing+chance+time" or "infinite regression" IS the example of invoking magic.

But God could create a universe that from all indications looks eternal, correct?

Logically, no, God cannot create a universe that LOOKS eternal.

Your empty say-so is not persuasive. If you wish to compel others to accept what you're saying, you need to support your assertions.

Im not just saying so. The evidence of design is there. Inference that its actually there is not unsound. Using philosophy and logic about the designer is tight as well.

And your evidence for this is..............?

My evidence for the 2 alternatives being false are on the grounds that we do see design. Even famous atheists admit things look designed. Micheal shermer says they are designed but from unintelligent forces. Bottom up, rather then top down. Also, the other 2 alternatives are wrong on logical reasons. Plus, experience of the world. We never see something come from nothing, ever.

Funny, but "I know you are but what am I" type rebuttals won't do you any favors.

You cant go by a double standard. The rules apply to you too. How can "nothing+chance+time" or "infinite regression" be a part of science? How are those things testable?

No, religious reasons. You've made that quite clear.

Samantics. Ive used logic.

I don't know. Do you?

Can God create a rock so big he cannot lift it? If God is as i defined, and its logical that he is that way. Eternal and infinite. Then how, logically, could God create a rock so big he cannot lift it?

Nope. You're trying to present God/design as a viable scientific explanation. As such it needs to stand or fall on its own.

And as such, it does stand on its own. But, since theres only 2 other alternatives, comparing them side by side with God, it also makes the God hypotheses stand even stronger.

Why? Why is it impossible for God to create something out of nothing? Why is it impossible for God to utilize chance? Why is it impossible for God to operate within time?

Its impossible for God to create from nothing on 2 grounds.

1: its a logical contradiction. If God IS CREATING out of nothing, then nothing is not creating the something. Why? Because GOD (which is something) is creating it.

2: we never see nothing creating something from our experience.

Also, its impossible for God to utilize chance to create because its akin to a painter utilizing chance to create the picture on the canvas.

Chance cannot design. It does not create order, it creates chaos.

God needs to create time so theres no infinite regression.

 

[Jollybear]

Whose logical reasons? Yours? The logic of a mere mortal man? Do you really believe that you are qualified to comment on the logic of an omni-all god?

Yes, i believe i am qualified because if God created all things, then logically he also created logic and my brain and my brain is using logic. So, that makes me qualified to think and come to a conclusion of how God is. Plus, my experience of the world, how it is.

Would you care to discuss infinite regression when it comes to your god?

Very good question.

You see, God is static. He is a infinite, eternal, concious, intelligence, energy. This means he is outside time, matter, space and OTHER energy. So, with God there is no infinite regression.

From a scientific standpoint, all we need is energy always existing.

No, from your OPINION all we need is energy existing.

Now im going to ask you a scientific question to your unscientific opinion.

How does this UNCONCIOUS, unintelligent energy start creating laws, order, design and how does it START without time?

From a religious standpoint you need:
A highly complex omni-all entity always existing.
-or-
A highly complex omni-all entity poofing itself into existence.

I go with the first. The second is not logical.

Also this is not religious, this is in the arena of science, inference and philosophy or logic.

 

[ecco]

Yes, i believe i am qualified because if God created all things, then logically he also created logic and my brain and my brain is using logic. So, that makes me qualified to think and come to a conclusion of how God is.

Your omnipotent God did not give you the strength that He possesses.
Your omniscient God did not give you the ability to know everything s He does.
For you to assume that he endowed you with His level and comprehension of Logic is unwarranted.

You see, God is static. He is a infinite, eternal, concious, intelligence, energy. This means he is outside time, matter, space and OTHER energy. So, with God there is no infinite regression.

All you are saying is that your very complex, omni-all entity has, somehow, always existed.

No, from your OPINION all we need is energy existing.

I was comparing your need for an ever-existing complex, omni-all entity to the need for science to just show an ever existing-energy.

Now im going to ask you a scientific question to your unscientific opinion.

How does this UNCONCIOUS, unintelligent energy start creating laws, order, design and how does it START without time?

I don't know. Science does not, currently, know.

What makes lightning? Oh, said the ancients, GodDidIt. Wrong then, wrong now.

ecco:

From a religious standpoint you need:
A highly complex omni-all entity always existing.
-or-
A highly complex omni-all entity poofing itself into existence.​

I go with the first. The second is not logical.

So, you are OK with a highly complex Omni-all supernatural entity always existing. That's somehow logical to you. You give no thought to the origin of this highly complex Omni-all supernatural entity so you can avoid the cause of this highly complex Omni-all supernatural entity. It just poofed itself into existence and then it started time.

Uh huh.

Also, this is not religious, this is in the arena of science, inference and philosophy or logic.

Nonsense. Your highly complex Omni-all entity is based on religion and a superstitious belief in the supernatural. It is not based on science and logic.

 

[Jose Fly]

His main assumption is that everything he thinks about God is true without benefit of explaining and supporting how it is true. He regards evidence the same way. It all reveals design to him, but he does not explain how it does this.

Yup. As his latest post shows, his arguments are little more than empty assertions.

In my opinion, your opening statement destroys his claims about complexity and how it figures into his redefinition of design. I know from the work of others and my own observations that complexity is not a requirement of evolution and not always the result of it either. Parasites are an excellent example of a polyphyletic group of organisms that have tended toward simplicity due to the environments in which they exist.

Exactly. Nicely put!

 

[Jose Fly]

The problem arises when creationists want to include their non-scientific ideas in the science curriculum in schools, which messes up kids. Then it's no longer a personal thing.

I agree 100%.

 

[Jose Fly]

Incorrect. God can create with simplicity, but he dont for logical reasons.

If both A and Not A are possible under your scenario, you cannot use the presence or absence of A as a test for the scenario.

That's basic science.

Next, simplicity also dont need a designer, but complexity DOES.

Why?

Allegory: if you splash paint on a canvas, it will make simple lines BY ITSELF. Those lines dont require the painter to make.

However, if the canvas makes mountains, a cabin, trees, deer and bunnies, THEN it requires the painter.

Science isn't conducted via analogies.

Why is it unscientific to use inference, logic and philosophy in science?

The limits you're setting on your explanation are entirely religious. That's not how science works.

Is that logical, or should the RULES change? Well, it appears with the evolutionists, the rules dont apply to them.

Then show where "evolutionists" have done so.

See what i mean? When i use inference and logic and philosophy then im doing it wrong, but when evolutionists use it, they are right. So the rules dont apply to them. Thats not consistent and is not fair.

Then show where "evolutionists" are setting the terms of their explanations based on their religious beliefs.

Thats what im saying, yes. God cannot create from nothing, chance, because its akin to saying a painter can make a picture of mountains, trees, cabin, lake, deer and bunnies on a canvas WITHOUT PAINT and without a brush. Its not logical.

So the god you believe in isn't all powerful? This god didn't create the universe out of nothing? What then did this god create the universe from?

And exactly how did you establish that these are indeed the characteristics of God?

Invoking "nothing+chance+time" or "infinite regression" IS the example of invoking magic.

You keep saying this but you haven't shown where scientists have actually done so. As noted earlier, things aren't so just because you say they are and your empty assertions are not at all persuasive.

Logically, no, God cannot create a universe that LOOKS eternal.

Why not, and how do you know?

Im not just saying so. The evidence of design is there. Inference that its actually there is not unsound. Using philosophy and logic about the designer is tight as well.

Your posts up to this point have been a series of unsubstantiated assertions. That's not science.

My evidence for the 2 alternatives being false are on the grounds that we do see design. Even famous atheists admit things look designed. Micheal shermer says they are designed but from unintelligent forces. Bottom up, rather then top down.

Science doesn't operate via "because person X said so".

Also, the other 2 alternatives are wrong on logical reasons. Plus, experience of the world. We never see something come from nothing, ever.

And by the same standard we never see gods creating things either.

You cant go by a double standard. The rules apply to you too. How can "nothing+chance+time" or "infinite regression" be a part of science? How are those things testable?

You've not shown any science that's like that. Again, things aren't so just because you say they are.

Can God create a rock so big he cannot lift it? If God is as i defined, and its logical that he is that way. Eternal and infinite. Then how, logically, could God create a rock so big he cannot lift it?

How did you scientifically establish that God is eternal and infinite?

And as such, it does stand on its own. But, since theres only 2 other alternatives, comparing them side by side with God, it also makes the God hypotheses stand even stronger.

I'm sure that's what you believe, but if you think what you've posted so far is persuasive and scientific, you probably should think on it a bit more.

Its impossible for God to create from nothing on 2 grounds.

1: its a logical contradiction. If God IS CREATING out of nothing, then nothing is not creating the something. Why? Because GOD (which is something) is creating it.

So what did God create the universe out of?

2: we never see nothing creating something from our experience.

And by the same standard we never see gods creating things.

Also, its impossible for God to utilize chance to create because its akin to a painter utilizing chance to create the picture on the canvas.

Chance cannot design. It does not create order, it creates chaos.

God needs to create time so theres no infinite regression.

So the god you believe in isn't all powerful? How did you scientifically establish that?

 

[gnostic]

Why is it unscientific to use inference, logic and philosophy in science? Is that logical, or should the RULES change? Well, it appears with the evolutionists, the rules dont apply to them.

Without evidences, all the inferences, logic and philosophies in the world would be science.

In science, logic has to be accompanied with testable empirical evidences. Don’t get me wrong, logic can be very useful, especially in the world of mathematics, however they do us no good in science, if the evidences aren’t there to support the logic

And it is the same with inferences. An inference without evidences is nothing more than speculation, conjecture and unsubstantiated personal opinions.

And philosophies by themselves, are just talk. There are some philosophies that have merits.

The things about logic and inferences is that you haven’t been logical at all.

You continued to use inferences, for instance, claim B implies claim A to be true, which in term claim C implies B to be true, all without any evidence to support each “implies”.

This whole logic of yours, where complexity = design, then design = designer, are nothing more than circular reasoning and false dichotomy, plus confirmation bias. There are no scientific rationale behind your absurd logic, because you keep forgetting one important thing, there are no evidences, direct or indirect evidences for the existence of your Designer.

The Designer is just as mythological as God of Genesis and your God of the gospels. There are no more evidences for Designer than there are for Ra, Zeus, Odin or the Easter Bunny.

You are just trying to justify ID just using your faulty inference, without using the scientific method, therefore your ID can never be science.

Intelligent Design has never achieved the status of falsifiable hypothesis, because it has always been untestable, it has never followed the requirements of Scientific Method, and it has never passed the criteria of the Peer Review.

Intelligent Design is just another form of creationism, in which the ID advocates have used dishonest tactics (eg social, political and legal pressures to force schools to teach ID as science, propaganda through media), to justify their belief.

Until you understand science required empirical, testable and repeatable evidences, which don’t exist in your brand of inferences, then we are impasse, because you do not understand how science work and you cannot learn from your mistakes.

 

[gnostic]

Tell me, Jollybear.

How would use your infallible “inference” of your “implied” design and “implied” Designer in a repeatable experiments?​

What methodology would you use to test, observe or detect, measure and record the “Designer”?​

I say “repeatable”, because if any hypothesis is true, you should be able to test and measure, I should be able to perform the experiment and any scientist could perform the same experiment, and each and every one of us would get the same results, and would all come to the same conclusions that Designer is real and therefore ID is correct hypothesis, verified and validated.

But no advocates of ID (not Johnson, not Meyer and not Behe) have provided a single experiment or single evidence that demonstrates the Designer is real and not a myth.

 

[Bird123]

I think there is a lot of truth that we see, but do not see. I know that sounds cryptic, but I think it is obvious when you think about it and fits with old saying like "the forest for the trees" and the like.

The problem that people have is that we do not always want the truth. We want a truth that fits our world view.

As a scientist, I am trained to observe and to minimize bias in those observations and the conclusions that I draw from them. This is something that has to be considered in every experiment set up and every measure taken. If I expect a certain result, the design of the experiment is set up so that I do not guide the experiment to that result, but if it is going to that result, it arrive there naturally and without my help. The work is submitted to the scrutiny of other scientists trained in and working in the same field so that bias and adherence to an established methodology are maintained.

In what I think about regarding my religious philosophy, I do not know of a means to police and maintain truths that arise from there. The only means I have for review are my own ethics and that of others I may discuss what I have seen, learned or concluded. I must place trust in others to help me find truth in that arena, but there is no mechanism I know to verify the findings or a peer review to determine if the findings are real or just what another believes or wants others to believe. It is not an easy road, but life never has been.

How do I determine if what I am watching are God's actions and not just some natural phenomenon with no guidance in place? Now I have felt things that I think are true, but I have no way to verify that or to broadcast it to another in a way that they too can say that it happened and is true. In that, it comes to trust and even there, it is not guaranteed to be a truth. I see beauty in the world and I have my personal belief as to the origin of that beauty, but I also know some of the facts of science that lead to what I perceive as beauty and explain it in terms of what others have found. I do not see that the latter has to cancel out the former, but I can use the latter to convey information to others in ways that I cannot with the former.

Creation is an action of God. What can one observe about this universe? How about all the physics add up perfectly? If all the physics add up perfectly so does the people factor, so does everything about God. I have found this to be true.

What happens when one holds onto that everything about God will add up? All the religions and beliefs they teach will unravel pointing to what they really are, mere beliefs.

By watching this world, one can see the actions of God. How do these actions add up? How do they fit into the big picture? Can you Discover how it does add up and what is God really doing with people and this world?

Still blind on God's actions? One of God's actions: Knowledge is not given. It must be Discovered. Matter contains enormous amounts of energy. Why then are we using oil and fossil fuels? God could give us the knowledge and end the pollution oil brings. Why does God choose to do this?

There is so much to Discover. The first thing God pointed out to me is that mankind carries such a narrow view. I cry that and work on mine every day.

A Being capable of creating all this has to be very very smart. One must STRETCH their thinking and intellect in order to widen the view.

If you can look at this world and it's people and no longer see it as a mess, I know you are getting there.
As I look at this world, I see that it is a Masterpiece.

 

[Bird123]

I have used that "falling off a high rise" example in similar discussions before, myself. All the evidence and theory predicts that we would fall and every experiment to date has upheld that prediction.

I am not here to discuss in great detail, what I believe, but you are taking a very philosophical approach that I confess, curries my interest. I believe, but do not know, that there are things that are universal truths. What I do know is that it does not appear we have to find them through religion alone and the diligent seeker can find them in many places. I know many atheists that hold the exact same values as I do with regards to life and liberty, but did not arrive at them through the exact same means I did. Since there are so many paths that each of us can trod, it would be simple to say that having values arises from one source, but there appears to be many coordinating sources and some that are independent of each other that lead to the same value space. Since, most of the atheists I know personally, are from the US, there is going to be some basis for the similarity, having grown up in the same country with the same laws and protected rights. But I do wonder how similar positions can be arrived at from different starting points and through different experiences. I wonder about how some things may be universal regardless of what you believe religiously or not. I cannot, for example, say that some of our morals do not arrive in our culture due to evolution through our cooperative natures. Perhaps this is why you can arrive at them from different philosophical positions. I recall from my earliest memories, that my church and family were the primary sources of my moral basis, but I can only claim that as true for me and reflect that it does seem true for some others.

Do you know why the universe exists? It's time-based causal nature is Perfect. Perfect for what? Do you know? In the journey to Discover anything, it starts with a million questions?

Atheists are every bit important in the big picture as any believer. Did you know? Believing has never ever been important to God. Hmmm? If that is so, what is God doing with this world?

So many people want everyone to be alike. Consider this: God gave everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view than any one person could have. Should everyone really be the same? I think not. How about this question? Why does God do this? See another of God's actions.

Discovery takes much work. Believing is easy. On the other hand, Discovery brings much better results. If you are a scientist, you should already know this.

 

[Bird123]

And I agreed with all that. Yes, truth needs to be questioned, as fact should also be challenged.

Both fact and truth are attempts to find what is true and what isn’t true, but as I said before, truth don’t necessarily require evidences, but fact strictly requires evidences.

Evidences provide a mean to determine something that is true, independent of what we like or dislike, what we want or need or don’t want or need.

Whereas truth can be determine either objectively or subjectively, or with evidences or without evidences, or by reasoning or by feeling.

Truth relate to someone’s perspective, while fact allow evidences to determine what is true or not.

As I see it, you have mixed Truth with Beliefs.

 

[Bird123]

God's actions like undersea earthquakes and rockslides that kill hundreds of thousands of people?

God's actions like volcanic eruptions that kill hundreds of thousands of people?

Specifically, from which of God's actions can we learn truth?

Yes, you can see God's actions. Now,THINK, how does it fit into a Masterpiece. Knowledge runs very very Deep. So much more lives beyond the mere surface. How do these things change things? A much Wider view is needed in order to Discover the Big picture.

 

[gnostic]

As I see it, you have mixed Truth with Beliefs.

As I see it, you are confusing truth with fact.

 

[ecco]

Can you Discover how it does add up and what is God really doing with people and this world?

We sure can. All we need to do is read the Bible.
We quickly learn that God created fallible creatures and then blamed them, and all future generations, for their fallibility.

Shortly thereafter we learn that God got upset with His creation turning out badly. He killed (almost) all of them.

A Being capable of creating all this has to be very very smart.

So smart that it's hard to imagine how smart the entity that created Him must be.

 

[ecco]

So many people want everyone to be alike.

On what do you base this baseless assertion?