Watchmaker Theory

[Taylor Seraphim]

The fact that humans wrote it.

I don't recall God ever coming down from the cosmos, sitting at a desk, picking up a quill and ink and putting letter to parchment.

The only thing that you can claim is divine inspiration. That's it...and it can't be proven.

Wait a minute...I feel something...a tingling...yes, I have been divinely inspired! God just told me to tell you that the Bible is 100% man made and no religion has it right.

Prove that did not happen just now...

This is why I have hope that you will one day turn this skepticism inward.

 

[shmogie]

If physics does not apply to "before" the universe then causality does not apply either. You can not have it both ways.



No the issue is even identifying there was a first cause




No the scientific view is not self-caused or uncaused. If there were then people would support only one metaphysical explanation like string theory rather than the scattering of ideas from Hawkings time or multiverse. The theological views supports a uncaused cause as well, all it does is place it one step further back as an addition to what science has provided.



Then why claim a first cause?



I have no need to pick between only two options. I can dismiss both and firmly rest at "I have no idea. I refuse to speculate"

I claim a first cause because science claims a first cause, Further, when the most brilliant minds in cosmology held to the idea of a steady state universe, and a few ridiculed the concept of the universe being created, the theological concept of a first cause existed, and now science has adopted the Biblical assertion that the universe was created virtually instantaneously from nothing, or at least from something unknown and unknowable. To claim there was no first cause is to claim forces outside of the universe exist, but how could we ever know if we are bound by the universe ? I once was an agnostic, not only stating I don't know, but also stating it is impossible for me to know. I got curious finally, primarily after the BB theory came to prominence, and found that I was fascinated by Cosmology and I read all that I could comprehend, which lead me in another direction.

The fact that humans wrote it.

I don't recall God ever coming down from the cosmos, sitting at a desk, picking up a quill and ink and putting letter to parchment.

The only thing that you can claim is divine inspiration. That's it...and it can't be proven.

Wait a minute...I feel something...a tingling...yes, I have been divinely inspired! God just told me to tell you that the Bible is 100% man made and no religion has it right.

Prove that did not happen just now...

 

[shmogie]

The fact that humans wrote it.

I don't recall God ever coming down from the cosmos, sitting at a desk, picking up a quill and ink and putting letter to parchment.

The only thing that you can claim is divine inspiration. That's it...and it can't be proven.

Wait a minute...I feel something...a tingling...yes, I have been divinely inspired! God just told me to tell you that the Bible is 100% man made and no religion has it right.

Prove that did not happen just now...

Cute, but dumb. I never said God wrote the Bible, once again your less than focused reading, or simply playing fast and loose with what I have written caused you to attribute to me what I never said. The statement was "Humans made up the Bible", a far different thing than "God wrote the Bible", both assertion are false. There is evidence of Divine inspiration......................................... As to absolute proof, there are "scientific" theory's that lack proof, hell, they lack evidence,what "inspiration" did they have, I wonder. Absolute proof is a very high bar, from the legal standard, proof is evidence that would lead a reasonable and prudent person to come to a particular conclusion. The proper consideration is the evaluation of evidence

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

There is evidence of Divine inspiration.........................................

Then why not provide any?

As to absolute proof, there are "scientific" theory's that lack proof, hell, they lack evidence,

This lets me know you are uneducated.

Scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

 

[Neo Deist]

This is why I have hope that you will one day turn this skepticism inward.

I did long ago. That is why I am a deist instead of an evangelical Christian.

 

[Neo Deist]

There is evidence of Divine inspiration.........................................

And that evidence would be what, exactly?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I did long ago. That is why I am a deist instead of an evangelical Christian.

I do agree that being a deist makes more sense that Christianity.

 

[metis]

It's a shame that so many creationists don't hold themselves to the same standard they try to hold scientists to. They cannot offer one shred of evidence for their beliefs, so they play the game of "scientists are only guessing".

 

[Shad]

I claim a first cause because science claims a first cause,

No it doesn't. Flawed logic claims this

Further, when the most brilliant minds in cosmology held to the idea of a steady state universe, and a few ridiculed the concept of the universe being created, the theological concept of a first cause existed, and now science has adopted the Biblical assertion that the universe was created virtually instantaneously from nothing, or at least from something unknown and unknowable.

No science found evidence that supports one theory over another. It didn't need nor use the Bible at all. The Bible is not even unique when it comes to this nor is the order of event even correct. You are cherry picking information that seems to align with modern cosmology yet ignore the mistakes in biblical cosmology.

To claim there was no first cause is to claim forces outside of the universe exist, but how could we ever know if we are bound by the universe ?

It does no such thing. If the universe is self-caused or eternal, different from steady state, then there is no outside forces.

I once was an agnostic, not only stating I don't know, but also stating it is impossible for me to know. I got curious finally, primarily after the BB theory came to prominence, and found that I was fascinated by Cosmology and I read all that I could comprehend, which lead me in another direction.[/QUOTE]

 

[SkepticThinker]

I never declared anyone had to believe anything, nor did I say anything about evolution, please read more carefully. No, scientists don't say that invisible diety's are doing anything, true. They propose apparently self created forces did and. are doing something...................by faith, by belief. Life has never been created in a lab setting, the creation of life from non living matter has never been observed, nor the process of how it occurred explained. Once again, a belief in that is by faith, nothing more. As to amino acids, alleged chemical building blocks, all interesting, but the spontaneous generation of life from non living substances has never been observed, or replicated. As the saying goes, close is only good in horseshoes and hand grenades, close isn't good enough in creating life. Did I claim that "all the answers are already known and written down in an ancient book by an all knowing diety" ? Nope

"They" don't propose anyone or anything did anything. They're looking for answers. When they don't know the answer to something they say, "I don't know, let's try to figure it out." They don't just throw a god in the gap and move on. We wouldn't know much of anything if they did that.

The work by Miller-Urey and others demonstrates that it is indeed possible that life could have arisen from non-living substances. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, which are the building blocks of life. This isn't just some blind faith thing, there's actual data involved.

Now I guess we can wait for the evidence that demonstrates that some god made everything.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who is to determine what evidence is, or how to evaluate it ? You ? I think not. There are extremely well qualified cosmologists, physicists, biologists, mathematicians, medical doctors, etc., etc. who, within the framework of their particular discipline perceive significant evidence of intelligent design. Do you propose they are delusional, thousands upon thousands of them ?

Can they demonstrate it? That is the question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Cute, but dumb. I never said God wrote the Bible, once again your less than focused reading, or simply playing fast and loose with what I have written caused you to attribute to me what I never said. The statement was "Humans made up the Bible", a far different thing than "God wrote the Bible", both assertion are false. There is evidence of Divine inspiration......................................... As to absolute proof, there are "scientific" theory's that lack proof, hell, they lack evidence,what "inspiration" did they have, I wonder. Absolute proof is a very high bar, from the legal standard, proof is evidence that would lead a reasonable and prudent person to come to a particular conclusion. The proper consideration is the evaluation of evidence

What evidence is there for divine inspiration of the Bible?

What scientific theories do you think are lacking in evidence? (Evidence, not proof. Science doesn't deal in proofs - that's a math thing.)

 

[Ouroboros]

I claim a first cause because science claims a first cause,

Your mean the first quantum event that was in itself uncaused?

 

[metis]

Science does not claim a first clause.

 

[shmogie]

First of all you are not providng a counter argument.

Second of all it says non-klinefelter XXY.

Third of all, I am reporting you for talking that way to me about my sex.

I didn't

No it doesn't. Flawed logic claims this



No science found evidence that supports one theory over another. It didn't need nor use the Bible at all. The Bible is not even unique when it comes to this nor is the order of event even correct. You are cherry picking information that seems to align with modern cosmology yet ignore the mistakes in biblical cosmology.



It does no such thing. If the universe is self-caused or eternal, different from steady state, then there is no outside forces.

I once was an agnostic, not only stating I don't know, but also stating it is impossible for me to know. I got curious finally, primarily after the BB theory came to prominence, and found that I was fascinated by Cosmology and I read all that I could comprehend, which lead me in another direction.

[/QUOTE]

No it doesn't. Flawed logic claims this
Amino acids are non living substances, the best evidence of the spontaneous creation of life, is the spontaneous creation of life. Theories taught as the one and only possibility , and by default, as fact, that can not identify the process involved, or what events or conditions that initiated the process, singularly fail as evidence for this process. The prevailing theories on the end of the universe are the big rip, and more popular, the big freeze. in both cases the universe ends. Nothing that ends can be eternal, if anything ends it had to begin, and if it began something caused it to begin. Most cosmologists adhere to the big bang theory, a theory that identifies the first cause, but cannot, based on the evidence, identify anything in retrograde, past this first cause. In the big bang model, the true identity of this first cause, the singularity, can never be understood because all evidence of it was destroyed in the rapid expansion and heat of the "bang". Further since the singularity was outside the universe, no universal tools, methods, formulas, etc. etc..etc. can be applied to understand it, since the conditions in which it existed, if any, cannot be known. There are other possibilities, but many people, infinitely more qualified than me believe this theory is best to understand the evidence. This theory of the creation of the universe, is remarkably similar to the description of the creation of the universe in the Bible

" For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been there for centuries" Dr. Robert Jastrow, prominent astronomer and cosmologist on the implications of the big bang theory once he accepted it. As far as anyone knows, he lived and died an agnostic. Quotation from " The enchanted loom; mind in the universe" by Dr. Jastrow 1981. "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law " ibid.



e








No science found evidence that supports one theory over another. It didn't need nor use the Bible at all. The Bible is not even unique when it comes to this nor is the order of event even correct. You are cherry picking information that seems to align with modern cosmology yet ignore the mistakes in biblical cosmology.

Why doe you incessantly speak of Biblical cosmology. The only statement I have made re that subject is that when the steady state model was held by most cosmologists, the Biblical model, much akin to the BB, existed. I am not ignori

It does no such thing. If the universe is self-caused or eternal, different from steady state, then there is no outside forces.

I once was an agnostic, not only stating I don't know, but also stating it is impossible for me to know. I got curious finally, primarily after the BB theory came to prominence, and found that I was fascinated by Cosmology and I read all that I could comprehend, which lead me in another direction.

[/QUOTE]

"They" don't propose anyone or anything did anything. They're looking for answers. When they don't know the answer to something they say, "I don't know, let's try to figure it out." They don't just throw a god in the gap and move on. We wouldn't know much of anything if they did that.

The work by Miller-Urey and others demonstrates that it is indeed is possible that life could have arisen from non-living substances. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, which are the building blocks of life. This isn't just some blind faith thing, there's actual data involved.

Now I guess we can wait for the evidence that demonstrates that some god made everything.

 

[shmogie]

Your mean the first quantum event that was in itself uncaused?

Sorry, but you have no evidence that the first quantum event was uncaused. The evidence clearly points to a first cause, with no evidence of anything before that first cause

 

[SkepticThinker]

I didn't

Is there a response here somewhere?

 

[shmogie]

I didn't

And that evidence would be what, exactly?

Virtually all scholars agree that the Biblical book of Daniel was written at the time of the kingdom of Babylon. There is no reason to doubt it was written by a Jew named Daniel, as Babylon had taken into captivity most of the people of Israel. In the second chapter of the book, the king of Babylon calls Daniel to interpret his dream. The dream consist of a figure of a man, whose head is gold, chest silver, lower torso bronze, legs of iron and feet of clay mixed with iron. Daniel interprets the dream this way. The statue or figure represents kingdoms. The first were those conquered by babylon, the head of gold represents babylon, the silver chest, was a third powerful kingdom, the bronze a fourth, the iron the next, and finally a conglomerate drawn from the kingdom of iron, some of which are weak and some strong. Historically Babylon was conquered and followed by Medo Persia, which was succeeded by the Grecian empire, which was followed by the Roman empire, certainly a kingdom of iron, and after Rome a fractured western world of weak and strong nations. There is more to it, but this is the basic outline. Daniel speaks of of this timeline which seems to fit the historical facts, Babylon overcame kingdoms against it, it was overcome by the Persians, which were replaced by the Greeks, which were replaced by the Romans, whose empire broke up into a variety of weak and strong states. Either the book was written ex post facto, which is very unlikely, or Daniel was one heck of a guesser, or His source of the information, whom he claimed to be God, was correct.

 

[shmogie]

Just read an article re Stephan Hawking and a presentation he recently made at Cambridge university, in which he comes down solidly on the side of intelligent design. He spoke of a "God factor" that was present in creation that is contrary to all the laws of physics, he further spoke of a " God force". I haven' t read the paper, but will. One of the great cosmologists accepts intelligent design of the Universe, hmmmmmmm, he must have had some evidence for this conclusion. I am doing further research and will determine whether the report is accurate

 

[Ouroboros]

Sorry, but you have no evidence that the first quantum event was uncaused.

Likewise. You have no evidence that it was. How can you state that your unprovable first cause is demanded by science when science only goes to the first quantum event? It's not clear if quantum events have Aristotelian type causes.

The evidence clearly points to a first cause, with no evidence of anything before that first cause

There obviously was a first quantum event. That's the only first cause science knows about. Are you saying that science demands some quasi-scientific explanation to be scientific?