Where do Proponents Of Intelligent Design Propose the Designer Came From?

[Shad]

Look this is too boring to continue, if it was a horse it needs to be shot in the head. Your arguing by category. "This is a Fallacy" - dismiss, "this is is sophistry" = dismiss, this is too blue, this is too tall. Sounds like Godly Lox in a comparative religion class. Nothing against you but your argumentation lacks an argument. I am here to debate. Your having a denial fest.

You inability and unwillingness to clean up your arguments is not an excuse. Debates involved deconstructing and showing errors in one's argument which is an argument against said argument. You are here to debate in the sense you wish to spout your tripe but decline to comment on views which challenge your tripe, nothing more.

 

[leibowde84]

By definition less likely events occur. The standard just used would have made one hundred thousand sports plays that were improbable not the best explanation for events that they themselves are on tape occurring. When Muhammad's followers tried to sell Allah to some heretical Jews who lived in Saudi Arabia, the first question was could he show them a miracle. God reveals himself through miracles, miracles by definition are rare and should be.

Besides you did not give me an explanation, you misapplied a concept of math that I can show you does not apply here but it would take much more typing. What you did not show was an example of a natural explanation that was MORE probable than the supernatural. Probability applies to actual things. Where is you actually thing. Come on, I know them all, resuscitation, theft of the body, no body was ever in the tomb, etc...... Give me something here. So far I am punching a tar baby. BTW do you know what a tar baby is and where the term was popularized?

There is empirical evidence for sports plays. This provides likeliness.

 

[1robin]

I did it so that I wouldn't have to double-post. If the mods are cool with it, I can make them separate, however.

If it greatly simplifies things for you then I will just live with it. It just causes my first post to disappear and it starts with your response but without your name in the heading but its no big deal.

Nope, but people do give their own reasons for losing their faith. As to whether them losing their faith causes them damnation, I obviously cannot know. Ceasing to love God would seem to be a good one just from my subjective reasoning. I don't see how one can call God their master while serving the Devil.

The same way Paul did, "It is no longer I (my soul or Mind) that sins but my flesh". Read the entire chapter and it explains this very well. Anyway you made a claim to knowledge, you said whether a person goes to hell or heaven depends on why they lost their faith. A claim to knowledge requires proof or at least good evidence.

I would say that God choosing to leave us is different from us choosing to leave Him.

Maybe but not in this context. Like I said look up the Latin or Greek the term paraclete is much stronger than the English word used. It is where parasite comes from. It means to come along side in a permanent manner. God promises never ever to leave you, that means you will never go to Hell because Jesus is certainly not going to sit in Hell with for eternity.

I don't find it too hard of a stretch for a former Christian to have reasoned their experiences with God were all in their head, since the amount of verifiable evidence that they had an experience with a spiritual being would be rather lacking when compared to that of the existence of a country. One possible exception to this would be some kind of physical effects that resulted from the experience (such as healing) or the revelation of specific knowledge that the person could not have gotten right by guessing. Again, even this could be questioned if other religions claimed similar phenomena, as it would be evidence that their gods are just as real as the Abrahamic God.

These experiences come with all manner of things that are very hard to write of as natural later on. I have all kinds of doubts from time to time. Being born again is not among them. As I have said I had to read blog after blog to write a paper on salvation (actually more than one), virtually all of them come with events that the natural cannot account for. However I am not denying this occurs. I am trying to say it would be a hard position to arrive at which is such a small minority (of BORN AGAIN Christians) give their faith up.

I have little doubt that a very large portion of Christians who leave Christianity did not have compelling spiritual experiences. That's rather sensible. I just find it wanting to claim that none of the Christians who leave Christianity have had divine experiences.

This is correct and if they did not have at least that born again experience were never Christians to begin with. Sitting in a garage does not make you a car and no one is ever good enough to earn heaven. I will give you a famous example, Bart Ehrman modern biblical critic (the most famous) and a competent scholar says he used to be a Christian but he no longer believes. But under examination DR Whites showed that Ehrman's faith was based on the bible's (all bible's) being perfect and without flaw or difference. What happened to Ehrman happened to me and others by the millions we have a superficial faith that when something we don not expect happens we give it up. When my Mom died I went from superficial Christian to an anti-theist. Years later I finally met Christ spiritually and have never doubted his existence since and can't conceive of anything that would cause me to lose the core of my faith. Born again faith has power behind it and weathers the storms, superficial believe changes with the slightest breeze.

{quote]No, of course not. I don't expect a "true" Christian to be perfectly good. I would expect a true Christian to be consistently good, though (unless they are simply ignorant about specific issues of sin).[/quote] Then why did Paul call himself the chief of sinners. I agree the general Christian should at least show he is more morally orientated that the average non and if that is what you want to see you will never run out of them. As I have stated I can meet someone and in a day or two guess whether he is a Christian with at least a 90% success rate because God will have left a mark of their character of some type that the average does not have.

Yes, that's just my best judgement as well. I don't have any anecdotes to go on in support of that.

If you adopt a grace system of salvation you answer a thousand questions, if you adopt a merit based system or a combination of the two (which is logically impossible) you are immediate smacked in the fact with a thousands questions you cannot answer. Grace and grace alone is by far the most harmonious and sufficient salvation model in human history. If we had enough time I could show this to you this to be true by necessity. It is not just that merit based salvation is not true, it is that it can't possibly be true of a good and rational God.

Agreed.

I concur with your agreement.

I don't have any numbers myself, but I am just giving an example of a potential way of thinking. If members of other religions did not lose their faith after lifetimes of troubles that could count as evidence in their favor as well, although, as I said before, I don't have numbers of that.

Let me give you a piece of advice. Stay away from statistics. They are notoriously hard to use. For example if you said only 5% of Muslims lose their faith compared with Christians well you have created a huge mess. Muslims in many nations risk capitol punishment by leaving Islam, they live in parts of the world where the entire culture is Islamic and you would have to betray everyone you know to leave it, they are labeled Muslims at birth and are trained a small children to recite, recite, recite, etc........... I was in the military and Islamic culture in many areas use the exact same techniques as military manuals of brainwashing put forward. Those nations usually only have two things to hold on to for hope, oil money, and Allah. To abandon either is to abandon hope, because in many nations Christianity is not allowed. There is not one church in Saudi Arabia. So you can see statistics can be hard things to use and I was just getting warmed up on the reasons why.

 

[viole]

Heat Death
...what this means for the universe. Any reaction that takes place will either result in the products becoming less ordered, or heat being given off. This means at some time far in the future, when all the possible reactions have taken place, all that will be left is heat (i.e electromagnetic radiation) and fundamental particles. No reactions will be possible, because the universe will have reached its maximum entropy. The only reactions that can take place will result in a decrease of entropy, which is not possible, so in effect the universe will have died. http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae181.cfm

Actually, it is not correct that entropy cannot decrease. The second principle of thermodynamics is a statistical prnciple, so chances of entropy reduction are very rare but not impossible. In some cases, they are even necessary.

If you consider a gas in thermal equilibrium in an insulated box, then there is no law of nature that prevents all particles to collect on one half of the bottle, reducing thereby the entropy. And if the gas started spreading from a small region, then there is even a theorem of Hamiltonian mechanics that proves that the gas will spontaneously finds itself in that small region, again.

You just have to wait long enough.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

You gotta be a politician or something.

I don't get the response.

You seem to have constructed a hybrid salvation system that's part grace, part works, half, beast, half man. You make claims to knowledge about salvation and I was simply asking for the proof. Politicians do not seem to care what the truth is, think they can create lie so big and repeat it so often it becomes truth, or fail to believe that truth as an absolute category even exists, so I do not get the reference.

Grace is no longer grace if you add any merit what so ever on our side. If your going to include claims to merit having any part in salvation, I will include requests for proof of that true.

I am a soldier, turned math student, turned Christian, turned DOD technician, turned apologetic. That's pretty far from being a habitual liar who's answer to every problem is to take more of our money and fighting wars without the moral determination to actually win them. Calling me a politician these days is practically an insult, fortunately I am not very sensitive to them.

 

[1robin]

You inability and unwillingness to clean up your arguments is not an excuse. Debates involved deconstructing and showing errors in one's argument which is an argument against said argument. You are here to debate in the sense you wish to spout your tripe but decline to comment on views which challenge your tripe, nothing more.

You have no qualifications to dictate why I am here. I can't imagine the arrogance required to do that or what possible value it could be. I am here to have evidence and argument countered with evidence and argument. Not dismissed by misapplied crutches. When Muslims through their biased sites at me, I don't whine about the nature of the site, I show that the claim it made was wrong. I would prefer to let you dismiss someone elses claims that you find inconvenient for a while.

 

[1robin]

There is empirical evidence for sports plays. This provides likeliness.

Actually there is no empirical evidence for most of histories improbabilities, or at least not enough to confirm them. Try and prove 300 Spartans held off 250,000 Persians, or that Caesar defeated the Gaul's outnumbered about 6-1 with actual evidence. Prove why the outnumbered bested the best fleet in the world at Jutland. So miraculous events which by their very nature are rare suspensions of natural law are only possible if they are at least as common as natural events and could be measured as natural events can. You can't use science to explain the thousands of tumors that have disappeared from x-rays, heck you can't even prove science by science. Where is the empirical evidence for multi-verses? Yet every camera hogging cosmologist who can will act as if they exist. Every molecule potentially is evidence of a miracle, it is an empirical entity with no known natural explanation.

 

[leibowde84]

Actually there is no empirical evidence for most of histories improbabilities, or at least not enough to confirm them. Try and prove 300 Spartans held off 250,000 Persians, or that Caesar defeated the Gaul's outnumbered about 6-1 with actual evidence. Prove why the outnumbered bested the best fleet in the world at Jutland. So miraculous events which by their very nature are rare suspensions of natural law are only possible if they are at least as common as natural events and could be measured as natural events can. You can't use science to explain the thousands of tumors that have disappeared from x-rays, heck you can't even prove science by science. Where is the empirical evidence for multi-verses? Yet every camera hogging cosmologist who can will act as if they exist. Every molecule potentially is evidence of a miracle, it is an empirical entity with no known natural explanation.

All of this is incorrect. For example, multiverse is a hypothesis, not a scientific theory. And, you are right, those historical events are not proven beyond anything. They could also be myth or at least exaggerated truth.

 

[1robin]

All of this is incorrect. For example, multiverse is a hypothesis, not a scientific theory. And, you are right, those historical events are not proven beyond anything. They could also be myth or at least exaggerated truth.

Multiverses are put forth as almost known facts so many times that now philosophers are forced to use the phrase "in all possible universes". They are without doubt put forth with the at least the same amount of assuredness as the claim that Jesus turned water into wine. As for the 300 with some additional details, Caesar's victory over Vercingetorix, and they teach that powder sealing doors left open because the British loved to claim they could fire faster than any other ship caused the English ships to (once hit) have fire instantly find it's way to the magazines. They are all taught as fact in colleges around the world yet there is little evidence.

Besides you claiming "natural" is not an explanation. Natural is a type of event, not an event it's self. You need to actually supply what natural event occurred before it's merits can be compared.

 

[leibowde84]

Multiverses are put forth as almost known facts so many times that now philosophers are forced to use the phrase "in all possible universes". They are without doubt put forth with the at least the same amount of assuredness as the claim that Jesus turned water into wine. As for the 300 with some additional details, Caesar's victory over Vercingetorix, and they teach that powder sealing doors left open because the British loved to claim they could fire faster than any other ship caused the English ships to (once hit) have fire instantly find it's way to the magazines. They are all taught as fact in colleges around the world yet there is little evidence.

Besides you claiming "natural" is not an explanation. Natural is a type of event, not an event it's self. You need to actually supply what natural event occurred before it's merits can be compared.

As soon as you provide the methods God used to create the world specifically, I will be happy to provide the natural processes of evolution.

 

[leibowde84]

Multiverses are put forth as almost known facts so many times that now philosophers are forced to use the phrase "in all possible universes". They are without doubt put forth with the at least the same amount of assuredness as the claim that Jesus turned water into wine. As for the 300 with some additional details, Caesar's victory over Vercingetorix, and they teach that powder sealing doors left open because the British loved to claim they could fire faster than any other ship caused the English ships to (once hit) have fire instantly find it's way to the magazines. They are all taught as fact in colleges around the world yet there is little evidence.

Besides you claiming "natural" is not an explanation. Natural is a type of event, not an event it's self. You need to actually supply what natural event occurred before it's merits can be compared.

Can you cite where scientists put forth the multiverse hypothesis as fact? I've never seen that, but am curious to see what you are referring to.

 

[1robin]

As soon as you provide the methods God used to create the world specifically, I will be happy to provide the natural processes of evolution.

How did evolution get in here? We were talking about Christ's resurrection I thought. Miracles are the explanation and God their agent. I am giving you both a what a how and a who. My how is named manifestation of divine power, where as yours would be for example theft by the apostles. God's divine power is no less or more descriptive of the event that theft is. However these are not equals. X and X' do not share the same data set or description. Natural law and divine power do not contain the same descriptive set and neither would be complete but that would not prevent a discussion of which is more probable given the evidence. What will stop that process is your refusing to pick one.

 

[1robin]

Can you cite where scientists put forth the multiverse hypothesis as fact? I've never seen that, but am curious to see what you are referring to.

I do not think I said they portray is as a fact. I said they portray it with approx. the same certainty we do about certain miraculous events. However if you watch Tyson, or listen to Hawkins you can here there confidence these multiverses exist. If you want a specific example look up that well made but complete guess video about life on other planets with Tyson mugging the camera as usual. I think there is only one, but I can't remember it's name. I will admit that you guy Carrol does not back his vision of the universe with the certainty others do and that is why I respect him so much. See you later, run out of time today.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I do not think I said they portray is as a fact. I said they portray it with approx. the same certainty we do about certain miraculous events. However if you watch Tyson, or listen to Hawkins you can here there confidence these multiverses exist. If you want a specific example look up that well made but complete guess video about life on other planets with Tyson mugging the camera as usual. I think there is only one, but I can't remember it's name. I will admit that you guy Carrol does not back his vision of the universe with the certainty others do and that is why I respect him so much. See you later, run out of time today.

I am a huge Tyson fan. The only celebrity I follow on Twitter actually. I haven't ever heard him talk about multiverse theory with any hint of confidence that it is fact. His field is astro-physics and talks mainly about that with confidence. So I wonder if its a bit of personal bias in this matter rather than his actual feelings. Do we have a clip of him or anyone else talking about multiverse as a fact?

 

[leibowde84]

I do not think I said they portray is as a fact. I said they portray it with approx. the same certainty we do about certain miraculous events. However if you watch Tyson, or listen to Hawkins you can here there confidence these multiverses exist. If you want a specific example look up that well made but complete guess video about life on other planets with Tyson mugging the camera as usual. I think there is only one, but I can't remember it's name. I will admit that you guy Carrol does not back his vision of the universe with the certainty others do and that is why I respect him so much. See you later, run out of time today.

I've listened to them pretty much every evening for the past 2 years. Youtube is awesome, and debates areally great for pre-bed jitters.

Can you specify where I can find what you are talking about, because I have not seen them do this at all in the many videos I've watched.

 

[Etritonakin]

I don't buy the multiple similar universe idea with other "me"s, etc. (as in the tv show sliders) -but like to think about multiple singularities resulting in multiple universes.

 

[viole]

Multiverses are put forth as almost known facts so many times that now philosophers are forced to use the phrase "in all possible universes". They are without doubt put forth with the at least the same amount of assuredness as the claim that Jesus turned water into wine. As for the 300 with some additional details, Caesar's victory over Vercingetorix, and they teach that powder sealing doors left open because the British loved to claim they could fire faster than any other ship caused the English ships to (once hit) have fire instantly find it's way to the magazines. They are all taught as fact in colleges around the world yet there is little evidence.

Besides you claiming "natural" is not an explanation. Natural is a type of event, not an event it's self. You need to actually supply what natural event occurred before it's merits can be compared.

Little correction, if I may. The philosophical expression, as it is used in modal logic, "in all possible Universes" has nothing to do with the physical existence of many Universes.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

I am a huge Tyson fan. The only celebrity I follow on Twitter actually. I haven't ever heard him talk about multiverse theory with any hint of confidence that it is fact. His field is astro-physics and talks mainly about that with confidence. So I wonder if its a bit of personal bias in this matter rather than his actual feelings. Do we have a clip of him or anyone else talking about multiverse as a fact?

Your the first fan of that guy I have ever met, though I am sure he has many. He did grow on me a little bit when he appeared on big bang theory. This is getting a little off topic and would require me to go di through debates, interviews, and quotes for hours and would serve little purpose. Let me instead change my claim to something much more relevant. Theoretical scientists and people who hold them in high esteem like I used to and you apparently still do use the counter claim to a universe ex-nihilo with the possibility of multi-verses. In other words it seems to be used in a way that cancels out having to explain the facts with a cause that has no evidence. It has many more problems that like:

For example:
1. More universes increases the likelihood that in one there is an omniscient God like being and being omniscient means he would exist in all universes. So more universes higher likelihood of God.
2. We only have evidence of a universe from nothing and barely understand any of it's earliest events. In fact all known science completely breaks down before 1 x 10-47 seconds. So that is an event with a trillion pieces of empirical evidence which has no known solution. And the fact that nothing stands in no causal relationship with anything makes a miraculous cause more likely than a natural one. It is not that the evidence for the miraculous (meaning merely non-traditional natural law) is better than some weak natural explanation. It is that at this time it does not even seem like a natural explanation is possible. Nothing comes from nothing, an infinite regression of causation is impossible, natural infinites are impossible. It does not appear the natural explanation team even showed up for the contest or could.
3. Multi-universes are not explanations for this universe anyway. It would be what caused all the universes. However that just kicks the cane down the road and leaves you with the same what caused whatever exists for the same reasons I listed above, plus the dozens I didn't.


So even if Leibniz rode a horse and had a powdered wig, science has done nothing to answer his question, "Why does anything exist". The answer given is Genesis no matter how weak you may claim it to be is far better that what does not even seem to be possible, a natural explanation.

So MOR and Leibowde84 let me please clarify my claim so that I may save time and it become far more relevant so it would suit the purpose I originally brought it up for instead of an off ramp argument over quotes.

 

[1robin]

Little correction, if I may. The philosophical expression, as it is used in modal logic, "in all possible Universes" has nothing to do with the physical existence of many Universes.

Ciao

- viole

Thank you for attempting to correct me but I think this is going to come down to a semantic splitting of hairs. When "in all possible universes" is said it is meant to be a data set that includes any universe that may logically exist. That is exactly what you would use to account for the idea of multiverses because if you open the door to an additional hypothetical universe you have to include all possible universes. Can you find any regular use of the term "in all possible universes" in philosophy before about 200 years ago? The only one I found was by St Anselm almost in anticipation of what is not occuring.

In fact type in (in all possible universes philosophic definition) and the first link you will see is too a Wiki page on Multiverses.

If you look up this link to Stanford Encyclopedia, you will see an non-theist tear apart the multiverse theory in argument after argument and the article and comments below include the phrase "in all possible universes" 5 times interchangeably with multiverse. As intelligent as you are I am sure you have found some negligible difference between the two, but as desperate as you sometimes seem I imagine that difference is vanishingly negligible for this context.

 

[1robin]

I don't buy the multiple similar universe idea with other "me"s, etc. (as in the tv show sliders) -but like to think about multiple singularities resulting in multiple universes.

I like to confine my thinking to things that have evidence or that at least have a good probability of eventually having evidence. If there are other universes out there I can't think of a more in accessible or irrelevant issue. Even the lack of return versus investment of the theory of evolution makes it worthwhile compared to other universes. But that is merely my opinion, people are free to think upon that which they wish.