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

[Monk Of Reason]

Nope, totally wrong

Objectively true. Are you now in kind going to respond with meaning or is this the end of our back and forth?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Only kidding, thanks for the response

First lets look at your example. A 747. You take this example that we know full well is created and doesn't exists in nature all by its lonesome. So obviously its best explanation for how it exists is how we create it.

exactly, that's the point of an analogy- taking something we know is totally different by nature to make the point

We can be utterly positive that the 747 required creative intelligence. And if we were asked to explain its existence without it, our options are few and exactly mirror those for explaining the universe without creative intelligence.

None of these same arguments are applicable to the universe. Can we see where the universe was created? Can you point out how it was made? Can you show me the evidence of where someone created this and what a non-designed universe would look like in contrast? You cannot make the leap that "everything is designed" without first having a contrast of what non-design would look like.

non designed- would be the configuration of all the materials used to make the plane- before they were made into a plane

random deposits of metal, sand, copper, basic elements that constituted the plane in it's entirety, but did not display the specific functionality in design of the 747

i.e. there are an infinite number of ways to combine those materials into something that would NOT fly.

Likewise there are infinite combinations of universal constants that would NOT develop life and consciousness to ponder themselves with.


Atheist cosmogony strives to account for the universe without creative intelligence, and it covers most of academic cosmogony with exceptions like Lemaitre, (the one guy who actually got something right)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Only kidding, thanks for the response




exactly, that's the point of an analogy- taking something we know is totally different by nature to make the point

We can be utterly positive that the 747 required creative intelligence. And if we were asked to explain its existence without it, our options are few and exactly mirror those for explaining the universe without creative intelligence.

If the evidence pointed to that yes. However that isn't where the evidence leads us. It isn't a matter of requiring intelligence or banning intelligence as an explanation. It all boils down tot he evidence. The cosmological evidence we have and the evidence of the origin of a 747 are totally different. We can't draw lateral conclusions from your analogy.

non designed- would be the configuration of all the materials used to make the plane- before they were made into a plane

random deposits of metal, sand, copper, basic elements that constituted the plane in it's entirety, but did not display the specific functionality in design of the 747

i.e. there are an infinite number of ways to combine those materials into something that would NOT fly.

And how would a non-designed universe look? Feel? Taste?

Likewise there are infinite combinations of universal constants that would NOT develop life and consciousness to ponder themselves with.

Possibly. That is a theory.

Atheist cosmogony strives to account for the universe without creative intelligence, and it covers most of academic cosmogony with exceptions like Lemaitre, (the one guy who actually got something right)

[/QUOTE]
Its not really something that exists. It has to do with evidence. I mean you keep giving me the best evidence of all that science changes with the evidence. Lemaitre, one of several people who got things right who happened to be a Catholic and who also happened to distance his scientific discoveries from his theological beliefs. The evidence was solid and science changed its consensus. If a handful of scientists refused to then its tough **** for them. They don't define science. Although it is worth noting I think that Lemaitre's theory needed some tweaking along the way. Much like Darwin theory.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If the evidence pointed to that yes. However that isn't where the evidence leads us. It isn't a matter of requiring intelligence or banning intelligence as an explanation. It all boils down tot he evidence. The cosmological evidence we have and the evidence of the origin of a 747 are totally different. We can't draw lateral conclusions from your analogy.

We have empirical evidence for neither, that leaves us with logical deduction, mathematical probability.

And how would a non-designed universe look? Feel? Taste?

like a non designed plane would fly?

Possibly. That is a theory.

It's the only non-ID theory one is destined to be left with, when all other fail- which was the original point. An invisible infinite probability machine done it.

Its not really something that exists. It has to do with evidence. I mean you keep giving me the best evidence of all that science changes with the evidence. Lemaitre, one of several people who got things right who happened to be a Catholic and who also happened to distance his scientific discoveries from his [] beliefs.

Exactly - just like a scientist should. Others- atheists did not, they explicitly mocked the primeval atom for opposing their atheist beliefs. 'religious pseudoscience' it was called

i.e. it was Lemaitre's skepticism of atheism that allowed him to contemplate a creation event, not his own beliefs- he distanced himself from those because he could, he acknowledged he actually had beliefs.

You keep giving me the best evidence that atheists do not acknowledge their own beliefs- they assume them as default truths until proven otherwise.

"Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself"


must run now though, even though this is more fun than work..

 

[1robin]

Meh. The main problem with the multiverse theory is that there is no hard evidence. Many of the theoretical fields and particle science that is slowly becoming far less theoretical (which is actually pretty amazing how well they have managed to predict the very essences of the universe out of sheer math and 1940's technology) seems to indicate that not only is the multiverse possible but quite possibly necessary. But that is beside the point. A further problem with the multiverse is that there is next to no way to study or verify it even if it is correct. At best it is a highly vauge explanation of "what could be" behind the real of our universe. That is all it is. I think it has gotten a lot of hype but meh.

I agree it has gotten a lot of hype but that is not the problem. It is used to counter the cosmological argument for God, when it does not carry the slightest fraction of the credibility and evidence. IOW it does not counter it. I no longer read these theoretical science tombs since I have confirmed so many holes in their theories, not that I am on their level, but when Penrose calls Hawking's M theory not even a good excuse for lacking a theory, and whole hosts of application scientists pointing out error after error as in the links I posted earlier I have just given up on them. I think the problem is the vanity and greed of man forces them to throw out the conventional for the sensational. You don't get published for discovering the pyramids these days, you get published for crazy theories about them and alternative purposes for them. Plus conscious of it of not the carnal mind is (at enmity) an enemy to God and what he has revealed. I just flat gave up on them as reliable though I do occasionally watch programs they produce just for the wonders about which they speak. Regardless we are in waters so deep average posters can no longer tread very well.

The only other thing I would like to mention in your post is the probability of god. God and the concept of god is usually free from probability. Either god exists or he doesn't. Having more universes wouldn't increase a non-existent chance. Or either god is omnipotent and he exists in all universes. Maybe all universes have their own god and there is a supreme god above all of them that is god of the multiverse. Who knows. Just know that adding more universes within a multiverse isn't increasing the odds of a god existing in one of them.

I concur there is no methodology that would allow us to place a probability on God's existence in a classic sense within our universe. However my favorite mathematician (pure mathematics) Lennox from Oxford would not agree. Lets say you have what we must essentially have to account for the multiverses. A entity or mechanism that keeps spiting out universes without any reason to make the same one twice. Just like Sheldon (BBT) said in one episode that suggested that in one of them he was a clown made out of candy. So if each universe would be a "entity" composed of differing furniture. Every one you add means that it might have an omniscient, omnipresent God associated with it and if it does then all possible universes would include that God. I am surprised as intelligent a debater as you are did not see that. BTW saying he either exists or not is almost a self annihilating tautology.

 

[Shad]

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.

One does not need qualifications to make such a statement. You mention evidence but none of the topics we discussed were based on evidence but rather theological doctrine by specific denominations, which I mentioned. You made a lot of claims but none are based on evidence. All are based on presuppositions that 1. Christianity is true. 2. Your brand (doctrine/dogma) is true or the true form of Christianity.

 

[McBell]

We have empirical evidence for neither, that leaves us with logical deduction, mathematical probability.

Ah...
Mathematical probability, right?
So...
When are you going to show your math?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

We have empirical evidence for neither, that leaves us with logical deduction, mathematical probability.

That is false. We have empirical evidence for only one.

like a non designed plane would fly?

Birds yeah.

It's the only non-ID theory one is destined to be left with, when all other fail- which was the original point. An invisible infinite probability machine done it.

Actually the basis for multiverse theory is in mathematics and out of the concepts in already established fields that allow us to inferring the existence of the mulstiverse. The questions it answers on infinite probability and the like are mostly unimportant and in no way the basis of the theory.

Exactly - just like a scientist should. Others- atheists did not, they explicitly mocked the primeval atom for opposing their atheist beliefs. 'religious pseudoscience' it was called

i.e. it was Lemaitre's skepticism of atheism that allowed him to contemplate a creation event, not his own beliefs- he distanced himself from those because he could, he acknowledged he actually had beliefs.

You keep giving me the best evidence that atheists do not acknowledge their own beliefs- they assume them as default truths until proven otherwise.

"Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself"


must run now though, even though this is more fun than work..

Exactly like you need to start doing. The fact that he separated his work from his faith is exact reasons why you need to separate your beliefs from science as well. There is no underlying atheist control over science. It is based on evidence at hand. ID is not based on evidence at hand.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I agree it has gotten a lot of hype but that is not the problem. It is used to counter the cosmological argument for God, when it does not carry the slightest fraction of the credibility and evidence. IOW it does not counter it. I no longer read these theoretical science tombs since I have confirmed so many holes in their theories, not that I am on their level, but when Penrose calls Hawking's M theory not even a good excuse for lacking a theory, and whole hosts of application scientists pointing out error after error as in the links I posted earlier I have just given up on them. I think the problem is the vanity and greed of man forces them to throw out the conventional for the sensational. You don't get published for discovering the pyramids these days, you get published for crazy theories about them and alternative purposes for them. Plus conscious of it of not the carnal mind is (at enmity) an enemy to God and what he has revealed. I just flat gave up on them as reliable though I do occasionally watch programs they produce just for the wonders about which they speak. Regardless we are in waters so deep average posters can no longer tread very well.

No one uses it as an argument against god. If they are they are simply entertaining an idea that they didn't need to entertain.

And where did you get "Hawking's M theory"? He wasn't the founder and nor is it even his field. Hawking, while respected across most fields of physics, is not a predominant or leading physicist in M theory.

I concur there is no methodology that would allow us to place a probability on God's existence in a classic sense within our universe. However my favorite mathematician (pure mathematics) Lennox from Oxford would not agree. Lets say you have what we must essentially have to account for the multiverses. A entity or mechanism that keeps spiting out universes without any reason to make the same one twice. Just like Sheldon (BBT) said in one episode that suggested that in one of them he was a clown made out of candy. So if each universe would be a "entity" composed of differing furniture. Every one you add means that it might have an omniscient, omnipresent God associated with it and if it does then all possible universes would include that God. I am surprised as intelligent a debater as you are did not see that. BTW saying he either exists or not is almost a self annihilating tautology.

I have heard the argument. It is nonsensical at the core.

Either god as an entity can exist or he can't. Differences in the randomization of constants within a universe wouldn't change that. Is omniscience possible at all? That isn't accounted for and can't be accounted for in probability. There are those that take the argument even further that if it exists in one world, as it "must" for some unexplained reason, then it must exists for all by definition of omnipotence and power. But its a self defeating argument as the "possibility" for god may not exist in any universe no matter how many.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That is false. We have empirical evidence for only one.

like what?

Actually the basis for multiverse theory is in mathematics and out of the concepts in already established fields that allow us to inferring the existence of the mulstiverse. The questions it answers on infinite probability and the like are mostly unimportant and in no way the basis of the theory.

cobblers! static/eternal, steady state, big crunch, were all 'in the math' also- it's not hard to make any speculation 'fit the math' when you are unrestrained by any direct observational evidence to make it do so. Why would anyone make up a theory that didn't fit the math?

Each atheist theory only inferred the next by their each being debunked in turn. The multiverse was only adopted when big crunch was debunked by observation like the others.
An invisible infinite probability machine was always destined to be the last resort- entirely beyond the inconvenience of investigation and hence the goalposts have been moved off the scientific pitch altogether.

Exactly like you need to start doing. The fact that he separated his work from his faith is exact reasons why you need to separate your beliefs from science as well. There is no underlying atheist control over science. It is based on evidence at hand. ID is not based on evidence at hand.

I acknowledge that I have beliefs to separate, that there is no default explanation. do you?

But the only evidence went entirely against every atheist prediction, the universe was NOT eternal, NOT steady, NOT cyclical, the absolute most we can tell is that it did in fact begin with that specific creation event Hoyle called 'religious pseudoscience', and it remains inexplicable by any observable natural process.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I agree it has gotten a lot of hype but that is not the problem. It is used to counter the cosmological argument for God, when it does not carry the slightest fraction of the credibility and evidence. IOW it does not counter it. I no longer read these theoretical science tombs since I have confirmed so many holes in their theories, not that I am on their level, but when Penrose calls Hawking's M theory not even a good excuse for lacking a theory, and whole hosts of application scientists pointing out error after error as in the links I posted earlier I have just given up on them. I think the problem is the vanity and greed of man forces them to throw out the conventional for the sensational. You don't get published for discovering the pyramids these days, you get published for crazy theories about them and alternative purposes for them. Plus conscious of it of not the carnal mind is (at enmity) an enemy to God and what he has revealed. I just flat gave up on them as reliable though I do occasionally watch programs they produce just for the wonders about which they speak. Regardless we are in waters so deep average posters can no longer tread very well.

I concur there is no methodology that would allow us to place a probability on God's existence in a classic sense within our universe. However my favorite mathematician (pure mathematics) Lennox from Oxford would not agree. Lets say you have what we must essentially have to account for the multiverses. A entity or mechanism that keeps spiting out universes without any reason to make the same one twice. Just like Sheldon (BBT) said in one episode that suggested that in one of them he was a clown made out of candy. So if each universe would be a "entity" composed of differing furniture. Every one you add means that it might have an omniscient, omnipresent God associated with it and if it does then all possible universes would include that God. I am surprised as intelligent a debater as you are did not see that. BTW saying he either exists or not is almost a self annihilating tautology.

That's where the multiverse ultimately shoots itself in the foot.

It must be endowed with the capacity to accidentally create our universe and everything in it, including by extension; sentient, purposeful, creative, loving beings- but not anything that could ever be described as God- intelligent designer of universes. Presumably there is a built in safety mechanism preventing this from ever happening and defeating the entire point of the theory.

Yet according to Andre Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, who considers it 'feasible' that we may one day create our own universe, 'even this one little' universe is getting close to disobeying this atheist rule on it's own

 

[Monk Of Reason]

like what?

Such as video of 747 being made, the factories they are made in, the instructions for how they are being made, the fact you can go and see one being made in person.

cobblers! static/eternal, steady state, big crunch, were all 'in the math' also- it's not hard to make any speculation 'fit the math' when you are unrestrained by any direct observational evidence to make it do so. Why would anyone make up a theory that didn't fit the math?

Each atheist theory only inferred the next by their each being debunked in turn. The multiverse was only adopted when big crunch was debunked by observation like the others.
An invisible infinite probability machine was always destined to be the last resort- entirely beyond the inconvenience of investigation and hence the goalposts have been moved off the scientific pitch altogether.

You also know that expansion was also in the math. It was held at the same degree as big crunch and steady state. They were all three possibilities and they knew one was going to be correct. They didn't know which one and never proclaimed one at higher than the other. Then the new evidence came to light and lo and behold they were correct. It was one of the three theories. Now one has been validated.

Static universe theory was based on our old techniques and observations. It wasn't purely created out of the math. It was based on the little observable evidence they had to go with. Evidence came to light and it was changed.

None of this is arguments against multiverse except that it is not considered fact. If someone tells you that the multiverse is real and it is scientifically supported as fact then they are wrong and you can bring up those arguments.

But no, I shall correct you again as you will continue to be wrong so long as you posit it, the multiverse theory was not constructed with god in mind. It wasn't to create a scientific theory for atheists. It wasn't created in order to be a final last ditch argument against creation. It is simply the theory constructed based on the possibilities of how reality is in the grand scheme of things.

I acknowledge that I have beliefs to separate, that there is no default explanation. do you?

But the only evidence went entirely against every atheist prediction, the universe was NOT eternal, NOT steady, NOT cyclical, the absolute most we can tell is that it did in fact begin with that specific creation event Hoyle called 'religious pseudoscience', and it remains inexplicable by any observable natural process.

There is default evidence and theories that can be brought out of that evidence. Not all theories are equal. Only theories with evidence can be considered valid.

Steady state/static were old theories. They were based on the information they had. The new evidence changed the opinions of science because that is what science does. Until there is evidence there is no reason to believe it. I won't assume your beliefs or theories based out of your beliefs have any validity until evidence is provided. Simple as that.

 

[1robin]

The irony of this is that modal logic (based on all possible universes, contingency, necessity, etc) is the basis of the most powerful argument for God I am aware of. Namely the modal version of the Leibnitzian cosmological argument. Kalam is ridicolously easy in comparison. That was the hardest I ever saw for me to refute. It took me at least several weeks to get a crash course in modal logic and debate on another forum and I am not sure who won. I won the easy part, but the important part was a tie, I guess.

How do you decide you have "won" a debate. I gave that illusion up a long time ago. My goal is to establish a point to my satisfaction. If I feel I have communicated my argument sufficiently for a rational human to at least understand it, then I have achieved my goal. The only way I have ever seen a debate judged logically was after the debate all those who signed in as undecided cast a vote for who caused them to lean in their direction. BTW I have never seen a debate where any tabulation was made where the Christian lost (though there must be some) but that is not really fair because while anyone can attend theistic groups usually put on the debates and that may translate to more theists being in the crowd to begin with but I do not know that.

Anyway the only part of modal logic I am competent with is modal being. Would you mind sharing a link to either this debate you had or Leibniz' argument? I doubt I am going to get it all but if you say it's strong then I respect your competency enough to desire to understand it.

In my opinion the historical record and the numbers of those who claim to have spiritually experienced a
meeting with a risen Christ who have radically transformed lives that correspond to that experience is the best argument from God. I have never heard of anyone accepting Christ by virtue of these academic issues (especially the theoretical ones). 95% of the conversions I know of came after witnessing the transforming power of God in others lives and that would include myself among them. I am not trying to convert anyone here, posters are usually people ensconced in their pre-determined world view and the best you can get is a concession to a minor premise. What I am doing is hopefully giving new Christians answers to questions that help them reconcile faith and reason. The likes I receive or occasions where I helped a fellow Christian reconcile something the world claims with something the bible claims is a win for me.

It is the same physics he used to prove that our Universe had a "beginning". I sense a bit of special pleading here

His physics was that any universe that is on average expending has a finite past. That is about as simplistic as physics gets. I don't know how you got anything else out of it, unless he has a more rigorous explanation I have never felt the need to find. The modal was designed to be robust by being general.

That is dangerous. What we know today cannot possibly be supported by human intuition. The experiments show things that lead to theories, very effective ones, that we cannot possibly visualize. But this is not because scientists are getting crazy, speculative or nature is weird. It is because our natural intuition evolved to be effective in the middle world. The world where predators do not run close to the speed of light and food is vastly bigger than an electron.

Your making a much more emphatic dogmatic position out of what I said than what I meant.

Thanks. I like to think I was one before undoing my newest birth. As concerns your offer to rejoin the light side of the force, I have to respectfully decline. I prefer the heavy side thereof.

That was confusing. If your claiming you were born again into Jesus Christ, you still are. You have probably done what the bible calls quenching the Holy Spirit so that that quiet voice has give up speaking to one who does not listen but if you got up and headed in God's direction that voice may return. Forgive me but I always doubt these I used to be born again claims (if that was what that was) as the most illogical conclusion in theology.

I am a mathematician. Helping sometimes those poor physicists and engineers with their natural suboptimal mathematical skills, lol.

By helping you mean getting in the way. We have gotten so behind because modern science (even application science) fails to function properly we have thrown everything for technicians to theoretical scientists at our problems. I would say the programmers have contributed the most, Doctors of engineering second, and the technicians (me) third of all solutions. We barely hear from the theoretical people and their recommendations are always impractical. However they do make good teachers and interesting if fanciful documentaries.

What do you actually do in the role of mathematician? BTW my higher math skills taught well over a decade ago have become so rusty by their non use in any practical matters as not to be suboptimal but to actually of little use in at least my practical applications. Outside wave forms, and a little circuit analysis my degree is of no use.

I am kind of joking, I work in integration, pure mathematicians and physicists would be of use in design. But then again it's the design that has causes our hundreds and hundreds of failures so far. Agilent can't even get a $250,000 SPA to perform the same as their own older design in immolation mode. We started calling it the similarity mode.

Reminder: I would like he link I requested above please and would prefer the one to his argument not the debate.

 

[McBell]

Funny how no one presents the math....

 

[1robin]

I think it is absurd to accuse them of stating the hypothesis as fact, as thy don't give that impression at all. They use words like "think", and constantly refer to the fact that it is an untested hypothesis.

I think it absurd to keep emphasizing the same theme with Omni-emphatic intentions after I have explained what I meant over and over again. They do and have referred to the multiverse with a sense of it's reality. However I am not coming through books, and debate transcripts to prove it because it is meaningless either way. What is meaningful however is that it is used as a counterpoint to a single finite universe which is in need of a creator. That was the intention of what I said, I can easily understand your not getting my intention the first time around. However banging your head on the same invisible wall after having my intentions explained is a sign that something is wrong with your debating motivation or tactics.

 

[1robin]

I understand, but you still haven't pointed to anything that gives the impression that the multiverse hypothesis is fact. Evidence that supports it doesn't come close to doing this. There is far too much more testing required for any kind of claim of it being a scientific theory, much less scientific fact.

I don't intend to. I don't believe it exists, and even if I did believe it existed I don't think we would ever have access too it. So in essence you start off by saying you understand my meaning and then repeat the same questions about your mistaken understanding of the purpose of my claim. BTW it is a fact that scientists have either actively or passively suggested that multiverses are real but the rate of return on the investment to show that is a fact is just not something I am going to do.

 

[1robin]

One does not need qualifications to make such a statement. You mention evidence but none of the topics we discussed were based on evidence but rather theological doctrine by specific denominations, which I mentioned. You made a lot of claims but none are based on evidence. All are based on presuppositions that 1. Christianity is true. 2. Your brand (doctrine/dogma) is true or the true form of Christianity.

Yes you do, to know why I am here is a claim to knowledge. A claim to knowledge bears the burden of evidence.. In this case the evidence of what is going on in my brain concerning my motivation. You have zero access to it and there no basis on which to make the claim. Since everything you said after relied on the credibility of a claim that has none it requires no response. Shad I do not know you personally and can make no judgment about you as a person but your arguments are of the type I consider to waste time, and I have little of it these days. I have had a few breaks today so let me address a couple of your claims.

1. All my claims were based on evidence. Evidence being data that which included makes a hypothesis more likely than it's exclusion. I did that both with historical claims about Jesus most NT historians agree are true and for the cosmological argument with every atom in the universe.
2. I have no brand of Christianity. I simply quoted what the bible (Christ) himself said is such emphatic ways and so often that they form their own doctrine. I have never made a claim to having any personal doctrines to offer to Christianity. However I did back up my "interpretation" of verses that are so straightforward interpretation is not even necessary with verses and the philosophy behind them.

Exactly how much interpretation does "New International Version
Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again." require?.

As a bonus the preceding verses and following verses show he was talking to a high priest who was not corrupt, but a good, honest God seeking, man, that had not even grasped the entry point of faith in Christ. However another prophecy has a shadowy presence here as well. Nicodemus was actually seeking God sincerely. As prophecied centuries before made by Jeremiah "You will me and find me when you seek me with all your heart". Now here he sat talking to God himself.

However I do not wish to continue a debate with you right now. You don't debate you assume the position of dismissal by any means (mostly by appealing to fallacies which only apply to claims of absolute fact which goes without saying men of faith don't often make) necessary to whatever I say or might say. I recognize the style very well, I used to use it when I was not merely an atheist but an anti-theist. Your responses are word fights, but I am interested in a debate.

Lay off concerning me for a bit and maybe we can try again some time.

 

[viole]

How do you decide you have "won" a debate. I gave that illusion up a long time ago. My goal is to establish a point to my satisfaction. If I feel I have communicated my argument sufficiently for a rational human to at least understand it, then I have achieved my goal. The only way I have ever seen a debate judged logically was after the debate all those who signed in as undecided cast a vote for who caused them to lean in their direction. BTW I have never seen a debate where any tabulation was made where the Christian lost (though there must be some) but that is not really fair because while anyone can attend theistic groups usually put on the debates and that may translate to more theists being in the crowd to begin with but I do not know that.

I did not win that debate. Only one part of it. The easy part, not the important one. I know I did because my contender conceded.

Anyway the only part of modal logic I am competent with is modal being. Would you mind sharing a link to either this debate you had or Leibniz' argument? I doubt I am going to get it all but if you say it's strong then I respect your competency enough to desire to understand it.

I would google "Leinbnitz argument from contingency for the existence of God". I am a bit surprised that people like Craig sort of snob it. Maybe a bit too technical for a wide audience.

In my opinion the historical record and the numbers of those who claim to have spiritually experienced a
meeting with a risen Christ who have radically transformed lives that correspond to that experience is the best argument from God.

I would say it is the best argument for the BELIEF in God. I am not surprised that strong belief in X can change people. But that does not encrease the plausibility of the object of the belief. Especially when people change their lives because of belief in Y, where Y is not equal X , and spiritual experiences of X occur mainly where the surrounding environment alrady believes in X.

I have never heard of anyone accepting Christ by virtue of these academic issues (especially the theoretical ones). 95% of the conversions I know of came after witnessing the transforming power of God in others lives and that would include myself among them.

The transforming power of belief in God. Or Allah, Vishnu, cosmic consciousness, homeopathy, astrology, whatever. That is all the evidence you have. The power of belief, not the power of the object of belief. But I agree that the initial trigger is seldom the product of rational analysis. Most adult converts I know, experienced very strong emotional issues. Addiction, divorce, lost of a child, cancer, etc. and they just needed a rope where none could be found. You see God, I see amazing evolutionary mechanisms at work that allow us to go through those problems via beliefs in imaginary things that give us purpose and hope.

I am not trying to convert anyone here, posters are usually people ensconced in their pre-determined world view and the best you can get is a concession to a minor premise. What I am doing is hopefully giving new Christians answers to questions that help them reconcile faith and reason. The likes I receive or occasions where I helped a fellow Christian reconcile something the world claims with something the bible claims is a win for me.

If their life changing experience is the strongest argument, why do you need to go beyond that?

His physics was that any universe that is on average expending has a finite past. That is about as simplistic as physics gets. I don't know how you got anything else out of it, unless he has a more rigorous explanation I have never felt the need to find. The modal was designed to be robust by being general.

His argument rests heavily on inflationary physics. Which entails also multiple universes.

Your making a much more emphatic dogmatic position out of what I said than what I meant.

You think so? I just said, basically, that intuition is the worst thing I can think of when it comes to "understand" things our brains have not naturally evolved for.

That was confusing. If your claiming you were born again into Jesus Christ, you still are. You have probably done what the bible calls quenching the Holy Spirit so that that quiet voice has give up speaking to one who does not listen but if you got up and headed in God's direction that voice may return. Forgive me but I always doubt these I used to be born again claims (if that was what that was) as the most illogical conclusion in theology.

Yes, I am claimining that. No, actually not. i claimed that. Now I claim I was severely delusional.

By helping you mean getting in the way. We have gotten so behind because modern science (even application science) fails to function properly we have thrown everything for technicians to theoretical scientists at our problems. I would say the programmers have contributed the most, Doctors of engineering second, and the technicians (me) third of all solutions. We barely hear from the theoretical people and their recommendations are always impractical. However they do make good teachers and interesting if fanciful documentaries.

Yet, Vilenkin's theoretical applications of general relativity and inflationary theory give results that you seem to approve. Do you think his theoretcal results are unreliable as well? If not, why not?

What do you actually do in the role of mathematician? BTW my higher math skills taught well over a decade ago have become so rusty by their non use in any practical matters as not to be suboptimal but to actually of little use in at least my practical applications. Outside wave forms, and a little circuit analysis my degree is of no use.

My main job is in the financial market. Calculating expected returns of composite products and stuff. This is the main reason I live in Switzerland. Full of banks here.

The mathematical help I provide to physicists and engineers is more like a side occupation.

I am kind of joking, I work in integration, pure mathematicians and physicists would be of use in design. But then again it's the design that has causes our hundreds and hundreds of failures so far. Agilent can't even get a $250,000 SPA to perform the same as their own older design in immolation mode. We started calling it the similarity mode.

Reminder: I would like he link I requested above please and would prefer the one to his argument not the debate.

So, the intelligent designer designed unintelligent designers?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

To: @leibowde84 , @SkepticThinker , @Monk Of Reason , @Guy Threepwood , @Shad , The site has again deleted all your recent alerts except for the latest one from @viole that I had not gotten to lately. Again I apologize as I think all posters deserve responses even if it is to end a debate or even to inform them they will be placed on my ignore list. I have again petitioned the staff for an explanation for this and await their response. In the mean time if I missed something you wished me to respond to just give me the post number in a private message and I will get to it.

Viole if your alert is not deleted as well while I am at lunch I will get to it as soon as I can.

 

[viole]

Viole if your alert is not deleted as well while I am at lunch I will get to it as soon as I can.

~ praying ~

Kidding aside. Take your time.

Ciao

- viole