religion

[G13]

Originally Posted by Whirled [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the thread title did, maybe instead of acting rude you could remember that

You claimed Jesus said to use magic

Point to scripture where he says this. Not some BS Kaballah website.

I gain nothing by even still trying to be nice & help but I did.

o wait we're in RnF ... GDIAF

Obvious troll is obvious

[Tenlaar]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Point to scripture where he says this. Not some BS Kaballah website.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Archalen]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't think you can look at how complex and finely tuned The Universe is and come to the conclusion it structured and ordered itself from Nothing or by random chance. The probabilities that our reality was built this way are just not workable mathematically.

The laws that govern the Universe did not write themselves. The obvious engineering and design behind kinds/types/body plans show an obvious creative mind behind their development. You don't see mis-happen and randomly formed life. Quite the contrary. You see life with specific functions that supports other life.

The harmony and symbiosis between plants and animals. The seasons. The self healing and self replicating functions of all life. It's too complex. Time doesn't make things more complex. Quite the contrary actually. Time = Entropy and Entropy damages and erodes genetic code. Things become more disorganized over time.

Clearly aliens didn't build the universe. Didn't write it's laws. If aliens existed they would be ruled under the same laws that govern the entire universe. Time/Space/Matter came into existence with "The Big Bang". If you look at the essence of Matter, a table for instance, 99% of what you perceive as solid matter is actually only about 1-2% Matter. Your reality is governed by how your brain is processing data and electrical signals. Think of your life as literally a virtual reality. Your body an organic machine that temporarily hosts your eternal soul in this reality. There is a creative mind that exists outside Time and Space that is behind our Reality. It's all about perception and perspective.

Time/Chance is not a creative force. Consciousness, Moral absolutes and Love are Spiritual forces and Creative forces beyond the 5 senses. Beyond the physical world. A Creator would obviously let himself be known to his creation. He would want his creations to behave in certain ways to protect them from themselves (sin). He would lead by example through actions, not words, as to what the Love of a parent really is for their children (Self Sacrifice) but at the same time He would want his children to "choose" to love Him willingly out of their own Free Will. He wouldn't create "I Love You" robots.

I firmly believe that Jesus Christ answers all of those questions perfectly. His life. His teachings. His Death and His resurrection. That's not about a religion either by the way. Religion has nothing to do with it. Mankind by his very nature is deceitful and corrupt. If you rely on mankind for Truth you are putting your "Faith" in the wrong place.

Now it's perfectly understandable if you do not share that view and there are plenty of people that believe in Intelligent Design who are not Christians. They are perfectly logical and reasonable people that see the obvious intelligence and creativity in all life. Personally I don't think anyone can be "convinced" to believe in God. Through your own journey in Life you're going to go through shit that leads you down that path, but you're never going to take that first step until you learn grace, humility and forgiveness. These are spiritual things. Intangible things, but it doesn't make them any less real.

This is the problem that Evolutionists can't deal with. They've become too comfortable in their ivory towers dictating how things are to everyone else, except all of their assertions are based upon frauds like Piltdown Man, The Peppered Moth, the bogus embryo drawing ect. When challenged they run from the debate like Leewrong or they call you retarded without offering any rebuttal.

I hope that answers your question.

I am pleasantly surprised; you responded very descriptively and non-defensively. Unfortunately, I don't think I have enough time to adequately discuss every point made here, but I will bring up some issues. I am trying to understand why "intelligent design" is a compelling explanatory theory. Firstly, if starting from scratch, I would have to tease out what is meaningful in your discussion. To do that, I would need technical notions defined with the context of your explanatory theory.

For instance, you use the word "creative" a lot. It almost sounds like "creative," the way you use it in "creative force" and "creative mind," could fit a number of specific definitions. In context, it sounded like a mere complement (I use this technical notion "complement" the way statisticians use it) to "randomness" and "time." You also mentioned that love, consciousness, and moral absolutes belong to the subset of spiritual and creative forces, but you still didn't define exactly what they mean. So far, it's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I don't understand exactly what I'm trying to believe. If you are using "creative" merely as it is defined in a dictionary, we can discuss that, but I would like a specific definition.

Also, I take issue with your understanding of entropy. This is one word you have employed which has a very meaningful technical notion. However, you used the term incorrectly. This law of thermodynamics refers to a closed system, and the earth cannot be isolated as a closed system in this context. For instance, an explanatory theory such as evolution would not violate this law, since the burning of the sun's "fuel" would represent a far greater increase in entropy than the decrease signified by evolution.

I will tell you that by employing the scientific method, we are necessarily dedicated to it's limitations. Namely, that we are merely organisms with a limited cognitive scope. However, this admission doesn't necessarily prove anything within intelligent design, and it doesn't disprove scientific theories, it is just an admission.

I absolutely agree that people who believe in intelligent design can be reasonable and logical. Einstein had a loose notion of God, and it sounded a lot like intelligent design. It is worth noting though that his revolutionary papers in 1905 were all the culmination of a mastery of interplay between mathematical formalism and physical intuition (he referred to intuition basically as the result of previous intellectual learning and experiences), and that in fact his notion that "God does not play with dice" was a big factor in his decision to reject quantum mechanics and pursue a unified field theory until his dying day, which was a dead end road. I think that is very instructive.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Archalen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am pleasantly surprised; you responded very descriptively and non-defensively. Unfortunately, I don't think I have enough time to adequately discuss every point made here, but I will bring up some issues. I am trying to understand why "intelligent design" is a compelling explanatory theory. Firstly, if starting from scratch, I would have to tease out what is meaningful in your discussion. To do that, I would need technical notions defined with the context of your explanatory theory.

For instance, you use the word "creative" a lot. It almost sounds like "creative," the way you use it in "creative force" and "creative mind," could fit a number of specific definitions. In context, it sounded like a mere complement (I use this technical notion "complement" the way statisticians use it) to "randomness" and "time." You also mentioned that love, consciousness, and moral absolutes belong to the subset of spiritual and creative forces, but you still didn't define exactly what they mean. So far, it's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I don't understand exactly what I'm trying to believe. If you are using "creative" merely as it is defined in a dictionary, we can discuss that, but I would like a specific definition.

Also, I take issue with your understanding of entropy. This is one word you have employed which has a very meaningful technical notion. However, you used the term incorrectly. This law of thermodynamics refers to a closed system, and the earth cannot be isolated as a closed system in this context. For instance, an explanatory theory such as evolution would not violate this law, since the burning of the sun's "fuel" would represent a far greater increase in entropy than the decrease signified by evolution.

I will tell you that by employing the scientific method, we are necessarily dedicated to it's limitations. Namely, that we are merely organisms with a limited cognitive scope. However, this admission doesn't necessarily prove anything within intelligent design, and it doesn't disprove scientific theories, it is just an admission.

I absolutely agree that people who believe in intelligent design can be reasonable and logical. Einstein had a loose notion of God, and it sounded a lot like intelligent design. It is worth noting though that his revolutionary papers in 1905 were all the culmination of a mastery of interplay between mathematical formalism and physical intuition (he referred to intuition basically as the result of previous intellectual learning and experiences), and that in fact his notion that "God does not play with dice" was a big factor in his decision to reject quantum mechanics and pursue a unified field theory until his dying day, which was a dead end road. I think that is very instructive.

I personally feel this way. If design is apparent in every molecule in the universe, then by necessity there has to be an intelligence behind it.

There is not one instance ever observed where design is the product of a non intelligent force. I'm not talking about speculation on the bing bang or abiogenesis, let's think beyond that. I'm saying something that has been observed by humans that does not have design.

If there is intelligence then there is a personality behind it. This to has never been observed by humans, intelligence devoid of personality.(I know that someone will use A.I. As an example but that is something created and programmed and shows the personality of the original designer/s)

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

...

"I personally feel this way. If design is apparent in every molecule in the universe, then by necessity there has to be an intelligence behind it."

If design were apparent then we wouldnt be having this conversation. "I personally feel" I am quoting these words to stress why your chain of thought is flawed.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"I personally feel this way. If design is apparent in every molecule in the universe, then by necessity there has to be an intelligence behind it."

If design were apparent then we wouldnt be having this conversation. "I personally feel" I am quoting these words to stress why your chain of thought is flawed.

Where is design not apparent?

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Where is design not apparent?

The claim lacks any substance. It is nothing more than a subjective assertion. There are good reasons why people should see design that is not there:

1. Humans anthropomorphize. We tend to attribute our humanlike qualities to all sorts of things. Since design is what humans do, we attribute it far and wide.

2. Evolution has much in common with a design process. It generates trial-and-error modifications of existing forms and discards the inferior versions. So naturally, order will arise from this process alone.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"I personally feel this way. If design is apparent in every molecule in the universe, then by necessity there has to be an intelligence behind it."

If design were apparent then we wouldnt be having this conversation. "I personally feel" I am quoting these words to stress why your chain of thought is flawed.

I feel was in the context of what I believe. And I know your semantic argument on believe and faith so whatever.

This is a logical deduction I haveade based on the evidence of the natural world around me.

Design is appera by and immutable to the natural world they even have a scientific field called: biomimetics.

You give arguments against design based upon biological evolutionary terms , natural selection, trial and error.
But those do not apply to cosmological entities. There are no stars or nebulae that had to struggle through trial and error, natural selection to reach their present form. Yet the complexity and design is apparent.

A speck of dust has approximately 3t atoms, depending on its mass. Just think about how complex atoms are.

If molecules — the main structures that are involved in chemistry — are the words from which all of the materials around us are built, then atoms are the letters, the building blocks for molecules. Just as there are words of all lengths, a typical molecule may contain a few or a hundred or even a hundred thousand atoms. A molecule of table salt (NaCl) contains two atoms, one of sodium (Na) and one of chlorine (Cl); a molecule of water (H2O) has two of hydrogen and one of oxygen; a molecule of table sugar (C12H22O11) is made from twelve atoms of carbon, eleven of oxygen and twenty-two of hydrogen in a very particular arrangement.

Very particular arrangement.

That is a non biological molecule that cannot be naturally selected by trial and error or natural pressure.

Not only do I see design in nature based on evidence, but it is highly ordered also.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

....

"I feel was in the context of what I believe. And I know your semantic argument on believe and faith so whatever."

There is that word again.

"This is a logical deduction I haveade based on the evidence of the natural world around me."

Logic deductions are not scientific. Is it logical that an atom can exist in more than one place as shown in the double slit experiment? Think of an experiment to prove creationism and conduct it. Only then will you gain foothold. It shouldnt be too hard to get some of the mega-churches in this country and around the world to fund this research.

"Design is appera by and immutable to the natural world they even have a scientific field called: biomimetics."

Yes, we study what billions of years of selection by natural forces has produced and mimic the engineering. The reason it appears designed is because nature has selected for beneficial traits and discarded the bad. I in no way see how that proves a Creator.

"There are no stars or nebulae that had to struggle through trial and error, natural selection to reach their present form."

Stars and nebulae do not struggle. They did not go through a trial and error process either. They follow the laws of nature we observe...nothing more, nothing less. I have no idea what you are trying to say here so I will leave it at that.

"A speck of dust has approximately 3t atoms, depending on its mass. Just think about how complex atoms are."

Complexity does not equate a creator. I dont know why you keep inferring this with zero evidence to support it. Oh, I know...feelings. To quote Pink Floyd "showing feelings...of an almost human nature. This will not do!"

"That is a non biological molecule that cannot be naturally selected by trial and error or natural pressure."

Molecules form different compounds naturally. Different environments and different molecules form different compounds. The system that describes that process is NOT natural selection. Natural selection has nothing to do with it.

Natural selection applies to living organisms not matter. It is a term used to describe how an environment either rewards a biological trait or squashes it. A molecule is not living and it doesnt have genetic traits therefor it would be idiotic to think natural selection applies to it.

[G13]

Originally Posted by Archalen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am pleasantly surprised; you responded very descriptively and non-defensively. Unfortunately, I don't think I have enough time to adequately discuss every point made here, but I will bring up some issues. I am trying to understand why "intelligent design" is a compelling explanatory theory. Firstly, if starting from scratch, I would have to tease out what is meaningful in your discussion. To do that, I would need technical notions defined with the context of your explanatory theory.

Thanks for the reply. You didn't come at with me with your first post claiming intellectual superiority because you believe in Evolution while at the same time calling everyone else stupid that doesn't. Appreciate it.

The Universe is actually finely tuned like a musical instrument at very specific frequencies. Scientists are now learning that this is not by accident. We're talking about the entire Universe, which in and of itself is a closed system. Everything within that closed system is governed by it's laws. Everything.

The laws that govern the Universe exist. They did not create themselves. By themselves they have no power to create life. They only explain how shit works. Not what built it. For example adding and subtracting doesn't magically put more money in your pocket. Action, desire, passion, love, hard work, ect. do. These are intangible things that cannot be measured by Science.

Just like the love of a parent for it's child is not something that can be measured by the laws that govern the universe. Our actions and choices we make in life come from somewhere within us spiritually. Intangible, but no less real. The law of gravity doesn't make you fall in love. Which is why in a spiritual sense when you examine the life, death and resurrection of Christ you start to understand God's Love for His Creation. What He was willing to go through for everyone out of Love. Self Sacrifice. That's the example given to all mankind.

Christ said it over and over again. You must be reborn in Spirit. Your body is carnal with desires of the flesh. Everyone is a miserable sinner and the wages of sin are death. Only through Christ can you learn to overcome it. Rise above it. He is the example. Love is what overcomes the Flesh. When you love Christ you understand The Father. When you understand Christ you love The Father. You choose to love The Father willingly, which is what He wants. You choose to overcome your sin and structure your life in obedience out of Love. Not fear of judgement. Once you accept Christ in your heart there is no more Fear.

If you would have told me I'd be typing that a few years ago I would have thought you were bonkers, but you haven't walked my path. Everyone has their own path. Everyone has different levels of evidence they require to have Faith which always leaves me scratching my head because Evolutionists scoff at Faith yet demand you accept their Theory as fact when it can't be tested or observed in the field (Macro Evolution/Darwinian Evolution/Origin of the Species) and the only creative/intelligent force they cite that drives it are Time and the Laws of the Universe which are just laws and measurements. So who is really demanding more Faith?

There are spiritual things that can't be measured or explained away by Materialism which is why He is hated so much. Christ represents accountability for the things you do in this world and it's understandable that a lot of people have a problem with that. I wrestled with my own sin for a looooong time (still do) and had to go through some gnarly shit, but i realize now I had to be broken down and built back up. It's still an ongoing process and it always will be for the rest of time upon Planet Earth. It's done out of Love. Not Judgement.

You can't haughtily expect this shit to just be handed to you. You have to learn humility, grace and forgiveness. Again, things that cannot be measured by Science, yet these actions still have much more influence on what shapes reality, the future and human action than the laws of the universe. I could get into dimensions at this point, but that is a whole nother can o worms.

For instance, you use the word "creative" a lot. It almost sounds like "creative," the way you use it in "creative force" and "creative mind," could fit a number of specific definitions. In context, it sounded like a mere complement (I use this technical notion "complement" the way statisticians use it) to "randomness" and "time." You also mentioned that love, consciousness, and moral absolutes belong to the subset of spiritual and creative forces, but you still didn't define exactly what they mean. So far, it's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I don't understand exactly what I'm trying to believe. If you are using "creative" merely as it is defined in a dictionary, we can discuss that, but I would like a specific definition.

Musical notes exist at specific frequencies. By themselves they don't create music. They are just frequencies. An intelligent and creative mind/force creates music. Intelligence to know the proper sequence and arrangement using mathematical calculations to place notes within polymetric time measurements and the creative force to project the feeling and emotion they want to convey. What the emotions the composer is feeling within themselves.

Depending upon what notes/tempo you use songs can be happy, sad, upbeat, fast, slow, ect. The odds a song could write itself meeting any of these requirements from absolutely nothing are zero. The most plausible explanation using probabilities should be enough evidence for the layman to know an intelligent and creative mind produced that music and there was deep emotional feelings like love that powered it.

This is why I gave the example previously. If you were fly to some planet and discover a complex language and code never before discovered would it be logical to conclude that

A) An intelligence created it?

B) It came about from Nothing?

DNA is the language of Life. It's in everything around us. In all of Creation. Time didn't write it. Time is just Time. It isn't intelligence. It isn't creative. It's just a measurement.

You don't need an explanation of the explanation of the explanation (infinity) to know there was an intelligence behind the design. The same can be said of your phone. Your car. Your house. Take the Iphone for instance. Was Steve Jobs an intelligent robot or did he have passion and love for his creation? He also needed Matter to put it all together. This is the major problem I have with Evolutionists. They provide false choices and a false premise for the creation of the Universe. It's either Science or God when in reality the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Newton himself was trying to understand God. Not disprove his existence.

Also, I take issue with your understanding of entropy. This is one word you have employed which has a very meaningful technical notion. However, you used the term incorrectly. This law of thermodynamics refers to a closed system, and the earth cannot be isolated as a closed system in this context. For instance, an explanatory theory such as evolution would not violate this law, since the burning of the sun's "fuel" would represent a far greater increase in entropy than the decrease signified by evolution.

I've already touched upon this within this very thread. The sun is extremely random and destructive. If you leave something unprotected out in the sun it actually increases entropy. Roofs on cars, houses. Skin wrinkles faster ect. If my use of entropy bothers you than just call it the Law of Increasing Randomness. Our galaxy also is a part of the universe and cannot escape it's laws on a technicality, especially in light of the fact that the 2nd law was tested and proven on our own planet, sun and all.

I will tell you that by employing the scientific method, we are necessarily dedicated to it's limitations. Namely, that we are merely organisms with a limited cognitive scope. However, this admission doesn't necessarily prove anything within intelligent design, and it doesn't disprove scientific theories, it is just an admission.

How can something that has been created ever truly know and understand the intelligence and creativity of what created it? I truly believe with the emergence of Information Theory, we are only beginning to scratch the surface. As we get deeper and deeper into cells and witness the absolutely incredible and breathtaking design and creativity, you really can only marvel at it's perfection. But then again, could you expect anything less?

I absolutely agree that people who believe in intelligent design can be reasonable and logical. Einstein had a loose notion of God, and it sounded a lot like intelligent design. It is worth noting though that his revolutionary papers in 1905 were all the culmination of a mastery of interplay between mathematical formalism and physical intuition (he referred to intuition basically as the result of previous intellectual learning and experiences), and that in fact his notion that "God does not play with dice" was a big factor in his decision to reject quantum mechanics and pursue a unified field theory until his dying day, which was a dead end road. I think that is very instructive.

Einstein actually used very strong words to denounce Atheists who tried to use him to disprove God. He made it very clear he was not an Atheist. Anyways, thanks for the discussion. I hope we can find some common ground. I gotz to go to workz.