BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

I'd bet the odds would be enormously smaller, but regardless - if you happen to see confetti on the ground in the colors and pattern of the American flag, would the better inference be that it was dropped out of a plane and landed that way, or that someone made it that way?

---

You are arguing with people that believe in God. You are arguing over minutia of whether it was 6-24 hour days vs whether God used more time and other means to achieve the same goal. The point is both believe there is a God that created the Universe.

My point is ID is not needed and is a watered down unproveable concept that is trying desperately to apply measures to what can't be measured. It is a fool's errand.

There is no question that something created the Universe, I believe it to be God. Those that don't believe in a God and worship purely science do not and will not believe your arguments have merit. If you are looking for that "ah-ha" moment where they say you are right and they were wrong all this time, not happening... So why beat up on those that believe basically the same thing, just different details?

---

It is so strange how a simple question gets you bent out of shape. It's also strange how you, a professed believer that God created everything, refuse to answer a simple question that qualifies a logic that supports that which you believe. It's odd, something just doesn't sit right, your aversion to it.

Whether God created everything in 6 days, or he took eons to do it - either way, the fingerprints of design will be evident. ID is a reasoned, logical, and evidence based approach to demonstrate that design is the best inference from the data. You are WAY too caught up with whether you think it is a "science" or if it's provable or not (even after you were silent when asked if Darwinian evolution or even physics itself meet your requirement of "provable") - the relevant question is: is it true? And can logic, reason, and even science, point that way? Many, many scientists believe ID does that, and many more are starting to. In a world where too many people are being misled into thinking that science debunks creation, ID shows that actually the science supports it. To think that it is unimportant is foolish.

And btw - if I don't have that "ah-ha" moment, why is it that people, including yourself, won't answer the question?

---

What question?? You are trying to say that Philosophy is science. The hypothesis of ID is that the universe and its complex life forms cannot be explained solely by natural causes, and thus the best explanation is that an intelligent higher power contributed to the origins of the universe.

That is a believe, a thought, a philosophy - not science. If the determination between science or not means nothing, admit ID is a philosophy...

There is NO WAY to prove if it is true or not. It is a belief. What I believe is irrelevant to whether or not it is science. There is no way to measure it. Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God. That is intellectually lazy and in my opinion contrary to why God equipped us to methodologically study natural phenonium, not just say its God.

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

Speaking of chances and thought experiments, given the gestation and reproductive limitations of advanced mammals, including the time it takes to become capable of reproduction, and the necessity of an independent gene pool large enough for trait and heredity refinement and survival, the time math is pretty suspect around human evolution. We're talking thousands not millions of chances to bring about significant DNA transformation.

---

Yep, the waiting time problem for human evolution is a major hurdle for the naturalistic, undirected evolution view. Two evolutionary biologists worked out the time it would take for a single beneficial, stable mutation to take over a human population of 10,000. Assuming that the mutation gives a 1% increase in reproductive advantage (which is average) they calculated that it would take 15 million years. And there's only 6 million years between our common ancestor with the chimp, and homo sapiens. And that's just ONE mutation.

The problem is worse for whales. According to evolutionary theory, modern whales evolved from a 4 legged land mammal over an estimated 9 million years. They calculated that for a single pair of "coordinated mutations" (a requirement for macro-evolution) to appear, it would take 100 million years! And that's just for one pair of coordinated mutations. It would likely take thousands to achieve the morphological changes needed to become a whale.

Of course, there's gonna be those who challenge the model that these scientists used, but in the least, this demonstrates the incredible unlikelihood that such major phylogenetic change could occur in such a relatively short amount of evolutionary time through darwinism. It also serves as an example how science and scientific reasoning are very much involved in formulating the ID view, and how ID draws from the knowledge obtained from science rather than compete against it, despite those who wish to think that "science must fail in order for ID to succeed."

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

I'd bet the odds would be enormously smaller, but regardless - if you happen to see confetti on the ground in the colors and pattern of the American flag, would the better inference be that it was dropped out of a plane and landed that way, or that someone made it that way?

---

You are arguing with people that believe in God. You are arguing over minutia of whether it was 6-24 hour days vs whether God used more time and other means to achieve the same goal. The point is both believe there is a God that created the Universe.

My point is ID is not needed and is a watered down unproveable concept that is trying desperately to apply measures to what can't be measured. It is a fool's errand.

There is no question that something created the Universe, I believe it to be God. Those that don't believe in a God and worship purely science do not and will not believe your arguments have merit. If you are looking for that "ah-ha" moment where they say you are right and they were wrong all this time, not happening... So why beat up on those that believe basically the same thing, just different details?

---

It is so strange how a simple question gets you bent out of shape. It's also strange how you, a professed believer that God created everything, refuse to answer a simple question that qualifies a logic that supports that which you believe. It's odd, something just doesn't sit right, your aversion to it.

Whether God created everything in 6 days, or he took eons to do it - either way, the fingerprints of design will be evident. ID is a reasoned, logical, and evidence based approach to demonstrate that design is the best inference from the data. You are WAY too caught up with whether you think it is a "science" or if it's provable or not (even after you were silent when asked if Darwinian evolution or even physics itself meet your requirement of "provable") - the relevant question is: is it true? And can logic, reason, and even science, point that way? Many, many scientists believe ID does that, and many more are starting to. In a world where too many people are being misled into thinking that science debunks creation, ID shows that actually the science supports it. To think that it is unimportant is foolish.

And btw - if I don't have that "ah-ha" moment, why is it that people, including yourself, won't answer the question?

---

What question?? You are trying to say that Philosophy is science. The hypothesis of ID is that the universe and its complex life forms cannot be explained solely by natural causes, and thus the best explanation is that an intelligent higher power contributed to the origins of the universe.

That is a believe, a thought, a philosophy - not science. If the determination between science or not means nothing, admit ID is a philosophy...

There is NO WAY to prove if it is true or not. It is a belief. What I believe is irrelevant to whether or not it is science. There is no way to measure it. Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God. That is intellectually lazy and in my opinion contrary to why God equipped us to methodologically study natural phenonium, not just say its God.

---

"What question"? The question in the post you responded to, not to mention all the other questions from previous posts.

"Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God." - your continued mischaracterization of ID either means you just don't grasp it, or you're the one who is intellectually lazy.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

I'd bet the odds would be enormously smaller, but regardless - if you happen to see confetti on the ground in the colors and pattern of the American flag, would the better inference be that it was dropped out of a plane and landed that way, or that someone made it that way?

---

You are arguing with people that believe in God. You are arguing over minutia of whether it was 6-24 hour days vs whether God used more time and other means to achieve the same goal. The point is both believe there is a God that created the Universe.

My point is ID is not needed and is a watered down unproveable concept that is trying desperately to apply measures to what can't be measured. It is a fool's errand.

There is no question that something created the Universe, I believe it to be God. Those that don't believe in a God and worship purely science do not and will not believe your arguments have merit. If you are looking for that "ah-ha" moment where they say you are right and they were wrong all this time, not happening... So why beat up on those that believe basically the same thing, just different details?

---

It is so strange how a simple question gets you bent out of shape. It's also strange how you, a professed believer that God created everything, refuse to answer a simple question that qualifies a logic that supports that which you believe. It's odd, something just doesn't sit right, your aversion to it.

Whether God created everything in 6 days, or he took eons to do it - either way, the fingerprints of design will be evident. ID is a reasoned, logical, and evidence based approach to demonstrate that design is the best inference from the data. You are WAY too caught up with whether you think it is a "science" or if it's provable or not (even after you were silent when asked if Darwinian evolution or even physics itself meet your requirement of "provable") - the relevant question is: is it true? And can logic, reason, and even science, point that way? Many, many scientists believe ID does that, and many more are starting to. In a world where too many people are being misled into thinking that science debunks creation, ID shows that actually the science supports it. To think that it is unimportant is foolish.

And btw - if I don't have that "ah-ha" moment, why is it that people, including yourself, won't answer the question?

---

What question?? You are trying to say that Philosophy is science. The hypothesis of ID is that the universe and its complex life forms cannot be explained solely by natural causes, and thus the best explanation is that an intelligent higher power contributed to the origins of the universe.

That is a believe, a thought, a philosophy - not science. If the determination between science or not means nothing, admit ID is a philosophy...

There is NO WAY to prove if it is true or not. It is a belief. What I believe is irrelevant to whether or not it is science. There is no way to measure it. Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God. That is intellectually lazy and in my opinion contrary to why God equipped us to methodologically study natural phenonium, not just say its God.

---

"What question"? The question in the post you responded to, not to mention all the other questions from previous posts.

"Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God." - your continued mischaracterization of ID either means you just don't grasp it, or you're the one who is intellectually lazy.

---

I am not alone in my view of ID. I really don't see your desperate need to have the philosophy of ID labeled a science. Grant application? Research Funding? Use of public science funds for the study of Philosophy?

Why the need to have something that admits it can't be proven, tested, or even measured deemed a science? It belongs in the Social Sciences, like Political Science, Economics, etc.

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

I'd bet the odds would be enormously smaller, but regardless - if you happen to see confetti on the ground in the colors and pattern of the American flag, would the better inference be that it was dropped out of a plane and landed that way, or that someone made it that way?

---

You are arguing with people that believe in God. You are arguing over minutia of whether it was 6-24 hour days vs whether God used more time and other means to achieve the same goal. The point is both believe there is a God that created the Universe.

My point is ID is not needed and is a watered down unproveable concept that is trying desperately to apply measures to what can't be measured. It is a fool's errand.

There is no question that something created the Universe, I believe it to be God. Those that don't believe in a God and worship purely science do not and will not believe your arguments have merit. If you are looking for that "ah-ha" moment where they say you are right and they were wrong all this time, not happening... So why beat up on those that believe basically the same thing, just different details?

---

It is so strange how a simple question gets you bent out of shape. It's also strange how you, a professed believer that God created everything, refuse to answer a simple question that qualifies a logic that supports that which you believe. It's odd, something just doesn't sit right, your aversion to it.

Whether God created everything in 6 days, or he took eons to do it - either way, the fingerprints of design will be evident. ID is a reasoned, logical, and evidence based approach to demonstrate that design is the best inference from the data. You are WAY too caught up with whether you think it is a "science" or if it's provable or not (even after you were silent when asked if Darwinian evolution or even physics itself meet your requirement of "provable") - the relevant question is: is it true? And can logic, reason, and even science, point that way? Many, many scientists believe ID does that, and many more are starting to. In a world where too many people are being misled into thinking that science debunks creation, ID shows that actually the science supports it. To think that it is unimportant is foolish.

And btw - if I don't have that "ah-ha" moment, why is it that people, including yourself, won't answer the question?

---

What question?? You are trying to say that Philosophy is science. The hypothesis of ID is that the universe and its complex life forms cannot be explained solely by natural causes, and thus the best explanation is that an intelligent higher power contributed to the origins of the universe.

That is a believe, a thought, a philosophy - not science. If the determination between science or not means nothing, admit ID is a philosophy...

There is NO WAY to prove if it is true or not. It is a belief. What I believe is irrelevant to whether or not it is science. There is no way to measure it. Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God. That is intellectually lazy and in my opinion contrary to why God equipped us to methodologically study natural phenonium, not just say its God.

---

"What question"? The question in the post you responded to, not to mention all the other questions from previous posts.

"Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God." - your continued mischaracterization of ID either means you just don't grasp it, or you're the one who is intellectually lazy.

---

I am not alone in my view of ID. I really don't see your desperate need to have the philosophy of ID labeled a science. Grant application? Research Funding? Use of public science funds for the study of Philosophy?

Why the need to have something that admits it can't be proven, tested, or even measured deemed a science? It belongs in the Social Sciences, like Political Science, Economics, etc.

---

Still no answer? Odd.

And how about answering whether you consider Darwinian evolution to be scientific? Or physics?

TexasScientist said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

26 years ago, my daughter was born 10 weeks early and weighed 2.6 lbs. She is perfectly healthy. Next week she will give birth to her own baby.

---

I'm glad your daughter survived premature birth. Be thankful she was born in a time where medical technology, and skilled professionals could pull her through. In my own family we had a baby girl born at 22 weeks only to live two days at Presbyterian, and another immediate family member who's infant died at 6 months old, after spending 4 months in Children's Hospital. I can promise you they had as many prayers and pleas for their wellbeing as your daughter. Medical technology can't always pull someone through. There is no evidence that there is any supernatural power at play arbitrarily deciding who lives and who dies. I'm glad for you, your daughter, and the opportunity you have to know her children.

---

I am truly sorry for your losses. I cannot imagine any pain worse than losing a child.

The night before my daughter was born, my wife came running out of HEB with blood running down both legs. She had something that was called a placental abruption. I raced to the hospital in a driving rain. Both survived and thrived. I truly believe God was watching over us.

---

I understand how grateful you are for how things turned out, and I'm so glad for you and your family. But I have to ask three questions; why do you think God chose to watch over you, and chose not to watch over me and my wife, or chooses not to watch over someone else? Do you think you would have had the same outcome, if you had just gone home trusting God to watch over you? What did God do that doctors did not do?

---

I consider myself and my family to be blessed. I cannot tell you why God intervened and saved my family. I cannot explain. There are an abundance of people on this earth that are more worthy and deserving of His grace than me.

This is the reason we do not see ghosts. If we did, we would have proof of the afterlife. We would know. Christianity and believing in God requires and is all about faith.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

I'd bet the odds would be enormously smaller, but regardless - if you happen to see confetti on the ground in the colors and pattern of the American flag, would the better inference be that it was dropped out of a plane and landed that way, or that someone made it that way?

---

You are arguing with people that believe in God. You are arguing over minutia of whether it was 6-24 hour days vs whether God used more time and other means to achieve the same goal. The point is both believe there is a God that created the Universe.

My point is ID is not needed and is a watered down unproveable concept that is trying desperately to apply measures to what can't be measured. It is a fool's errand.

There is no question that something created the Universe, I believe it to be God. Those that don't believe in a God and worship purely science do not and will not believe your arguments have merit. If you are looking for that "ah-ha" moment where they say you are right and they were wrong all this time, not happening... So why beat up on those that believe basically the same thing, just different details?

---

It is so strange how a simple question gets you bent out of shape. It's also strange how you, a professed believer that God created everything, refuse to answer a simple question that qualifies a logic that supports that which you believe. It's odd, something just doesn't sit right, your aversion to it.

Whether God created everything in 6 days, or he took eons to do it - either way, the fingerprints of design will be evident. ID is a reasoned, logical, and evidence based approach to demonstrate that design is the best inference from the data. You are WAY too caught up with whether you think it is a "science" or if it's provable or not (even after you were silent when asked if Darwinian evolution or even physics itself meet your requirement of "provable") - the relevant question is: is it true? And can logic, reason, and even science, point that way? Many, many scientists believe ID does that, and many more are starting to. In a world where too many people are being misled into thinking that science debunks creation, ID shows that actually the science supports it. To think that it is unimportant is foolish.

And btw - if I don't have that "ah-ha" moment, why is it that people, including yourself, won't answer the question?

---

What question?? You are trying to say that Philosophy is science. The hypothesis of ID is that the universe and its complex life forms cannot be explained solely by natural causes, and thus the best explanation is that an intelligent higher power contributed to the origins of the universe.

That is a believe, a thought, a philosophy - not science. If the determination between science or not means nothing, admit ID is a philosophy...

There is NO WAY to prove if it is true or not. It is a belief. What I believe is irrelevant to whether or not it is science. There is no way to measure it. Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God. That is intellectually lazy and in my opinion contrary to why God equipped us to methodologically study natural phenonium, not just say its God.

---

"What question"? The question in the post you responded to, not to mention all the other questions from previous posts.

"Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God." - your continued mischaracterization of ID either means you just don't grasp it, or you're the one who is intellectually lazy.

---

I am not alone in my view of ID. I really don't see your desperate need to have the philosophy of ID labeled a science. Grant application? Research Funding? Use of public science funds for the study of Philosophy?

Why the need to have something that admits it can't be proven, tested, or even measured deemed a science? It belongs in the Social Sciences, like Political Science, Economics, etc.

---

Still no answer? Odd.

And how about answering whether you consider Darwinian evolution to be scientific? Or physics?

---

What question am I avoiding. ID is not science. Pretty clear.

Physics is discipline of science that has laws that are measurable, consistent and it can be proven. If you are saying that ID is like Physics because there are unprvable givens,? Wow, you really do have it bad.

Evolution is a theory, which all indications is true, as we can look at fossil records, frozen and otherwise, we can test it. We can see evolutionary changes brought on by conditions over time.

Chemistry is a science, too. Fairies are a myth. ID is a belief. Clear enough? What question am I avoiding?

No one is saying don't believe in God, I do. Just don't say that not being able to prove he exists or show ID is as scientific as Physics. Or the theory is as well developed and accepted as Evolution.

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

I'd bet the odds would be enormously smaller, but regardless - if you happen to see confetti on the ground in the colors and pattern of the American flag, would the better inference be that it was dropped out of a plane and landed that way, or that someone made it that way?

---

You are arguing with people that believe in God. You are arguing over minutia of whether it was 6-24 hour days vs whether God used more time and other means to achieve the same goal. The point is both believe there is a God that created the Universe.

My point is ID is not needed and is a watered down unproveable concept that is trying desperately to apply measures to what can't be measured. It is a fool's errand.

There is no question that something created the Universe, I believe it to be God. Those that don't believe in a God and worship purely science do not and will not believe your arguments have merit. If you are looking for that "ah-ha" moment where they say you are right and they were wrong all this time, not happening... So why beat up on those that believe basically the same thing, just different details?

---

It is so strange how a simple question gets you bent out of shape. It's also strange how you, a professed believer that God created everything, refuse to answer a simple question that qualifies a logic that supports that which you believe. It's odd, something just doesn't sit right, your aversion to it.

Whether God created everything in 6 days, or he took eons to do it - either way, the fingerprints of design will be evident. ID is a reasoned, logical, and evidence based approach to demonstrate that design is the best inference from the data. You are WAY too caught up with whether you think it is a "science" or if it's provable or not (even after you were silent when asked if Darwinian evolution or even physics itself meet your requirement of "provable") - the relevant question is: is it true? And can logic, reason, and even science, point that way? Many, many scientists believe ID does that, and many more are starting to. In a world where too many people are being misled into thinking that science debunks creation, ID shows that actually the science supports it. To think that it is unimportant is foolish.

And btw - if I don't have that "ah-ha" moment, why is it that people, including yourself, won't answer the question?

---

What question?? You are trying to say that Philosophy is science. The hypothesis of ID is that the universe and its complex life forms cannot be explained solely by natural causes, and thus the best explanation is that an intelligent higher power contributed to the origins of the universe.

That is a believe, a thought, a philosophy - not science. If the determination between science or not means nothing, admit ID is a philosophy...

There is NO WAY to prove if it is true or not. It is a belief. What I believe is irrelevant to whether or not it is science. There is no way to measure it. Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God. That is intellectually lazy and in my opinion contrary to why God equipped us to methodologically study natural phenonium, not just say its God.

---

"What question"? The question in the post you responded to, not to mention all the other questions from previous posts.

"Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God." - your continued mischaracterization of ID either means you just don't grasp it, or you're the one who is intellectually lazy.

---

I am not alone in my view of ID. I really don't see your desperate need to have the philosophy of ID labeled a science. Grant application? Research Funding? Use of public science funds for the study of Philosophy?

Why the need to have something that admits it can't be proven, tested, or even measured deemed a science? It belongs in the Social Sciences, like Political Science, Economics, etc.

---

Still no answer? Odd.

And how about answering whether you consider Darwinian evolution to be scientific? Or physics?

---

What question am I avoiding. ID is not science. Pretty clear.

Physics is discipline of science that has laws that are measurable, consistent and it can be proven. If you are saying that ID is like Physics because there are unprvable givens,? Wow, you really do have it bad.

Evolution is a theory, which all indications is true, as we can look at fossil records, frozen and otherwise, we can test it. We can see evolutionary changes brought on by conditions over time.

Chemistry is a science, too. Fairies are a myth. ID is a belief. Clear enough? What question am I avoiding?

No one is saying don't believe in God, I do. Just don't say that not being able to prove he exists or show ID is as scientific as Physics. Or the theory is as well developed and accepted as Evolution.

---

"What question am I avoiding?" - Have you heard the concept of going back and reading the comment you responded to? Sheesh.

If you can't prove the speed of light constant, how can you call using it scientific? Why aren't you applying the same critique that you do ID?

Do you understand that Darwinian evolution cannot be proven? That the fossil record does not prove Darwinian evolution? That the fossil record actually supports the refutation of Darwinian evolution as the explanation for the origin of animal kinds, as even Darwin himself admitted? Given this, do you say that it's scientific? If you do, do you realize that ID is the same kind of argument?

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

I'd bet the odds would be enormously smaller, but regardless - if you happen to see confetti on the ground in the colors and pattern of the American flag, would the better inference be that it was dropped out of a plane and landed that way, or that someone made it that way?

---

You are arguing with people that believe in God.

---

How is it arguing with people that believe in God if I'm saying there is logical and scientific evidence that supports their belief?

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

I'd bet the odds would be enormously smaller, but regardless - if you happen to see confetti on the ground in the colors and pattern of the American flag, would the better inference be that it was dropped out of a plane and landed that way, or that someone made it that way?

---

You are arguing with people that believe in God. You are arguing over minutia of whether it was 6-24 hour days vs whether God used more time and other means to achieve the same goal. The point is both believe there is a God that created the Universe.

My point is ID is not needed and is a watered down unproveable concept that is trying desperately to apply measures to what can't be measured. It is a fool's errand.

There is no question that something created the Universe, I believe it to be God. Those that don't believe in a God and worship purely science do not and will not believe your arguments have merit. If you are looking for that "ah-ha" moment where they say you are right and they were wrong all this time, not happening... So why beat up on those that believe basically the same thing, just different details?

---

It is so strange how a simple question gets you bent out of shape. It's also strange how you, a professed believer that God created everything, refuse to answer a simple question that qualifies a logic that supports that which you believe. It's odd, something just doesn't sit right, your aversion to it.

Whether God created everything in 6 days, or he took eons to do it - either way, the fingerprints of design will be evident. ID is a reasoned, logical, and evidence based approach to demonstrate that design is the best inference from the data. You are WAY too caught up with whether you think it is a "science" or if it's provable or not (even after you were silent when asked if Darwinian evolution or even physics itself meet your requirement of "provable") - the relevant question is: is it true? And can logic, reason, and even science, point that way? Many, many scientists believe ID does that, and many more are starting to. In a world where too many people are being misled into thinking that science debunks creation, ID shows that actually the science supports it. To think that it is unimportant is foolish.

And btw - if I don't have that "ah-ha" moment, why is it that people, including yourself, won't answer the question?

---

What question?? You are trying to say that Philosophy is science. The hypothesis of ID is that the universe and its complex life forms cannot be explained solely by natural causes, and thus the best explanation is that an intelligent higher power contributed to the origins of the universe.

That is a believe, a thought, a philosophy - not science. If the determination between science or not means nothing, admit ID is a philosophy...

There is NO WAY to prove if it is true or not. It is a belief. What I believe is irrelevant to whether or not it is science. There is no way to measure it. Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God. That is intellectually lazy and in my opinion contrary to why God equipped us to methodologically study natural phenonium, not just say its God.

---

"What question"? The question in the post you responded to, not to mention all the other questions from previous posts.

"Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God." - your continued mischaracterization of ID either means you just don't grasp it, or you're the one who is intellectually lazy.

---

I am not alone in my view of ID. I really don't see your desperate need to have the philosophy of ID labeled a science. Grant application? Research Funding? Use of public science funds for the study of Philosophy?

Why the need to have something that admits it can't be proven, tested, or even measured deemed a science? It belongs in the Social Sciences, like Political Science, Economics, etc.

---

Still no answer? Odd.

And how about answering whether you consider Darwinian evolution to be scientific? Or physics?

---

What question am I avoiding. ID is not science. Pretty clear.

---

Apparently not so clear to many elite scientists, like a Nobel Prize winning physicist:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science." - Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

I'd like to reiterate how odd it is that the biggest opponent here to the idea that there may be logical and scientific evidence for the belief that God created everything, is someone who claims they believe God created everything.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'd like to reiterate how odd it is that the biggest opponent here to the idea that there may be logical and scientific evidence for the belief that God created everything, is someone who claims they believe God created everything.

---

No, I am not the biggest opponent. I am answering direct posts. I don't see the need for it and see it as a middle of the road answer to the materialist. There is a difference between believing in a God outside of the Natural World he created and saying ID is a science just because I believe in God. I don't need the reconciliation, I don't see a conflict between God, the Bible and science. Some of the more literalist appear to need this bridge and created it. Before this string, I really don't think much about or of ID.

But, I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion. This has been better than most. Believe it or not, I respect his position.

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

I'd bet the odds would be enormously smaller, but regardless - if you happen to see confetti on the ground in the colors and pattern of the American flag, would the better inference be that it was dropped out of a plane and landed that way, or that someone made it that way?

---

You are arguing with people that believe in God. You are arguing over minutia of whether it was 6-24 hour days vs whether God used more time and other means to achieve the same goal. The point is both believe there is a God that created the Universe.

My point is ID is not needed and is a watered down unproveable concept that is trying desperately to apply measures to what can't be measured. It is a fool's errand.

There is no question that something created the Universe, I believe it to be God. Those that don't believe in a God and worship purely science do not and will not believe your arguments have merit. If you are looking for that "ah-ha" moment where they say you are right and they were wrong all this time, not happening... So why beat up on those that believe basically the same thing, just different details?

---

It is so strange how a simple question gets you bent out of shape. It's also strange how you, a professed believer that God created everything, refuse to answer a simple question that qualifies a logic that supports that which you believe. It's odd, something just doesn't sit right, your aversion to it.

Whether God created everything in 6 days, or he took eons to do it - either way, the fingerprints of design will be evident. ID is a reasoned, logical, and evidence based approach to demonstrate that design is the best inference from the data. You are WAY too caught up with whether you think it is a "science" or if it's provable or not (even after you were silent when asked if Darwinian evolution or even physics itself meet your requirement of "provable") - the relevant question is: is it true? And can logic, reason, and even science, point that way? Many, many scientists believe ID does that, and many more are starting to. In a world where too many people are being misled into thinking that science debunks creation, ID shows that actually the science supports it. To think that it is unimportant is foolish.

And btw - if I don't have that "ah-ha" moment, why is it that people, including yourself, won't answer the question?

---

What question?? You are trying to say that Philosophy is science. The hypothesis of ID is that the universe and its complex life forms cannot be explained solely by natural causes, and thus the best explanation is that an intelligent higher power contributed to the origins of the universe.

That is a believe, a thought, a philosophy - not science. If the determination between science or not means nothing, admit ID is a philosophy...

There is NO WAY to prove if it is true or not. It is a belief. What I believe is irrelevant to whether or not it is science. There is no way to measure it. Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God. That is intellectually lazy and in my opinion contrary to why God equipped us to methodologically study natural phenonium, not just say its God.

---

"What question"? The question in the post you responded to, not to mention all the other questions from previous posts.

"Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God." - your continued mischaracterization of ID either means you just don't grasp it, or you're the one who is intellectually lazy.

---

I am not alone in my view of ID. I really don't see your desperate need to have the philosophy of ID labeled a science. Grant application? Research Funding? Use of public science funds for the study of Philosophy?

Why the need to have something that admits it can't be proven, tested, or even measured deemed a science? It belongs in the Social Sciences, like Political Science, Economics, etc.

---

Still no answer? Odd.

And how about answering whether you consider Darwinian evolution to be scientific? Or physics?

---

What question am I avoiding. ID is not science. Pretty clear.

Physics is discipline of science that has laws that are measurable, consistent and it can be proven. If you are saying that ID is like Physics because there are unprvable givens,? Wow, you really do have it bad.

Evolution is a theory, which all indications is true, as we can look at fossil records, frozen and otherwise, we can test it. We can see evolutionary changes brought on by conditions over time.

Chemistry is a science, too. Fairies are a myth. ID is a belief. Clear enough? What question am I avoiding?

No one is saying don't believe in God, I do. Just don't say that not being able to prove he exists or show ID is as scientific as Physics. Or the theory is as well developed and accepted as Evolution.

---

"Science" is also a "belief."

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

I'd bet the odds would be enormously smaller, but regardless - if you happen to see confetti on the ground in the colors and pattern of the American flag, would the better inference be that it was dropped out of a plane and landed that way, or that someone made it that way?

---

You are arguing with people that believe in God. You are arguing over minutia of whether it was 6-24 hour days vs whether God used more time and other means to achieve the same goal. The point is both believe there is a God that created the Universe.

My point is ID is not needed and is a watered down unproveable concept that is trying desperately to apply measures to what can't be measured. It is a fool's errand.

There is no question that something created the Universe, I believe it to be God. Those that don't believe in a God and worship purely science do not and will not believe your arguments have merit. If you are looking for that "ah-ha" moment where they say you are right and they were wrong all this time, not happening... So why beat up on those that believe basically the same thing, just different details?

---

It is so strange how a simple question gets you bent out of shape. It's also strange how you, a professed believer that God created everything, refuse to answer a simple question that qualifies a logic that supports that which you believe. It's odd, something just doesn't sit right, your aversion to it.

Whether God created everything in 6 days, or he took eons to do it - either way, the fingerprints of design will be evident. ID is a reasoned, logical, and evidence based approach to demonstrate that design is the best inference from the data. You are WAY too caught up with whether you think it is a "science" or if it's provable or not (even after you were silent when asked if Darwinian evolution or even physics itself meet your requirement of "provable") - the relevant question is: is it true? And can logic, reason, and even science, point that way? Many, many scientists believe ID does that, and many more are starting to. In a world where too many people are being misled into thinking that science debunks creation, ID shows that actually the science supports it. To think that it is unimportant is foolish.

And btw - if I don't have that "ah-ha" moment, why is it that people, including yourself, won't answer the question?

---

What question?? You are trying to say that Philosophy is science. The hypothesis of ID is that the universe and its complex life forms cannot be explained solely by natural causes, and thus the best explanation is that an intelligent higher power contributed to the origins of the universe.

That is a believe, a thought, a philosophy - not science. If the determination between science or not means nothing, admit ID is a philosophy...

There is NO WAY to prove if it is true or not. It is a belief. What I believe is irrelevant to whether or not it is science. There is no way to measure it. Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God. That is intellectually lazy and in my opinion contrary to why God equipped us to methodologically study natural phenonium, not just say its God.

---

"What question"? The question in the post you responded to, not to mention all the other questions from previous posts.

"Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God." - your continued mischaracterization of ID either means you just don't grasp it, or you're the one who is intellectually lazy.

---

I am not alone in my view of ID. I really don't see your desperate need to have the philosophy of ID labeled a science. Grant application? Research Funding? Use of public science funds for the study of Philosophy?

Why the need to have something that admits it can't be proven, tested, or even measured deemed a science? It belongs in the Social Sciences, like Political Science, Economics, etc.

---

Still no answer? Odd.

And how about answering whether you consider Darwinian evolution to be scientific? Or physics?

---

What question am I avoiding. ID is not science. Pretty clear.

Physics is discipline of science that has laws that are measurable, consistent and it can be proven. If you are saying that ID is like Physics because there are unprvable givens,? Wow, you really do have it bad.

Evolution is a theory, which all indications is true, as we can look at fossil records, frozen and otherwise, we can test it. We can see evolutionary changes brought on by conditions over time.

Chemistry is a science, too. Fairies are a myth. ID is a belief. Clear enough? What question am I avoiding?

No one is saying don't believe in God, I do. Just don't say that not being able to prove he exists or show ID is as scientific as Physics. Or the theory is as well developed and accepted as Evolution.

---

"Science" is also a "belief."

---

Very good point. Let's face it, everything is based on faith. Faith in what you believe and are willing to believe. We all have faith in something, that thing that drives everything else. You have to have faith that 2 plus 2 is 4. Just as much as if there is a God. That is why I respect his opinion and right to believe in ID, even though I do not agree with him about its status as a science. But at the end of the day, it is all a leap of faith that it is true.

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'd like to reiterate how odd it is that the biggest opponent here to the idea that there may be logical and scientific evidence for the belief that God created everything, is someone who claims they believe God created everything.

---

No, I am not the biggest opponent. I am answering direct posts. I don't see the need for it and see it as a middle of the road answer to the materialist. There is a difference between believing in a God outside of the Natural World he created and saying ID is a science just because I believe in God. I don't need the reconciliation, I don't see a conflict between God, the Bible and science. Some of the more literalist appear to need this bridge and created it. Before this string, I really don't think much about or of ID.

But, I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion. This has been better than most. Believe it or not, I respect his position.

---

Good lord, no one is saying "ID is science just because I believe in God". You continually make strawmen. It's like you are ignoring everything that's being said and just paying attention to your own thoughts. "I think ID is this, and this is why I think that is not a science, or unnecessary, etc.." You really aren't contributing anything relevant here.

Your argument about ID not being a "science" is just a pointless semantic one. What your personal conception of what "science" is, isn't relevant. Scientists don't even agree on what "science" means. What really matters with ID is - is it true? And are there logical, mathematical, and scientific approaches to the answer? I asked several questions in order to try and illustrate this, but they went answered after several attempts. I'll ask for the 4TH time: if someone won 1000 hands of poker in a row, is it legit, or is he cheating? If you see a house made from a deck of cards, did it fall into that shape, or did someone make it? If you saw red, white, and blue confetti on the ground in the pattern of the American flag, did it drop from a plane and land in that pattern, or did someone make it that way?

And regarding your view of what a "science" is, I asked a question that also went unanswered a few times, so I'll ask it one more time: do you consider the view that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what we see in the fossil record a scientific view, or not?

If you ignore these questions for the 4th time, I'm going to consider it a concession.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'd like to reiterate how odd it is that the biggest opponent here to the idea that there may be logical and scientific evidence for the belief that God created everything, is someone who claims they believe God created everything.

---

No, I am not the biggest opponent. I am answering direct posts. I don't see the need for it and see it as a middle of the road answer to the materialist. There is a difference between believing in a God outside of the Natural World he created and saying ID is a science just because I believe in God. I don't need the reconciliation, I don't see a conflict between God, the Bible and science. Some of the more literalist appear to need this bridge and created it. Before this string, I really don't think much about or of ID.

But, I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion. This has been better than most. Believe it or not, I respect his position.

---

Good lord, no one is saying "ID is science just because I believe in God". You continually make strawmen. It's like you are ignoring everything that's being said and just paying attention to your own thoughts. "I think ID is this, and this is why I think that is not a science, or unnecessary, etc.." You really aren't contributing anything relevant here.

Your argument about ID not being a "science" is just a pointless semantic one. What your personal conception of what "science" is, isn't relevant. Scientists don't even agree on what "science" means. What really matters with ID is - is it true? And are there logical, mathematical, and scientific approaches to the answer? I asked several questions in order to try and illustrate this, but they went answered after several attempts. I'll ask for the 4TH time: if someone won 1000 hands of poker in a row, is it legit, or is he cheating? If you see a house made from a deck of cards, did it fall into that shape, or did someone make it? If you saw red, white, and blue confetti on the ground in the pattern of the American flag, did it drop from a plane and land in that pattern, or did someone make it that way?

And regarding your view of what a "science" is, I asked a question that also went unanswered a few times, so I'll ask it one more time: do you consider the view that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what we see in the fossil record a scientific view, or not?

If you ignore these questions for the 4th time, I'm going to consider it a concession.

---

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you are arguing for the fine tuning argument here in relation to Intelligent Design? If we alter the constants of the universe, say the fundamental force of gravity, the universe would potentially collapse on it self or expand too quickly to allow planetary bodies to form. If someone wins 1 billion rounds of blackjack in a row, is it random chance or is there an intelligent mind behind the process?

Overall, I'd actually say this is one of the better arguments for God (subjectively of course). I would like to get your thoughts though on some objections I have to this argument and why it is personally not convincing enough for me to conclude that a God is behind the seemingly preciseness of the fundamental constants of our universe.

We can understand that someone who wins 1B hands of blackjack in a row is cheating. We know this, as we can calculate the probability of winning one hand based on empirical evidence (it is ~42%), and using the independent probability rule, 1B hands would be (0.42^1000000000) ~= 10^(-10^[8.84605]). I don't think this is a fair comparison for the universe's constants though, as we have no frame of reference or means to determine what is "likely" or not.

There could be infinite or near infinite universes, each with unique constants, where some have life and the rest are dead. Perhaps our universe is cyclical, where each new round has slightly different constants that lead to different results. Some with carbon based life, some dead, others with unique forms of life impossible with our physical constraints. Or, our universe is all there is. Until we have a better understanding of the origins of the universe and what lies outside, I hesitate trying to arrive to statistical conclusions.

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

I'd bet the odds would be enormously smaller, but regardless - if you happen to see confetti on the ground in the colors and pattern of the American flag, would the better inference be that it was dropped out of a plane and landed that way, or that someone made it that way?

---

You are arguing with people that believe in God. You are arguing over minutia of whether it was 6-24 hour days vs whether God used more time and other means to achieve the same goal. The point is both believe there is a God that created the Universe.

My point is ID is not needed and is a watered down unproveable concept that is trying desperately to apply measures to what can't be measured. It is a fool's errand.

There is no question that something created the Universe, I believe it to be God. Those that don't believe in a God and worship purely science do not and will not believe your arguments have merit. If you are looking for that "ah-ha" moment where they say you are right and they were wrong all this time, not happening... So why beat up on those that believe basically the same thing, just different details?

---

It is so strange how a simple question gets you bent out of shape. It's also strange how you, a professed believer that God created everything, refuse to answer a simple question that qualifies a logic that supports that which you believe. It's odd, something just doesn't sit right, your aversion to it.

Whether God created everything in 6 days, or he took eons to do it - either way, the fingerprints of design will be evident. ID is a reasoned, logical, and evidence based approach to demonstrate that design is the best inference from the data. You are WAY too caught up with whether you think it is a "science" or if it's provable or not (even after you were silent when asked if Darwinian evolution or even physics itself meet your requirement of "provable") - the relevant question is: is it true? And can logic, reason, and even science, point that way? Many, many scientists believe ID does that, and many more are starting to. In a world where too many people are being misled into thinking that science debunks creation, ID shows that actually the science supports it. To think that it is unimportant is foolish.

And btw - if I don't have that "ah-ha" moment, why is it that people, including yourself, won't answer the question?

---

What question?? You are trying to say that Philosophy is science. The hypothesis of ID is that the universe and its complex life forms cannot be explained solely by natural causes, and thus the best explanation is that an intelligent higher power contributed to the origins of the universe.

That is a believe, a thought, a philosophy - not science. If the determination between science or not means nothing, admit ID is a philosophy...

There is NO WAY to prove if it is true or not. It is a belief. What I believe is irrelevant to whether or not it is science. There is no way to measure it. Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God. That is intellectually lazy and in my opinion contrary to why God equipped us to methodologically study natural phenonium, not just say its God.

---

"What question"? The question in the post you responded to, not to mention all the other questions from previous posts.

"Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God." - your continued mischaracterization of ID either means you just don't grasp it, or you're the one who is intellectually lazy.

---

I am not alone in my view of ID. I really don't see your desperate need to have the philosophy of ID labeled a science. Grant application? Research Funding? Use of public science funds for the study of Philosophy?

Why the need to have something that admits it can't be proven, tested, or even measured deemed a science? It belongs in the Social Sciences, like Political Science, Economics, etc.

---

Still no answer? Odd.

And how about answering whether you consider Darwinian evolution to be scientific? Or physics?

---

What question am I avoiding. ID is not science. Pretty clear.

Physics is discipline of science that has laws that are measurable, consistent and it can be proven. If you are saying that ID is like Physics because there are unprvable givens,? Wow, you really do have it bad.

Evolution is a theory, which all indications is true, as we can look at fossil records, frozen and otherwise, we can test it. We can see evolutionary changes brought on by conditions over time.

Chemistry is a science, too. Fairies are a myth. ID is a belief. Clear enough? What question am I avoiding?

No one is saying don't believe in God, I do. Just don't say that not being able to prove he exists or show ID is as scientific as Physics. Or the theory is as well developed and accepted as Evolution.

---

"Science" is also a "belief."

---

D.C., could you expand a bit more on this? Scientific knowledge is always subject to revision and refinement as new evidence emerges or as old hypotheses are disproven. I don't see how it could be classified as a belief, but I certainly could be mistaken. Perhaps if you loosely define it as an open-belief system, but not in the same vain as theological beliefs.

BaylorJacket said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

I'd bet the odds would be enormously smaller, but regardless - if you happen to see confetti on the ground in the colors and pattern of the American flag, would the better inference be that it was dropped out of a plane and landed that way, or that someone made it that way?

---

You are arguing with people that believe in God. You are arguing over minutia of whether it was 6-24 hour days vs whether God used more time and other means to achieve the same goal. The point is both believe there is a God that created the Universe.

My point is ID is not needed and is a watered down unproveable concept that is trying desperately to apply measures to what can't be measured. It is a fool's errand.

There is no question that something created the Universe, I believe it to be God. Those that don't believe in a God and worship purely science do not and will not believe your arguments have merit. If you are looking for that "ah-ha" moment where they say you are right and they were wrong all this time, not happening... So why beat up on those that believe basically the same thing, just different details?

---

It is so strange how a simple question gets you bent out of shape. It's also strange how you, a professed believer that God created everything, refuse to answer a simple question that qualifies a logic that supports that which you believe. It's odd, something just doesn't sit right, your aversion to it.

Whether God created everything in 6 days, or he took eons to do it - either way, the fingerprints of design will be evident. ID is a reasoned, logical, and evidence based approach to demonstrate that design is the best inference from the data. You are WAY too caught up with whether you think it is a "science" or if it's provable or not (even after you were silent when asked if Darwinian evolution or even physics itself meet your requirement of "provable") - the relevant question is: is it true? And can logic, reason, and even science, point that way? Many, many scientists believe ID does that, and many more are starting to. In a world where too many people are being misled into thinking that science debunks creation, ID shows that actually the science supports it. To think that it is unimportant is foolish.

And btw - if I don't have that "ah-ha" moment, why is it that people, including yourself, won't answer the question?

---

What question?? You are trying to say that Philosophy is science. The hypothesis of ID is that the universe and its complex life forms cannot be explained solely by natural causes, and thus the best explanation is that an intelligent higher power contributed to the origins of the universe.

That is a believe, a thought, a philosophy - not science. If the determination between science or not means nothing, admit ID is a philosophy...

There is NO WAY to prove if it is true or not. It is a belief. What I believe is irrelevant to whether or not it is science. There is no way to measure it. Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God. That is intellectually lazy and in my opinion contrary to why God equipped us to methodologically study natural phenonium, not just say its God.

---

"What question"? The question in the post you responded to, not to mention all the other questions from previous posts.

"Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God." - your continued mischaracterization of ID either means you just don't grasp it, or you're the one who is intellectually lazy.

---

I am not alone in my view of ID. I really don't see your desperate need to have the philosophy of ID labeled a science. Grant application? Research Funding? Use of public science funds for the study of Philosophy?

Why the need to have something that admits it can't be proven, tested, or even measured deemed a science? It belongs in the Social Sciences, like Political Science, Economics, etc.

---

Still no answer? Odd.

And how about answering whether you consider Darwinian evolution to be scientific? Or physics?

---

What question am I avoiding. ID is not science. Pretty clear.

Physics is discipline of science that has laws that are measurable, consistent and it can be proven. If you are saying that ID is like Physics because there are unprvable givens,? Wow, you really do have it bad.

Evolution is a theory, which all indications is true, as we can look at fossil records, frozen and otherwise, we can test it. We can see evolutionary changes brought on by conditions over time.

Chemistry is a science, too. Fairies are a myth. ID is a belief. Clear enough? What question am I avoiding?

No one is saying don't believe in God, I do. Just don't say that not being able to prove he exists or show ID is as scientific as Physics. Or the theory is as well developed and accepted as Evolution.

---

"Science" is also a "belief."

---

D.C., could you expand a bit more on this? Scientific knowledge is always subject to revision and refinement as new evidence emerges or as old hypotheses are disproven. I don't see how it could be classified as a belief, but I certainly could be mistaken. Perhaps if you loosely define it as an open-belief system, but not in the same vain as theological beliefs.

---

Science starts, and must start, with assumptions about the nature of the universe that are unprovable. Scientific knowledge depends on those assumptions and the assumptions don't change. We change our ideas about what science shows based on experiments and observation, but we don't, can't and shouldn't change the assumptions that allow science to exist in the first place.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

I'd bet the odds would be enormously smaller, but regardless - if you happen to see confetti on the ground in the colors and pattern of the American flag, would the better inference be that it was dropped out of a plane and landed that way, or that someone made it that way?

---

You are arguing with people that believe in God. You are arguing over minutia of whether it was 6-24 hour days vs whether God used more time and other means to achieve the same goal. The point is both believe there is a God that created the Universe.

My point is ID is not needed and is a watered down unproveable concept that is trying desperately to apply measures to what can't be measured. It is a fool's errand.

There is no question that something created the Universe, I believe it to be God. Those that don't believe in a God and worship purely science do not and will not believe your arguments have merit. If you are looking for that "ah-ha" moment where they say you are right and they were wrong all this time, not happening... So why beat up on those that believe basically the same thing, just different details?

---

It is so strange how a simple question gets you bent out of shape. It's also strange how you, a professed believer that God created everything, refuse to answer a simple question that qualifies a logic that supports that which you believe. It's odd, something just doesn't sit right, your aversion to it.

Whether God created everything in 6 days, or he took eons to do it - either way, the fingerprints of design will be evident. ID is a reasoned, logical, and evidence based approach to demonstrate that design is the best inference from the data. You are WAY too caught up with whether you think it is a "science" or if it's provable or not (even after you were silent when asked if Darwinian evolution or even physics itself meet your requirement of "provable") - the relevant question is: is it true? And can logic, reason, and even science, point that way? Many, many scientists believe ID does that, and many more are starting to. In a world where too many people are being misled into thinking that science debunks creation, ID shows that actually the science supports it. To think that it is unimportant is foolish.

And btw - if I don't have that "ah-ha" moment, why is it that people, including yourself, won't answer the question?

---

What question?? You are trying to say that Philosophy is science. The hypothesis of ID is that the universe and its complex life forms cannot be explained solely by natural causes, and thus the best explanation is that an intelligent higher power contributed to the origins of the universe.

That is a believe, a thought, a philosophy - not science. If the determination between science or not means nothing, admit ID is a philosophy...

There is NO WAY to prove if it is true or not. It is a belief. What I believe is irrelevant to whether or not it is science. There is no way to measure it. Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God. That is intellectually lazy and in my opinion contrary to why God equipped us to methodologically study natural phenonium, not just say its God.

---

"What question"? The question in the post you responded to, not to mention all the other questions from previous posts.

"Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God." - your continued mischaracterization of ID either means you just don't grasp it, or you're the one who is intellectually lazy.

---

I am not alone in my view of ID. I really don't see your desperate need to have the philosophy of ID labeled a science. Grant application? Research Funding? Use of public science funds for the study of Philosophy?

Why the need to have something that admits it can't be proven, tested, or even measured deemed a science? It belongs in the Social Sciences, like Political Science, Economics, etc.

---

Still no answer? Odd.

And how about answering whether you consider Darwinian evolution to be scientific? Or physics?

---

What question am I avoiding. ID is not science. Pretty clear.

Physics is discipline of science that has laws that are measurable, consistent and it can be proven. If you are saying that ID is like Physics because there are unprvable givens,? Wow, you really do have it bad.

Evolution is a theory, which all indications is true, as we can look at fossil records, frozen and otherwise, we can test it. We can see evolutionary changes brought on by conditions over time.

Chemistry is a science, too. Fairies are a myth. ID is a belief. Clear enough? What question am I avoiding?

No one is saying don't believe in God, I do. Just don't say that not being able to prove he exists or show ID is as scientific as Physics. Or the theory is as well developed and accepted as Evolution.

---

"Science" is also a "belief."

---

D.C., could you expand a bit more on this? Scientific knowledge is always subject to revision and refinement as new evidence emerges or as old hypotheses are disproven. I don't see how it could be classified as a belief, but I certainly could be mistaken. Perhaps if you loosely define it as an open-belief system, but not in the same vain as theological beliefs.

---

Science starts, and must start, with assumptions about the nature of the universe that are unprovable. Scientific knowledge depends on those assumptions and the assumptions don't change. We change our ideas about what science shows based on experiments and observation, but we don't, can't and shouldn't change the assumptions that allow science to exist in the first place.

---

Ah okay I see what you are referring to - assumptions like the principle of intelligibility or externalism?

I guess where I am having trouble is comparing the baseline assumptions that make the scientific method possible to the existence of God. While something like externalism is impossible to prove, it's rooted in experience of the natural world. God is supernatural in nature, so the assumptions required for its existence lies outside empirical evidence.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

ID is nothing more than a religious attempt to hold on to the remaining unknowns that scientific research has yet to uncover.......it's nothing more than a jazzed up god of the gaps.

---

This is the funniest comment I've read in a looong time! I've never seen anyone criticize the "god of the gaps" argument by using the "scientism of the gaps" argument all in the same breath! This is so rich. I really do thank you for this.

---

I hate to say your ignorance is showing, but ID hasn't explained anything we know about our universe. ID is nothing more than an attempt to explain what we don't fully know, in an effort to protect mystical beliefs. Science gives us answers to what ID doesn't and cannot explain, without invoking mysticism.

---

Science tells us spacetime isn't fundamental.

Aren't you a hardcore physicalist?

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

He is saying it is not something that can be proven. It is a movement not science. How do you prove an intelligent design? Give us one metric? One measurable? One experiment?

It is a philosophy, not a science. A middle of the road compromise to reconcile religion. Saying you can't prove it isn't science, doesn't make it science.

I believe in God and believe God created the universe, it is a matter of faith. Physics is just the mechanics.

---

Order.

---

Lost me. Physics provides order or order is proof of intelligent design?

If we are talking ID. How do you test order? Science is about testing and measuring. How do you test and measure order, DNA, or even origin of universe for an intelligent designer?

By the way, I don't think there is a conflict between religion and science. To me ID is unnecessary. A stretch that is not needed.

---

Sorry for TL,DR.

Order had to exist before matter and energy. Neither creates their own, they only react to the order that exists in the matrix of orders within all forces (known and unknown by humans). Physics is simply our rudimentary understanding of order within our existence that we have the capability to comprehend, measure, and test. But without order, our existence would look and be much different. It exists in biology also. How DNA replicates, phylogenic speciation, protein synthesis, etc. In fact the only true chaos factors appear in higher level intelligences (the unpredictable factor). The vast majority are instinctive or bio process oriented. The advanced sentient factor is the "wild card".

Ultimately the universe was created from an underlying order. Just the slightest variance from that order would have had incredible repercussions across the existence of everything. To make a simplistic and not perfect analogy, imagine watching a video game. Most humans can observe what happens in that game when certain stimulus (think controller input as mass, energy, biomatter, etc.) occurs. Human science has told us quite a bit about what happens when you do certain things on the controller, but not nearly everything. Some advanced theoretical science has gone so far as to attempt to explain what programming would be required for certain actions to occur in the video game, but it is limited or changed when another theory or variable from another type of action/input occurs in the game. Observationally we will continue to expand our understanding of what happens from different controller inputs. We'll also continue to theorize and understand the programming behind why those outputs occur as our ability to comprehend and measure the game grows. But ultimately, there's an underlying program that makes the game happen. That's the order tied to existence in my mind, and the greatest observable evidence of a higher power. As I said before, if time is an infinite factor, there is nothing random. And perhaps instead of thinking of God as a magician snapping things into existence, he was a divine programmer of the game of existence.

---

The best science today shows us that spacetime is a tool, not fundamental reality.

Spacetime is a data structure that we create to represent fitness payoffs and how to get them.

Natural selection does not shape us to see objective reality. Seeing the truth will drive you to extinction. Evolutionary game theory shows the chance of survival when shown objective reality is literally 0%.

Our new paper, "Fusions of consciousness," is published today, and free. We propose a dynamics of conscious agents beyond spacetime, and a mapping of this dynamics into spacetime physics via our new application of decorated permutations to Markov chains.https://t.co/twE8O2DFzN

— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) January 9, 2023

Personally I hypothesize that reality is derived from perception/consciousness outside of spacetime which is self created and that the substrate of total reality is a syntax or medium of pure potential in which everything is possible within itself.

We hit a paradox when we describe nothingness: when "nothingness" is taken to exclude not just "something", but the potential for "something". The exclusion of potential is a constraint, "nothing" in this sense requires its own explanation, and cannot serve as an ontological groundstate.

The whole idea that 3D spacetime emerged without a precursor is beyond stupid and defies logic. God is consciousness, you are a piece of him, made in his image, and I have faith that Jesus was fully conscious - one with god.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'd like to reiterate how odd it is that the biggest opponent here to the idea that there may be logical and scientific evidence for the belief that God created everything, is someone who claims they believe God created everything.

---

No, I am not the biggest opponent. I am answering direct posts. I don't see the need for it and see it as a middle of the road answer to the materialist. There is a difference between believing in a God outside of the Natural World he created and saying ID is a science just because I believe in God. I don't need the reconciliation, I don't see a conflict between God, the Bible and science. Some of the more literalist appear to need this bridge and created it. Before this string, I really don't think much about or of ID.

But, I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion. This has been better than most. Believe it or not, I respect his position.

---

Good lord, no one is saying "ID is science just because I believe in God". You continually make strawmen. It's like you are ignoring everything that's being said and just paying attention to your own thoughts. "I think ID is this, and this is why I think that is not a science, or unnecessary, etc.." You really aren't contributing anything relevant here.

Your argument about ID not being a "science" is just a pointless semantic one. What your personal conception of what "science" is, isn't relevant. Scientists don't even agree on what "science" means. What really matters with ID is - is it true? And are there logical, mathematical, and scientific approaches to the answer? I asked several questions in order to try and illustrate this, but they went answered after several attempts. I'll ask for the 4TH time: if someone won 1000 hands of poker in a row, is it legit, or is he cheating? If you see a house made from a deck of cards, did it fall into that shape, or did someone make it? If you saw red, white, and blue confetti on the ground in the pattern of the American flag, did it drop from a plane and land in that pattern, or did someone make it that way?

And regarding your view of what a "science" is, I asked a question that also went unanswered a few times, so I'll ask it one more time: do you consider the view that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what we see in the fossil record a scientific view, or not?

If you ignore these questions for the 4th time, I'm going to consider it a concession.

---

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you are arguing for the fine tuning argument here in relation to Intelligent Design? If we alter the constants of the universe, say the fundamental force of gravity, the universe would potentially collapse on it self or expand too quickly to allow planetary bodies to form. If someone wins 1 billion rounds of blackjack in a row, is it random chance or is there an intelligent mind behind the process?

Overall, I'd actually say this is one of the better arguments for God (subjectively of course). I would like to get your thoughts though on some objections I have to this argument and why it is personally not convincing enough for me to conclude that a God is behind the seemingly preciseness of the fundamental constants of our universe.

We can understand that someone who wins 1B hands of blackjack in a row is cheating. We know this, as we can calculate the probability of winning one hand based on empirical evidence (it is ~42%), and using the independent probability rule, 1B hands would be (0.42^1000000000) ~= 10^(-10^[8.84605]). I don't think this is a fair comparison for the universe's constants though, as we have no frame of reference or means to determine what is "likely" or not.

There could be infinite or near infinite universes, each with unique constants, where some have life and the rest are dead. Perhaps our universe is cyclical, where each new round has slightly different constants that lead to different results. Some with carbon based life, some dead, others with unique forms of life impossible with our physical constraints. Or, our universe is all there is. Until we have a better understanding of the origins of the universe and what lies outside, I hesitate trying to arrive to statistical conclusions.

---

regarding your last paragraph: you want evidence and then you bring in the multi-verse, a possibility where there is absolutely 0 evidence. Do you not see how you are being incredibly hypocritical?

I'm going to assume you are from a happy family and in a happy marriage but, isn't it possible, regardless of the evidence that those who say they love you are actually being paid millions just to act that way? Do you see what an asinine possibility that is to offer up?

You don't find God for the same reason the thief doesn't find the cop, he doesn't want to find him. It's not that he can't but that he doesn't want to.

BaylorJacket said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

I'd bet the odds would be enormously smaller, but regardless - if you happen to see confetti on the ground in the colors and pattern of the American flag, would the better inference be that it was dropped out of a plane and landed that way, or that someone made it that way?

---

You are arguing with people that believe in God. You are arguing over minutia of whether it was 6-24 hour days vs whether God used more time and other means to achieve the same goal. The point is both believe there is a God that created the Universe.

My point is ID is not needed and is a watered down unproveable concept that is trying desperately to apply measures to what can't be measured. It is a fool's errand.

There is no question that something created the Universe, I believe it to be God. Those that don't believe in a God and worship purely science do not and will not believe your arguments have merit. If you are looking for that "ah-ha" moment where they say you are right and they were wrong all this time, not happening... So why beat up on those that believe basically the same thing, just different details?

---

It is so strange how a simple question gets you bent out of shape. It's also strange how you, a professed believer that God created everything, refuse to answer a simple question that qualifies a logic that supports that which you believe. It's odd, something just doesn't sit right, your aversion to it.

Whether God created everything in 6 days, or he took eons to do it - either way, the fingerprints of design will be evident. ID is a reasoned, logical, and evidence based approach to demonstrate that design is the best inference from the data. You are WAY too caught up with whether you think it is a "science" or if it's provable or not (even after you were silent when asked if Darwinian evolution or even physics itself meet your requirement of "provable") - the relevant question is: is it true? And can logic, reason, and even science, point that way? Many, many scientists believe ID does that, and many more are starting to. In a world where too many people are being misled into thinking that science debunks creation, ID shows that actually the science supports it. To think that it is unimportant is foolish.

And btw - if I don't have that "ah-ha" moment, why is it that people, including yourself, won't answer the question?

---

What question?? You are trying to say that Philosophy is science. The hypothesis of ID is that the universe and its complex life forms cannot be explained solely by natural causes, and thus the best explanation is that an intelligent higher power contributed to the origins of the universe.

That is a believe, a thought, a philosophy - not science. If the determination between science or not means nothing, admit ID is a philosophy...

There is NO WAY to prove if it is true or not. It is a belief. What I believe is irrelevant to whether or not it is science. There is no way to measure it. Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God. That is intellectually lazy and in my opinion contrary to why God equipped us to methodologically study natural phenonium, not just say its God.

---

"What question"? The question in the post you responded to, not to mention all the other questions from previous posts.

"Actually, it looks to me like ID is throwing up our arms and saying we can't figure it out, chalk it up to God." - your continued mischaracterization of ID either means you just don't grasp it, or you're the one who is intellectually lazy.

---

I am not alone in my view of ID. I really don't see your desperate need to have the philosophy of ID labeled a science. Grant application? Research Funding? Use of public science funds for the study of Philosophy?

Why the need to have something that admits it can't be proven, tested, or even measured deemed a science? It belongs in the Social Sciences, like Political Science, Economics, etc.

---

Still no answer? Odd.

And how about answering whether you consider Darwinian evolution to be scientific? Or physics?

---

What question am I avoiding. ID is not science. Pretty clear.

Physics is discipline of science that has laws that are measurable, consistent and it can be proven. If you are saying that ID is like Physics because there are unprvable givens,? Wow, you really do have it bad.

Evolution is a theory, which all indications is true, as we can look at fossil records, frozen and otherwise, we can test it. We can see evolutionary changes brought on by conditions over time.

Chemistry is a science, too. Fairies are a myth. ID is a belief. Clear enough? What question am I avoiding?

No one is saying don't believe in God, I do. Just don't say that not being able to prove he exists or show ID is as scientific as Physics. Or the theory is as well developed and accepted as Evolution.

---

"Science" is also a "belief."

---

D.C., could you expand a bit more on this? Scientific knowledge is always subject to revision and refinement as new evidence emerges or as old hypotheses are disproven. I don't see how it could be classified as a belief, but I certainly could be mistaken. Perhaps if you loosely define it as an open-belief system, but not in the same vain as theological beliefs.

---

the multiverse is a belief.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'd like to reiterate how odd it is that the biggest opponent here to the idea that there may be logical and scientific evidence for the belief that God created everything, is someone who claims they believe God created everything.

---

No, I am not the biggest opponent. I am answering direct posts. I don't see the need for it and see it as a middle of the road answer to the materialist. There is a difference between believing in a God outside of the Natural World he created and saying ID is a science just because I believe in God. I don't need the reconciliation, I don't see a conflict between God, the Bible and science. Some of the more literalist appear to need this bridge and created it. Before this string, I really don't think much about or of ID.

But, I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion. This has been better than most. Believe it or not, I respect his position.

---

Good lord, no one is saying "ID is science just because I believe in God". You continually make strawmen. It's like you are ignoring everything that's being said and just paying attention to your own thoughts. "I think ID is this, and this is why I think that is not a science, or unnecessary, etc.." You really aren't contributing anything relevant here.

Your argument about ID not being a "science" is just a pointless semantic one. What your personal conception of what "science" is, isn't relevant. Scientists don't even agree on what "science" means. What really matters with ID is - is it true? And are there logical, mathematical, and scientific approaches to the answer? I asked several questions in order to try and illustrate this, but they went answered after several attempts. I'll ask for the 4TH time: if someone won 1000 hands of poker in a row, is it legit, or is he cheating? If you see a house made from a deck of cards, did it fall into that shape, or did someone make it? If you saw red, white, and blue confetti on the ground in the pattern of the American flag, did it drop from a plane and land in that pattern, or did someone make it that way?

And regarding your view of what a "science" is, I asked a question that also went unanswered a few times, so I'll ask it one more time: do you consider the view that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what we see in the fossil record a scientific view, or not?

If you ignore these questions for the 4th time, I'm going to consider it a concession.

---

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you are arguing for the fine tuning argument here in relation to Intelligent Design? If we alter the constants of the universe, say the fundamental force of gravity, the universe would potentially collapse on it self or expand too quickly to allow planetary bodies to form. If someone wins 1 billion rounds of blackjack in a row, is it random chance or is there an intelligent mind behind the process?

Overall, I'd actually say this is one of the better arguments for God (subjectively of course). I would like to get your thoughts though on some objections I have to this argument and why it is personally not convincing enough for me to conclude that a God is behind the seemingly preciseness of the fundamental constants of our universe.

We can understand that someone who wins 1B hands of blackjack in a row is cheating. We know this, as we can calculate the probability of winning one hand based on empirical evidence (it is ~42%), and using the independent probability rule, 1B hands would be (0.42^1000000000) ~= 10^(-10^[8.84605]). I don't think this is a fair comparison for the universe's constants though, as we have no frame of reference or means to determine what is "likely" or not.

There could be infinite or near infinite universes, each with unique constants, where some have life and the rest are dead. Perhaps our universe is cyclical, where each new round has slightly different constants that lead to different results. Some with carbon based life, some dead, others with unique forms of life impossible with our physical constraints. Or, our universe is all there is. Until we have a better understanding of the origins of the universe and what lies outside, I hesitate trying to arrive to statistical conclusions.

---

regarding your last paragraph: you want evidence and then you bring in the multi-verse, a possibility where there is absolutely 0 evidence. Do you not see how you are being incredibly hypocritical?

I'm going to assume you are from a happy family and in a happy marriage but, isn't it possible, regardless of the evidence that those who say they love you are actually being paid millions just to act that way? Do you see what an asinine possibility that is to offer up?

You don't find God for the same reason the thief doesn't find the cop, he doesn't want to find him. It's not that he can't but that he doesn't want to.

---

... that was entirely my point (in regards to the evidence). Perhaps I was not clear enough though, which I apologize.

The Teleological argument asserts that the probability of our universal constants being so seemingly tuned for life and it's intricate nature is overwhelmingly small - thus, there was a designer to fine tune the creation.

My point was we have absolutely no frame of reference or understanding of anything outside our universe. I find the Fine Tuning argument for our universal constants similar to arguments for the multi-verse hypothesis (there are infinite universes, so we just happen to be in one with these constants). At this point it is just all speculation.

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'd like to reiterate how odd it is that the biggest opponent here to the idea that there may be logical and scientific evidence for the belief that God created everything, is someone who claims they believe God created everything.

---

No, I am not the biggest opponent. I am answering direct posts. I don't see the need for it and see it as a middle of the road answer to the materialist. There is a difference between believing in a God outside of the Natural World he created and saying ID is a science just because I believe in God. I don't need the reconciliation, I don't see a conflict between God, the Bible and science. Some of the more literalist appear to need this bridge and created it. Before this string, I really don't think much about or of ID.

But, I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion. This has been better than most. Believe it or not, I respect his position.

---

Good lord, no one is saying "ID is science just because I believe in God". You continually make strawmen. It's like you are ignoring everything that's being said and just paying attention to your own thoughts. "I think ID is this, and this is why I think that is not a science, or unnecessary, etc.." You really aren't contributing anything relevant here.

Your argument about ID not being a "science" is just a pointless semantic one. What your personal conception of what "science" is, isn't relevant. Scientists don't even agree on what "science" means. What really matters with ID is - is it true? And are there logical, mathematical, and scientific approaches to the answer? I asked several questions in order to try and illustrate this, but they went answered after several attempts. I'll ask for the 4TH time: if someone won 1000 hands of poker in a row, is it legit, or is he cheating? If you see a house made from a deck of cards, did it fall into that shape, or did someone make it? If you saw red, white, and blue confetti on the ground in the pattern of the American flag, did it drop from a plane and land in that pattern, or did someone make it that way?

And regarding your view of what a "science" is, I asked a question that also went unanswered a few times, so I'll ask it one more time: do you consider the view that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what we see in the fossil record a scientific view, or not?

If you ignore these questions for the 4th time, I'm going to consider it a concession.

---

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you are arguing for the fine tuning argument here in relation to Intelligent Design? If we alter the constants of the universe, say the fundamental force of gravity, the universe would potentially collapse on it self or expand too quickly to allow planetary bodies to form. If someone wins 1 billion rounds of blackjack in a row, is it random chance or is there an intelligent mind behind the process?

Overall, I'd actually say this is one of the better arguments for God (subjectively of course). I would like to get your thoughts though on some objections I have to this argument and why it is personally not convincing enough for me to conclude that a God is behind the seemingly preciseness of the fundamental constants of our universe.

We can understand that someone who wins 1B hands of blackjack in a row is cheating. We know this, as we can calculate the probability of winning one hand based on empirical evidence (it is ~42%), and using the independent probability rule, 1B hands would be (0.42^1000000000) ~= 10^(-10^[8.84605]). I don't think this is a fair comparison for the universe's constants though, as we have no frame of reference or means to determine what is "likely" or not.

There could be infinite or near infinite universes, each with unique constants, where some have life and the rest are dead. Perhaps our universe is cyclical, where each new round has slightly different constants that lead to different results. Some with carbon based life, some dead, others with unique forms of life impossible with our physical constraints. Or, our universe is all there is. Until we have a better understanding of the origins of the universe and what lies outside, I hesitate trying to arrive to statistical conclusions.

---

regarding your last paragraph: you want evidence and then you bring in the multi-verse, a possibility where there is absolutely 0 evidence. Do you not see how you are being incredibly hypocritical?

I'm going to assume you are from a happy family and in a happy marriage but, isn't it possible, regardless of the evidence that those who say they love you are actually being paid millions just to act that way? Do you see what an asinine possibility that is to offer up?

You don't find God for the same reason the thief doesn't find the cop, he doesn't want to find him. It's not that he can't but that he doesn't want to.

---

... that was entirely my point (in regards to the evidence). Perhaps I was not clear enough though, which I apologize.

The Teleological argument asserts that the probability of our universal constants being so seemingly tuned for life and it's intricate nature is overwhelmingly small - thus, there was a designer to fine tune the creation.

My point was we have absolutely no frame of reference or understanding of anything outside our universe. I find the Fine Tuning argument for our universal constants similar to arguments for the multi-verse hypothesis (there are infinite universes, so we just happen to be in one with these constants). At this point it is just all speculation.

---

Have you considered that God may be a natural self created thing, instead of magic?

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'd like to reiterate how odd it is that the biggest opponent here to the idea that there may be logical and scientific evidence for the belief that God created everything, is someone who claims they believe God created everything.

---

No, I am not the biggest opponent. I am answering direct posts. I don't see the need for it and see it as a middle of the road answer to the materialist. There is a difference between believing in a God outside of the Natural World he created and saying ID is a science just because I believe in God. I don't need the reconciliation, I don't see a conflict between God, the Bible and science. Some of the more literalist appear to need this bridge and created it. Before this string, I really don't think much about or of ID.

But, I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion. This has been better than most. Believe it or not, I respect his position.

---

Good lord, no one is saying "ID is science just because I believe in God". You continually make strawmen. It's like you are ignoring everything that's being said and just paying attention to your own thoughts. "I think ID is this, and this is why I think that is not a science, or unnecessary, etc.." You really aren't contributing anything relevant here.

Your argument about ID not being a "science" is just a pointless semantic one. What your personal conception of what "science" is, isn't relevant. Scientists don't even agree on what "science" means. What really matters with ID is - is it true? And are there logical, mathematical, and scientific approaches to the answer? I asked several questions in order to try and illustrate this, but they went answered after several attempts. I'll ask for the 4TH time: if someone won 1000 hands of poker in a row, is it legit, or is he cheating? If you see a house made from a deck of cards, did it fall into that shape, or did someone make it? If you saw red, white, and blue confetti on the ground in the pattern of the American flag, did it drop from a plane and land in that pattern, or did someone make it that way?

And regarding your view of what a "science" is, I asked a question that also went unanswered a few times, so I'll ask it one more time: do you consider the view that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what we see in the fossil record a scientific view, or not?

If you ignore these questions for the 4th time, I'm going to consider it a concession.

---

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you are arguing for the fine tuning argument here in relation to Intelligent Design? If we alter the constants of the universe, say the fundamental force of gravity, the universe would potentially collapse on it self or expand too quickly to allow planetary bodies to form. If someone wins 1 billion rounds of blackjack in a row, is it random chance or is there an intelligent mind behind the process?

Overall, I'd actually say this is one of the better arguments for God (subjectively of course). I would like to get your thoughts though on some objections I have to this argument and why it is personally not convincing enough for me to conclude that a God is behind the seemingly preciseness of the fundamental constants of our universe.

We can understand that someone who wins 1B hands of blackjack in a row is cheating. We know this, as we can calculate the probability of winning one hand based on empirical evidence (it is ~42%), and using the independent probability rule, 1B hands would be (0.42^1000000000) ~= 10^(-10^[8.84605]). I don't think this is a fair comparison for the universe's constants though, as we have no frame of reference or means to determine what is "likely" or not.

There could be infinite or near infinite universes, each with unique constants, where some have life and the rest are dead. Perhaps our universe is cyclical, where each new round has slightly different constants that lead to different results. Some with carbon based life, some dead, others with unique forms of life impossible with our physical constraints. Or, our universe is all there is. Until we have a better understanding of the origins of the universe and what lies outside, I hesitate trying to arrive to statistical conclusions.

---

regarding your last paragraph: you want evidence and then you bring in the multi-verse, a possibility where there is absolutely 0 evidence. Do you not see how you are being incredibly hypocritical?

I'm going to assume you are from a happy family and in a happy marriage but, isn't it possible, regardless of the evidence that those who say they love you are actually being paid millions just to act that way? Do you see what an asinine possibility that is to offer up?

You don't find God for the same reason the thief doesn't find the cop, he doesn't want to find him. It's not that he can't but that he doesn't want to.

---

... that was entirely my point (in regards to the evidence). Perhaps I was not clear enough though, which I apologize.

The Teleological argument asserts that the probability of our universal constants being so seemingly tuned for life and it's intricate nature is overwhelmingly small - thus, there was a designer to fine tune the creation.

My point was we have absolutely no frame of reference or understanding of anything outside our universe. I find the Fine Tuning argument for our universal constants similar to arguments for the multi-verse hypothesis (there are infinite universes, so we just happen to be in one with these constants). At this point it is just all speculation.

---

Have you considered that God may be a natural self created thing, instead of magic?

---

Yes, I have considered this. In this scenario, what created this God?

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'd like to reiterate how odd it is that the biggest opponent here to the idea that there may be logical and scientific evidence for the belief that God created everything, is someone who claims they believe God created everything.

---

No, I am not the biggest opponent. I am answering direct posts. I don't see the need for it and see it as a middle of the road answer to the materialist. There is a difference between believing in a God outside of the Natural World he created and saying ID is a science just because I believe in God. I don't need the reconciliation, I don't see a conflict between God, the Bible and science. Some of the more literalist appear to need this bridge and created it. Before this string, I really don't think much about or of ID.

But, I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion. This has been better than most. Believe it or not, I respect his position.

---

Good lord, no one is saying "ID is science just because I believe in God". You continually make strawmen. It's like you are ignoring everything that's being said and just paying attention to your own thoughts. "I think ID is this, and this is why I think that is not a science, or unnecessary, etc.." You really aren't contributing anything relevant here.

Your argument about ID not being a "science" is just a pointless semantic one. What your personal conception of what "science" is, isn't relevant. Scientists don't even agree on what "science" means. What really matters with ID is - is it true? And are there logical, mathematical, and scientific approaches to the answer? I asked several questions in order to try and illustrate this, but they went answered after several attempts. I'll ask for the 4TH time: if someone won 1000 hands of poker in a row, is it legit, or is he cheating? If you see a house made from a deck of cards, did it fall into that shape, or did someone make it? If you saw red, white, and blue confetti on the ground in the pattern of the American flag, did it drop from a plane and land in that pattern, or did someone make it that way?

And regarding your view of what a "science" is, I asked a question that also went unanswered a few times, so I'll ask it one more time: do you consider the view that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what we see in the fossil record a scientific view, or not?

If you ignore these questions for the 4th time, I'm going to consider it a concession.

---

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you are arguing for the fine tuning argument here in relation to Intelligent Design? If we alter the constants of the universe, say the fundamental force of gravity, the universe would potentially collapse on it self or expand too quickly to allow planetary bodies to form. If someone wins 1 billion rounds of blackjack in a row, is it random chance or is there an intelligent mind behind the process?

Overall, I'd actually say this is one of the better arguments for God (subjectively of course). I would like to get your thoughts though on some objections I have to this argument and why it is personally not convincing enough for me to conclude that a God is behind the seemingly preciseness of the fundamental constants of our universe.

We can understand that someone who wins 1B hands of blackjack in a row is cheating. We know this, as we can calculate the probability of winning one hand based on empirical evidence (it is ~42%), and using the independent probability rule, 1B hands would be (0.42^1000000000) ~= 10^(-10^[8.84605]). I don't think this is a fair comparison for the universe's constants though, as we have no frame of reference or means to determine what is "likely" or not.

There could be infinite or near infinite universes, each with unique constants, where some have life and the rest are dead. Perhaps our universe is cyclical, where each new round has slightly different constants that lead to different results. Some with carbon based life, some dead, others with unique forms of life impossible with our physical constraints. Or, our universe is all there is. Until we have a better understanding of the origins of the universe and what lies outside, I hesitate trying to arrive to statistical conclusions.

---

regarding your last paragraph: you want evidence and then you bring in the multi-verse, a possibility where there is absolutely 0 evidence. Do you not see how you are being incredibly hypocritical?

I'm going to assume you are from a happy family and in a happy marriage but, isn't it possible, regardless of the evidence that those who say they love you are actually being paid millions just to act that way? Do you see what an asinine possibility that is to offer up?

You don't find God for the same reason the thief doesn't find the cop, he doesn't want to find him. It's not that he can't but that he doesn't want to.

---

... that was entirely my point (in regards to the evidence). Perhaps I was not clear enough though, which I apologize.

The Teleological argument asserts that the probability of our universal constants being so seemingly tuned for life and it's intricate nature is overwhelmingly small - thus, there was a designer to fine tune the creation.

My point was we have absolutely no frame of reference or understanding of anything outside our universe. I find the Fine Tuning argument for our universal constants similar to arguments for the multi-verse hypothesis (there are infinite universes, so we just happen to be in one with these constants). At this point it is just all speculation.

---

Have you considered that God may be a natural self created thing, instead of magic?

---

Yes, I have considered this. In this scenario, what created this God?

---

Unbound potential leading to self creation. God being a metaphysical mind of sorts.
Think non-spacetime as in no physical precursor. Or think non physical cosmogony.

You can't grasp or reproduce the thoughts and images that come into your mind in a physical spacetime manner. What are thoughts? What are the products of your consciousness? Start thinking 'metaphysical' in that sense then imagine that's what exists if you took all the constraints of our spacetime reality away.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'd like to reiterate how odd it is that the biggest opponent here to the idea that there may be logical and scientific evidence for the belief that God created everything, is someone who claims they believe God created everything.

---

No, I am not the biggest opponent. I am answering direct posts. I don't see the need for it and see it as a middle of the road answer to the materialist. There is a difference between believing in a God outside of the Natural World he created and saying ID is a science just because I believe in God. I don't need the reconciliation, I don't see a conflict between God, the Bible and science. Some of the more literalist appear to need this bridge and created it. Before this string, I really don't think much about or of ID.

But, I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion. This has been better than most. Believe it or not, I respect his position.

---

Good lord, no one is saying "ID is science just because I believe in God". You continually make strawmen. It's like you are ignoring everything that's being said and just paying attention to your own thoughts. "I think ID is this, and this is why I think that is not a science, or unnecessary, etc.." You really aren't contributing anything relevant here.

Your argument about ID not being a "science" is just a pointless semantic one. What your personal conception of what "science" is, isn't relevant. Scientists don't even agree on what "science" means. What really matters with ID is - is it true? And are there logical, mathematical, and scientific approaches to the answer? I asked several questions in order to try and illustrate this, but they went answered after several attempts. I'll ask for the 4TH time: if someone won 1000 hands of poker in a row, is it legit, or is he cheating? If you see a house made from a deck of cards, did it fall into that shape, or did someone make it? If you saw red, white, and blue confetti on the ground in the pattern of the American flag, did it drop from a plane and land in that pattern, or did someone make it that way?

And regarding your view of what a "science" is, I asked a question that also went unanswered a few times, so I'll ask it one more time: do you consider the view that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what we see in the fossil record a scientific view, or not?

If you ignore these questions for the 4th time, I'm going to consider it a concession.

---

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you are arguing for the fine tuning argument here in relation to Intelligent Design? If we alter the constants of the universe, say the fundamental force of gravity, the universe would potentially collapse on it self or expand too quickly to allow planetary bodies to form. If someone wins 1 billion rounds of blackjack in a row, is it random chance or is there an intelligent mind behind the process?

Overall, I'd actually say this is one of the better arguments for God (subjectively of course). I would like to get your thoughts though on some objections I have to this argument and why it is personally not convincing enough for me to conclude that a God is behind the seemingly preciseness of the fundamental constants of our universe.

We can understand that someone who wins 1B hands of blackjack in a row is cheating. We know this, as we can calculate the probability of winning one hand based on empirical evidence (it is ~42%), and using the independent probability rule, 1B hands would be (0.42^1000000000) ~= 10^(-10^[8.84605]). I don't think this is a fair comparison for the universe's constants though, as we have no frame of reference or means to determine what is "likely" or not.

There could be infinite or near infinite universes, each with unique constants, where some have life and the rest are dead. Perhaps our universe is cyclical, where each new round has slightly different constants that lead to different results. Some with carbon based life, some dead, others with unique forms of life impossible with our physical constraints. Or, our universe is all there is. Until we have a better understanding of the origins of the universe and what lies outside, I hesitate trying to arrive to statistical conclusions.

---

regarding your last paragraph: you want evidence and then you bring in the multi-verse, a possibility where there is absolutely 0 evidence. Do you not see how you are being incredibly hypocritical?

I'm going to assume you are from a happy family and in a happy marriage but, isn't it possible, regardless of the evidence that those who say they love you are actually being paid millions just to act that way? Do you see what an asinine possibility that is to offer up?

You don't find God for the same reason the thief doesn't find the cop, he doesn't want to find him. It's not that he can't but that he doesn't want to.

---

... that was entirely my point (in regards to the evidence). Perhaps I was not clear enough though, which I apologize.

The Teleological argument asserts that the probability of our universal constants being so seemingly tuned for life and it's intricate nature is overwhelmingly small - thus, there was a designer to fine tune the creation.

My point was we have absolutely no frame of reference or understanding of anything outside our universe. I find the Fine Tuning argument for our universal constants similar to arguments for the multi-verse hypothesis (there are infinite universes, so we just happen to be in one with these constants). At this point it is just all speculation.

---

Have you considered that God may be a natural self created thing, instead of magic?

---

Yes, I have considered this. In this scenario, what created this God?

---

Keep in mind that Einstein said Time is an illusion.

Think on the implications of that.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'd like to reiterate how odd it is that the biggest opponent here to the idea that there may be logical and scientific evidence for the belief that God created everything, is someone who claims they believe God created everything.

---

No, I am not the biggest opponent. I am answering direct posts. I don't see the need for it and see it as a middle of the road answer to the materialist. There is a difference between believing in a God outside of the Natural World he created and saying ID is a science just because I believe in God. I don't need the reconciliation, I don't see a conflict between God, the Bible and science. Some of the more literalist appear to need this bridge and created it. Before this string, I really don't think much about or of ID.

But, I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion. This has been better than most. Believe it or not, I respect his position.

---

Good lord, no one is saying "ID is science just because I believe in God". You continually make strawmen. It's like you are ignoring everything that's being said and just paying attention to your own thoughts. "I think ID is this, and this is why I think that is not a science, or unnecessary, etc.." You really aren't contributing anything relevant here.

Your argument about ID not being a "science" is just a pointless semantic one. What your personal conception of what "science" is, isn't relevant. Scientists don't even agree on what "science" means. What really matters with ID is - is it true? And are there logical, mathematical, and scientific approaches to the answer? I asked several questions in order to try and illustrate this, but they went answered after several attempts. I'll ask for the 4TH time: if someone won 1000 hands of poker in a row, is it legit, or is he cheating? If you see a house made from a deck of cards, did it fall into that shape, or did someone make it? If you saw red, white, and blue confetti on the ground in the pattern of the American flag, did it drop from a plane and land in that pattern, or did someone make it that way?

And regarding your view of what a "science" is, I asked a question that also went unanswered a few times, so I'll ask it one more time: do you consider the view that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what we see in the fossil record a scientific view, or not?

If you ignore these questions for the 4th time, I'm going to consider it a concession.

---

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you are arguing for the fine tuning argument here in relation to Intelligent Design? If we alter the constants of the universe, say the fundamental force of gravity, the universe would potentially collapse on it self or expand too quickly to allow planetary bodies to form. If someone wins 1 billion rounds of blackjack in a row, is it random chance or is there an intelligent mind behind the process?

Overall, I'd actually say this is one of the better arguments for God (subjectively of course). I would like to get your thoughts though on some objections I have to this argument and why it is personally not convincing enough for me to conclude that a God is behind the seemingly preciseness of the fundamental constants of our universe.

We can understand that someone who wins 1B hands of blackjack in a row is cheating. We know this, as we can calculate the probability of winning one hand based on empirical evidence (it is ~42%), and using the independent probability rule, 1B hands would be (0.42^1000000000) ~= 10^(-10^[8.84605]). I don't think this is a fair comparison for the universe's constants though, as we have no frame of reference or means to determine what is "likely" or not.

There could be infinite or near infinite universes, each with unique constants, where some have life and the rest are dead. Perhaps our universe is cyclical, where each new round has slightly different constants that lead to different results. Some with carbon based life, some dead, others with unique forms of life impossible with our physical constraints. Or, our universe is all there is. Until we have a better understanding of the origins of the universe and what lies outside, I hesitate trying to arrive to statistical conclusions.

---

regarding your last paragraph: you want evidence and then you bring in the multi-verse, a possibility where there is absolutely 0 evidence. Do you not see how you are being incredibly hypocritical?

I'm going to assume you are from a happy family and in a happy marriage but, isn't it possible, regardless of the evidence that those who say they love you are actually being paid millions just to act that way? Do you see what an asinine possibility that is to offer up?

You don't find God for the same reason the thief doesn't find the cop, he doesn't want to find him. It's not that he can't but that he doesn't want to.

---

... that was entirely my point (in regards to the evidence). Perhaps I was not clear enough though, which I apologize.

The Teleological argument asserts that the probability of our universal constants being so seemingly tuned for life and it's intricate nature is overwhelmingly small - thus, there was a designer to fine tune the creation.

My point was we have absolutely no frame of reference or understanding of anything outside our universe. I find the Fine Tuning argument for our universal constants similar to arguments for the multi-verse hypothesis (there are infinite universes, so we just happen to be in one with these constants). At this point it is just all speculation.

---

Have you considered that God may be a natural self created thing, instead of magic?

---

Yes, I have considered this. In this scenario, what created this God?

---

Unbound potential leading to self creation. God being a metaphysical mind of sorts.
Think non-spacetime as in no physical precursor. Or think non physical cosmogony.

You can't grasp or reproduce the thoughts and images that come into your mind in a physical spacetime manner. What are thoughts? What are the products of your consciousness? Start thinking 'metaphysical' in that sense then imagine that's what exists if you took all the constraints of our spacetime reality away.

---

This is a nice philosophical answer, but it doesn't bring us any closer to concluding this metaphysical entity is responsible for the fundamental laws of this universe.

Why would the metaphysical entity want the fundamental constants to be specifically where they are? It perhaps sees value in life? To get here, we have to add additional, and in my opinion unneeded, assumptions

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'd like to reiterate how odd it is that the biggest opponent here to the idea that there may be logical and scientific evidence for the belief that God created everything, is someone who claims they believe God created everything.

---

No, I am not the biggest opponent. I am answering direct posts. I don't see the need for it and see it as a middle of the road answer to the materialist. There is a difference between believing in a God outside of the Natural World he created and saying ID is a science just because I believe in God. I don't need the reconciliation, I don't see a conflict between God, the Bible and science. Some of the more literalist appear to need this bridge and created it. Before this string, I really don't think much about or of ID.

But, I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion. This has been better than most. Believe it or not, I respect his position.

---

Good lord, no one is saying "ID is science just because I believe in God". You continually make strawmen. It's like you are ignoring everything that's being said and just paying attention to your own thoughts. "I think ID is this, and this is why I think that is not a science, or unnecessary, etc.." You really aren't contributing anything relevant here.

Your argument about ID not being a "science" is just a pointless semantic one. What your personal conception of what "science" is, isn't relevant. Scientists don't even agree on what "science" means. What really matters with ID is - is it true? And are there logical, mathematical, and scientific approaches to the answer? I asked several questions in order to try and illustrate this, but they went answered after several attempts. I'll ask for the 4TH time: if someone won 1000 hands of poker in a row, is it legit, or is he cheating? If you see a house made from a deck of cards, did it fall into that shape, or did someone make it? If you saw red, white, and blue confetti on the ground in the pattern of the American flag, did it drop from a plane and land in that pattern, or did someone make it that way?

And regarding your view of what a "science" is, I asked a question that also went unanswered a few times, so I'll ask it one more time: do you consider the view that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what we see in the fossil record a scientific view, or not?

If you ignore these questions for the 4th time, I'm going to consider it a concession.

---

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you are arguing for the fine tuning argument here in relation to Intelligent Design? If we alter the constants of the universe, say the fundamental force of gravity, the universe would potentially collapse on it self or expand too quickly to allow planetary bodies to form. If someone wins 1 billion rounds of blackjack in a row, is it random chance or is there an intelligent mind behind the process?

Overall, I'd actually say this is one of the better arguments for God (subjectively of course). I would like to get your thoughts though on some objections I have to this argument and why it is personally not convincing enough for me to conclude that a God is behind the seemingly preciseness of the fundamental constants of our universe.

We can understand that someone who wins 1B hands of blackjack in a row is cheating. We know this, as we can calculate the probability of winning one hand based on empirical evidence (it is ~42%), and using the independent probability rule, 1B hands would be (0.42^1000000000) ~= 10^(-10^[8.84605]). I don't think this is a fair comparison for the universe's constants though, as we have no frame of reference or means to determine what is "likely" or not.

There could be infinite or near infinite universes, each with unique constants, where some have life and the rest are dead. Perhaps our universe is cyclical, where each new round has slightly different constants that lead to different results. Some with carbon based life, some dead, others with unique forms of life impossible with our physical constraints. Or, our universe is all there is. Until we have a better understanding of the origins of the universe and what lies outside, I hesitate trying to arrive to statistical conclusions.

---

regarding your last paragraph: you want evidence and then you bring in the multi-verse, a possibility where there is absolutely 0 evidence. Do you not see how you are being incredibly hypocritical?

I'm going to assume you are from a happy family and in a happy marriage but, isn't it possible, regardless of the evidence that those who say they love you are actually being paid millions just to act that way? Do you see what an asinine possibility that is to offer up?

You don't find God for the same reason the thief doesn't find the cop, he doesn't want to find him. It's not that he can't but that he doesn't want to.

---

... that was entirely my point (in regards to the evidence). Perhaps I was not clear enough though, which I apologize.

The Teleological argument asserts that the probability of our universal constants being so seemingly tuned for life and it's intricate nature is overwhelmingly small - thus, there was a designer to fine tune the creation.

My point was we have absolutely no frame of reference or understanding of anything outside our universe. I find the Fine Tuning argument for our universal constants similar to arguments for the multi-verse hypothesis (there are infinite universes, so we just happen to be in one with these constants). At this point it is just all speculation.

---

Have you considered that God may be a natural self created thing, instead of magic?

---

Yes, I have considered this. In this scenario, what created this God?

---

Keep in mind that Einstein said Time is an illusion.

Think on the implications of that.

---

Time is certainly such an interesting concept. When I originally learned about Time Dilation in Physics it blew my mind.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'd like to reiterate how odd it is that the biggest opponent here to the idea that there may be logical and scientific evidence for the belief that God created everything, is someone who claims they believe God created everything.

---

No, I am not the biggest opponent. I am answering direct posts. I don't see the need for it and see it as a middle of the road answer to the materialist. There is a difference between believing in a God outside of the Natural World he created and saying ID is a science just because I believe in God. I don't need the reconciliation, I don't see a conflict between God, the Bible and science. Some of the more literalist appear to need this bridge and created it. Before this string, I really don't think much about or of ID.

But, I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion. This has been better than most. Believe it or not, I respect his position.

---

Good lord, no one is saying "ID is science just because I believe in God". You continually make strawmen. It's like you are ignoring everything that's being said and just paying attention to your own thoughts. "I think ID is this, and this is why I think that is not a science, or unnecessary, etc.." You really aren't contributing anything relevant here.

Your argument about ID not being a "science" is just a pointless semantic one. What your personal conception of what "science" is, isn't relevant. Scientists don't even agree on what "science" means. What really matters with ID is - is it true? And are there logical, mathematical, and scientific approaches to the answer? I asked several questions in order to try and illustrate this, but they went answered after several attempts. I'll ask for the 4TH time: if someone won 1000 hands of poker in a row, is it legit, or is he cheating? If you see a house made from a deck of cards, did it fall into that shape, or did someone make it? If you saw red, white, and blue confetti on the ground in the pattern of the American flag, did it drop from a plane and land in that pattern, or did someone make it that way?

And regarding your view of what a "science" is, I asked a question that also went unanswered a few times, so I'll ask it one more time: do you consider the view that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what we see in the fossil record a scientific view, or not?

If you ignore these questions for the 4th time, I'm going to consider it a concession.

---

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you are arguing for the fine tuning argument here in relation to Intelligent Design? If we alter the constants of the universe, say the fundamental force of gravity, the universe would potentially collapse on it self or expand too quickly to allow planetary bodies to form. If someone wins 1 billion rounds of blackjack in a row, is it random chance or is there an intelligent mind behind the process?

Overall, I'd actually say this is one of the better arguments for God (subjectively of course). I would like to get your thoughts though on some objections I have to this argument and why it is personally not convincing enough for me to conclude that a God is behind the seemingly preciseness of the fundamental constants of our universe.

We can understand that someone who wins 1B hands of blackjack in a row is cheating. We know this, as we can calculate the probability of winning one hand based on empirical evidence (it is ~42%), and using the independent probability rule, 1B hands would be (0.42^1000000000) ~= 10^(-10^[8.84605]). I don't think this is a fair comparison for the universe's constants though, as we have no frame of reference or means to determine what is "likely" or not.

There could be infinite or near infinite universes, each with unique constants, where some have life and the rest are dead. Perhaps our universe is cyclical, where each new round has slightly different constants that lead to different results. Some with carbon based life, some dead, others with unique forms of life impossible with our physical constraints. Or, our universe is all there is. Until we have a better understanding of the origins of the universe and what lies outside, I hesitate trying to arrive to statistical conclusions.

---

regarding your last paragraph: you want evidence and then you bring in the multi-verse, a possibility where there is absolutely 0 evidence. Do you not see how you are being incredibly hypocritical?

I'm going to assume you are from a happy family and in a happy marriage but, isn't it possible, regardless of the evidence that those who say they love you are actually being paid millions just to act that way? Do you see what an asinine possibility that is to offer up?

You don't find God for the same reason the thief doesn't find the cop, he doesn't want to find him. It's not that he can't but that he doesn't want to.

---

... that was entirely my point (in regards to the evidence). Perhaps I was not clear enough though, which I apologize.

The Teleological argument asserts that the probability of our universal constants being so seemingly tuned for life and it's intricate nature is overwhelmingly small - thus, there was a designer to fine tune the creation.

My point was we have absolutely no frame of reference or understanding of anything outside our universe. I find the Fine Tuning argument for our universal constants similar to arguments for the multi-verse hypothesis (there are infinite universes, so we just happen to be in one with these constants). At this point it is just all speculation.

---

Have you considered that God may be a natural self created thing, instead of magic?

---

Yes, I have considered this. In this scenario, what created this God?

---

Unbound potential leading to self creation. God being a metaphysical mind of sorts.
Think non-spacetime as in no physical precursor. Or think non physical cosmogony.

You can't grasp or reproduce the thoughts and images that come into your mind in a physical spacetime manner. What are thoughts? What are the products of your consciousness? Start thinking 'metaphysical' in that sense then imagine that's what exists if you took all the constraints of our spacetime reality away.

---

This is a nice philosophical answer, but it doesn't bring us any closer to concluding this metaphysical entity is responsible for the fundamental laws of this universe.

Why would the metaphysical entity want the fundamental constants to be specifically where they are? It perhaps sees value in life? To get here, we have to add additional, and in my opinion unneeded, assumptions

---

It does conclude that there's a metaphysical cause to our universe, maybe not an entity but rather a machine/syntax. The way we see our reality isn't actually what reality truly is, rather it's presented to us this way so we have utility, including those fundamental laws. We know this because the actual mathematical probability that spacetime is fundamental is 0%.

We can't exactly say what it is beyond spacetime, but we can conclude that it's not more physicalism because there's zero operational meaning beyond planck scale. It's not turtles all the way down, which is an impossible paradox. An infinitely dense point of energy leading to the big bang didn't just materialize without cause, it had causality.

At the very least we can conclude that we are a projection of something metaphysical. I and many others hypothesize/theorize that it's consciousness. That may be wrong. But you can't settle and say our physical universe is all there is anymore in the face of what we've learned over the past two decades, especially the past five years.

What I wrote says you are that entity. You are God, just a small piece of it wearing a headset.

There is no relationship to God without faith. Without blindly following or without assumption. That's ok. I'm ok with that, its an ultimate form of love.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'd like to reiterate how odd it is that the biggest opponent here to the idea that there may be logical and scientific evidence for the belief that God created everything, is someone who claims they believe God created everything.

---

No, I am not the biggest opponent. I am answering direct posts. I don't see the need for it and see it as a middle of the road answer to the materialist. There is a difference between believing in a God outside of the Natural World he created and saying ID is a science just because I believe in God. I don't need the reconciliation, I don't see a conflict between God, the Bible and science. Some of the more literalist appear to need this bridge and created it. Before this string, I really don't think much about or of ID.

But, I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion. This has been better than most. Believe it or not, I respect his position.

---

Good lord, no one is saying "ID is science just because I believe in God". You continually make strawmen. It's like you are ignoring everything that's being said and just paying attention to your own thoughts. "I think ID is this, and this is why I think that is not a science, or unnecessary, etc.." You really aren't contributing anything relevant here.

Your argument about ID not being a "science" is just a pointless semantic one. What your personal conception of what "science" is, isn't relevant. Scientists don't even agree on what "science" means. What really matters with ID is - is it true? And are there logical, mathematical, and scientific approaches to the answer? I asked several questions in order to try and illustrate this, but they went answered after several attempts. I'll ask for the 4TH time: if someone won 1000 hands of poker in a row, is it legit, or is he cheating? If you see a house made from a deck of cards, did it fall into that shape, or did someone make it? If you saw red, white, and blue confetti on the ground in the pattern of the American flag, did it drop from a plane and land in that pattern, or did someone make it that way?

And regarding your view of what a "science" is, I asked a question that also went unanswered a few times, so I'll ask it one more time: do you consider the view that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what we see in the fossil record a scientific view, or not?

If you ignore these questions for the 4th time, I'm going to consider it a concession.

---

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you are arguing for the fine tuning argument here in relation to Intelligent Design? If we alter the constants of the universe, say the fundamental force of gravity, the universe would potentially collapse on it self or expand too quickly to allow planetary bodies to form. If someone wins 1 billion rounds of blackjack in a row, is it random chance or is there an intelligent mind behind the process?

Overall, I'd actually say this is one of the better arguments for God (subjectively of course). I would like to get your thoughts though on some objections I have to this argument and why it is personally not convincing enough for me to conclude that a God is behind the seemingly preciseness of the fundamental constants of our universe.

We can understand that someone who wins 1B hands of blackjack in a row is cheating. We know this, as we can calculate the probability of winning one hand based on empirical evidence (it is ~42%), and using the independent probability rule, 1B hands would be (0.42^1000000000) ~= 10^(-10^[8.84605]). I don't think this is a fair comparison for the universe's constants though, as we have no frame of reference or means to determine what is "likely" or not.

There could be infinite or near infinite universes, each with unique constants, where some have life and the rest are dead. Perhaps our universe is cyclical, where each new round has slightly different constants that lead to different results. Some with carbon based life, some dead, others with unique forms of life impossible with our physical constraints. Or, our universe is all there is. Until we have a better understanding of the origins of the universe and what lies outside, I hesitate trying to arrive to statistical conclusions.

---

regarding your last paragraph: you want evidence and then you bring in the multi-verse, a possibility where there is absolutely 0 evidence. Do you not see how you are being incredibly hypocritical?

I'm going to assume you are from a happy family and in a happy marriage but, isn't it possible, regardless of the evidence that those who say they love you are actually being paid millions just to act that way? Do you see what an asinine possibility that is to offer up?

You don't find God for the same reason the thief doesn't find the cop, he doesn't want to find him. It's not that he can't but that he doesn't want to.

---

... that was entirely my point (in regards to the evidence). Perhaps I was not clear enough though, which I apologize.

The Teleological argument asserts that the probability of our universal constants being so seemingly tuned for life and it's intricate nature is overwhelmingly small - thus, there was a designer to fine tune the creation.

My point was we have absolutely no frame of reference or understanding of anything outside our universe. I find the Fine Tuning argument for our universal constants similar to arguments for the multi-verse hypothesis (there are infinite universes, so we just happen to be in one with these constants). At this point it is just all speculation.

---

Have you considered that God may be a natural self created thing, instead of magic?

---

Yes, I have considered this. In this scenario, what created this God?

---

Unbound potential leading to self creation. God being a metaphysical mind of sorts.
Think non-spacetime as in no physical precursor. Or think non physical cosmogony.

You can't grasp or reproduce the thoughts and images that come into your mind in a physical spacetime manner. What are thoughts? What are the products of your consciousness? Start thinking 'metaphysical' in that sense then imagine that's what exists if you took all the constraints of our spacetime reality away.

---

This is a nice philosophical answer, but it doesn't bring us any closer to concluding this metaphysical entity is responsible for the fundamental laws of this universe.

Why would the metaphysical entity want the fundamental constants to be specifically where they are? It perhaps sees value in life? To get here, we have to add additional, and in my opinion unneeded, assumptions

---

When you go home this evening, do you assume your wife is not going to stab you? Are you making an unnecessary assumption?

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'd like to reiterate how odd it is that the biggest opponent here to the idea that there may be logical and scientific evidence for the belief that God created everything, is someone who claims they believe God created everything.

---

No, I am not the biggest opponent. I am answering direct posts. I don't see the need for it and see it as a middle of the road answer to the materialist. There is a difference between believing in a God outside of the Natural World he created and saying ID is a science just because I believe in God. I don't need the reconciliation, I don't see a conflict between God, the Bible and science. Some of the more literalist appear to need this bridge and created it. Before this string, I really don't think much about or of ID.

But, I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion. This has been better than most. Believe it or not, I respect his position.

---

Good lord, no one is saying "ID is science just because I believe in God". You continually make strawmen. It's like you are ignoring everything that's being said and just paying attention to your own thoughts. "I think ID is this, and this is why I think that is not a science, or unnecessary, etc.." You really aren't contributing anything relevant here.

Your argument about ID not being a "science" is just a pointless semantic one. What your personal conception of what "science" is, isn't relevant. Scientists don't even agree on what "science" means. What really matters with ID is - is it true? And are there logical, mathematical, and scientific approaches to the answer? I asked several questions in order to try and illustrate this, but they went answered after several attempts. I'll ask for the 4TH time: if someone won 1000 hands of poker in a row, is it legit, or is he cheating? If you see a house made from a deck of cards, did it fall into that shape, or did someone make it? If you saw red, white, and blue confetti on the ground in the pattern of the American flag, did it drop from a plane and land in that pattern, or did someone make it that way?

And regarding your view of what a "science" is, I asked a question that also went unanswered a few times, so I'll ask it one more time: do you consider the view that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what we see in the fossil record a scientific view, or not?

If you ignore these questions for the 4th time, I'm going to consider it a concession.

---

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you are arguing for the fine tuning argument here in relation to Intelligent Design? If we alter the constants of the universe, say the fundamental force of gravity, the universe would potentially collapse on it self or expand too quickly to allow planetary bodies to form. If someone wins 1 billion rounds of blackjack in a row, is it random chance or is there an intelligent mind behind the process?

Overall, I'd actually say this is one of the better arguments for God (subjectively of course). I would like to get your thoughts though on some objections I have to this argument and why it is personally not convincing enough for me to conclude that a God is behind the seemingly preciseness of the fundamental constants of our universe.

We can understand that someone who wins 1B hands of blackjack in a row is cheating. We know this, as we can calculate the probability of winning one hand based on empirical evidence (it is ~42%), and using the independent probability rule, 1B hands would be (0.42^1000000000) ~= 10^(-10^[8.84605]). I don't think this is a fair comparison for the universe's constants though, as we have no frame of reference or means to determine what is "likely" or not.

There could be infinite or near infinite universes, each with unique constants, where some have life and the rest are dead. Perhaps our universe is cyclical, where each new round has slightly different constants that lead to different results. Some with carbon based life, some dead, others with unique forms of life impossible with our physical constraints. Or, our universe is all there is. Until we have a better understanding of the origins of the universe and what lies outside, I hesitate trying to arrive to statistical conclusions.

---

regarding your last paragraph: you want evidence and then you bring in the multi-verse, a possibility where there is absolutely 0 evidence. Do you not see how you are being incredibly hypocritical?

I'm going to assume you are from a happy family and in a happy marriage but, isn't it possible, regardless of the evidence that those who say they love you are actually being paid millions just to act that way? Do you see what an asinine possibility that is to offer up?

You don't find God for the same reason the thief doesn't find the cop, he doesn't want to find him. It's not that he can't but that he doesn't want to.

---

... that was entirely my point (in regards to the evidence). Perhaps I was not clear enough though, which I apologize.

The Teleological argument asserts that the probability of our universal constants being so seemingly tuned for life and it's intricate nature is overwhelmingly small - thus, there was a designer to fine tune the creation.

My point was we have absolutely no frame of reference or understanding of anything outside our universe. I find the Fine Tuning argument for our universal constants similar to arguments for the multi-verse hypothesis (there are infinite universes, so we just happen to be in one with these constants). At this point it is just all speculation.

---

Have you considered that God may be a natural self created thing, instead of magic?

---

Yes, I have considered this. In this scenario, what created this God?

---

Unbound potential leading to self creation. God being a metaphysical mind of sorts.
Think non-spacetime as in no physical precursor. Or think non physical cosmogony.

You can't grasp or reproduce the thoughts and images that come into your mind in a physical spacetime manner. What are thoughts? What are the products of your consciousness? Start thinking 'metaphysical' in that sense then imagine that's what exists if you took all the constraints of our spacetime reality away.

---

This is a nice philosophical answer, but it doesn't bring us any closer to concluding this metaphysical entity is responsible for the fundamental laws of this universe.

Why would the metaphysical entity want the fundamental constants to be specifically where they are? It perhaps sees value in life? To get here, we have to add additional, and in my opinion unneeded, assumptions

---

It does conclude that there's a metaphysical cause to our universe, maybe not an entity but rather a machine/syntax. The way we see our reality isn't actually what reality truly is, rather it's presented to us this way so we have utility, including those fundamental laws. We know this because the actual mathematical probability that spacetime is fundamental is 0%.

We can't exactly say what it is beyond spacetime, but we can conclude that it's not more physicalism because there's zero operational meaning beyond planck scale. It's not turtles all the way down, which is an impossible paradox. An infinitely dense point of energy leading to the big bang didn't just materialize without cause, it had causality.

At the very least we can conclude that we are a projection of something metaphysical. I and many others hypothesize/theorize that it's consciousness. That may be wrong. But you can't settle and say our physical universe is all there is anymore in the face of what we've learned over the past two decades, especially the past five years.

What I wrote says you are that entity. You are God, just a small piece of it wearing a headset.

There is no relationship to God without faith. Without blindly following or without assumption. That's ok. I'm ok with that, its an ultimate form of love.

---

This was perhaps one of the best descriptions of a scientific representation of Christian Universalism that I have ever heard! I was a Christian Universalist for a few years before more accurately labeling myself as an agnostic now, but I definitely see merit in the idea that God is all.

Just curious, is that the theological stance you hold?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'd like to reiterate how odd it is that the biggest opponent here to the idea that there may be logical and scientific evidence for the belief that God created everything, is someone who claims they believe God created everything.

---

No, I am not the biggest opponent. I am answering direct posts. I don't see the need for it and see it as a middle of the road answer to the materialist. There is a difference between believing in a God outside of the Natural World he created and saying ID is a science just because I believe in God. I don't need the reconciliation, I don't see a conflict between God, the Bible and science. Some of the more literalist appear to need this bridge and created it. Before this string, I really don't think much about or of ID.

But, I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion. This has been better than most. Believe it or not, I respect his position.

---

Good lord, no one is saying "ID is science just because I believe in God". You continually make strawmen. It's like you are ignoring everything that's being said and just paying attention to your own thoughts. "I think ID is this, and this is why I think that is not a science, or unnecessary, etc.." You really aren't contributing anything relevant here.

Your argument about ID not being a "science" is just a pointless semantic one. What your personal conception of what "science" is, isn't relevant. Scientists don't even agree on what "science" means. What really matters with ID is - is it true? And are there logical, mathematical, and scientific approaches to the answer? I asked several questions in order to try and illustrate this, but they went answered after several attempts. I'll ask for the 4TH time: if someone won 1000 hands of poker in a row, is it legit, or is he cheating? If you see a house made from a deck of cards, did it fall into that shape, or did someone make it? If you saw red, white, and blue confetti on the ground in the pattern of the American flag, did it drop from a plane and land in that pattern, or did someone make it that way?

And regarding your view of what a "science" is, I asked a question that also went unanswered a few times, so I'll ask it one more time: do you consider the view that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what we see in the fossil record a scientific view, or not?

If you ignore these questions for the 4th time, I'm going to consider it a concession.

---

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you are arguing for the fine tuning argument here in relation to Intelligent Design? If we alter the constants of the universe, say the fundamental force of gravity, the universe would potentially collapse on it self or expand too quickly to allow planetary bodies to form. If someone wins 1 billion rounds of blackjack in a row, is it random chance or is there an intelligent mind behind the process?

Overall, I'd actually say this is one of the better arguments for God (subjectively of course). I would like to get your thoughts though on some objections I have to this argument and why it is personally not convincing enough for me to conclude that a God is behind the seemingly preciseness of the fundamental constants of our universe.

We can understand that someone who wins 1B hands of blackjack in a row is cheating. We know this, as we can calculate the probability of winning one hand based on empirical evidence (it is ~42%), and using the independent probability rule, 1B hands would be (0.42^1000000000) ~= 10^(-10^[8.84605]). I don't think this is a fair comparison for the universe's constants though, as we have no frame of reference or means to determine what is "likely" or not.

There could be infinite or near infinite universes, each with unique constants, where some have life and the rest are dead. Perhaps our universe is cyclical, where each new round has slightly different constants that lead to different results. Some with carbon based life, some dead, others with unique forms of life impossible with our physical constraints. Or, our universe is all there is. Until we have a better understanding of the origins of the universe and what lies outside, I hesitate trying to arrive to statistical conclusions.

---

regarding your last paragraph: you want evidence and then you bring in the multi-verse, a possibility where there is absolutely 0 evidence. Do you not see how you are being incredibly hypocritical?

I'm going to assume you are from a happy family and in a happy marriage but, isn't it possible, regardless of the evidence that those who say they love you are actually being paid millions just to act that way? Do you see what an asinine possibility that is to offer up?

You don't find God for the same reason the thief doesn't find the cop, he doesn't want to find him. It's not that he can't but that he doesn't want to.

---

... that was entirely my point (in regards to the evidence). Perhaps I was not clear enough though, which I apologize.

The Teleological argument asserts that the probability of our universal constants being so seemingly tuned for life and it's intricate nature is overwhelmingly small - thus, there was a designer to fine tune the creation.

My point was we have absolutely no frame of reference or understanding of anything outside our universe. I find the Fine Tuning argument for our universal constants similar to arguments for the multi-verse hypothesis (there are infinite universes, so we just happen to be in one with these constants). At this point it is just all speculation.

---

Have you considered that God may be a natural self created thing, instead of magic?

---

Yes, I have considered this. In this scenario, what created this God?

---

Unbound potential leading to self creation. God being a metaphysical mind of sorts.
Think non-spacetime as in no physical precursor. Or think non physical cosmogony.

You can't grasp or reproduce the thoughts and images that come into your mind in a physical spacetime manner. What are thoughts? What are the products of your consciousness? Start thinking 'metaphysical' in that sense then imagine that's what exists if you took all the constraints of our spacetime reality away.

---

This is a nice philosophical answer, but it doesn't bring us any closer to concluding this metaphysical entity is responsible for the fundamental laws of this universe.

Why would the metaphysical entity want the fundamental constants to be specifically where they are? It perhaps sees value in life? To get here, we have to add additional, and in my opinion unneeded, assumptions

---

When you go home this evening, do you assume your wife is not going to stab you? Are you making an unnecessary assumption?

---

I work remotely from home, so this stabbing could hypothetically happen at any time. Over the years of dating and living together, I have gathered enough evidence to confidently say it is unnecessary to even think of the possibility.

We do not know what exists outside of our universe, whether it's nothing, physical or meta-physical, or something beyond our understanding. To add another layer of assumption (that what is out there is also loving/personal) seems unnecessary to me.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'd like to reiterate how odd it is that the biggest opponent here to the idea that there may be logical and scientific evidence for the belief that God created everything, is someone who claims they believe God created everything.

---

No, I am not the biggest opponent. I am answering direct posts. I don't see the need for it and see it as a middle of the road answer to the materialist. There is a difference between believing in a God outside of the Natural World he created and saying ID is a science just because I believe in God. I don't need the reconciliation, I don't see a conflict between God, the Bible and science. Some of the more literalist appear to need this bridge and created it. Before this string, I really don't think much about or of ID.

But, I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion. This has been better than most. Believe it or not, I respect his position.

---

Good lord, no one is saying "ID is science just because I believe in God". You continually make strawmen. It's like you are ignoring everything that's being said and just paying attention to your own thoughts. "I think ID is this, and this is why I think that is not a science, or unnecessary, etc.." You really aren't contributing anything relevant here.

Your argument about ID not being a "science" is just a pointless semantic one. What your personal conception of what "science" is, isn't relevant. Scientists don't even agree on what "science" means. What really matters with ID is - is it true? And are there logical, mathematical, and scientific approaches to the answer? I asked several questions in order to try and illustrate this, but they went answered after several attempts. I'll ask for the 4TH time: if someone won 1000 hands of poker in a row, is it legit, or is he cheating? If you see a house made from a deck of cards, did it fall into that shape, or did someone make it? If you saw red, white, and blue confetti on the ground in the pattern of the American flag, did it drop from a plane and land in that pattern, or did someone make it that way?

And regarding your view of what a "science" is, I asked a question that also went unanswered a few times, so I'll ask it one more time: do you consider the view that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what we see in the fossil record a scientific view, or not?

If you ignore these questions for the 4th time, I'm going to consider it a concession.

---

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you are arguing for the fine tuning argument here in relation to Intelligent Design? If we alter the constants of the universe, say the fundamental force of gravity, the universe would potentially collapse on it self or expand too quickly to allow planetary bodies to form. If someone wins 1 billion rounds of blackjack in a row, is it random chance or is there an intelligent mind behind the process?

Overall, I'd actually say this is one of the better arguments for God (subjectively of course). I would like to get your thoughts though on some objections I have to this argument and why it is personally not convincing enough for me to conclude that a God is behind the seemingly preciseness of the fundamental constants of our universe.

We can understand that someone who wins 1B hands of blackjack in a row is cheating. We know this, as we can calculate the probability of winning one hand based on empirical evidence (it is ~42%), and using the independent probability rule, 1B hands would be (0.42^1000000000) ~= 10^(-10^[8.84605]). I don't think this is a fair comparison for the universe's constants though, as we have no frame of reference or means to determine what is "likely" or not.

There could be infinite or near infinite universes, each with unique constants, where some have life and the rest are dead. Perhaps our universe is cyclical, where each new round has slightly different constants that lead to different results. Some with carbon based life, some dead, others with unique forms of life impossible with our physical constraints. Or, our universe is all there is. Until we have a better understanding of the origins of the universe and what lies outside, I hesitate trying to arrive to statistical conclusions.

---

regarding your last paragraph: you want evidence and then you bring in the multi-verse, a possibility where there is absolutely 0 evidence. Do you not see how you are being incredibly hypocritical?

I'm going to assume you are from a happy family and in a happy marriage but, isn't it possible, regardless of the evidence that those who say they love you are actually being paid millions just to act that way? Do you see what an asinine possibility that is to offer up?

You don't find God for the same reason the thief doesn't find the cop, he doesn't want to find him. It's not that he can't but that he doesn't want to.

---

... that was entirely my point (in regards to the evidence). Perhaps I was not clear enough though, which I apologize.

The Teleological argument asserts that the probability of our universal constants being so seemingly tuned for life and it's intricate nature is overwhelmingly small - thus, there was a designer to fine tune the creation.

My point was we have absolutely no frame of reference or understanding of anything outside our universe. I find the Fine Tuning argument for our universal constants similar to arguments for the multi-verse hypothesis (there are infinite universes, so we just happen to be in one with these constants). At this point it is just all speculation.

---

Have you considered that God may be a natural self created thing, instead of magic?

---

Yes, I have considered this. In this scenario, what created this God?

---

Unbound potential leading to self creation. God being a metaphysical mind of sorts.
Think non-spacetime as in no physical precursor. Or think non physical cosmogony.

You can't grasp or reproduce the thoughts and images that come into your mind in a physical spacetime manner. What are thoughts? What are the products of your consciousness? Start thinking 'metaphysical' in that sense then imagine that's what exists if you took all the constraints of our spacetime reality away.

---

This is a nice philosophical answer, but it doesn't bring us any closer to concluding this metaphysical entity is responsible for the fundamental laws of this universe.

Why would the metaphysical entity want the fundamental constants to be specifically where they are? It perhaps sees value in life? To get here, we have to add additional, and in my opinion unneeded, assumptions

---

It does conclude that there's a metaphysical cause to our universe, maybe not an entity but rather a machine/syntax. The way we see our reality isn't actually what reality truly is, rather it's presented to us this way so we have utility, including those fundamental laws. We know this because the actual mathematical probability that spacetime is fundamental is 0%.

We can't exactly say what it is beyond spacetime, but we can conclude that it's not more physicalism because there's zero operational meaning beyond planck scale. It's not turtles all the way down, which is an impossible paradox. An infinitely dense point of energy leading to the big bang didn't just materialize without cause, it had causality.

At the very least we can conclude that we are a projection of something metaphysical. I and many others hypothesize/theorize that it's consciousness. That may be wrong. But you can't settle and say our physical universe is all there is anymore in the face of what we've learned over the past two decades, especially the past five years.

What I wrote says you are that entity. You are God, just a small piece of it wearing a headset.

There is no relationship to God without faith. Without blindly following or without assumption. That's ok. I'm ok with that, its an ultimate form of love.

---

This was perhaps one of the best descriptions of a scientific representation of Christian Universalism that I have ever heard! I was a Christian Universalist for a few years before more accurately labeling myself as an agnostic now, but I definitely see merit in the idea that God is all.

Just curious, is that the theological stance you hold?

---

No I don't agree that everyone will be saved.

I think we create our own hell by rejecting god.