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.

---

The point of those questions was to illustrate in a simplified way how ID involves logic and scientific reasoning to come up with the best inference from the data. It wasn't alluding to the fine tuned universe argument, though that does fall under the umbrella of ID. Rather, it was relating more specifically to the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms - something we DO have a frame of reference for, since we know the biology behind them (DNA, genes, proteins, population genetics, etc.)

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

Thank you for the clarification!

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

The point of those questions was to illustrate in a simplified way how ID involves logic and scientific reasoning to come up with the best inference from the data. It wasn't alluding to the fine tuned universe argument, though that does fall under the umbrella of ID. Rather, it was relating more specifically to the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms - something we DO have a frame of reference for, since we know the biology behind them (DNA, genes, proteins, population genetics, etc.)

---

Ah okay, gotcha - sorry for the misunderstanding.

Would you be willing to provide some sources on the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms? Something peer reviewed would be great if possible - I'm strange in that I actually enjoy reading scientific journals lol

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

The point of those questions was to illustrate in a simplified way how ID involves logic and scientific reasoning to come up with the best inference from the data. It wasn't alluding to the fine tuned universe argument, though that does fall under the umbrella of ID. Rather, it was relating more specifically to the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms - something we DO have a frame of reference for, since we know the biology behind them (DNA, genes, proteins, population genetics, etc.)

---

Ah okay, gotcha - sorry for the misunderstanding.

Would you be willing to provide some sources on the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms? Something peer reviewed would be great if possible - I'm strange in that I actually enjoy reading scientific journals lol

---

I already touched upon a couple of examples in one of my responses that pertained to human and whale evolution.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

The point of those questions was to illustrate in a simplified way how ID involves logic and scientific reasoning to come up with the best inference from the data. It wasn't alluding to the fine tuned universe argument, though that does fall under the umbrella of ID. Rather, it was relating more specifically to the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms - something we DO have a frame of reference for, since we know the biology behind them (DNA, genes, proteins, population genetics, etc.)

---

Ah okay, gotcha - sorry for the misunderstanding.

Would you be willing to provide some sources on the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms? Something peer reviewed would be great if possible - I'm strange in that I actually enjoy reading scientific journals lol

---

I already touched upon a couple of examples in one of my responses that pertained to human and whale evolution.

---

I was able to find your comment on whale evolution, but did not see any sources/links?

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

The point of those questions was to illustrate in a simplified way how ID involves logic and scientific reasoning to come up with the best inference from the data. It wasn't alluding to the fine tuned universe argument, though that does fall under the umbrella of ID. Rather, it was relating more specifically to the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms - something we DO have a frame of reference for, since we know the biology behind them (DNA, genes, proteins, population genetics, etc.)

---

Ah okay, gotcha - sorry for the misunderstanding.

Would you be willing to provide some sources on the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms? Something peer reviewed would be great if possible - I'm strange in that I actually enjoy reading scientific journals lol

---

I already touched upon a couple of examples in one of my responses that pertained to human and whale evolution.

---

I was able to find your comment on whale evolution, but did not see any sources/links?

---

It was the work of Richard Sternberg, PhD in Molecular Evolution, PhD in System Sciences (Theoretical Biology) and Paul Nelson, PhD in Philosophy in Biology and Evolutionary Theory.

Stephen Meyer's books deal with this subject comprehensively (Darwin's Doubt, Signature of the Cell, Return of the God Hypothesis)

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

The point of those questions was to illustrate in a simplified way how ID involves logic and scientific reasoning to come up with the best inference from the data. It wasn't alluding to the fine tuned universe argument, though that does fall under the umbrella of ID. Rather, it was relating more specifically to the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms - something we DO have a frame of reference for, since we know the biology behind them (DNA, genes, proteins, population genetics, etc.)

---

Ah okay, gotcha - sorry for the misunderstanding.

Would you be willing to provide some sources on the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms? Something peer reviewed would be great if possible - I'm strange in that I actually enjoy reading scientific journals lol

---

I already touched upon a couple of examples in one of my responses that pertained to human and whale evolution.

---

I was able to find your comment on whale evolution, but did not see any sources/links?

---

It was the work of Richard Sternberg, PhD in Molecular Evolution, PhD in System Sciences (Theoretical Biology) and Paul Nelson, PhD in Philosophy in Biology and Evolutionary Theory.

Stephen Meyer's books deal with this subject comprehensively (Darwin's Doubt, Signature of the Cell, Return of the God Hypothesis)

---

I was able to find some Discovery Institute articles and YouTube videos on the topic, but no scientific journals or peer reviewed literature. Without the data backing up his position, it's hard to take what he says seriously.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

The point of those questions was to illustrate in a simplified way how ID involves logic and scientific reasoning to come up with the best inference from the data. It wasn't alluding to the fine tuned universe argument, though that does fall under the umbrella of ID. Rather, it was relating more specifically to the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms - something we DO have a frame of reference for, since we know the biology behind them (DNA, genes, proteins, population genetics, etc.)

---

Ah okay, gotcha - sorry for the misunderstanding.

Would you be willing to provide some sources on the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms? Something peer reviewed would be great if possible - I'm strange in that I actually enjoy reading scientific journals lol

---

I already touched upon a couple of examples in one of my responses that pertained to human and whale evolution.

---

I was able to find your comment on whale evolution, but did not see any sources/links?

---

It was the work of Richard Sternberg, PhD in Molecular Evolution, PhD in System Sciences (Theoretical Biology) and Paul Nelson, PhD in Philosophy in Biology and Evolutionary Theory.

Stephen Meyer's books deal with this subject comprehensively (Darwin's Doubt, Signature of the Cell, Return of the God Hypothesis)

---

I was able to find some Discovery Institute articles and YouTube videos on the topic, but no scientific journals or peer reviewed literature. Without the data backing up his position, it's hard to take what he says seriously.

---

What is your area of expertise?

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

The point of those questions was to illustrate in a simplified way how ID involves logic and scientific reasoning to come up with the best inference from the data. It wasn't alluding to the fine tuned universe argument, though that does fall under the umbrella of ID. Rather, it was relating more specifically to the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms - something we DO have a frame of reference for, since we know the biology behind them (DNA, genes, proteins, population genetics, etc.)

---

Ah okay, gotcha - sorry for the misunderstanding.

Would you be willing to provide some sources on the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms? Something peer reviewed would be great if possible - I'm strange in that I actually enjoy reading scientific journals lol

---

I already touched upon a couple of examples in one of my responses that pertained to human and whale evolution.

---

I was able to find your comment on whale evolution, but did not see any sources/links?

---

It was the work of Richard Sternberg, PhD in Molecular Evolution, PhD in System Sciences (Theoretical Biology) and Paul Nelson, PhD in Philosophy in Biology and Evolutionary Theory.

Stephen Meyer's books deal with this subject comprehensively (Darwin's Doubt, Signature of the Cell, Return of the God Hypothesis)

---

I was able to find some Discovery Institute articles and YouTube videos on the topic, but no scientific journals or peer reviewed literature. Without the data backing up his position, it's hard to take what he says seriously.

---

There are plenty of scientific articles dealing with the waiting time problem. The whale evolution problem was probably a calculation using population genetics math, where the accepted mutation rate is 1 in 100 million nucleotides, and using the Mendel's Accountant computer model.

Here is an excerpt of an article dealing with the waiting time for a coordinated mutation in humans:

"In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take >100 million years."

https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/180/3/1501/6063886?login=false

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

The point of those questions was to illustrate in a simplified way how ID involves logic and scientific reasoning to come up with the best inference from the data. It wasn't alluding to the fine tuned universe argument, though that does fall under the umbrella of ID. Rather, it was relating more specifically to the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms - something we DO have a frame of reference for, since we know the biology behind them (DNA, genes, proteins, population genetics, etc.)

---

Ah okay, gotcha - sorry for the misunderstanding.

Would you be willing to provide some sources on the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms? Something peer reviewed would be great if possible - I'm strange in that I actually enjoy reading scientific journals lol

---

I already touched upon a couple of examples in one of my responses that pertained to human and whale evolution.

---

I was able to find your comment on whale evolution, but did not see any sources/links?

---

It was the work of Richard Sternberg, PhD in Molecular Evolution, PhD in System Sciences (Theoretical Biology) and Paul Nelson, PhD in Philosophy in Biology and Evolutionary Theory.

Stephen Meyer's books deal with this subject comprehensively (Darwin's Doubt, Signature of the Cell, Return of the God Hypothesis)

---

I was able to find some Discovery Institute articles and YouTube videos on the topic, but no scientific journals or peer reviewed literature. Without the data backing up his position, it's hard to take what he says seriously.

---

What is your area of expertise?

---

Electrical & Computer engineering. Never said I was an expert, just was curious about the source data

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

The point of those questions was to illustrate in a simplified way how ID involves logic and scientific reasoning to come up with the best inference from the data. It wasn't alluding to the fine tuned universe argument, though that does fall under the umbrella of ID. Rather, it was relating more specifically to the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms - something we DO have a frame of reference for, since we know the biology behind them (DNA, genes, proteins, population genetics, etc.)

---

Ah okay, gotcha - sorry for the misunderstanding.

Would you be willing to provide some sources on the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms? Something peer reviewed would be great if possible - I'm strange in that I actually enjoy reading scientific journals lol

---

I already touched upon a couple of examples in one of my responses that pertained to human and whale evolution.

---

I was able to find your comment on whale evolution, but did not see any sources/links?

---

It was the work of Richard Sternberg, PhD in Molecular Evolution, PhD in System Sciences (Theoretical Biology) and Paul Nelson, PhD in Philosophy in Biology and Evolutionary Theory.

Stephen Meyer's books deal with this subject comprehensively (Darwin's Doubt, Signature of the Cell, Return of the God Hypothesis)

---

I was able to find some Discovery Institute articles and YouTube videos on the topic, but no scientific journals or peer reviewed literature. Without the data backing up his position, it's hard to take what he says seriously.

---

There are plenty of scientific articles dealing with the waiting time problem. The whale evolution problem was probably a calculation using population genetics math, where the accepted mutation rate is 1 in 100 million nucleotides, and using the Mendel's Accountant computer model.

Here is an excerpt of an article dealing with the waiting time for a coordinated mutation in humans:

"In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take >100 million years."

https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/180/3/1501/6063886?login=false

---

Thanks - this is more on the lines of what I was looking for.

BaylorJacket said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

The point of those questions was to illustrate in a simplified way how ID involves logic and scientific reasoning to come up with the best inference from the data. It wasn't alluding to the fine tuned universe argument, though that does fall under the umbrella of ID. Rather, it was relating more specifically to the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms - something we DO have a frame of reference for, since we know the biology behind them (DNA, genes, proteins, population genetics, etc.)

---

Ah okay, gotcha - sorry for the misunderstanding.

Would you be willing to provide some sources on the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms? Something peer reviewed would be great if possible - I'm strange in that I actually enjoy reading scientific journals lol

---

I already touched upon a couple of examples in one of my responses that pertained to human and whale evolution.

---

I was able to find your comment on whale evolution, but did not see any sources/links?

---

It was the work of Richard Sternberg, PhD in Molecular Evolution, PhD in System Sciences (Theoretical Biology) and Paul Nelson, PhD in Philosophy in Biology and Evolutionary Theory.

Stephen Meyer's books deal with this subject comprehensively (Darwin's Doubt, Signature of the Cell, Return of the God Hypothesis)

---

I was able to find some Discovery Institute articles and YouTube videos on the topic, but no scientific journals or peer reviewed literature. Without the data backing up his position, it's hard to take what he says seriously.

---

What is your area of expertise?

---

Electrical & Computer engineering. Never said I was an expert, just was curious about the source data

---

You're an expert in electrical and computer engineering, right? If I had a computer engineering question I could ask you and expect a reasonable answer, but if I asked you and another computer engineering expert the question and got conflicting answers, I would have to use something other than computer engineering knowledge to figure out which one of your answers to accept because I am no more competent to answer a computer engineering question than you are to analyze the data from some Ph.D.'s work on molecular evolution.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

The point of those questions was to illustrate in a simplified way how ID involves logic and scientific reasoning to come up with the best inference from the data. It wasn't alluding to the fine tuned universe argument, though that does fall under the umbrella of ID. Rather, it was relating more specifically to the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms - something we DO have a frame of reference for, since we know the biology behind them (DNA, genes, proteins, population genetics, etc.)

---

Ah okay, gotcha - sorry for the misunderstanding.

Would you be willing to provide some sources on the statistical improbability of Darwinian mechanisms in explaining living organisms? Something peer reviewed would be great if possible - I'm strange in that I actually enjoy reading scientific journals lol

---

I already touched upon a couple of examples in one of my responses that pertained to human and whale evolution.

---

I was able to find your comment on whale evolution, but did not see any sources/links?

---

It was the work of Richard Sternberg, PhD in Molecular Evolution, PhD in System Sciences (Theoretical Biology) and Paul Nelson, PhD in Philosophy in Biology and Evolutionary Theory.

Stephen Meyer's books deal with this subject comprehensively (Darwin's Doubt, Signature of the Cell, Return of the God Hypothesis)

---

I was able to find some Discovery Institute articles and YouTube videos on the topic, but no scientific journals or peer reviewed literature. Without the data backing up his position, it's hard to take what he says seriously.

---

What is your area of expertise?

---

Electrical & Computer engineering. Never said I was an expert, just was curious about the source data

---

You're an expert in electrical and computer engineering, right? If I had a computer engineering question I could ask you and expect a reasonable answer, but if I asked you and another computer engineering expert the question and got conflicting answers, I would have to use something other than computer engineering knowledge to figure out which one of your answers to accept because I am no more competent to answer a computer engineering question than you are to analyze the data from some Ph.D.'s work on molecular evolution.

---

If you asked 1000 computer engineers the question and 999 gave answer A, while one gave answer B, I would hope you'd check the lone engineer's sources to make sure they have good reasoning for their position.

If you are really interested in a topic, it is possible to build a good enough foundation to be able to understand research papers and interpret data. This is not something that requires a PhD to do.

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.

---

I am not ignoring the question. Your question is not a scientific question, nor does it prove anything other than an exercise in probability. It has nothing to do with proving anything about the beginning or design of the universe. You just need once or even the chance of it to be successful for it to be probable. If the probability has anything but a 0 no matter how many zeros are in front of it over 13.7870.020 billion years that means your house of cards or American Flag could land that way. That is enough to say that it is possibly be not intelligently designed. As I said before, but you ignored, you only need it to happen once in all that time and all those attempts.

You still have not given 1 scientific theory that can be tested that comes close to evolution or physics. All your attempts are guesses that something COULDN'T happen that way. That is crap. ID is a philosophy, an theology, not a scentific theory that can be tested. I still don't get why the desperation for it to be deemed a science?

RMF5630 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.

---

I am not ignoring the question. Your question is not a scientific question, nor does it prove anything other than an exercise in probability. It has nothing to do with proving anything about the beginning or design of the universe. You just need once or even the chance of it to be successful for it to be probable. If the probability has anything but a 0 no matter how many zeros are in front of it over 13.7870.020 billion years that means your house of cards or American Flag could land that way. That is enough to say that it is possibly be not intelligently designed. As I said before, but you ignored, you only need it to happen once in all that time and all those attempts.

You still have not given 1 scientific theory that can be tested that comes close to evolution or physics. All your attempts are guesses that something COULDN'T happen that way. That is crap. ID is a philosophy, a theology, not a scentific theory that can be tested. I still don't get why the desperation for it to be deemed a science?

---

You don't have 13.78 billion years in the timeline. It is a much, much shorter timeline.

Also, if they are dealing with statistical analyses, it would be properly classified as "science" rather than philosophy or theology.

Mfs will call the beauty and artistry of the universe anything except God https://t.co/00FRyhamy7

— Baron of Bahlingen 🔰🌳☦️ (@KRS_OOI) March 11, 2023

RMF5630 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.

---

I am not ignoring the question. Your question is not a scientific question, nor does it prove anything other than an exercise in probability.

---

Probabilistic arguments and theories permeate many fields of science, such as genetics, epidemiology, forensic science, medicine, biostatistics, actuarial science, environmental science, meteorology, geography, jurimetrics, ecology, chemistry, physics, astrophysics, etc. just to name a few.

RMF5630 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.

---

...You just need once or even the chance of it to be successful for it to be probable. If the probability has anything but a 0 no matter how many zeros are in front of it over 13.7870.020 billion years that means your house of cards or American Flag could land that way. That is enough to say that it is possibly be not intelligently designed. As I said before, but you ignored, you only need it to happen once in all that time and all those attempts.

---

The argument was NOT that it was statistically impossible (zero probability) for the confetti to land in the shape of the American flag. The argument was that because the odds against it happening by chance is so infinitesimally small, that it is prohibitive. Also, we know by experience that such patterns are virtually always the result of design. Therefore, the BEST inference from the data is that it is due to design. You come to that conclusion by drawing from scientific knowledge, logic, reason, and evidence from previous experience to come up with the best inference. This is essentially the basic structure of the ID argument. Clearly, ID is NOT the "we can't explain it so God must've done it" or "science must fail in order for ID to succeed" characterizations you've been asserting.

Just curious - if you were a casino manager, and someone won 1000 hands of poker in a row, you would think, "hey, it's statistically possible that it could happen at least ONE time, so that's enough to say that it's possible he isn't cheating....so I'll let it go"??? Would that really be your thought process?

RMF5630 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.

---

....You still have not given 1 scientific theory that can be tested that comes close to evolution or physics. All your attempts are guesses that something COULDN'T happen that way. That is crap. ID is a philosophy, an theology, not a scentific theory that can be tested. I still don't get why the desperation for it to be deemed a science?

---

If "testability" your measuring stick for what is a "science", then can you give us a test of the Darwinian theory that the 20 new phyla that abruptly emerged during the Cambrian explosion arose from an undirected, natural process?

Your criteria would eliminate any of the "historical sciences", where data is from past events and there is usually no direct experimental data, such as in cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, etc.

Intelligent design actually has made predictions that were "tested" - ID theorists predicted that the DNA segments in the human genome that Evolutionists considered to be "junk" DNA was not junk at all, but had an important purpose. They were proven right in later discoveries (ironically, "junk" DNA had been viewed by Evolutionists as proof of undirected, naturalistic evolution). ID also "predicts" that the fossil evidence should continue to show NO evidence of a very slow, progressive transition in the form of transitional forms before the abrupt appearance of 20 new phyla during the Cambrian explosion. So far, it has been shown to be correct, as none has been found.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The ethics of humanism is to make the world better. For everybody."

Funny though, how humanists in practice only ever seem to take care of their own.

---

Remember when Texas Atheist Men showed up in West,TX after the fertilizer plant explosion?

Remember all the times Athiest Purse has been on the scene of disasters?

Ya, I don't remember them either.

---

Is collectivism all you recognize, comrade?

Do you also prefer to pray on the street corner?

You wouldn't know it but there are humanist groups out there, which is not even my point. I was talking about ethical morality, one based on doing good for goodness' sake, not to avoid eternal torment or to achieve the gift of offering eternal praise to the guy who set up a system that includes eternal torment.

---

I recognize which collectives typically do the heavy lifting of charitable work. I also recognize they Samaritan.

By they way, where do you prey, councilor?

---

Not on children.

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

This whole thread shows a complete ignorance about science and space/time. So far science, acting upon our understanding of general relativity, and quantum theory, and other scientific understandings have provided you with the ability to experience the technologically advance lifestyle your perception and consciousness enjoys, which all happen to reside within this universe. You say science is stupid and defies logic, neither of which is true simply because you want to believe, yet you believe in the idea/concept of a god that has evolved over time out of the lore from primitive people who had not even a rudimentary understanding of the universe in which they reside - a god their imaginations created in order to give them answers to what they could not even begin to understand. That defies logic, and your beliefs certainly show ignorance - entrenched views without any empirical evidence defies logic and approaches the stupidity you hurl at science. Science is built upon the evidence of reality, not mystical primitive ideas.

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

This whole thread shows a complete ignorance about science and space/time. So far science, acting upon our understanding of general relativity, and quantum theory, and other scientific understandings have provided you with the ability to experience the technologically advance lifestyle your perception and consciousness enjoys, which all happen to reside within this universe. You say science is stupid and defies logic, neither of which is true simply because you want to believe, yet you believe in the idea/concept of a god that has evolved over time out of the lore from primitive people who had not even a rudimentary understanding of the universe in which they reside - a god their imaginations created in order to give them answers to what they could not even begin to understand. That defies logic, and your beliefs certainly show ignorance - entrenched views without any empirical evidence defies logic and approaches the stupidity you hurl at science. Science is built upon the evidence of reality, not mystical primitive ideas.

---

I didn't say science is stupid?! Science is I how I know about this topic. I don't have evidence of God, I have faith and a hypothesis that the substrate of reality is unlimited consciousness which is God.

Spacetime isn't fundamental. Operational meaning ceases to exist at planck scale.

Have you not heard of the amplituhedron or decorated permutations? These are objects outside of spacetime and they perfectly project down to spacetime. See Nima Arkani-Hamed and last years Nobel on proving the universe isn't locally real.

I don't think you have the knowledge or IQ to even being to understand what I've been posting about on this topic.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

This whole thread shows a complete ignorance about science and space/time. So far science, acting upon our understanding of general relativity, and quantum theory, and other scientific understandings have provided you with the ability to experience the technologically advance lifestyle your perception and consciousness enjoys, which all happen to reside within this universe. You say science is stupid and defies logic, neither of which is true simply because you want to believe, yet you believe in the idea/concept of a god that has evolved over time out of the lore from primitive people who had not even a rudimentary understanding of the universe in which they reside - a god their imaginations created in order to give them answers to what they could not even begin to understand. That defies logic, and your beliefs certainly show ignorance - entrenched views without any empirical evidence defies logic and approaches the stupidity you hurl at science. Science is built upon the evidence of reality, not mystical primitive ideas.

---

Our lifestyle owes as much to religion as it does to science.

---

Up until recent history, religion and science were essentially in the same category. Especially when looking at fields like astronomy, medicine, and architecture.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

This whole thread shows a complete ignorance about science and space/time. So far science, acting upon our understanding of general relativity, and quantum theory, and other scientific understandings have provided you with the ability to experience the technologically advance lifestyle your perception and consciousness enjoys, which all happen to reside within this universe. You say science is stupid and defies logic, neither of which is true simply because you want to believe, yet you believe in the idea/concept of a god that has evolved over time out of the lore from primitive people who had not even a rudimentary understanding of the universe in which they reside - a god their imaginations created in order to give them answers to what they could not even begin to understand. That defies logic, and your beliefs certainly show ignorance - entrenched views without any empirical evidence defies logic and approaches the stupidity you hurl at science. Science is built upon the evidence of reality, not mystical primitive ideas.

---

Our lifestyle owes as much to religion as it does to science.

---

Up until recent history, religion and science were essentially in the same category. Especially when looking at fields like astronomy, medicine, and architecture.

---

Good point!

BaylorJacket said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

This whole thread shows a complete ignorance about science and space/time. So far science, acting upon our understanding of general relativity, and quantum theory, and other scientific understandings have provided you with the ability to experience the technologically advance lifestyle your perception and consciousness enjoys, which all happen to reside within this universe. You say science is stupid and defies logic, neither of which is true simply because you want to believe, yet you believe in the idea/concept of a god that has evolved over time out of the lore from primitive people who had not even a rudimentary understanding of the universe in which they reside - a god their imaginations created in order to give them answers to what they could not even begin to understand. That defies logic, and your beliefs certainly show ignorance - entrenched views without any empirical evidence defies logic and approaches the stupidity you hurl at science. Science is built upon the evidence of reality, not mystical primitive ideas.

---

Our lifestyle owes as much to religion as it does to science.

---

Up until recent history, religion and science were essentially in the same category. Especially when looking at fields like astronomy, medicine, and architecture.

---

Science, to its credit, depends on religious assumptions.

TexasScientist said:

---

This whole thread shows a complete ignorance about science and space/time. So far science, acting upon our understanding of general relativity, and quantum theory, and other scientific understandings have provided you with the ability to experience the technologically advance lifestyle your perception and consciousness enjoys, which all happen to reside within this universe. You say science is stupid and defies logic, neither of which is true simply because you want to believe, yet you believe in the idea/concept of a god that has evolved over time out of the lore from primitive people who had not even a rudimentary understanding of the universe in which they reside - a god their imaginations created in order to give them answers to what they could not even begin to understand. That defies logic, and your beliefs certainly show ignorance - entrenched views without any empirical evidence defies logic and approaches the stupidity you hurl at science. Science is built upon the evidence of reality, not mystical primitive ideas.

---

Biology or Nutrition Science?

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

This whole thread shows a complete ignorance about science and space/time. So far science, acting upon our understanding of general relativity, and quantum theory, and other scientific understandings have provided you with the ability to experience the technologically advance lifestyle your perception and consciousness enjoys, which all happen to reside within this universe. You say science is stupid and defies logic, neither of which is true simply because you want to believe, yet you believe in the idea/concept of a god that has evolved over time out of the lore from primitive people who had not even a rudimentary understanding of the universe in which they reside - a god their imaginations created in order to give them answers to what they could not even begin to understand. That defies logic, and your beliefs certainly show ignorance - entrenched views without any empirical evidence defies logic and approaches the stupidity you hurl at science. Science is built upon the evidence of reality, not mystical primitive ideas.

---

Our lifestyle owes as much to religion as it does to science.

---

Up until recent history, religion and science were essentially in the same category. Especially when looking at fields like astronomy, medicine, and architecture.

---

Science, to its credit, depends on religious assumptions.

---

How so?

BaylorJacket said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

This whole thread shows a complete ignorance about science and space/time. So far science, acting upon our understanding of general relativity, and quantum theory, and other scientific understandings have provided you with the ability to experience the technologically advance lifestyle your perception and consciousness enjoys, which all happen to reside within this universe. You say science is stupid and defies logic, neither of which is true simply because you want to believe, yet you believe in the idea/concept of a god that has evolved over time out of the lore from primitive people who had not even a rudimentary understanding of the universe in which they reside - a god their imaginations created in order to give them answers to what they could not even begin to understand. That defies logic, and your beliefs certainly show ignorance - entrenched views without any empirical evidence defies logic and approaches the stupidity you hurl at science. Science is built upon the evidence of reality, not mystical primitive ideas.

---

Our lifestyle owes as much to religion as it does to science.

---

Up until recent history, religion and science were essentially in the same category. Especially when looking at fields like astronomy, medicine, and architecture.

---

Science, to its credit, depends on religious assumptions.

---

How so?

---

The universe is ordered and predictable.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

This whole thread shows a complete ignorance about science and space/time. So far science, acting upon our understanding of general relativity, and quantum theory, and other scientific understandings have provided you with the ability to experience the technologically advance lifestyle your perception and consciousness enjoys, which all happen to reside within this universe. You say science is stupid and defies logic, neither of which is true simply because you want to believe, yet you believe in the idea/concept of a god that has evolved over time out of the lore from primitive people who had not even a rudimentary understanding of the universe in which they reside - a god their imaginations created in order to give them answers to what they could not even begin to understand. That defies logic, and your beliefs certainly show ignorance - entrenched views without any empirical evidence defies logic and approaches the stupidity you hurl at science. Science is built upon the evidence of reality, not mystical primitive ideas.

---

Our lifestyle owes as much to religion as it does to science.

---

Only in the sense that the church finally got out of the way

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

This whole thread shows a complete ignorance about science and space/time. So far science, acting upon our understanding of general relativity, and quantum theory, and other scientific understandings have provided you with the ability to experience the technologically advance lifestyle your perception and consciousness enjoys, which all happen to reside within this universe. You say science is stupid and defies logic, neither of which is true simply because you want to believe, yet you believe in the idea/concept of a god that has evolved over time out of the lore from primitive people who had not even a rudimentary understanding of the universe in which they reside - a god their imaginations created in order to give them answers to what they could not even begin to understand. That defies logic, and your beliefs certainly show ignorance - entrenched views without any empirical evidence defies logic and approaches the stupidity you hurl at science. Science is built upon the evidence of reality, not mystical primitive ideas.

---

Our lifestyle owes as much to religion as it does to science.

---

Only in the sense that the church finally got out of the way

---

Much to the church's credit, but hardly its most important role.

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

This whole thread shows a complete ignorance about science and space/time. So far science, acting upon our understanding of general relativity, and quantum theory, and other scientific understandings have provided you with the ability to experience the technologically advance lifestyle your perception and consciousness enjoys, which all happen to reside within this universe. You say science is stupid and defies logic, neither of which is true simply because you want to believe, yet you believe in the idea/concept of a god that has evolved over time out of the lore from primitive people who had not even a rudimentary understanding of the universe in which they reside - a god their imaginations created in order to give them answers to what they could not even begin to understand. That defies logic, and your beliefs certainly show ignorance - entrenched views without any empirical evidence defies logic and approaches the stupidity you hurl at science. Science is built upon the evidence of reality, not mystical primitive ideas.

---

Human beings enjoyed a "technologically advanced lifestyle" well before the development general relativity or quantum mechanics.

Science is not stupid, but science does not and cannot answer and does not even ask any and all questions which we might want to answer. You claim without evidence that the belief in a power outside of the physical universe must have been created by the imaginations of humans. However, there is no logical basis for that position, it is, for you, simply an article of faith that there is no God and that there is nothing outside of the material universe. You want this to be true but the appeal to novelty fallacy in your argument does not enhance your position.

---

I don't consider life pre general relativity and quantum theory technologically advanced in comparison to the post.

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

This whole thread shows a complete ignorance about science and space/time. So far science, acting upon our understanding of general relativity, and quantum theory, and other scientific understandings have provided you with the ability to experience the technologically advance lifestyle your perception and consciousness enjoys, which all happen to reside within this universe. You say science is stupid and defies logic, neither of which is true simply because you want to believe, yet you believe in the idea/concept of a god that has evolved over time out of the lore from primitive people who had not even a rudimentary understanding of the universe in which they reside - a god their imaginations created in order to give them answers to what they could not even begin to understand. That defies logic, and your beliefs certainly show ignorance - entrenched views without any empirical evidence defies logic and approaches the stupidity you hurl at science. Science is built upon the evidence of reality, not mystical primitive ideas.

---

Human beings enjoyed a "technologically advanced lifestyle" well before the development general relativity or quantum mechanics.

Science is not stupid, but science does not and cannot answer and does not even ask any and all questions which we might want to answer. You claim without evidence that the belief in a power outside of the physical universe must have been created by the imaginations of humans. However, there is no logical basis for that position, it is, for you, simply an article of faith that there is no God and that there is nothing outside of the material universe. You want this to be true but the appeal to novelty fallacy in your argument does not enhance your position.

---

I don't consider life pre general relativity and quantum theory technologically advanced in comparison to the post.

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

The belief in a power outside the physical comes not simply from imagination, for one can certainly imagine many things, like you imagining that people did not enjoy lifestyles made possible by advanced technology before last Tuesday, but also logic. The are some unprovable, but reasonable, assumptions involved with believing a higher power exists, and they are the same kind of unprovable, but reasonable, assumptions we must accept if we are to believe that science works. Belief in a higher power is no more an intellectual cop out than belief in the existence of a physical universe is an intellectual cop out.

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

This whole thread shows a complete ignorance about science and space/time. So far science, acting upon our understanding of general relativity, and quantum theory, and other scientific understandings have provided you with the ability to experience the technologically advance lifestyle your perception and consciousness enjoys, which all happen to reside within this universe. You say science is stupid and defies logic, neither of which is true simply because you want to believe, yet you believe in the idea/concept of a god that has evolved over time out of the lore from primitive people who had not even a rudimentary understanding of the universe in which they reside - a god their imaginations created in order to give them answers to what they could not even begin to understand. That defies logic, and your beliefs certainly show ignorance - entrenched views without any empirical evidence defies logic and approaches the stupidity you hurl at science. Science is built upon the evidence of reality, not mystical primitive ideas.

---

I didn't say science is stupid?! Science is I how I know about this topic. I don't have evidence of God, I have faith and a hypothesis that the substrate of reality is unlimited consciousness which is God.

Spacetime isn't fundamental. Operational meaning ceases to exist at planck scale.

Have you not heard of the amplituhedron or decorated permutations? These are objects outside of spacetime and they perfectly project down to spacetime. See Nima Arkani-Hamed and last years Nobel on proving the universe isn't locally real.

I don't think you have the knowledge or IQ to even being to understand what I've been posting about on this topic.

---

Publication titles and headlines can be catchy and sometimes sensational, but don't always accurately capture the content. You don't know that space time isn't fundamental to our existence. It's certainly relevant to your existence, unless you think you don't really exist. Yes I have. That is only speculation from someone's mental exercise of imagination. There are a lot of interesting ideas from string theory. String theory is all over the place and hasn't produced anything that tells us anything useful about our universe, as of yet. Everything breaks down at the Plank scale. That doesn't discount, nor invalidate quantum theory and special relativity. Those have been tested and are validated. The science is pointing in the direction of a multiverse outside of our universe. Many string theorists and cognitive psychologists struggle to make their specific fields of study relevant beyond speculation. Follow what is predictable from testable evidence. Given enough time, we may be able find a unified theory that will address what happens at the Plank scale.