It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Aggie Man
Got any proof for your stance beyond the word of the "good book"? I mean any proof whatsoever? If you want to present your argument, then lay it out with a well thought out defense. At least try to debunk the debunkers before they ...debunk.
I've seen this argument (same topic) a thousand times. What evidence do you bring that makes your attempt any different than before? Surely you have new evidence; otherwise, you would have continued on with any of the numerous ongoing debates. Please tell me you have something new to bring to the table.
Originally posted by mrphilosophias aka M.F. Alexander
A proof of Intention and Design in the Creation of a Universe Hospitable to Life
•A universe which is hospitable to life, and the conditions which were necessary for life to emerge from non-life, assumes a precise and particular co-occurrence of variables:
1.These variables are innumerable.
2.The probability of these variables being met and also co-occurring is consequently incalculable.
3.Supposing knowledge of every variable, and the probability that each particular variable should occur, it would be theoretically possible to calculate the probability that the precise variables would exist and coincide, but the probability would be almost 0.
4.:.It is inconceivably improbable that all of the variables necessary for life to exist should precisely co-occur.
•A universe exists which is hospitable and host to an abundant diversity of complex living organisms.
1.The variables required for such a Universe precisely coincide.
2.Life emerged in a distant past present on planet Earth.
3.Life survived, reproduced, evolved, and thrived to the present where we find this diversity of complex life forms.
•Every possible reality exists as a present moment. (
•Every present moment is inextricably connected.
1.The present moment is the culmination of all past presents.
2.Every future moment is the culmination of all past presents.
3.Every past moment is the culmination of all past presents.
4.Every present moment depends upon the first moment.
5.Every possible moment culminates in a last moment. (
6.The first moment inevitably leads to every consecutive present moment and ultimately to a last moment.
7. The past moment in which life first emerged was the culmination of every moment which unfolded from the very first moment.
R14.) From the very first moment the events which unfolded culminated in the existence of a Universe with a precise co-occurrence of variables which are necessary for life to exist and emerge.
1.The Universe was either intended by an efficacious creative being or it was not intended.
2.If it was not intended then:
R4.) It is inconceivably improbable that all of the variables necessary for life to exist should precisely co-occur, absent intention.
However:
R5.) The variables required for such a Universe precisely coincide.
1.:. It is inconceivably more probable that any Universe which is hospitable to life was intended by an efficacious creative being, than that it happened absent intention or design.
Copyright © 2011 Matthew F. Alexander
Originally posted by Aggie Man
In my book, randomness defeats mystical design 7-days a week. Got any proof for your stance beyond the word of the "good book"? I mean any proof whatsoever? If you want to present your argument, then lay it out with a well thought out defense. At least try to debunk the debunkers before they ...debunk.
Originally posted by mrphilosophias
reply to post by Aggie Man
would you like to debate this topic in the moderated debate forum?
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by randomname
Your straw man argument fails to disprove evolution and abiogenesis. You are comparing two things that are completely different. Also, the odds of it occurring are 1. At least from the data we have available.
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by randomname
Your straw man argument fails to disprove evolution and abiogenesis. You are comparing two things that are completely different. Also, the odds of it occurring are 1. At least from the data we have available.
Originally posted by randomname
just like your car is proof that ford built it, the universe is proof God created it.edit on 20-2-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)
just like your car is proof that ford built it, the universe is proof God created it.
Originally posted by l_e_cox
Intelligent Design (or similar ideas by other names) remains in the running because people have experienced the reality of it in small ways in their own lives. Some scientists are also seeing the phenomenon on a smaller scale. The phenomenon is that thought can change matter. Put another way: intention causes action.
But what we really don't need more of is another belief system. Explanations for observed phenomena are put forth in the hopes of building a model from which related phenomena could be predicted. In other words, there is actual utility in a "better" theory.
Physics theories, whether on a sub-atomic or cosmological scale, are (hopefully) advanced to achieve greater workability of prediction, and thus aid in developing new technologies. Biology should be the same way.
And where is biology heading these days? Genetic engineering. Hardly a case of "let's sit back and wait for it to evolve."
Intelligent Design extends the phenomenon of "mind over matter" back to the beginning of life forms in this universe, or at least on this planet. In doing so it opens up a Pandora's Box of ramifications in other human activities. One has to believe, basically, that life, or consciousness, came first, before life forms. I think this is what is giving so many people so much trouble with the subject.
I can say with some certainty that in the field of the mind, and in what could be called "spiritual counseling" for lack of a better term, Intelligent Design has proven a more workable model for therapy than the more materialistic explanations for how life forms were created. It comes up a lot in this field, because the relationship between the being and his body is a huge issue for a lot of people.
And I think it is more and more becoming implicit in genetic studies as well.
Evolutionary theories have their workability. But it must be recognized that genetic engineering opens up the possibility that this may not be the first time in the universe that genetic materials have been engineered.
The problem is: If you accept this possibility then you must also postulate a non-physical (or at least non-human) entity or reality capable of intelligently creating new life forms. I believe that there is in fact considerable evidence that such an entity exists. If so, then the "spiritual" crosses into science. And that is what many are not ready to confront.