Creator god or intelligent design, the facts that inform the theory?

originally posted by: Incandescent

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Nature is proof of evolution, chemistry, geology, mathematics, and a few more things, but when have you ever observed a god in nature?

Can characters in a video game be shown proof of the programmer that created them?

Yes. If they created a powerful enough computer in game to run several complex equations or try to find all prime numbers or pie maybe running at the same time it would overload the mainframe the game is running on to where they would experience lag in time or possibly crash the game giving them the evidence that they are in a simulation.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0naut

Sorry pal, you've got no verifiable evidence to support claims of gods creating the universe, nice try though.

EDIT
You have faith and speculation, nothing more.

Waaaaaaait a minute, now you come in here all bluster thinking you have your gotcha moment. You ask for something, you are provided with information that is clearly above your head, so you don't even bother to respond to it. He has even given you citations.

This is not how it's done bro.

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Lol, no, it's speculative, nothing more.
I repeat with arrogant confidence, he has no verifiable evidence to support any claims of gods...or goblins and ghosts for that matter lol

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Nobody including physicists have cosmological evidence of original origin.

Nobody has evidence their wife lives them.

Metaphysical and philosophical subjects don't need evidence to be valid.

Goblins are not the same as inteligent design.

Again people use fine tuning as evidence for the teleological argument. It's a hard one to simply dismiss.

Now like I said I am not a believer but an agnostic but sarcastic arguments aren't effective in debate.

Yes and no. One time someone said something similar: "There is no supernatural. If magic or some higher being exists then itz part of the natural order." I think that's correct. However, when someone says therefore all the old mythologcal understandings or teachings are incorrect, that can be a non sequitur.

It becomes semantics.

Are there spiritual entities? Or other dimensional beings that take a different form. Many scientists say the latter is possible. Semantics.

Do people have auras? Or do people have electro magnetic fields as do all living things. Again, binary semantics. The latter is true it just must be asked if the bigger claims of such energy fields are true.

Are we all interconnected energetically and ecologically? Yes both mystics and now scientists say this.

This is where both the religious versus scientific people fail. Only seeing one side or needing it to use the same phrases and dogma as the other.

Just because a phenomenon historically was couched in a phraseology that science doesn't use now doesn't mean it's allllll false.

That also doesn't mean it's true.

a reply to: Hecate666

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Nobody including physicists have cosmological evidence of original origin.

Agreed.

Nobody has evidence their wife lives them.

I have plenty of evidence supporting claims that people love me, their actions, behaviour towards me, decisions they make which may influence my life etc.
That belief in love from human friends and family is based on experience, which is more than can be said for any gods lol.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Nobody including physicists have cosmological evidence of original origin.

Agreed.

Nobody has evidence their wife lives them.

I have plenty of evidence supporting claims that people love me, their actions, behaviour towards me, decisions they make which may influence my life etc.
That belief in love from human friends and family is based on experience, which is more than can be said for any gods lol.

Again this isn't true. Some people feel they feel God for various reasons.

Your friends and family can also be explained as mutually beneficial, social contract, or in the case of sociopaths totally manipulative....

Some people take dmt and experience things..

Again there is no proof one way or the other.

Unless you say pray heals or something and then it doesn't. Or I can walk on water and I can't.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
This is where both the religious versus scientific people fail. Only seeing one side or needing it to use the same phrases and dogma as the other.

Agreed, I sit happy on the fence because I don't know, but "God did it" seems lame to me.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I can't be bothered reading this thread.

But. Don't forget.

6 pages. 6 pages of nothing.

I ask a question. 6 pages. Blah blah

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
This is where both the religious versus scientific people fail. Only seeing one side or needing it to use the same phrases and dogma as the other.

Agreed, I sit happy on the fence because I don't know, but "God did it" seems lame to me.

Have you read the fine tuning argument?

Or Aquinas ways?

Again I am not a true believer bit they are more than what you are talking about.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I can't be bothered reading this thread.

But. Don't forget.

6 pages. 6 pages of nothing.

I ask a question. 6 pages. Blah blah

Have you been drinking or something?
I don't see the point you are trying to make, sorry.

a reply to: luthier

Again speculative, no verifiable evidence to support claims of gods.
...unless I've read different books to you, I see nothing you could remotely call evidence, just speculation.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

It depends. Aquinas would be the same. Fine tuning requires deep thought.

Philosophy doesn't get proof like you believe. Nor does metaphysics.

What is the verifiable evidence someone loves you? They do nice things?

What if they are playing you, or just trying to survive?

These things require thought and the methodology for testing philosophical ideas. They are not yes or no answers. It is not applied science.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Sorry.

The other thread this one is based on. Reminds the readers how many pages of nothing/no evidence there is, so far.

I thought it was funny.

a reply to: luthier

I refer you back to my earlier reply:
I have plenty of evidence supporting claims that people love me, their actions, behaviour towards me, decisions they make which may influence my life etc.
That belief in love from human friends and family is based on experience, which is more than can be said for any gods lol.

a reply to: blackcrowe

LolI get ya!
No sorry needed, it's always tricky in solely text based conversations, and now you've made me chuckle

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

I refer you back to my earlier reply:
I have plenty of evidence supporting claims that people love me, their actions, behaviour towards me, decisions they make which may influence my life etc.
That belief in love from human friends and family is based on experience, which is more than can be said for any gods lol.

I will tell you again those are not proof. They are perceptions.

People say they perceive god as well can you prove them wrong?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

I refer you back to my earlier reply:
I have plenty of evidence supporting claims that people love me, their actions, behaviour towards me, decisions they make which may influence my life etc.
That belief in love from human friends and family is based on experience, which is more than can be said for any gods lol.

I will tell you again those are not proof. They are perceptions.

People say they perceive god as well can you prove them wrong?

I'm not here trying to prove anyone wrong, I'm making no claims, I'm asking believers for their non speculative verifiable evidence to support their creationist claims.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

I refer you back to my earlier reply:
I have plenty of evidence supporting claims that people love me, their actions, behaviour towards me, decisions they make which may influence my life etc.
That belief in love from human friends and family is based on experience, which is more than can be said for any gods lol.

I will tell you again those are not proof. They are perceptions.

People say they perceive god as well can you prove them wrong?

I'm not here trying to prove anyone wrong, I'm making no claims, I'm asking believers for their non speculative verifiable evidence to support their creationist claims.

Thar isn't reasonable though. It's like asking someone to prove they love you by doing nice things.

If someone is in your face sayimg they can prove god exists then fine. Otherwise take some time to think about what fine tuning could imply. Personally I think it's the best argument for god but still don't believe it. However I don't act like it's the same as unicorns either.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

There are no facts that there is a creator or intelligent design. It is based on faith. And there are multitudes of different faiths out there with different Gods so if you ask me, Christianity has no reason to be any more legitimate than the rest of them. I personally think faith-based “science” is for nutters.

If we really want to understand the secrets of the universe instead of making them up, science has that covered. If there is a creator, the best way to understand him or her is through the scientific study of his or her creation, not through channeling and prophets.

Now, religion might have its place when it comes to justifying certain philosophies, but even then it is a weak philosophy that justifies its tenets on “because God said so” logic.