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

originally posted by: luthier

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

That’s easy. Take 100 different people from a variety of faiths put them in 100 separate rooms and ask them each the same 100 questions about their God. And see how consistent they are. Good luck.

If there was a single God and he did communicate with his followers, the answers would be consistent. Hell, take 100 Christians who claim to be in communication with God and perform the same experiment on them.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
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.

I think I will convert to atheism then, it’s so much easier when asked about the origins of the universe to sit back and say I don’t know and the burden of proof is on everyone else who doesn’t hold that position.

Then despite getting reasoned arguments for intelligent design and such I just repeat where is the empirical evidence? It requires little if any thinking on my part and I get to walk away feeling all smug because I haven’t been shown scientific proof of something that can’t be verified using the scientific method..

a reply to: luthier

It's just a question on a forum dude, if nobody wishes to respond then so be it, same as the mirror evolution thread.

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: blackcrowe
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.

I think I will convert to atheism then, it’s so much easier when asked about the origins of the universe to sit back and say I don’t know and the burden of proof is on everyone else who doesn’t hold that position.

Then despite getting reasoned arguments for intelligent design and such I just repeat where is the empirical evidence? It requires little if any thinking on my part and I get to walk away feeling all smug because I haven’t been shown scientific proof of something that can’t be verified using the scientific method..

If you want to take things out of context. And, convert.

That's up to you.

I was reminding CCG not to forget to add a reminder every now and then. Like in the Raggetyman threads.

I am not getting involved in the thread subject.

It's the only thing i look forward to in Raggy's threads.

It makes me smile.

I want to see it in this too.

I don't think any of these threads serve any useful purpose. And. Think they shouldn't be allowed to do it anyway.

As i said. I just think it's funny.

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.

Yeah I'm hyper open minded but also know many religious claims are highly unlikely, for ex young earth age, Noah's Ark, etc. However, I always remember that the current state of scientific knowledge is limited to what might be out there. That's why we shouldn't subscribe to the dogmas of "scientism" either.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Lol, I get you

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

But you admit you have no verifiable evidence to support claims of gods though yes?

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I'm glad someone does.

a reply to: blackcrowe

How am I taking things out of context? I have stated the atheists position and what it looks like to those that are not. Am I wrong?

I haven’t read the other mirror thread by ranggy man but if it’s about evolution then there is plenty of evidence for such. Religions in my opinion are about institutional control, they may serve some good but I have zero interest in them.

You see I believe in god through my own reasoning and experience. The experience part I can’t discuss on here without breaking the T&Cs I can’t even type the three letter word associated with such without it being censored. Now that I find funny. As for the reasoned argument it seems to fly right over the heads of many and all I’m met with is where is the empirical evidence?

Why don’t you and others show me the empirical evidence or the scientific data that proves there is no god? You can’t because there isn’t any, just as the opposite is true.

But keep up with the circle jerk and giving each other stars for comments that align with your own ideas. It’s like you guys abor the very idea of god for some reason, you have to equate it to unicorns and such. It’s weak and not reasoned debate.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: blackcrowe

How am I taking things out of context? I have stated the atheists position and what it looks like to those that are not. Am I wrong?

I haven’t read the other mirror thread by ranggy man but if it’s about evolution then there is plenty of evidence for such. Religions in my opinion are about institutional control, they may serve some good but I have zero interest in them.

You see I believe in god through my own reasoning and experience. The experience part I can’t discuss on here without breaking the T&Cs I can’t even type the three letter word associated with such without it being censored. Now that I find funny. As for the reasoned argument it seems to fly right over the heads of many and all I’m met with is where is the empirical evidence?

Why don’t you and others show me the empirical evidence or the scientific data that proves there is no god? You can’t because there isn’t any, just as the opposite is true.

But keep up with the circle jerk and giving each other stars for comments that align with your own ideas. It’s like you guys abor the very idea of god for some reason, you have to equate it to unicorns and such. It’s weak and not reasoned debate.

If you haven't seen the mirror thread. Or, his previous threads. That is the reason you misunderstand my comment.

As i already said. I'm not getting involved with the subject of the thread.

The subject of this and Raggy's threads are pointless. And. Should not be allowed.

originally posted by: surfer_soulBut keep up with the circle jerk

You seem grumpy, chill out man, this ain't the grumpy thread criticising the theory of evolution.

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: luthier

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

That’s easy. Take 100 different people from a variety of faiths put them in 100 separate rooms and ask them each the same 100 questions about their God. And see how consistent they are. Good luck.

If there was a single God and he did communicate with his followers, the answers would be consistent. Hell, take 100 Christians who claim to be in communication with God and perform the same experiment on them.

Prove that that is the way to prove god communicates..

Prove that people remember the same thing they actually experience.

A designer is a philosophical theory. It has some evidence but no proof.

If we live in a simulation there is a designer. The same may be possible with a hologram.

Now is that a god that cares or is biblical not necessarily.

Is a god a being that genetically altered humans?

Is god a being that is its own cause and not contingent in something else. Which is an infinite regress problem..

Hard to say. Fine tuning is an interesting observation and it being used to promote a teleological argument is interesting.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: luthier

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

That’s easy. Take 100 different people from a variety of faiths put them in 100 separate rooms and ask them each the same 100 questions about their God. And see how consistent they are. Good luck.

If there was a single God and he did communicate with his followers, the answers would be consistent. Hell, take 100 Christians who claim to be in communication with God and perform the same experiment on them.

Prove that that is the way to prove god communicates..

Prove that people remember the same thing they actually experience.

A designer is a philosophical theory. It has some evidence but no proof.

If we live in a simulation there is a designer. The same may be possible with a hologram.

Now is that a god that cares or is biblical not necessarily.

Is a god a being that genetically altered humans?

Is god a being that is its own cause and not contingent in something else. Which is an infinite regress problem..

Hard to say. Fine tuning is an interesting observation and it being used to promote a teleological argument is interesting.

I'm asking others to prove their god claims. Unlucky if you can't lol.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: luthier

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

That’s easy. Take 100 different people from a variety of faiths put them in 100 separate rooms and ask them each the same 100 questions about their God. And see how consistent they are. Good luck.

If there was a single God and he did communicate with his followers, the answers would be consistent. Hell, take 100 Christians who claim to be in communication with God and perform the same experiment on them.

Prove that that is the way to prove god communicates..

Prove that people remember the same thing they actually experience.

A designer is a philosophical theory. It has some evidence but no proof.

If we live in a simulation there is a designer. The same may be possible with a hologram.

Now is that a god that cares or is biblical not necessarily.

Is a god a being that genetically altered humans?

Is god a being that is its own cause and not contingent in something else. Which is an infinite regress problem..

Hard to say. Fine tuning is an interesting observation and it being used to promote a teleological argument is interesting.

I'm asking others to prove their god claims. Unlucky if you can't lol.

It isn't a subject that requires proof unless it is stated it can be proven.

Like love. You can't prove someone loves you. Heck you can't even prove reality. Everything could be a dream or a simulation.

All you can prove is what you can perceive as true.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

But you admit you have no verifiable evidence to support claims of gods though yes?

Yes

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Woodcarver

Unfortunately there are hardcore atheists such as Dawkins who constantly try to push there ideas on the rest of us. I for one take offence at being referred to as Christian because I believe in god. Not everything is a black and white/either or as some would have it.

So you do believe in god? What led you to this position?

I believe that everything at its core is infinite, what I would describe as god is the same thing as infinity or a better way of putting it, that infinity is a property of god.
Mind or intelligence is another property of god, the universe is a property of god, do you see where I’m going with this?

Just as our physical body’s are properties of us but we aren’t the exact same thing as our body’s. We exist as minds that can traverse the physical through will alone. Such as when we imagine the concepts being discussed.

It’s very hard to describe especially when I keep being redirected to some malware site, I’ll leave it at that for now

It seems like you’re choosing that word “Infinite” because it sounds good.

can you demonstrate infinite? Have you ever observed something To be infinite?

a reply to: Woodcarver

2) you said the characters could have any level of intelligence. I was going off of that caveat. 

Calling people militant, is not fair. I don’t call people who argue strongly for their faith, militant christians. You are responsible for your own words. When you stoop to such tactics, you will be seen in the same light as those you would call militant yourself. Be the kind of person that you want others to be, and that will be reflected back at you.

Reading from your point of view feels
icky.

But I am gaining a different perspective.

Yeah.....Just what we need another atheist vs. creator argument that goes around and around and around and disguised but this one will be different...

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Woodcarver

Unfortunately there are hardcore atheists such as Dawkins who constantly try to push there ideas on the rest of us. I for one take offence at being referred to as Christian because I believe in god. Not everything is a black and white/either or as some would have it.

So you do believe in god? What led you to this position?

I believe that everything at its core is infinite, what I would describe as god is the same thing as infinity or a better way of putting it, that infinity is a property of god.
Mind or intelligence is another property of god, the universe is a property of god, do you see where I’m going with this?

Just as our physical body’s are properties of us but we aren’t the exact same thing as our body’s. We exist as minds that can traverse the physical through will alone. Such as when we imagine the concepts being discussed.

It’s very hard to describe especially when I keep being redirected to some malware site, I’ll leave it at that for now

It seems like you’re choosing that word “Infinite” because it sounds good.

can you demonstrate infinite? Have you ever observed something To be infinite?

The law of thermodynamics basically states that energy can neither be created or destroyed. Therefore it is infinite is not?

Also we have the philosophical paradox where when we ask if something has an ending then what is beyond it? If the answer is a void or nothingness then that too must be infinite in nature.
How can it be otherwise?

Just want to throw this out there...

The arrogance of my fellow atheists in presupposing their own existence always baffles me.

There’s no more negative evidence against the concept of a God than there was when Plato was doing this.

Empiricism is NO LESS FAITH BASED THAN ANY OTHER RELIGION. Yes, your scientists with all their pomp and circumstance are priests by any other name. Remember the brilliant minds that prescribed unfiltered Camels for health not so long ago? They were intelligent men, it just so happened that the evidence they had is contrary to the currently (this is the important part) believed evidence.

Prove your existence to me, you’ve got nothing better than “because I/we” say so.

The problems posed by Descartes are no more solved than the problem of God.