intelligent Design is More than "God did it."

NJ!!

Nice seeing you! Long time no talk!!


Thanks for answering my question?????

However, there have been suggestions that humanoids eating the brains of other humans led to some rather interesting results... but for the most part, these theories are purely speculative, so I won't go in depth with them...

One would wonder where they got the IDEA that, "Hey here is some food, dudes!"

So it sounds like my idea of a creator is not too fanciful, and actually makes more logical sense. Especially if you leave off all the religion doo doo.

reply to post by nj2day

This figure is still way way way off... off by several Billion years... There isn't any possible way the earth is that young either...

Nixie's assertion would still stand... even given a few thousand more years...

Ya, I have no problem with what you are saying. I believe it was metaphorical in intent. Another words....a long time!!

good to see ya too LOL looks like the old crew is still here...

I had to take a lil bit of time off... but I think I'm back now

Originally posted by MatrixProphet


One would wonder where they got the IDEA that, "Hey here is some food, dudes!"

So it sounds like my idea of a creator is not too fanciful, and actually makes more logical sense. Especially if you leave off all the religion doo doo.

How would the presence of supremely complicated universal consciousness be more logical than the absence thereof?

you've answered nothing by attributing it to this consciousness.... you're only begging the question... where did this immensly complex being come from?

reply to post by nj2day

you've answered nothing by attributing it to this consciousness.... you're only begging the question... where did this immensly complex being come from?

No, simply, where did consciousness come from? If you find that out, I am saying, you will find a conscious power behind it.

As Dawkins says, "We have no idea where life started."

So his guess is as good as mine!!!

reply to post by MatrixProphet


let me try and put this into perspective...

in the middle ages... the black plague swept through europe... At the time, they had no idea what it was, or how it spread... and instead thought it was a curse sent down from an almighty being...

Now... what is more probable:

1) The fact they didn't understand fully that the plague was a disease carried on the fleas of rats that infested the villiages/cities...

or 2) That god actually cursed the people in the middle ages?

What i'm trying to state here, is its multitudes more likely that the origins of life are not fully understood, but hopefully someday we'll understand, VS. "god dun it"

make sense... even talking statistical probability, a supernatural supreme being is scores less likely than the fact that we just don't currently understand...

Originally posted by MatrixProphet


No, simply, where did consciousness come from? If you find that out, I am saying, you will find a conscious power behind it.

no the more relavent question is what is conciousness?

deffine it accuratley and we can start to look for its origins ..it has no uch deffintion and despite everyone raving abou how great it is to be concious no one has a clue what the hell they really mean by it

and it still gets its ass handed to it by the unconcious mind time and time again

so what i conciousness?

self awerness? primates have shown at least a tentaive ability of self awerness

the ability to plan? jumping piders have NO actual brain but can and do plan stratergies based on the local terrain to help them get thier meal without becoming the meal

abstract thought? bird dog and primates can all be taught symbolic meanings

so what is this conciousness exactly that you ask about?

Hey noob! long time no see...

looks like the usual suspects in here eh? LOL

anyways, I'm back from my little sabbatical now hopefully you'll see me in here more often lol

I can't figure out how I can more simply explain the improbability of a supreme being than I did above... but I'm trying lol

reply to post by nj2day


hey buddy ^_^ i did say hi in OT's name a random cellular component and ay jesus did it thread but i guess you didnt see it

ive now reversed his argument and anything with an A in it proves atheism is the true path

like gods real name jeAlous , jesus of nAzAreth

and shown how using maths the holy trinity falls apart but using algebra A make it all sensable ......... i dont think he will be uing the it look like thi o therefore jesus did it argument for a bit

reply to post by noobfun


lol he didn't answer my question about the existence of people before christ's birth either lol

that thread kinda spun into the "wacky"... so I haven't been keeping up lol

reply to post by nj2day

let me try and put this into perspective...

in the middle ages... the black plague swept through europe... At the time, they had no idea what it was, or how it spread... and instead thought it was a curse sent down from an almighty being...

Now... what is more probable:

1) The fact they didn't understand fully that the plague was a disease carried on the fleas of rats that infested the villiages/cities...

or 2) That god actually cursed the people in the middle ages?

What i'm trying to state here, is its multitudes more likely that the origins of life are not fully understood, but hopefully someday we'll understand, VS. "god dun it"

make sense... even talking statistical probability, a supernatural supreme being is scores less likely than the fact that we just don't currently understand...

Oh, I understand and am right with you. But where I see your reasoning is centered on: religion. Not a power with consciousness. Who was wrong? The religion who believed in sorcery and ignorance, or a creator who allowed for consequences, or is perhaps indifferent? Or cause and effect?

Actually, the likelihood of there not being a God/creator is wholly dependent on who is speaking and is not founded on math or science. It is conjecture. It is wishful thinking. Statistics can actually point to the opposite.

How likely is it, based on your thinking that there is no intelligent designer, that the following would magically happen?:

250 basic proteins lined up perfectly in the same sequence just to create one basic cell and it would need to be in that same order or it won't work. Odds of it happening by accident would have to be in the multi-trillions just for one cell! Only one cell!!!

And it would have to be on the back of a crystal to boot! Which brings up the next question: where did this crystal come from?

So science is admittedly limited. How can one with clear unbiased intelligence use something to disprove ID knowing that it lacks the tools to do so? It's like trying to use a fishing pole to catch a fish without a hook - just the string. How successful will you be?

The question may be, "How can we go about attempting to prove the existence of a powerful consciousness since all indicators show that it is more probable, than trying to prove a negative which most scientists say is impossible to do. One can collect evidence for anything for hours on end, but objective proof of anything is very hard to come by.

Again, Dawkins admits that there really isn't any percentage that is provable in the non-existence of God. (I read his book - The God Delusion.) So since there are no provable facts, and yet too many gaps and questions remaining, how can one intelligently not look in a God direction?

"The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence." - Clifford Stone







[edit on 17-2-2009 by MatrixProphet]

reply to post by nj2day


yeah he ignored mine at first, the one with the praying mantis either proving jesus or proving mr miagi was the greatest martial art intructor ever

then he did a whole few pages of avoidance on the cross predating christianity bit then everyone jumped on him and he conceded the cross -lananim argument

page 12 is where i start putting big red A' everywhere, he laughed but i dont think he really appreaciated it

reply to post by MatrixProphet


So by your own admission, there are no data sets for the existence of a being... (you mention disproving, which can never be done... unless someday we can prove invisible dragons don't exist...)

So... given that there is no data supporting the position... and there is data supporting the other position... any amount of probability, no matter how miniscule, would indeed be a higher figure than we can currently draft for the existence of a deity..

then you have to add to the fact that people have been looking for proof of a diety for thousands of years, and have yet to provide.... however, in the short 150 some odd years we've been examining evolution, we've come up with mountains and mountains of evidence....

we can indeed draw probability figures off these facts...

The extraordinary claim that a supreme being is behind this all has yet to take the first step into being proven...

The scientific claim that life has evolved, took its first baby steps aboard "The Beagle", and has briskly picked up pace since then... running at a brisk jog for the last 1.5 centuries...

meanwhile, with several thousand years head start.... "god" is still at the starting line...

reply to post by noobfun


How many animals have a conscience? How many other creatures aside from humans that have a "knowing" between what is right and what is wrong? How many have the capability of expanding their minds and learning a foreign language? How many know that it is wrong to kill? How many understand morality that transcends time, place, culture and conditioning, a trait common among humans but not animals?

"If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true, but rather because of a series of chemical reactions...

...Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right or wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. and Nothing else." - Douglas Wilson

Another words, folks...you would not even be talking about atheism verses a conscious power unless HE invented thought/consciousness.

reply to post by nj2day

I can't figure out how I can more simply explain the improbability of a supreme being than I did above... but I'm trying lol

You can't because it is impossible to.

So by your own admission, there are no data sets for the existence of a being... (you mention disproving, which can never be done... unless someday we can prove invisible dragons don't exist...)

This is correct. The necessary tools are not of science and that is why you would have difficulty.

"Is the Universe conscious of its own existence? If not, where did our consciousness come from? If so, is it possible that the Universe, with nothing at first but fully conscious of itself and what it could become, created itself according to a process which evolutionists have observed and measured and now call evolution, or what creationists call creation? How could we who are alive and conscious of this fact, come from something that is neither living nor conscious?"

So... given that there is no data supporting the position... and there is data supporting the other position... any amount of probability, no matter how miniscule, would indeed be a higher figure than we can currently draft for the existence of a deity..

None of your data disproves a higher power. It shows a highly efficient one!!! Remember, your tools are not efficient enough to assess his existence or not.

"Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed." - Paul Manata

reply to post by noobfun




Yes, I read your posts to OT. Poor guy.

ve now reversed his argument and anything with an A in it proves atheism is the true path

like gods real name jeAlous , jesus of nAzAreth

and shown how using maths the holy trinity falls apart but using algebra A make it all sensable ......... i dont think he will be uing the it look like thi o therefore jesus did it argument for a bit

I am so proud of you! This makes such scientific and mathematical sense.

Boy, you may have read my comments on his post on the trinity. Thank you for your logical common sense. The trinity doctrine really falls apart, unlike the logical common sense existence of a higher power!!!!

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
Actually, the likelihood of there not being a God/creator is wholly dependent on who is speaking and is not founded on math or science. It is conjecture. It is wishful thinking. Statistics can actually point to the opposite.

not really becasue you imply have to make up ALL the number relating to god

becasue there simply i no proven knowledge about it/him/her so you make it all up and come out with anything ..garbage in garbage out ... like that guy who wroite a whole book aout proving god with tatistical probability, he et up 7 key areas and gave each one a mark then did alittle mathamatic jiggery pokery and got the answer, as a christian he was lightly diappointed when given all the favoritism of hi number picking bias the probability of god came out at 65%, he then decided to add 30% for his faith value *cough*wtf*Cough* ... meaning he cheated to prove god ... and did it in a book for all to see how dumb he was

How likely is it, based on your thinking that there is no intelligent designer, that the following would magically happen?:

1:1 .. its happened as far as we are aware it only happened once so the probability it happened is in fact 1:1

unless you can prove some god did some tampering

250 basic proteins lined up perfectly in the same sequence just to create one basic cell and it would need to be in that same order or it won't work. Odds of it happening by accident would have to be in the multi-trillions just for one cell! Only one cell!!!

hhhmmmm odds of lippid forming rings in fatty acid mycells ..... 1:1
odd of monomer enetering throiugh the lipid cell wall 1:1
odd of the monomers polymerising into polymers that are unable to escape 1:1
odds of those polymers bieng able to self replicate (actuall odd unknown but its been observed ..a lot)

sorry your asking for the odds of a fully functioning cell with 3.7 billion year of evolutionary improvment? rather then what the first cell most probabily looked like which was vastly simpler ..and we know they were we have the fossils

thats like us asking what are the odds jesus drove a ferrari F40 and wore armani uit to show how implauable jesu bieng the son of god is

what your asking for are the odds that creationism occured e.g. life as it i now appeared by magic just as complex as it currently is

And it would have to be on the back of a crystal to boot! Which brings up the next question: where did this crystal come from?

umm crystals self form using natural laws, no crystal making god or intelligent designer required, and you dont need one for making water crystals either now makes it self

So science is admittedly limited. How can one with clear unbiased intelligence use something to disprove ID knowing that it lacks the tools to do so?

why would we disprove ID? it hasnt proven its self yet so we can sit here and just poke our fingers in the huge gaps and say dude this is held together with prayer and chewing gum, bring somthing honet and workable and well look at it

It's like trying to use a fishing pole to catch a fish without a hook - just the string. How successful will you be?

quite succesful

trout tickling and use the noose to hook it gill slits and pull it out of the water

find fish in a shallow streems block both end above and below woith rocks to prevent escape and hit the water with the pole, tun the fish with the shock wave and then pull em otu and use the tring to help carry them

Again, Dawkins admits that there really isn't any percentage that is provable in the non-existence of God. (I read his book - The God Delusion.) So since there are no provable facts, and yet too many gaps and questions remaining, how can one intelligently not look in a God direction?

since the probability i to abstract to prove either way and there i no evidence not even the tiniest shred for the need for a supreme bieng let alone one actually existing then why even make one up and keep it around until one proven to exist?

"The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence." - Clifford Stone

but the absence of evidence precudes any reason to accept it as probable let alone believe whole heartedly until such evidence is presented






[edit on 17-2-2009 by MatrixProphet]

Originally posted by MatrixProphet

Boy, you may have read my comments on his post on the trinity. Thank you for your logical common sense. The trinity doctrine really falls apart, unlike the logical common sense existence of a higher power!!!!

theres no logic or common sense reason to believe in a higher power

theres nothing to base the logic on as there nothing that without dought 100% require a god to exist, and no evidence that he ha left lying around

and probability as we have already aid is made up from our own personal bias when talking about imaginary or supernatural processes or biengs

so with no logical or probability driven posables worthy of any notice then there i no commonsense reason .. except for the just incase i die clause but then which one fo the many that all preach the ame personal alvation only by believing in that one ... how to choose ...maybe like everyone else .. what did my parents believe.. what do my friends believe ..what most common in my area i live in ..

reply to post by noobfun


Ironically, you didn't prove anything! The burden of proof is on you. It is just words. You cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God does not exist.

The example I listed earlier of a cell is a prime example of where it makes much better sense that a power with consciousness lived!!! You have to use a lot of fairy dust to say it magically happened to the great extent and performance that reality has shown it to be.

Since fairy dust is not supposed to be an option with science (Einstein would be rolling around in his grave), then the next option once we have eliminated the impossible, is to look at the improbable because it is likely to be true.

None of you can still answer the question I had earlier which is a good foundation for an existence of a higher power! It is enough to say, "You might be right!" You ran me around the bush regarding consciousness and yet, never answered the question!

Not that I don't mind getting a little exercise, but jeez this is a little much, don't you think? Hey I am broad minded and can accept much of what you guys preach. For I am really open minded, but why can you not meet me part way and humbly say, "You've got a point MP!"

[edit on 17-2-2009 by MatrixProphet]

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
None of your data disproves a higher power. It shows a highly efficient one!!! Remember, your tools are not efficient enough to assess his existence or not.

Which is what I said... you can't disprove the existence of anything... this is why you must prove the positive, not the negative... you must prove something exists...

All you have done, is just say there is an equal chance that the world is highly populated with invisible pink unicorns as a supreme being...

now honestly... do people believe in the existence of unicorns? nope... why? because there's no evidence...

"Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

First, let me correct your version of Occam's Razor...

the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

Well, by adding a supreme being, you're violating Occam's razor... Aren't you suggesting that eliminating "god" from the hypothesis wouldn't change the observations of evolution? or did I miss your premise?

I would also like to submit in this instance... Russel's Teapot... since you are so keen on trying to prove a negative:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

-Bertrand Russell

Russell's teapot hits the head on the nail...

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by noobfun

 

Ironically, you didn't prove anything! The burden of proof is on you. It is just words. You cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God does not exist.

Why does the burden of proof fall on us? We're not the ones suggesting the absurd...

By this logic, Unicorns MUST exist... as you can not prove they don't exist... oh... and don't bother asking for proof... the burden is on you...

Loch Ness Monster, bigfoot, Chupacapbra, pretty much anything anyone can dream up.... is all REAL until proven non-existant...

Just because the majority believe fantasy to be true, doesn't mean the burden is on the minority...

Its a well Documented fact that Noob and I worship the Magical Angry Unicorn... Your religion is dead WRONG...

Now try and prove our magican unicorn doesn't exist.

It is quite literally IMPOSSIBLE to disprove the existence of anything...



[edit on 17-2-2009 by nj2day]