Intelligent Design: Viable Theory or Religious Rewording?

• ManO'War

  

  But only one of those ideas begs for money, and tries to use it's power to exercise its will over the people of this earth.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  ManO'War wrote: But only one of those ideas begs for money, and tries to use it's power to exercise its will over the people of this earth.

  I don't really know which one you are referring to since those scientists you idolize don't work for free.
• HitsRus

  

  Back to unicorns again? Is that all you got? Some Youtube video of a sophomoric college kid in front of his computer? Some fable about dragons?
  
  I've offered you Aquinas, Kant, Einstein, some of the greatest minds in history, as well as cutting edge modern physics both as examples of methods of reasoning, and of proof that things can exist outside of our perceived universe. You demand an ontology...but you want it on your terms with your narrow focus. You say "you don't know" what the origin of the universe is....about that you are right.
  
  Before Aristotle.....there was
  I Am who Am. Pretty basic Law of Identity.
  
  Since Aristotle 'wrote' the law...it is notable that he believed in God.
• believer

  

  HitsRus wrote:Since Aristotle 'wrote' the law...it is notable that he believed in God.

  He shoots! He scores!
• ManO'War

  

  The fable about unicorns=The fable about gods
• ManO'War

  

  Aristotle also believed that women are a lower life form than men, so I wouldn't put that much stock into what he thought.
• jmog

  BCSbunk wrote:
  So you claim to be one of reason but believe that 3=1?
  
  That is not reasonable by any measure of the understanding of reason.

  Please, you are making this too easy...
  
  There are plenty of "proofs" that cane come up with 2=1, so why is 3=1 so much different?
  
  I could post many, plus, come on...the 3 "personalities" of God are just like the 3 sides (or angles) of a triangle, the 3 dimenions of a cube, and so on.
  
  You can easily describe any one of them by themselves (the father, Jesus, HS, angle of a triangle, side of a cube, etc) but you put them together and they form one "God" just like the 3 angles form one triangle.
  
  Coming from someone who believes the universe has or could have "always been", you saying someone else isn't "one of reason" is hilarious.
  
  Next you'll say "well how can you be someone of reason and believe that 'god' has always been around, never was 'created'" but yet you believe the universe could have always been around...contradict yourself much?
• jmog

  BCSbunk wrote:

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote: That is not reasonable by any measure of the understanding of reason.

  You believe the universe has always existed, which is impossible. Is that reasonable?
  
  Or is that you don't know if the universe has always existed or not, or how it was created in the latter case, but all you do know is that it wasn't created by an intelligent creator, right? This is reasonable?

  I never said that. I said it is possible the Universe is eternal and again followed with I DON"T KNOW. So please do not try to misrepresent my position.
  
  So then lets get this straight a god(whatever that is) can be eternal but the universe cannot?
  
  They call that special pleading.

  Actually, you'll find most people who believe in an eternal God also allow for the possibility of an eternal universe.
• jmog

  ManO'War wrote: I watched a show on the History Channel a few days ago about the Bible, and they stated that all of the Bible was not written down, except for one part that was deleted (hmmmm?), until at least 30 years after Jesus' death.
  
  So now Jmog not only knows more than all of the collective scientific minds, but also the Bible Historians.
  
  We should be honored to be in the presence of such a great man...maybe even a "God"!

  Oh good Lord, do you even read?
  
  Where did I say that the New Testament was written down before 30 years after his death?
  
  However, what they are neglecting to say is that the Old Testament was written down 100s of years before Jesus' time.
  
  Most of the NT was written down by eye witnesses of Jesus himself (as I stated above), between 50 and 95 AD, Jesus died around 30-35 AD.
  
  The 50-95 AD is nearly indisputable and I have never said anything different.
  
  You might want to go back up and read things I've said and get off your high horse.
• jmog

  ManO'War wrote: If the "simple 3 dimensional beings" cannot detect "god", then how can you say it exists???
  
  If that's the case then you can say anthing exists that your mind can conjur up...even a "god".
  
  Which brings us back to the fact that "god" was created in man's mind, and will cease to exist once we do.

  Which is just exactly what most people on here have said, you can neither prove or disprove God exists, and no one has said anything different (on the 'God' side of the argument). Its those of you on the other side that are getting beligerant and acting like 12 year olds who just lost a fight.
  
  I've never once said I, or anyone else, can prove God exists, and likewise no one on the other side can prove God doesn't. You either believe God exists or you don't. Simple as that.
• jmog

  ManO'War wrote: But only one of those ideas begs for money, and tries to use it's power to exercise its will over the people of this earth.

  Science begs for money, if you don't believe that then you don't know much about how grant proposals work.
  
  If you don't believe science uses its "power" to exercise "its will" over the people, then again, you don't pay much attention...and haven't paid much attention for decades...look at the Global Warming "science" for crying out loud.
• jmog

  ManO'War wrote: Aristotle also believed that women are a lower life form than men, so I wouldn't put that much stock into what he thought.

  You are losing credibility here.
  
  Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, does that mean we should discredit everything he ever did for our country?
  
  Aristotle was one of the greates philosophers and scientists of all time, because he had a similar view on women as most people of his time, does that make his works in science and philosophy any less significant?
  
  Einstein got a girl pregnant and didn't want to marry her so he pushed her back to her parents town, where she had a girl, and he abandoned the baby which eventually died of small pox in a foster parents care. He later married the woman, but well after this whole episode.
  
  Does that character flaw of Einstein make his contributions in physics any less significant?
  
  Give me a break and be real.
• BCSbunk

  jmog wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:
  So you claim to be one of reason but believe that 3=1?
  
  That is not reasonable by any measure of the understanding of reason.

  Please, you are making this too easy...
  
  There are plenty of "proofs" that cane come up with 2=1, so why is 3=1 so much different?
  
  I could post many, plus, come on...the 3 "personalities" of God are just like the 3 sides (or angles) of a triangle, the 3 dimenions of a cube, and so on.
  
  You can easily describe any one of them by themselves (the father, Jesus, HS, angle of a triangle, side of a cube, etc) but you put them together and they form one "God" just like the 3 angles form one triangle.
  
  Coming from someone who believes the universe has or could have "always been", you saying someone else isn't "one of reason" is hilarious.
  
  Next you'll say "well how can you be someone of reason and believe that 'god' has always been around, never was 'created'" but yet you believe the universe could have always been around...contradict yourself much?

  Are you really serious?
  
  The 3 sides of one triangle?
  
  You do realize that the side of a triangle is NOT a triangle?
  
  So then Jesus is not really a whole god itself. It is only part god that when combined with the father and the holy spirit become a god?
  
  Oh no you say they are 3 distinct gods seperate from one another.
  
  And so we are now back to the problem of 3 does not equal 1.
• jmog

  BCSbunk wrote:
  
  Are you really serious?
  
  The 3 sides of one triangle?
  
  You do realize that the side of a triangle is NOT a triangle?
  
  So then Jesus is not really a whole god itself. It is only part god that when combined with the father and the holy spirit become a god?
  
  Oh no you say they are 3 distinct gods seperate from one another.
  
  And so we are now back to the problem of 3 does not equal 1.

  Fine, how about 3 triangles that combine to make another triangle. Take them apart they are still a triangle, put them together they are still a triangle.
  
  Come on, you are getting to semantics here when the obvious (what I just stated here) can be extrapolated from what I said in the first place.
  
  Plus, you can look at it like a family. There are 5 members of my family (wife and 3 kids) but just one family. 5 in 1, or in your "words" 5=1. The "analogy" is already there, God "the father", God "the Son", and the HG. 3 members in one "God".
• BCSbunk

  Cleveland Buck wrote: Belief in God is irrational. It is supposed to be. It is supposed to take faith to believe in Him, not proof. It is the same as believing that the universe is eternal and has always existed. That is really irrational, since it is impossible due to the laws of physics. It takes quite a leap of faith to believe that. It is the same as believing the universe exploded out of nothing. That is also impossible and takes a huge leap of faith to believe. Just about every person on Earth believes one of these three ideas, and all are equally irrational.

  Glad I don't believe it. I merely said it was possible.
  
  And do not pervert the word faith. The word faith in your context is defined as religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
• jmog

  BCSbunk wrote:

  Cleveland Buck wrote: Belief in God is irrational. It is supposed to be. It is supposed to take faith to believe in Him, not proof. It is the same as believing that the universe is eternal and has always existed. That is really irrational, since it is impossible due to the laws of physics. It takes quite a leap of faith to believe that. It is the same as believing the universe exploded out of nothing. That is also impossible and takes a huge leap of faith to believe. Just about every person on Earth believes one of these three ideas, and all are equally irrational.

  Glad I don't believe it. I merely said it was possible.
  
  And do not pervert the word faith. The word faith in your context is defined as religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

  False, the Webster's Dictionary definition of faith is "belief that is not based on proof".
  
  A belief in God and a belief in the Big Bang are BOTH "faith" by definition.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  BCSbunk wrote:

  Cleveland Buck wrote: Belief in God is irrational. It is supposed to be. It is supposed to take faith to believe in Him, not proof. It is the same as believing that the universe is eternal and has always existed. That is really irrational, since it is impossible due to the laws of physics. It takes quite a leap of faith to believe that. It is the same as believing the universe exploded out of nothing. That is also impossible and takes a huge leap of faith to believe. Just about every person on Earth believes one of these three ideas, and all are equally irrational.

  Glad I don't believe it. I merely said it was possible.
  
  And do not pervert the word faith. The word faith in your context is defined as religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

  No, it isn't. The way I define the word faith is to believe something to be true in the absence of proof or evidence. If you have seen proof of something, it doesn't take faith to believe it. If you believe in God, there is no proof, you just believe. If you believe the universe was created out of nothing, there is no proof. To believe those things requires faith.
  
  Edit: Jmog beat me to it. Apparently Webster defines faith the same way.
• BCSbunk

  HitsRus wrote: Back to unicorns again? Is that all you got? Some Youtube video of a sophomoric college kid in front of his computer? Some fable about dragons?
  
  I've offered you Aquinas, Kant, Einstein, some of the greatest minds in history, as well as cutting edge modern physics both as examples of methods of reasoning, and of proof that things can exist outside of our perceived universe. You demand an ontology...but you want it on your terms with your narrow focus. You say "you don't know" what the origin of the universe is....about that you are right.
  
  Before Aristotle.....there was
  I Am who Am. Pretty basic Law of Identity.
  
  Since Aristotle 'wrote' the law...it is notable that he believed in God.

  Appeal to authority much? Logical fallacy.
  
  That is funny you bring up ancient philosophers who have been critiqued and I have shown have not offered a complete ontology.
  
  Since you think there is one please tell what god is?
  
  That is about the fifth time I have asked and still no answer just an appeal to authority and a clumsy attempt to say that the law of identity is a narrow view.
  
  The largest problem with the ontological arguments are that they are not persuasive. I am not convinced and in fact still have no clue to what a god actually is you keep avoiding it like the plague.
  
  There is a reason, it is because you don't know what a god is so you are not capable of communicating it to me.
  
  So again I ask what are the Primary attributes of a god.
  
  and NO Aquinas does not put them in his ontological argument and neither did St Anselm nor any other onological argument.
  
  They give nothing but relational and secondary attribute of existants and fail miserably to produce primary attributes.
  
  You have failed along with them.
  
  The only person so far that gets it is the one that says it is all faith. That is because it is a make believe world that you believe in HitsRus with zero evidence of any significant consequent.
  
  Then you proceed to appeal to authority as though that is some super power that will save the day.
  
  Sorry until you produce primary attributes for this concept you refer to as god it will remain non-cognitive.
• majorspark

  

  BCSbunk wrote: Are you really serious?
  
  The 3 sides of one triangle?
  
  You do realize that the side of a triangle is NOT a triangle?
  
  So then Jesus is not really a whole god itself. It is only part god that when combined with the father and the holy spirit become a god?
  
  Oh no you say they are 3 distinct gods seperate from one another.
  
  And so we are now back to the problem of 3 does not equal 1.

  Take water (H2O). It can take the form of a solid, a liquid, or a gas. Yet no matter which form H2O takes it is still H2O. In each form H2O takes neither one is more or less H2O than the other. In other words God manifested in his creation a picture of the Trinity and how 3=1.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  BCSbunk wrote: The only person so far that gets it is the one that says it is all faith. That is because it is a make believe world that you believe in HitsRus with zero evidence of any significant consequent.

  If believing a God created the universe is a 'make believe world with zero evidence of any consequence', then believing the other two options are also 'make believe worlds...'.
  
  If you believe the universe was always there, that violates proven laws of physics, so it is fiction. If you believe the universe came forth out of nothing, that also violates proven laws of physics and is also fiction. If you believe a God created the universe, it might sound like fiction to you, but is hasn't been disproven, so it might be 'make believe', but it is more possible than the other two choices.
• BCSbunk

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:

  Cleveland Buck wrote: Belief in God is irrational. It is supposed to be. It is supposed to take faith to believe in Him, not proof. It is the same as believing that the universe is eternal and has always existed. That is really irrational, since it is impossible due to the laws of physics. It takes quite a leap of faith to believe that. It is the same as believing the universe exploded out of nothing. That is also impossible and takes a huge leap of faith to believe. Just about every person on Earth believes one of these three ideas, and all are equally irrational.

  Glad I don't believe it. I merely said it was possible.
  
  And do not pervert the word faith. The word faith in your context is defined as religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

  No, it isn't. The way I define the word faith is to believe something to be true in the absence of proof or evidence. If you have seen proof of something, it doesn't take faith to believe it. If you believe in God, there is no proof, you just believe. If you believe the universe was created out of nothing, there is no proof. To believe those things requires faith.
  
  Edit: Jmog beat me to it. Apparently Webster defines faith the same way.

  To believe in something without evidence? Okay I will take that.
  
  I do not beleive in anything without evidence therefore I have no faith.
  
  I do not believe the universe came from nothing.
  
  I do not believe the universe is eternal.
  
  I do not KNOW except that it is here, unless solipsism is true which I am very doubtful.
  
  Thanks for the clarification on your definition of faith I can take that one.
• BCSbunk

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote: The only person so far that gets it is the one that says it is all faith. That is because it is a make believe world that you believe in HitsRus with zero evidence of any significant consequent.

  If believing a God created the universe is a 'make believe world with zero evidence of any consequence', then believing the other two options are also 'make believe worlds...'.
  
  If you believe the universe was always there, that violates proven laws of physics, so it is fiction. If you believe the universe came forth out of nothing, that also violates proven laws of physics and is also fiction. If you believe a God created the universe, it might sound like fiction to you, but is hasn't been disproven, so it might be 'make believe', but it is more possible than the other two choices.

  Well quantum physics are working on answering those questions but I withhold belief until the answers and evidence comes in.
  
  The only thing I know about the universe is that I am in it. I do not know where it came from or if it is eternal.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  BCSbunk wrote:

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:

  Cleveland Buck wrote: Belief in God is irrational. It is supposed to be. It is supposed to take faith to believe in Him, not proof. It is the same as believing that the universe is eternal and has always existed. That is really irrational, since it is impossible due to the laws of physics. It takes quite a leap of faith to believe that. It is the same as believing the universe exploded out of nothing. That is also impossible and takes a huge leap of faith to believe. Just about every person on Earth believes one of these three ideas, and all are equally irrational.

  Glad I don't believe it. I merely said it was possible.
  
  And do not pervert the word faith. The word faith in your context is defined as religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

  No, it isn't. The way I define the word faith is to believe something to be true in the absence of proof or evidence. If you have seen proof of something, it doesn't take faith to believe it. If you believe in God, there is no proof, you just believe. If you believe the universe was created out of nothing, there is no proof. To believe those things requires faith.
  
  Edit: Jmog beat me to it. Apparently Webster defines faith the same way.

  To believe in something without evidence? Okay I will take that.
  
  I do not beleive in anything without evidence therefore I have no faith.
  
  I do not believe the universe came from nothing.
  
  I do not believe the universe is eternal.
  
  I do not KNOW except that it is here, unless solipsism is true which I am very doubtful.
  
  Thanks for the clarification on your definition of faith I can take that one.

  Ok, good. I understand that you don't know how the universe got here. How could it get here? Well,
  
  1. A God created it.
  2. It was always here.
  3. It formed from nothing.
  4. It formed from something else that was always here.
  5. It formed from something else that was formed from nothing.
  
  I can't think of any other way this universe could come to be. Do you? I'm sure you can see that #2 and #4 are really the same thing with the same problems, and that #3 and #5 are also the same thing with the same problems. Out of those choices, the only one that doesn't violate the laws of physics is #1.
  
  I'm not even trying to convince you that I'm right. I don't care how you think the universe got here. I'm just trying to show you how a rational person can believe in God and that God created the universe.
• BCSbunk

  majorspark wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote: Are you really serious?
  
  The 3 sides of one triangle?
  
  You do realize that the side of a triangle is NOT a triangle?
  
  So then Jesus is not really a whole god itself. It is only part god that when combined with the father and the holy spirit become a god?
  
  Oh no you say they are 3 distinct gods seperate from one another.
  
  And so we are now back to the problem of 3 does not equal 1.

  Take water (H2O). It can take the form of a solid, a liquid, or a gas. Yet no matter which form H2O takes it is still H2O. In each form H2O takes neither one is more or less H2O than the other. In other words God manifested in his creation a picture of the Trinity and how 3=1.

  Big problem you still have ONE water. From one water you still have water in 3 different forms.
  
  So then Jesus is the father? they are not seperate?
  
  Hmm the dilemma continues
  
  
  Is Jesus a god?
  
  is the father a god?
  
  is the holy spirit a god?
  
  They cannot all be seperate gods but yet the same god. Your explanation fails.
• pmoney25

  

  BCSbunk wrote:

  majorspark wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote: Are you really serious?
  
  The 3 sides of one triangle?
  
  You do realize that the side of a triangle is NOT a triangle?
  
  So then Jesus is not really a whole god itself. It is only part god that when combined with the father and the holy spirit become a god?
  
  Oh no you say they are 3 distinct gods seperate from one another.
  
  And so we are now back to the problem of 3 does not equal 1.

  Take water (H2O). It can take the form of a solid, a liquid, or a gas. Yet no matter which form H2O takes it is still H2O. In each form H2O takes neither one is more or less H2O than the other. In other words God manifested in his creation a picture of the Trinity and how 3=1.

  Big problem you still have ONE water. From one water you still have water in 3 different forms.
  
  So then Jesus is the father? they are not seperate?
  
  Hmm the dilemma continues
  
  
  Is Jesus a god?
  
  is the father a god?
  
  is the holy spirit a god?
  
  They cannot all be seperate gods but yet the same god. Your explanation fails.

  Do you believe in Aliens? Or Possibility of Intelligent Life outside of Earth?