Intelligent Design is not creationism

[kjkent1]

Quote from Ether64:

In your last statement, you acknowledged your awareness that "if God exists" the probability existed for you to get judged due to your denial of Him. You were willing to accept that judgement under the "if" scenario, because of your current choice to reject Him. It is that awareness that caused me to respond the way I did, because if you truly didn't believe in His existence, why would you believe it might be possible that you would get judged? Why wouldn't you believe (as most self-centered people do - no offense) that He wouldn't just accept you as you are... imperfections and all...rejection of Him considered? That was what made me believe that you don't really think He doesn't exist. Peace.

It's merely your opinion that I reject God, and that my use of the term "if" is somehow a concession to God's existence. As the rest of your conclusions follow from these two incorrect assumptions, your conclusions about me are wrong.

So, let me repeat my position: I neither believe nor disbelieve in God. There is no scientific evidence to support God's existence, however there is also no scientific evidence to refute God's existence, because the construct of what God is, by definition, is that God is limitless and all powerful.

A limitless and all powerful entity is beyond measure or understanding. Science relies on measurability; God is unmeasurable, therefore, no scientific evidence for or against God's existence can ever exist.

Example: I hand you a 1 ft. ruler and I ask you to scientifically measure it. You take some paper, longer than 1 ft. line it up against the ruler and scratch a mark at the endpoints of the ruler.

Then, you come back an hour later, and measure the ruler again. It fits precisely within the two endpoint scratches which you previously made on the paper. Conclusion: the ruler is "this" long (i.e., distance between the two marks).

Now I tell you about a ruler that is so long that you cannot hold it and see either end, but I ask you to measure it. So, you get an airplane and fly to an altitude where you can see both ends, and you then use trigonometric math and radar or lasers to determine the endpoints. The next day you fly up there and do it again. The measurements are the same, so you conclude that the ruler is "this" long (distance that you measured).

Now I tell you about a ruler that has no endpoints and I ask you to measure it. There is no scientific test of any kind with which you can ever hope to measure this particular ruler. There is also no physical manifestation of such a ruler in the known universe. It is simply something that I have told you about.

You don't reject the ruler's existence simply because you can't locate it. But, you also don't accept the ruler's existence because even if you could locate it, by definition, you still could never measure its end points. You could be standing right next to that ruler, and there would never be any way for you to know for a certainty the length.

You can argue that I can stand next to God and know he exists, without measuring his limits. OK, then show me God. Get him for a lunch meeting where I can stand right next to him and know that he is limitless.

You can't do this, and even if you could present me with an entity which you claim is of limitless measure, neither you nor I could ever verify that claim, because we cannot measure that which is limitless. Thus, a super-intelligent and powerful alien life form could claim to be God, and we would not be able to disprove it, unless we could measure the limits of the alien.

In sum, no matter how you slice it or dice it, there is no possible way for you, me or anyone else to KNOW that God exists or does not exist. Unless, of course, you suggest that God is limited and not almighty. And, if God is so, then he is NOT God. He's just a super-intelligent alien with a really big ego.

I don't worship mortals, so the alien won't get my tithing. Neither will God, because I don't throw money at phantoms.

God may or may not exist. I don't care, either way. If God exists and he is a good God by human standards of morality, then I will have nothing to fear from God's judgment. And, if God is vindictive and judgmental, then I don't want to worship him, because frankly, I would view such a God as inferior to myself and many other humans.

But, let me repeat: I don't believe nor do I disbelieve in God. The question for me is irrelevant to my own existence, because regardless of the answer, I will not change my behavior.

Hope this clears things up for you.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from Ether64:


However, I also notice that most of those same people spend much of their time constantly having to prove that claim to themselves by trying to prove it to others. Thus a forum like this is born.

Well, when 9 out of 10 people in the world believe in some diety, the 1 out of 10 will inevitably have an inferiority complex to some degree. It's hard, at least initially, to be a non-believer in this world. It often takes great courage to break away from what is or seems common among humans.

This is unrelated but Athsiem is not a faith. Though there are many atheist who ultimately have a faith (more later). It depends upon the depth that their atheism goes. Superficial Atheism, my term, is atheism that is merely a "rebellious" departure from a religion and faith in God due to some awful experiences. These Atheists tend to be the worse type. They harbor in some cases deep seated ill will towards those who believe and can be quite antisocial. They also tend to go on to lean towards what is actually called Strong Atheism. Then you have Reasoned Atheists. Again, a term I made up. These are atheists that simply came to the conclusion that there is no God or that there is no evidence to support the existence of one. Superficial Atheists can also go one to become one of these. They are generally very comfortable with their position and normally do not have any ill will towards those who believe in God.

So how can an atheist have a faith when Atheism itself is not a faith?

Well, like a theist, atheists can embrace fanciful ideas that while seemingly logical from their POV, are in fact fanciful. Fanciful in that there is no way to verify or "prove" the notion or concept that they are embracing. But the thing they are embracing would if one day proven to be true, be in accord with their worldview. A worldview that has no support of a god or gods.

For instance, the concept of multiverse. It makes for interesting concversation. But to embrace it as true is taking a leap of faith. It is currently an unprovable concept. But it's a necessary concept to embrace if one does not embrace the notion of a God as first cause of the universe and all it contains.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ddunbar:

For instance, the concept of multiverse. It makes for interesting concversation. But to embrace it as true is taking a leap of faith. It is currently an unprovable concept. But it's a necessary concept to embrace if one does not embrace the notion of a God as first cause of the universe and all it contains.

Your last sentence concludes something which is not supported by anything else in your essay. Do you have any scientific proof that rejection of God requires the belief in a multiverse?

There are other theories of cosmology which do not require a multiverse to explain the cosmological constant. See k-ESSENCE, AVOIDANCE OF THE WEINBERG’S
COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT NO-GO THEOREM AND OTHER
DARK ENERGY EFFECTS OF TWO MEASURES FIELD THEORY.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from kjkent1:

Your last sentence concludes something which is not supported by anything else in your essay. Do you have any scientific proof that rejection of God requires the belief in a multiverse?

There are other theories of cosmology which do not require a multiverse to explain the cosmological constant. See k-ESSENCE, AVOIDANCE OF THE WEINBERG’S
COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT NO-GO THEOREM AND OTHER
DARK ENERGY EFFECTS OF TWO MEASURES FIELD THEORY.

Thanks, I'll read through it later tonight.

 

[jem]

Stu you reason like a turd. susskind did not contradict his own book and writings on the radio.

try using your brain. the guy is one of the smartest guys around he did change the thesis of his book on the radio.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from kjkent1:

Your last sentence concludes something which is not supported by anything else in your essay. Do you have any scientific proof that rejection of God requires the belief in a multiverse?

There are other theories of cosmology which do not require a multiverse to explain the cosmological constant. See k-ESSENCE, AVOIDANCE OF THE WEINBERG’S
COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT NO-GO THEOREM AND OTHER
DARK ENERGY EFFECTS OF TWO MEASURES FIELD THEORY.

I'm not a theoretical physicist so to discuss on those levels wouldn't be feasible but distilled down to its essence...

K-essence, dark matter. dark energy is all post "big bang." Which begs the question, what started the big bang? This still fits into the multiverse models with our particular universe having these forces acting upon it. That doens't necessarily follow that all iterations of a universe in the multiverse follow along those lines.

Multiverse, M & String theory, are concepts that are necessary to attempt to address the notion of "first cause" or simply the existence of the material universe and its origins. So if one doesn't believe "God did it," then one either doesn't bother to attempt to address the ultimate question (not likely that that person exists since it's in our nature to postulate or ponder such things) or one embraces the lastest concept in materialistic cosmology. Currently, that's broadly M-theory.

In essence, I do not require "scientific proof" that disbelief in God necessitates a belief in M-theory or string theory. It should be self evident. In any event, there was a time when disbelief in God didn't but a belief in some other notion that addressed a cosmology without God. Big bang was enough for some for a while until they thought deeper about it. The simple question, "why did it happen" was enough to start a chain of questions which bucked up against the ultimate questions. Some postulated that the universe was eternal. But that ran into scientific, philosophical and cosmological problems. M-theory/ String theory/ multiverse is simply the best we can do right now in our attempts at addressing the ultimate questions without straying from a materialist perspective.

Cyclic "Big bang" then "big Crunch" as is suggested by research into the cosmological constant and its associated problems still begs the question, "what started the first cycle?" So that question was answered by considering M-branes. Now we can say that the cycles can continue indefinitely into the past and the future.

But you've come back to a mere theorethical, unprovable concept (M-theory/ multiverse) which stands as an alternate to believing that God was the first cause of material existence.

Edit: One thing I wanted to add but forgot: The cosmos, which the cycle of big bang, big crunch expands into is thought to be infite. A fanciful, yet plausible idea. We just don't know. BUt it lends well to the concept of mutliverse.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I don't think the materialists are even capable of addressing anything even resembling an "ultimate" question, as they limit their field of thought to the limits of current scientific thinking.

So a materialist, 1,000 years ago would be claiming that the earth was flat, that leeches cure diseases, etc. simply because that was the science of the day. Their beliefs are based in something that is constantly changing and within their control, so to speak, so the talk of "ultimate" runs counter to their comfort zones.

Those who follow science closely know that science is severely limited to instrumentation, and as instrumentation is always changing and "evolving" we don't approach anything near "ultimate" knowledge via this system, each discovery only brings forth more unanswered questions...but they seem very content to stick with the level of ignorance science has achieved to this point, and dismiss any thinking of the "ultimate" saying that if science can't measure it, it must be magic.

Art, love, human motive, the nature of human mind...and of course anything of an "ultimate" nature is all magic to their way of thinking.

Their belief system, fine by me.

Quote from ddunbar:

I'm not a theoretical physicist so to discuss on those levels wouldn't be feasible but distilled down to its essence...

K-essence, dark matter. dark energy is all post "big bang." Which begs the question, what started the big bang? This still fits into the multiverse models with our particular universe having these forces acting upon it. That doens't necessarily follow that all iterations of a universe in the multiverse follow along those lines.

Multiverse, M & String theory, are concepts that are necessary to attempt to address the notion of "first cause" or simply the existence of the material universe and its origins. So if one doesn't believe "God did it," then one either doesn't bother to attempt to address the ultimate question (not likely that that person exists since it's in our nature to postulate or ponder such things) or one embraces the lastest concept in materialistic cosmology. Currently, that's broadly M-theory.

In essence, I do not require "scientific proof" that disbelief in God necessitates a belief in M-theory or string theory. It's should be self evident. In any event, there was a time when disbelief in God didn't but a belief in some other notion that addressed a cosmology without God. Big bang was enough for some for a while until they thought deeper about it. The simple question, "why did it happen" was enough to start a chain of questions which bucked up against the ultimate questions. Some postulated that the universe was eternal. But that ran into scientific, philosophical and cosmological problems. M-theory/ String theory/ multiverse is simply the best we can do right now in our attempts at addressing the ultimate questions without straying from a materialist perspective.

Cyclic "Big bang" then "big Crunch" as is suggested by research into the cosmological constant and its associated problems still begs the question, "what started the first cycle?" So that question was answered by considering M-branes. Now we can say that the cycles can continue indefinitely into the past and the future.

But you've come back to a mere theorethical, unprovable concept (M-theory/ multiverse) which stands as an alternate to believing that God was the first cause of material existence.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I don't think the materialists are even capable of addressing anything even resembling an "ultimate" question, as they limit their field of thought to the limits of current scientific thinking.

So a materialist, 1,000 years ago would be claiming that the earth was flat, that leeches cure diseases, etc. simply because that was the science of the day. Their beliefs are based in something that is constantly changing and within their control, so to speak, so the talk of "ultimate" runs counter to their comfort zones.

Those who follow science closely know that science is severely limited to instrumentation, and as instrumentation is always changing and "evolving" we don't approach anything near "ultimate" knowledge via this system, each discovery only brings forth more unanswered questions...but they seem very content to stick with the level of ignorance science has achieved to this point, and dismiss any thinking of the "ultimate" saying that if science can't measure it, it must be magic.

Art, love, human motive, the nature of human mind...and of course anything of an "ultimate" nature is all magic to their way of thinking.

Their belief system, fine by me.

Well that's why I have much respect for Kjent. He's not like that. At least not from reading his posts. He takes a well reasoned and measured approach to this subject matter.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Your opinion of course and of course, Lucky Charms are magically delicious...

Quote from ddunbar:

Well that's why I have much respect for Kjent. He's not like that. At least not from reading his posts. He takes a well reasoned and measured approach to this subject matter.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ddunbar:

Well that's why I have much respect for Kjent. He's not like that. At least not from reading his posts. He takes a well reasoned and measured approach to this subject matter.

Thanks. The reason why I produced the peer-reviewed article is to demonstrate that there is an ongoing search among classical astrophysicists for the remaining pieces of the puzzle, without necessarily resorting to M-theory or some other as-yet untestible hypothesis. Actually, Hawking has stated in another peer-reviewed article that he believes some of the newer test devices being sent off into space may be able to confirm M-theory via background radiation measurments, but this is yet to bear fruit.

Nevertheless, we have an ongoing NASA WMAP program which continues to work on the problem in the one universe we are certain exists -- our own.

The fact that there appears to be something missing from the current classical puzzle of what makes the universe tick, could be some extra dark matter, as yet unaccounted for, could be a multiverse, could be some multi-dimensional gravitational geometry, could even be that our measurment of the cosmological constant is only correct in this corner of the Milky Way galaxy and not in some other place.

We don't know if, at the outer edge of the expansion, whether the vacuum energy is the same as it is around here.

But, if you read the pontifications of certain people in this thread, you would be certain that the entire issue boils down to God vs. Leonard Susskind, PH.D., and that God is clearly winning because we can measure the cosmological constant, where we can't measure different locales on the inflationary universal membrane.

The cosmological constant doesn't prove that the universe is designed. Doesn't disprove it either. It's just a number -- admittedly a very important number, but just a number, nevertheless.

They way people throw it around in this forum, you would think that the number was 666. But, it's not. If it was, we wouldn't be here to discuss the issue.