I know you're not fooled by this crapola, kj. This is Z distancing himself from someone who has clearly exhausted his fund of credibility. Z's post is self-serving.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
I know you're not fooled by this crapola, kj. This is Z distancing himself from someone who has clearly exhausted his fund of credibility. Z's post is self-serving.
zzz my position is that some respected scientists say that the universe looks designed.
I make the appeal to authority because top scientists are virtually the only ones who can competently examine the data, apply the high level math and offer credible conclusions in this subject area.
by the way the spell checker does not work.
I called someone a liar after he misrepresented my positon.
I make the appeal to authority because top scientists are virtually the only ones who can competently examine the data, apply the high level math and offer credible conclusions in this subject area.
by the way the spell checker does not work.
I called someone a liar after he misrepresented my positon.
Quote from jem:
zzz my position is that some respected scientists say that the universe looks designed.
I make the appeal to authority because top scientists are virtually the only ones who can competently examine the data, apply the high level math and offer credible conclusions in this subject area.
by the way the spell checker does not work.
I called someone a liar after they misrepresented my positon.
Q: If string theory is proven false, then would that fact be evidence tending to prove that the universe is designed?
Quote from kjkent1:
âResponse: Mathematics is not science -- it's symbolic logic. Mathematics only becomes science when it can be applied to model the observable universe. 1/0 = infinity. Does this mean that if I take 1 apple and start cutting it apart with a non-existent knife that I can cut the apple into a limitless number of parts? Nope, because non-existent knives don't cut apples.âOk...Iâm not going to get âbustedâ by you guys. Iâm not an expert on anything. In particular...I am mathematically/scientifically challenged. These are not subjects that are my strong suite. I am more what one of my professors labeled as âartsy fartsy.â With that established, Iâm still going to question/discuss this with you.
You mentioned symbolic logic, and being that I know nothing of that sort of terminology, I looked it up. It mentions abstract criteria. So I went to wikipedia to see if I could find that, but couldnât, so I looked up just abstract objects...and guess what I discovered? That one could equate God in just such a manner...as abstract...not located physically in space and time, such as numbers; which as you said, can be applied to model the observable universe.
So then...science and mathematics are definitely used to formulate the theories and repeatable experiments of which you speak. Since mathematics is applied, which involves abstract objects, why then, hasnât God been applied as another abstract in these equations and experiments? The answer is simply because of the belief systems of the people doing the experiments.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
If one doesnât believe that a certain variable is a factor, they wonât be inclined to include it in their hypothesis, theology, experiments, nor conclusions, now will they? Thatâs because that variable is not a part of their philosophy, thus they do not include it to formulate their theorizing. What happens next is that their failure to include a valid variable leaves holes in their conclusions, because not every variable or hypothesis has been tested.
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
What you call non-existent, is merely an abstract, and does not exist on our physical plane of existence. But we know that abstracts exist, and just because we cannot see them in our reality, our lack of vision does not eliminate them from existing as a whole.
I must say, you are educating me...even more in what I believe...even if itâs not your intent.
âResponse: I don't "believe" in anything or anyone. I accept what is measurable and I remain open to further support or refutation. "Belief" is not part of my vocabulary, unless I'm in the mood to watch Lord of the Rings. Then I suspend my "disbelief" and enjoy the movie. But, when I leave the theatre, I switch back to reality and go about my life as usual.âBelief may not be a part of your vocabulary, but, no offense, whether you utilize the word or not...you do have a system of beliefs. It is found in what you accept and reject...in who you listen to, and what you deem is measurable and acceptable for that system of belief. You believe in certain people because what they purport fits within the âmeasurementsâ you have set for your self acceptance level. You believe what they say, because it supports that acceptance level. For someone to state they donât believe in anything or anyone...itâs not truthfully possible. Your beliefs are based on your choices. Those choices are based on the free will God has given all.
1Cr 10:23 You say, "I am allowed to do anything"-but not everything is helpful. You say, "I am allowed to do anything"-but not everything is beneficial.
Quote from kjkent1:
âResponse: The difference is that I can get on a plane and fly to that land at the other side of the ocean. I cannot get on a plane and fly to Heaven.âSo youâre saying by this statement, that just because mankind has not devised a way to do this yet...it is impossible? See...this is the reason for the first discussion I had with you about this, concerning the working within the confines of what is possible at this point in time. Years ago, people could not get into a plane and fly to the other side of that land, like they can today. Did that still mean that that land did not exist? No. And had you lived in that time period, you would not have been able to apply your set of measurements to it. In that day and time...few if any, even thought it was possible for man to fly in the air like a bird. Years later, it happened. Could this have been referred to at that time as magic?
Yet when I make the assertion that God does exist, you say things like...an apple cannot be cut with a non-existent knife. That same non-existent knife of which you speak now was a non-existent plane then. Do you see my point? Just because the subject at hand is not a visible entity to our eyes in this time continuum, does not dismiss the viability of its existence.
âResponse: You have no empirical proof that any supernatural act written about in the Bible actually occured. Neither does anyone else.âSee...this is where IMO you contradict yourself somewhat. When you accept that the observations of scientists are correct in regards to the phenomenaâs they ascribe to have witnessed in their theorizing, by which they base their conclusions and factual evidence, you are professing a belief in the empirical proof they have submitted as factual evidence.
The point is...these are witnesses to observations, based on philosophies they profess, and subsequently, as a result of numerous observations in their empirical studies...they conclude that what they observed is factual.
Likewise, I can offer you numerous witnesses to empirical observations, based on a different set of philosophies/criteria, which also have submitted conclusions on the phenomenaâs they witnessed as well. Empirical proof that is just as factual, as the observations of those witnesses you choose to listen to. Again...itâs a matter of choice/belief according to the philosophy you ascribe to. The difference is...I think I can provide you with more witnesses from more vast and different corners of the earth, who all confess the same thing. The problem with the empirical proof you ascribe to...is that your witnesses are forever in disagreement, and disproving each otherâs theories. Ours has been consistently the same for centuries, much like the âcosmic constantâ you refer to is. Thatâs because we know Who that cosmic constant is.
First, letâs start with the bible: A book that is unparalleled in its internal continuity. It has 66 separate books written over a time span of 1500 years (1400 B.C â 90 A.D) by more than 40 different authors from different walks of life. For example:
Moses â political leader
David â warrior/king
Amos â farmer
Daniel â prime minister
Luke â doctor
Peter â fisherman
Matthew â tax collector
These 40 different authors came from 3 different continents: Asia, Africa and Europe; spoke 3 different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and wrote in diverse literary styles which included: poetry, historical narrative, song, personal correspondence, biography, autobiography, allegory, romance, satire...
The number one theme to which they all testified to...was Godâs redemption of mankind, and spoke on many controversial themes; yet all of their writings were devoid of contradictions and had amazing continuity. All testified as to direct physical and/or empirical contact with a living God.
From wikipedia: Experience as a general concept comprises knowledge of or skill in or observation of some thing or some event gained through involvement in or exposure to that thing or event. The history of the word experience aligns it closely with the concept of experiment.
The bible is a book of repeat experiments/experiences with a living God. Itâs reported by witnesses who are all scientists of one degree or another as science is any system of "objective" knowledge. None of these people/witnesses, by profession, were biased. They came from all walks of life, and all experienced and verified the same thing.
If one were to look at their experiences as a whole...one could say that a great scientific experiment was done, concluding in the reality of Godâs existence, because there is repeated observations of the same dynamic...different variables each time, but the outcome is the same testimony from totally different witnesses in extremely different locations and time periods. Howâs that for measurability? Can you tell me the same on your side of the coin? Can you tell me that you have as many witnesses from as many places and backgrounds that can verify without contradictions the phenomena that you ascribe to as factual evidence?
âI seek diversion from a really boring job. I enjoy a good argument. I do seek answers, but I filter all information through the screen of verifiability.
That's it. No mystery -- no magic.âA boring job? Why...I thought for sure that you must be one of the three here: independently wealthy, disabled, or retired; because it seems you have so much available free time to debate in here. lol If itâs not too personal, what kind of job results in such levels of boredom and free time? Peace.
Quote from traderNik:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=85209
I encourage everyone to click on the link given in the OP on this thread. It is illuminating indeed.
Someone can correct me if there is no such thing as the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning and if there was never any such assertion made by anyone in a position of power in the ID camp.
I read that article, and I can't say I agree with everything in it. I never heard of this center prior to seeing this post.
The only thing I do agree to, is that there are immutable laws in motion on the earth, but I believe God initiated them. So whether we label it as gravity or "intelligent falling" which I think is somewhat extreme in it's efforts to discredit the opposition, we have to agree that these "laws" do exist. How they work or function is another issue entirely.
"Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics."
This quote in the article caught my attention simply because it demonstrates the fact that there is an ongoing state of disagreement within the speculative circle that most here ascribe to. One theory has been around for years, and the other is new. I'm sure that in a few more years, the theory of gravity will be considered old hat, and the quantum theory will be the accepted norm.
That is the point...the theories most in here believe in are forever changing and there are always discrepancies and evidence being disproved, but still in all, most of you say that it is still factual. Peace.
Quote from Ether64:
Quote from kjkent1:
âResponse: Mathematics is not science -- it's symbolic logic. Mathematics only becomes science when it can be applied to model the observable universe. 1/0 = infinity. Does this mean that if I take 1 apple and start cutting it apart with a non-existent knife that I can cut the apple into a limitless number of parts? Nope, because non-existent knives don't cut apples.âOk...Iâm not going to get âbustedâ by you guys. Iâm not an expert on anything. In particular...I am mathematically/scientifically challenged. These are not subjects that are my strong suite. I am more what one of my professors labeled as âartsy fartsy.â With that established, Iâm still going to question/discuss this with you.
You mentioned symbolic logic, and being that I know nothing of that sort of terminology, I looked it up. It mentions abstract criteria. So I went to wikipedia to see if I could find that, but couldnât, so I looked up just abstract objects...and guess what I discovered? That one could equate God in just such a manner...as abstract...not located physically in space and time, such as numbers; which as you said, can be applied to model the observable universe.
So then...science and mathematics are definitely used to formulate the theories and repeatable experiments of which you speak. Since mathematics is applied, which involves abstract objects, why then, hasnât God been applied as another abstract in these equations and experiments? The answer is simply because of the belief systems of the people doing the experiments.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
If one doesnât believe that a certain variable is a factor, they wonât be inclined to include it in their hypothesis, theology, experiments, nor conclusions, now will they? Thatâs because that variable is not a part of their philosophy, thus they do not include it to formulate their theorizing. What happens next is that their failure to include a valid variable leaves holes in their conclusions, because not every variable or hypothesis has been tested.
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
What you call non-existent, is merely an abstract, and does not exist on our physical plane of existence. But we know that abstracts exist, and just because we cannot see them in our reality, our lack of vision does not eliminate them from existing as a whole.
I must say, you are educating me...even more in what I believe...even if itâs not your intent.
âResponse: I don't "believe" in anything or anyone. I accept what is measurable and I remain open to further support or refutation. "Belief" is not part of my vocabulary, unless I'm in the mood to watch Lord of the Rings. Then I suspend my "disbelief" and enjoy the movie. But, when I leave the theatre, I switch back to reality and go about my life as usual.âBelief may not be a part of your vocabulary, but, no offense, whether you utilize the word or not...you do have a system of beliefs. It is found in what you accept and reject...in who you listen to, and what you deem is measurable and acceptable for that system of belief. You believe in certain people because what they purport fits within the âmeasurementsâ you have set for your self acceptance level. You believe what they say, because it supports that acceptance level. For someone to state they donât believe in anything or anyone...itâs not truthfully possible. Your beliefs are based on your choices. Those choices are based on the free will God has given all.
1Cr 10:23 You say, "I am allowed to do anything"-but not everything is helpful. You say, "I am allowed to do anything"-but not everything is beneficial.
1. The reason why science does not include a "God" variable" is that as soon as you add the supernatural to the scientific method, the method is no longer scientific. It's just philosophy, and everything from alchemy to numerology becomes equally valid.
In the world of theoretical physics, the peer-reviewed scientific papers are frequently philosophical. String theory is arguably untestable (e.g., Lee Smolin, a noted physicist, finds string theory to be a serious distraction from "real" science, which takes funding from what would otherwise be arguably more useful experiments). Therefore string theory is not "science," anymore than God or Santa Claus is science. The only difference is that string theorists are attempting to narrow their philosophy by staying within the bounds of what can reasonably be extrapolated from existing scientific proofs, so as to hopefully find some means of testing their theory.
But, string theorists cannot extrapolate God from any math, because God cannot be measured by definition -- not merely because it has a boundary, like our known universe has an event horizon, beyond which no instrumentation can reach.
God is definitionally unmeasurable. When you do a math problem and you are placed in the position of dividing by zero, so as to reach infinity, that is the end of the problem -- the answer is forever undetermined. Calculus permits certain problems to be estimated so closely that for all practical purposes, an answer is known (e.g., internal rate of return is calculated in this manner). But, such "Newtonian approximations," as they are called, are based on the fact that the goal is a fixed point which cannot move while you're attempting to calculate it.
God, on the other hand, is not bound by historical fact. God, by definition can change the past, present and/or future to accommodate his whim, and furthermore, God can make what would otherwise be an impossible contradiction, such as, e.g., the existence of an antediluvian era, and a geological record which suggests that no such era ever occurred, true, by application of will alone.
So, what variable would you use in an equation for God? It would simply be a symbol which would always be there in every equation, and which always could be the answer, i.e., "God did it."
Every scientist recognizes that God could be the answer to every question -- no one need write down the variable in recognition thereof. But, no experiment is required to confirm this result, because no experiment could ever possibly confirm it. Not even were the spittin' image of George Burns to walk into the room at this very instant and make it rain inside the room, could you know for a certainty that this was an "Act of God," or merely some incredibly sophisticated technological trick.
2. On the issue of what I believe, vs. what you believe I believe, this is too abstract to even discuss. I'm in a better position to tell you how my mind works, so I would ask you to accept my philosophical position as true for me -- as I do yours for you.
Quote from stu:
You have already expressed "The desire to be special is at the core of the making of this universe."
The thing you call God /Creator is not "at the core of the universe" !!??
your own expression confirms...
Unless you remove your desire for God to be special, you are describing a God full of vanity and conceit.
You've got it mixed up.
God is not special. The Father is not special. The Son is not special. They are equal.
The Father is not at the core of the "making" of this universe. He has nothing to do with this universe. The mind of the Son made it up in imagination, based on a desire to be special. It is "made", not created. So it's not real.
In this world, it is assumed God made a hierarchy of beings, one of whom wanted to be equal with God. This world makes equality with God "blasphemy". There is no hierarchy but where you land when you attempt to be more than equal...or less than equal to the Father, or any brother.
In Heaven, equality is a given. It is a desire to be special that leads to the making of such unreal worlds as this. From my point of view, it is "blasphemous" to make yourself out to be less than, or more than the Son of God...equal with the Father as He created him.
Think about it. How can you be less than who you are? How can you be more than everything?
You underestimate your power to make up worlds in which alternative scenarios play out. Never are you without the power of the Son of God.
Jesus
Yes, and everything that gives us the quality of life we enjoy is a product of this beautiful ongoing process of discovery, underpinned by the scientific method which actively seeks to disprove its own theories in order that the truth may be discerned a tiny bit more clearly.Quote from Ether64:
That is the point...the theories most in here believe in are forever changing and there are always discrepancies and evidence being disproved, but still in all, most of you say that it is still factual. Peace.
Does science sometimes create bad things which hurt people? All the time. But this not a failing of the scientific method. It is a failing of the humans who employ it.
The faith mongers have no need for scientific theory because for them, their 'truth' is received from the Creator God with whom they will have a nice visit when they die. Actively trying to disprove the existence of God is not called progress in the religious community. It is called heresy.
Peace to you too.
Quote from Ether64:
"Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics."
This quote in the article caught my attention simply because it demonstrates the fact that there is an ongoing state of disagreement within the speculative circle that most here ascribe to. One theory has been around for years, and the other is new. I'm sure that in a few more years, the theory of gravity will be considered old hat, and the quantum theory will be the accepted norm.
I hate to fight this battle all over again with someone who hasn't the decency of reading all the previous posts before joining the discussion. I would simply point out, that the theory of gravity is considered old hat, and the quantum theoy is already accepted norm in science today. The fact that the two cannot be unified in a single theory, does not mean that each one is not valid by itself.
Please, don't expose your ignorance here. If you want to contribute to the science side of the discussion, at least educate yourself of the basic facts.
If you confine your discussion to religion, then I won't object. But don't pretend that you know something about science, like jem and z10 did in this thread, only generating laughable posts such as z10's snowflake self, and jem's quantum rocket.