creationism/intelligent design is inconsistant with the definition of God

[Retro Rob]

These arguments are getting old -- so what if someone believes in God at the end of the day.

I think it has become painfully obvious that believers don't require the same type of physical evidence science does since they believe in God on without the need of this type of evidence.

Most believers say God is evident through the diversity and complexity of life -- many non-believes attribute this to evolution.

So what?

At the end of it all, there is nothing a believer can say that's gonna change a non-believers' mind and the opposite is true of believers.

Live and let live.

 

[Moonbeam]

He does not attempt to compare himself to any item or quantity which is known, he is simply described as "I am that I am" or more properly "I will be what I will be".

You mean that's all it takes to be God?

 

[JD50]

These arguments are getting old -- so what if someone believes in God at the end of the day.

I think it has become painfully obvious that believers don't require the same type of physical evidence science does since they believe in God on without the need of this type of evidence.

Believers don't require any evidence, because there is none.

Most believers say God is evident through the diversity and complexity of life -- many non-believes attribute this to evolution.

The existence of something diverse and complex does not prove that there is something even more diverse and complex. That is a never ending cycle, because then god would need to be created by something even more complex. You need to read up on evolution, life did not start out being diverse and complex, it evolved that way.

So what?

At the end of it all, there is nothing a believer can say that's gonna change a non-believers' mind and the opposite is true of believers.

That is not true at all. Many atheists were at one point religious, we've had our minds changed by actual evidence and logic.

Live and let live.

This has all been pointed out to you before, you continue to ignore it.

 

[Retro Rob]

This has all been pointed out to you before, you continue to ignore it.

Believers don't require any evidence, because there is none.

Are you willing to call all believers idiots, then? Only an idiot believes without evidence.

Yeah, next time the lack of evidence is proof (how can it be proof, when there is no evidence) of something not existing, please feel free to let me know.

The existence of something diverse and complex does not prove that there is something even more diverse and complex.

Doesn't disprove it either. Next.

That is not true at all. Many atheists were at one point religious, we've had our minds changed by actual evidence and logic.

Some religious people were former Atheists... or are you going to ignore and deny this hard fact?

Or are you going sit here and claim that there is no such thing as an Atheist turned religious?

 

[JD50]

Rob, I'm not getting into this with you. You bring up the same tired arguments after they've been addressed multiple times, you just don't listen. Most of your responses are nothing but strawmen and you counter your own arguments. For example, you said that nothing that is said will change anyone's mind, then you say that some religious people were former atheists.

 

[Retro Rob]

Rob, I'm not getting into this with you. You bring up the same tired arguments after they've been addressed multiple times, you just don't listen. Most of your responses are nothing but strawmen and you counter your own arguments. For example, you said that nothing that is said will change anyone's mind, then you say that some religious people were former atheists.

Actually, I was taking about those participating in this thread discussion. Secondly, seem to assume that "logic and evidence" was the driving force behind people becoming atheists in many cases, I countered that with folks who were non believers and have come believers.

This shows you that belief in God isn't limited to how you define whats logical -- those are supported by facts, and my personal experience.

Yeah, I rejected God early in my life -- I wasn't an atheist, though. Logic and evidence brought to believing during my late 20s, and I am freinds with others who have similar experiences. I used to be religious, but didn't see a reason to remain... no "logical" reason.

So your argument is not so one sided as you lead it on to be.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Are you willing to call all believers idiots, then? Only an idiot believes without evidence.

If only an idiot believes without evidence (your claim, not anyone elses) then indeed all who believe without evidence are idiots.

Yeah, next time the lack of evidence is proof (how can it be proof, when there is no evidence) of something not existing, please feel free to let me know.

It isn't but to validate a claim one would use evidence.

Doesn't disprove it either. Next.

This is the worst argument you can make here. You can't disprove that *i* am not the creator of the universe either. I (my celestial version of me that lives in another dimension) created the universe as is one week ago. If you can't disprove it then clearly it's as likely as any other explanation? No? Why not?

Some religious people were former Atheists... or are you going to ignore and deny this hard fact?

So what?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Actually, I was taking about those participating in this thread discussion. Secondly, seem to assume that "logic and evidence" was the driving force behind people becoming atheists in many cases, I countered that with folks who were non believers and have come believers.

This shows you that belief in God isn't limited to how you define whats logical -- those are supported by facts, and my personal experience.

Yeah, I rejected God early in my life -- I wasn't an atheist, though. Logic and evidence brought to believing during my late 20s, and I am freinds with others who have similar experiences. I used to be religious, but didn't see a reason to remain... no "logical" reason.

So your argument is not so one sided as you lead it on to be.

Present your logic without fallacies and the evidence then without resorting to "this is evidence because you can't disprove it" then.

 

[Retro Rob]

So what?

John, there is a common theme in threads like this and throughout this forum which claims that atheists who were once religious but are no longer religious because they "used logic and reason", or that they are atheists because they use logic and reason -- speaking about those who were NEVER religious.

So what do you call atheists who became religious that were never religious? Are they conveniently "illogical and unreasonable"?

Are irreligious people or atheists claiming a monopoly on logic and reason? This is exactly the message being sent.

All you have is a "so what" for this?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

John, there is a common theme in threads like this and throughout this forum which claims that atheists who were once religious but are no longer religious because they "used logic and reason", or that they are atheists because they use logic and reason -- speaking about those who were NEVER religious.

So what do you call atheists who became religious that were never religious? Are they conveniently "illogical and unreasonable"?

Are irreligious people or atheists claiming a monopoly on logic and reason? This is exactly the message being sent.

All you have is a "so what" for this?

Yeah, i maintain that the belief of an omipotent personal god is entirely illogical and unreasonable regardless of how you came to that belief.

So, so what?

 

[Retro Rob]

Present your logic without fallacies and the evidence then without resorting to "this is evidence because you can't disprove it" then.

I don't recall saying if you can't disprove something, that makes it true. What I HAVE said is that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

A good and scientific analogy would be aliens. We have no tangible evidence to believe there are other intelligent life forms on other planets -- heck, we have yet to find a confirmed planet like ours. There are "candidates", but nothing confirmed.

I understand that they play the probabilities when it comes to looking for alien life, but since we don't have something called "evidence" (which is the standard you hold religion to, my guess is that you don't hold religion to "probabilities"), does that mean that there isn't any life out there?

No it doesn't, based only on evidence, eliminate the chance life is out there.

So just because you, and I mean you specifically, haven't seen evidence of a God doesn't mean (1) that evidence doesn't exists or (2) that God doesn't exist -- you and science can throw all the math at it till your heart's content.

 

[Moonbeam]

Some things you know instinctively.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yeah, i maintain that the belief of an omipotent personal god is entirely illogical and unreasonable regardless of how you came to that belief.

So, so what?

Well ok -- so all of your former atheist are now illogical, and soon-to-be former atheists are too! (which means, you're actually calling some current ones illogical as well)

Glad you cleared that up!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Well ok -- so all of your former atheist are now illogical, and soon-to-be former atheists are too! (which means, you're actually calling some current ones illogical as well)

Glad you cleared that up!

Responding with a strawman as usual. Where did i say ANY of that?

I'm not saying that they are illogical, i am saying that a belief in an omnipotent personal god is illogical for which there is no evidence what so ever is illogical.

I do not see how anyone could successfully argue that a belief regarding an omnipotent personal god for which there is no evidence is logical but you are welcome to try.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I don't recall saying if you can't disprove something, that makes it true. What I HAVE said is that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

True but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

A good and scientific analogy would be aliens. We have no tangible evidence to believe there are other intelligent life forms on other planets -- heck, we have yet to find a confirmed planet like ours. There are "candidates", but nothing confirmed.

No, that isn't a good analogy at all. We have evidence of organisms inhabiting this universe, we have evidence of billions of planets being capable of sustaining organic life as we know it so to believe that they MAY be other life forms on other planets isn't impossible but until there is actual observations of such it remains a hypothesis. Note that you do not have to resort to illogical claims without evidence to make this hypothesis, the suggestion is entirely logical and consistent.

Now compare that with god, we have no evidence what so ever in any shape or form about a metaphysical realm and no evidence of any being living in such a realm. This makes such a claim illogical.

I understand that they play the probabilities when it comes to looking for alien life, but since we don't have something called "evidence" (which is the standard you hold religion to, my guess is that you don't hold religion to "probabilities"), does that mean that there isn't any life out there?

No it doesn't, based only on evidence, eliminate the chance life is out there.

So just because you, and I mean you specifically, haven't seen evidence of a God doesn't mean (1) that evidence doesn't exists or (2) that God doesn't exist -- you and science can throw all the math at it till your heart's content.

Based only on the evidence of the universe existing, organisms existing within it, other planets that can sustain organic life we can suggest that it's not unreasonable that life could develop elsewhere as it did here.

Based on no evidence what so ever you are proclaiming that not only a being in a metaphysical realm exists but that this being cares about you and is omnipotent.

If you read my earlier posts you'll also note that i am NOT proclaiming that no god exists, just like i'm sure you would never proclaim that unicorns do not exist.

 

[Retro Rob]

True but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Even if I grant you that saying God exist is "extraordinary", saying the universe came from nothing is more extraordinary, because there hasn't been one single scientific recreation of something from total nothing...and please, refrain from the "depends on your definition of nothing" because that's nothing more than goalpost shifting.

No, that isn't a good analogy at all. We have evidence of organisms inhabiting this universe, we have evidence of billions of planets being capable of sustaining organic life as we know it so to believe that they MAY be other life forms on other planets isn't impossible but until there is actual observations of such it remains a hypothesis. Note that you do not have to resort to illogical claims without evidence to make this hypothesis, the suggestion is entirely logical and consistent.

Until we can prove that we came about due to a series of random events (which there is no solid evidence of our origins.. remember, evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life), the it's possible for life to thrive virtually anywhere, even on Sun using your logic.

And just so you know, science has ruled out the vast majority of these "planets" that they've discovered as possible hosts for life.

Based only on the evidence of the universe existing, organisms existing within it, other planets that can sustain organic life we can suggest that it's not unreasonable that life could develop elsewhere as it did here.

Ok -- we have a problem here. I think, and this is a personal opinion John, that the only way we can possibly say that organic life lives somewhere else is if we can prove our origins -- this is probably why this won't be true scientific theory.

If we can prove we weren't created by anything to live JUST here, then we have a good chance of finding life. But for the sake of this discussion, say we were created, then the chance of life "popping" up somewhere else is almost zero. So I think before we can believe anything, we HAVE to prove, without a shred of doubt, how both we and our universe came into existence.

If you read my earlier posts you'll also note that i am NOT proclaiming that no god exists, just like i'm sure you would never proclaim that unicorns do not exist.

Actually, I just refuse to believe stuff. I do what I expect you to do -- live on as if it doesn't exist.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Even if I grant you that saying God exist is "extraordinary", saying the universe came from nothing is more extraordinary, because there hasn't been one single scientific recreation of something from total nothing...and please, refrain from the "depends on your definition of nothing" because that's nothing more than goalpost shifting.

First of all, even if i accepted YOUR claim that the universe came from nothing, which i don't, it would still be less extraordinary than to surmise that a being that exists in a metaphysical universe and always existed created the universe out of nothing. Adding the immense compexity of a god does NOT make for a less extraordinary claim.

The universe came out of an expansion of the singularity, that is not nothing. Next you will ask what came before the singularity and i'll answer that nothing came before time because that would be incoherent. So, did the singularity always exist? Always means for all time and of course since time exists only within the universe the question is... incoherent.

Or if you prefer, Mr Anderson, how can you ask what came before when there was no ....... time.

Until we can prove that we came about due to a series of random events (which there is no solid evidence of our origins.. remember, evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life), the it's possible for life to thrive virtually anywhere, even on Sun using your logic.

I'm sorry but WHAT?

And just so you know, science has ruled out the vast majority of these "planets" that they've discovered as possible hosts for life.

Tens of billions of planets in our galaxy alone are "earth-like", around 7 billion of them have the ability to sustain organic life. There are hundreds of billions of planets in the Milky Way alone.

Please check your facts before you try to lecture me.

Ok -- we have a problem here. I think, and this is a personal opinion John, that the only way we can possibly say that organic life lives somewhere else is if we can prove our origins -- this is probably why this won't be true scientific theory.

I disagree, organic life exists in this environment on this planet, this is known and indisputable. This also means that there is a possibility for life to exist elsewhere where the environment is the same. This hypothesis is completely logical and coherent but it IS a hypothesis.

I'd say our origins are known.

If we can prove we weren't created.

That would be entirely impossible, you cannot disprove a something for which there exists no tangible evidence. It would be like trying to disprove that i'm god. You simply cannot do that.

Actually, I just refuse to believe stuff. I do what I expect you to do -- live on as if it doesn't exist.

Yup, however my lack of belief comes not out of refusal but out of capability. I CANNOT believe in a god anymore than you can believe that i am god and the ONLY thing that would change my mind is tangible evidence.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Even if I grant you that saying God exist is "extraordinary", saying the universe came from nothing is more extraordinary,

Well, we do at least know that the universe exists, while on the other hand we've never observed a disembodied mind. I don't think this claim of yours holds water.

...because there hasn't been one single scientific recreation of something from total nothing...and please, refrain from the "depends on your definition of nothing" because that's nothing more than goalpost shifting.

Actually, as best we can tell, there is no such thing as "total nothing." This is convenient since modern cosmology does not suggest that the universe "came from nothing" in the sense you've used it here. In reality, cosmological models describe a universe that hasn't "come" from anything at all. It simply is.

Until we can prove that we came about due to a series of random events (which there is no solid evidence of our origins.. remember, evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life), the it's possible for life to thrive virtually anywhere, even on Sun using your logic.

1.) What do you think a "random event" is?

2.) What does proof, or lack thereof, that we "came about due to a series of random events" have to do with our knowledge about environmental conditions which are hospitable to life as we know it?

Ok -- we have a problem here. I think, and this is a personal opinion John, that the only way we can possibly say that organic life lives somewhere else is if we can prove our origins -- this is probably why this won't be true scientific theory.

Preposterous. Life may not even have an origin. You should learn about panspermia, and then tell us what "our origins" have to do with the possibility of life on other planets.

If we can prove we weren't created by anything to live JUST here, then we have a good chance of finding life.

You're going to have to fill in some of the enormous crevasses that exist between the former supposition and the latter consequence, because from here it appears to be a wildly unjustified leap in logic.

But for the sake of this discussion, say we were created, then the chance of life "popping" up somewhere else is almost zero.

Upon what basis could you exclude the possibility that whatever created us created something else somewhere else?

So I think before we can believe anything, we HAVE to prove, without a shred of doubt, how both we and our universe came into existence.

But what if they didn't "come into" existence? Have you proven that they did?

 

[colonelciller]

I don't recall saying if you can't disprove something, that makes it true. What I HAVE said is that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

A good and scientific analogy would be aliens. We have no tangible evidence to believe there are other intelligent life forms on other planets -- heck, we have yet to find a confirmed planet like ours. There are "candidates", but nothing confirmed.

I understand that they play the probabilities when it comes to looking for alien life, but since we don't have something called "evidence" (which is the standard you hold religion to, my guess is that you don't hold religion to "probabilities"), does that mean that there isn't any life out there?

No it doesn't, based only on evidence, eliminate the chance life is out there.

So just because you, and I mean you specifically, haven't seen evidence of a God doesn't mean (1) that evidence doesn't exists or (2) that God doesn't exist -- you and science can throw all the math at it till your heart's content.

no evidence for any of the thousands of human-proposed gods exists. that is a fact. please refute that statement with evidence.

 

[Onceler]

I don't see how a belief in God = no life elsewhere. Not all religions are based on this assumption, I myself call God He but I really believe that He is an It(Akashsa) and has made life to take hold nearly everywhere. We are special but not that special.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

...how both we and our universe came into existence.

I wanted to single out this idea and ask Rob to describe what he believes are the answers to that question.

I know it might seem like you've been around here long enough that the answer (what your answer would be, that is) should be obvious, but if you will, please state plainly here what you think the correct answer is.

 

[Paul98]

The speed of light, time dilation, length contraction, double slit experiment, quantum entanglement, hawking radiation, nuclear fusion, casimir effect, black holes,... You have tons of strange things that happen, yet you keep on saying that the big bang couldn't happen due to physics.

And you are stuck on saying that organic compounds which are found everywhere in the universe can't eventually through chemistry and proper conditions become life? Heck we have already shown many of the building blocks of life such as RNA bases can come from simple chemistry in environments that were around on early earth.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I found this the other day, it's a really good read.

http://voices.yahoo.com/how-universe-works-today-1691253.html

cliffs: the sum of all energy (including matter) in the universe is zero.

 

[Retro Rob]

I wanted to single out this idea and ask Rob to describe what he believes are the answers to that question.

I know it might seem like you've been around here long enough that the answer (what your answer would be, that is) should be obvious, but if you will, please state plainly here what you think the correct answer is.

The complexity of the universe and especially human beings require an explanation -- some say that all is needed is time and chance. I guess this is their explanation.

Given the extreme complexity and unique configuration of the Universe as a whole and the Earth in particular, we must account for the actualization of this extremely unlikely configuration. If we assume the existence of infinite parallel universes (each with different properties) then we can explain our existence as just one of the infinitely possible configurations of infinite worlds. We can explain our existence if we assume the existence of infinite worlds. I think we can reach the same conclusion if we find another planet with intelligent life thriving on it.

Or we can postulate the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Which is more rational to a person? Do we have to believe in infinite worlds just to explain this one? Or should I believe that all in the world exists in its complexity and uniqueness because of purposeful design?

I think when it comes down to this, saying "God did it" seems to be too simple of an answer and those highly educated persons in science can't accept such simplicity when explaining our origins.

Someone fairly recently said in a thread that was closed: "when you say God did it, you've just given up". How is that?

Science only explains what we see -- it does not disprove anything as far as God is concerned. There are scientists who are believers in God and have no problem conducting experiments, researching, explaining things etc. Heck, even I myself do a lot of research on the things that make up our galaxy and planet etc, and my belief in God hasn't suffered one bit. Science is NOT a replacement for God -- some people actually think it is!

I read a little on panspermia, and there is really no evidence for it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The complexity of the universe and especially human beings require an explanation -- some say that all is needed is ttimeand chance. I guess this is their explanation.

You guess wrongly.

Given the extreme complexity and unique configuration of the Universe as a whole and the Earth in particular, we must account for the actualization of this extremely unlikely configuration.

Likelihood is irrelevant, you're just painting the target around the arrow.

Or we can postulate the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Which is more rational to a person? Do we have to believe in infinite worlds just to explain this one? Or should I believe that all in the world exists in its complexity and uniqueness because of purposeful design?

How do you explain God's complexity and uniqueness? A God designer? Infinitely possible gods?

I think when it comes down to this, saying "God did it" seems to be too simple of an answer and those highly educated persons in science can't accept such simplicity when explaining our origins.

It isn't that it it "too simple." The learned scientists understand that it isn't a meaningful answer. The question is "how both we and our universe came into existence." There is no "who" component to that question.

Someone fairly recently said in a thread that was closed: "when you say God did it, you've just given up". How is that?

Do you believe your God's methods for universe creation are knowable? Can you actually answer HOW "both we and our universe came into existence"?

I read a little on panspermia, and there is really no evidence for it.

Then you didn't read very much at all.