More of the same

The problem I see with all the questions regarding “the creation of the creator” (turtles all the way down) is that they are inherently nonsensical.

They all depend on the assumption that the creator could not have created time.

It’s saying that time must have existed before time could exist.

Patently absurd.

That's a two-way street.

But these people who are trying to highjack science as a foundation for an atheistic religion are truly blind.

They try to make out like anyone who isn't an atheist (or non-spiritual), doesn't understand science which is utter hogwash. They're the one's who don't undersand that all science does is describe the inside of the box. That's all it is capable of doing.

Then they try to extrapolate those methods to "outside of the box" which is utterly absurd, (and totally illogical too boot!)

Creative keeps demanding "logic" yet his very demand that logical should extrapolate "outside of the box" is itself an utterly illogical notion.

We already know it doesn't. Logic can't even begin to explain QM and QM is observations about how the "outside of the box" interfaces with the inside. So even science has shown us that our treasured logic breaks down and fails at that barrier.

To continue to stand there clinging to logic like as if it has any air left in it is absurd. That baloon has already been burst.

Whatever is going on "outside of the box" defies logic.

I think where most of this comes from is from Newtonian Hold-outs who are actually rejecting even the findings of science in the hopes that they can somehow return to the quaint little secure world of Newtonian clockwork. That way, even if there is no god, at least they can find some comfort in the idea that they are necessary cog in a big machine.

Coo coo!

Coo coo!

It's time for Newtonian World childern! Pull up your chairs and listen to the story of how the universe is a great big coo coo clock. It starts with Mother Nature and the 'natural processes' and winds up being all about springs (er, I mean strings).

It's a orchestra of vibrations, just like Jeanniebean says. Only we can explain it using hidden dimensions! Tune in next week kiddies, same station, same baloney, same empty promises!

any body read horton hears a who?
there's your answer...and so on, and so on

I can't believe this silly thread has gone on as long as it has.

I can't believe this silly thread has gone on as long as it has.

I can't believe this silly thread has gone on as long as it has.

Creative wrote:

Maybe, but it is always far more intelligent to allow others' to give and form their own argument.

Dontcha think?

Dragoness wrote:

Okay, so has anyone proven anything to anyone besides themselves about intelligent design or intelligent designers?

It's just atheistic evangelism held out under the false pretense that science supports conclusions about things that science isn't even capable of addressing.

The scientific evidence for design is overwhelming. That has already been shown. The only refutation given comes from the fact that the evidence can't be extrapolated outside of the box.

But that very observation also applies to idea of 'natural processes'. That also can't be extrapolated outside of the box.

Like Sky points out, it's a two-way street.

This is what people don't seem to be able to comprehend.



I have no problem with that. But as soon as they start claiming that their opinions are the opinions of science and are more "logical" is where I draw the line.

That's just downright ignorant.



From a scientific point of view the question wouldn't even be worded in that way (it was worded that way in the OP for the biased purpose of distracting from the real issue).

Science always frames things in terms of mathematics. So the question would be mathematically reduced to whether or not there is evidence for happenstance. I've shown that the evidence clearly denies happenstance. So it's like Sherlock holmes, we eliminate what can't be true, and then move forward from there.

I just received a lecture today on Black Holes. The lecturer is a very prominent astronomer. All through his lecture he is explaining the cutting-edge knowledge that we have about Black Holes. In almost every case, what he's actually doing, is explaining what we've 'ruled-out', and then he states that we don't yet have a final explanation for many of the effects we observe.

So scientists are often working from the principle of ruling things out. I ruled out happenstance as a possible "explanation" for this universe, because this universe defies happenstance. So that's my conclusion. It's not likely that this universe is happenstance.

Moreover, even astronomers, astrophysicsts, particle physicists, and quantum physicsists will tell you that this universe is so highly improbably that if it is a happenstance event it is the most unlikely event you can possible imagine in your wildest dreams.

So, as far as I'm concerned, this is the scientific view and it is precisely what should be taught and held by anyone who teaches science or claims to speak on the behave of science.

It is extremely unlikely that this universe is happenstance.

To the best of my knowledge, that IS the current scientific view.

The scientific evidence for design is overwhelming. That has already been shown. The only refutation given comes from the fact that the evidence can't be extrapolated outside of the box.

It seems that we're doomed to hear the same arguments being recycled.

Saying "prove to me that god created the universe", is the same as saying "prove to me where all the matter in the universe came from".

Unfortunately no one will be able to win this debate until they die...

If you die and go to heaven or hell, then the god side wins.
If you die and there is nothing, then the science side wins.

In either case, the person debating who found the answer no longer cares about winning the debate. It's purely a faith based argument on both sides, it just depends on where you place your faith.

Firedude wrote:

Saying "prove to me that god created the universe", is the same as saying "prove to me where all the matter in the universe came from".

What I object to is these people who pretend that science could actually answer either of these questions. That's the fallacy that they are attempting to perpetuate. They are attempting to use science to support the idea that atheism (or non-spiritual views) are somehow more 'logical' or even more 'likely' than any other view.

Which is utter hogwash.

That's the only complaint that's coming from me. It's a total abuse of both science and logic. It's nothing more than a totally unsupported stance that anyone who believes in anything other than pure happenstance is an idiot who doesn't understand either science or logic. And that's a totally false stance to take that cannot be supported by either logic or science. It's just a false misrepresentation of both of those intellectual disciplines.