Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

Hi everyone, it has been a while since I posted anything in this forum. I came here to ask your views on Intelligent Design whether or not it is science, and also if their arguments are valid.

For those who are not familiar with Intelligent Design, it is the view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". So in other words, the natural laws that govern the universe are not enough to take into account of the world around us and that a Designer must have intervened.

One particular argument that stands out is the fine-tuned argument also known as anthropic principle, it is stated that since the fundamental physical constant lie in a very narrow rage to allow for life, such as if the strong nuclear force was just 2% stronger life will not occur, so this is evidents for an Intelligent Designer. There is as many as 30 physical constants that have been discovered by scientist.

To me the fine-tuned Universe argument is pretty solid but there is this one criticism of it that makes me think otherwise and that is that it is impossible for life to observe a universe that is not finely tuned. For example if we take two scenarios, one where an Intelligent Designer designed the universe and the other where it just randomly appeared. The first scenario where an Intelligent Designer created the universe, the intelligent life that will formed such as humans will observe the universe that is finely tuned and may conclude a designer must have been at work.

The second scenario where there is no Intelligent Designer, the universe just randomly appeared (multiverse) and it just happened that this universe had the right physical constant to support life, the intelligent life formed such as human will still observe a universe that is finely tuned and also can conclude that a designer was at work even though there was no designer.

So I wanted read your opinions about this fine-tuned universe argument, whether it is valid and your views on Intelligent Design.

Thanks in advance :)

Yes, me. Literally everything I know, do, and observe is from my point of view - and so I am unaware if there are other realities besides mine. In fact, this post could be something I planned before living as I am today - every person I meet, every internet website I go to at any time relevant to the orbit of earth around the sun. Everything I have thought of, everything I have yet to think of, and everything I have yet to experience - has been planned out by myself (or an extension of my current "self"). This post on this website in this forum on this thread, with these pixels and this keyboard...you get the point. Everything.

I don't know what could technically exist or not exist, and since I cannot control my planned "life" then I should just go along with it without struggle, even if I did struggle - that struggle was probably planned as well. I don't know what truth is or what reality in general is, whether I'm worthless or useful in the grand scheme of things or if there even is a grand scheme. It could all be for nothing and it could all be for reasons - I stopped caring, but that's probably what I was going to do anyways according to myself. Does everything tie in with everything else in the plan? What's real and what's not real? What can be classified as real in the first place? Nothing, as far as I know. Perhaps nothing is real, yet nothing is still something so how can I define real? Does anything mean anything anywhere?

My whole perspective could be an illusion of sorts, even you could be my illusion. Since I am observing you as you are from my perspective, I can only truly believe that what I see must be what I am observing. Therefore, every scientific theory, discovery, the history of earth, my parents, biology, religion, wars, they might not even exist at all on a greater plane of reality.

So, to take my mind off of such deep thoughts, I'll play along with the reality I observe for now - whether I'm a puppet or not, my feelings might be controlled, my actions and words might be controlled, I don't care (even my not-caring could be controlled or planned). I suppose I should simply have fun and not worry about anything unless it affects my current point of view. Whatever "fun" is - I "want" it. I'll just "relax" and "have" this "fun" - whatever those words mean or if they are real or not.

On a less existential philosophy note: Hi, welcome back! Even if just for a little while :D

Thanks for the reply and the warm welcome :), and this time I plan to stay longer.

While you did deviate from the topic at hand, you did raise an interesting philosophical view point of determinism, that all actions including humans are pre-planned and we have no control over them. How boring will that be, that murderers and rapists cannot be held accountable for their actions since they were meant to happen in the first place.

The worst part about it is that we cannot really verify if determinism is true, and will also raise the question who planned all the events to occur. Is free will an illusion? Who knows but I live my life as though I do have free will. It will be quite hard to prove in court that somehow it was my destiny to steal a box of chocolates in a shop.

But Ford, doesn't it frustrate you that you may never know the 'true' reality, only after death (if there is life after death).

 

Well, I'll see when I'm dead xD if I'm dead and nothing happens, then I'm dead - and at that point my cares won't exist or matter to anyone especially me. If there is true reality or life after death, cool - I hope I get to keep all my knowledge. So no, I'm not very frustrated about what comes after death.

You're...you're that guy that made the thread several years ago about whether the world was caught in a genjutsu or not, correct?

It is plusible.

It's impossible to disprove intelligent design. It's actually pretty challenging to prove any negative. My problem with the fine-tuned argument is that it only holds for life as we know it. Life, the way we see it right now, could only exist in these parameters but that could very well just be because we evolved in these parameters. Were the parameters different, there's no way to prove that life wouldn't have evolved, just differently.

The best argument for intelligent design, in my opinion, is probably irreducible complexity. But, it's actually full of holes, too.

At the end of the day, there's no way that detractors of ID can prove that ID isn't true, but I won't believe in intelligent design until there is some evidence of it.

I cannot prove that there isn't an undetectable purple elephant behind the moon, but I won't believe that it exists until there is some evidence to support it.

But there's a difference between an undetectable purple elephant behind the moon and an omnipresent/powerful being that created the universe. Aside from the obvious difference, the elephant would have no purpose or reason to exist. A 'God' figure serves/served a purpose of creating a universe that is (almost, I suppose. [Cancer exists]) perfect for human life to exist.

The Earth is situated in a 'convenient' place that allowed us to adapt with eyes that are able to see well, etc. Which you went over in your first paragraph, but I've always found the 'well you can't disprove magical unicorns who ride rainbow chariots so I guess I don't have to consider the possibility of a god's existence now' stance ridiculous. 

"But there's a difference between an undetectable purple elephant behind the moon and an omnipresent/powerful being that created the universe."

You're definitely correct about that! The point I was making was that in both cases, we can't prove that they don't exist. The burden of proof is on the people asserting that they do. Do you understand what I mean? I'm not going to believe something free of evidence on the basis that: "You can't prove that God didn't create the universe!"

@Tanstaafl

Of course.

The thing is that I've seen people who I respect bring up that argument of the magical unicorn and derive from that that they're sure 100% sure that a god can't exist. It's silly. @JJJ-thebanisher

I am 100% sure that I'm not close to 100% sure if God exists.

Yay. ^_^

It's not silly at all, to deny something exists when there is no proof for it is hardly illogical in the least; some people (like 3-J) would be more accepting and believe there is the possibility that it exists, some (like myself) don't.

Knew you'd reply to that. Since well, I was referring to you haha. I find it silly because although there aren't exact facts (Well, no direct facts.), it's more than just not unprovable, it also would explain things. The unicorn explains nothing.

(Yeah, I know)

That is by definition circular logic. "It exists because it explains things, it explains things because it exists".

I could easily say that the magical unicorn previously mentioned designed the entire universe. Also, the reason we can't detect it is because it decided it wanted it's privacy. As a result, I have "answered" the question of whether or not there is intelligent design, and there is no way to disprove my answer, as well as no way to prove it.

However you will not accept this answer, because (other than myself admitting it to be false) it is ridiculous. The only way you would ever believe this "answer" is if I presented you with proof of it's validity, because why would you believe something so inherently logically flawed? (A unicorn creating the universe? Bah!)

Of course, I will never be able to present you with proof for the same reason you cannot disprove it, my answer to the question is purposely made so that it cannot be properly challenged, for it is set outside of the bounds of reality. 

In every other scenario in our entire world, such an answer would be immediately seen as invalid, within the bounds of religion and in this case, intelligent design - basically, people's beliefs, it is regarded with a "Hey, maybe it could happen, back off people" purely because of it's long-standing societal influence.

I choose to reject this answer outright, rather than give it that slight acknowledgement. It is not "silly" in the least.

I never said (here) that God exists haha. It's just very different than an absurd unicorn. But hey, I couldn't give a rat's arse whether God was formless or looked like a pink unicorn (well, leaving out the Judasim part, since it's pretty clear in the text that believing god has a comprehendable form is a form of idolatry).

My point isn't about accepting that God exists, it's the acceptance that it could make sense if a God did exist. That God may exist.

I just find it silly that one could be strong enough in his [lack of] belief that a God can't exist. It's ridiculous (and I mean that in an unaggressive way).

There are things humans don't understand, humanoids have been around for 8 million years (about) and yet we are still baffled by little things that are huge. Gravity, it comes from mass, but how? No clue. We're learning, but we aren't close to the answer. Maybe yet, maybe we simply can't find out. We certainly can't 'create' gravity, we have no idea what can create gravity. So a Godlike being that is powerful enough to make that isn't outside of the question! What he looks like really is beside the point, the possibility of 'God' existing isn't only due to it being unprovable, it's due to the fact that it would also explain things.

The implication behind intelligent design is that there was a god responsible for the design, you do not have to say it. It is no different from the unicorn, simply more regal in nature.

Except it doesn't make sense that he could exist, which I spent that entire post pointing out. It's ridiculous to say that my lack of belief (based soundly in the logic above) is ridiculous. I stated there and i'll state it here - In every single other situation in our world, giving an answer who's only evidence and support is that it is a possible answer would result in it's instant invalidation. Religion (and by extent, intelligent design) are given leeway solely due to their societal influence and people's continued belief.

Irrelevant, humans have not known anything regarding the concept of gravity to begin with until exactly 325 years ago, and much of that time was spent without the technology necessary to even begin advancing ourselves. You can't take all of human history when humanity was completely and totally unable to do anything to work towards that goal and treat it as evidence that there are things we cannot explain - because it hasn't, technology and even our understanding of gravity are relatively new developments in human history. Our lack of understanding has never been based on the fact that there are no answers, but instead on the fact that we do not currently have the means to find those answers. Finding the means comes first.

Of course we do not create gravity, gravity simply is. Your mistaken assumption is that gravity was created by something, as well as your assumption that to exist, something must be created. If something had to be created to exist, then nothing would exist as even the creators would need to be created, and so on and so forth.

Again, circular logic. "He exists because he is an answer, he is an answer because he exists" - that is not a valid way of thinking, merely because something could answer a question does not automatically validate it, just as the idea of an intelligent creator will not validate itself.

I'm not arguing for intelligent design currently, I'm arguing that a God may exist. Or, perhaps, that an Intelligent designer may exist.

This is a different situation than any other though. This is the beginning of history. A history which we weren't present until 'recently' (in the grand scheme of things)-- what was before the Big Bang? Nothing? That doesn't make any sense. Something 'logical' can't come from nothing. Believing in a god who started things off isn't illogical. Believing that there can't be a god who started things off is maybe not illogical, but is kinda silly, and perhaps arrogant (once again, not meant to be taken too offensively).

The thing is that we don't understand what was before the universe. We also don't understand God. And so fits. Apples and Oranges-- Most situations are apples, the situations which we can't understand, like infinity and before time was created (since time was created with matter)- are oranges. God could be an orange. A rainbow colored, invisible orange, but okay.

Also, Evolution wasn't shot down, and most claim it as a possible way to how life could have evolved from one cell. We have no fossil evidence of the first cell. We have fossil evidence of already complex things becoming extremely complex things. Indirect reasoning has been used in science many times.

No matter how far we go, there are things we can't explain. Infinity, for example. It's literally beyond us.

Additionally, let me fix that for you, 'He may exist because he is an answer, he is an answer because he may exist".

They are the same thing, any intelligent designer would fit what we define as a god.

No, it's really not. 

What happened before the Big Bang? This question is too vague, and there is the underlying implication that you assume the Big Bang created the universe - which is not strictly true (it expanded the universe). In addition, it makes perfect sense, as I explained above. Your (continuous) mistake is in assuming that something must be created to exist. I continue to tell you that this is illogical, if we assumed that for anything to exist, everything would need to be created, then even the intelligent designer you claim exists would have had to be created, which would lead into an infinite cycle of creation that would eventually, again, reach that one, inevitable stage - at one point there was nothing, there was oblivion, an eternal void indescribable due to it being impossible to know what unexistence is like - and then there was something.

Logic demands therefore that for existence to exist, creation is unnecessary. Once you have accepted that creation is unnecessary, you can then cut out the Intelligent designer - because an intelligent designer was never needed to create anything in the first place. 

Tan, you cannot have blind faith (and indeed, this faith is blind because there is no proof to it) and logic at the same time.

That is still circular.

Sure, but I'm not discussing that An Intelligent Designer exists, I'm saying that he can exist.

God, by most accounts religious accounts, is infinite. Has no beginning or end, encompasses all time.

It's very different haha. We're discussing something that isn't confined to our logic. It is infinite. And yet, although we can't understand infinite, we also know that there is some sort of (limited?) type of infinite in the world -space.

I... Something does need to be created to exist. In our universe, that's how things work. God is beyond understanding, exists in all universes, yadayadayada- doesn't need to be made to exist. Which isn't the point I'm discussing, but it needed to be put out there in response. 

How is creation unnecessary? The Big Bang expanded the universe from the single point, without it the universe would be but a point. It created, or maybe even unveiled, everything after that point.

Haha, that's where you're wrong. Faith is based on belief, which is based on knowledge, which is based on facts. I don't need to prove God to anyone, and my faith is certainly not blind. But, as I've noted before, this is about the possibility of God, not whyI personally believe.

The only thing I wish to point out is that God is a possibility, and to assume that it isn't a possibility is silly. I'm not arguing that god exists here, I'm arguing that there is certainly the possibility that he does. 

You do this only because you believe he does exist, therefore I am addressing your actual belief rather than the one you are trying to convince me of.

Everything is confined to logic, if you decide that something does not need to be logical then you agree that what you are saying makes no sense. And saying that something is outside the bounds of logic does, in fact, make no sense. Of course we understand infinity, it is something which never ends, it is eternal. What is there about that concept that is difficult to comprehend?

I've explained before and I'll say it again, logically, something need not be created to exist. Even with a god (and I explicitly mentioned an intelligent designer) this is necessary. Everything always existed, because there is no other logical possibility. If you simply claim that "Hey, no, what i'm saying? Logic doesn't apply to it" then again you forfeit the right to truly call your argument an argument (because it's just you making wild claims and saying that logic means nothing when it's used against you).

The Big Bang stretched already existing space, it did not make new space. I think; I am not a physicist.

Faith is not based on belief, it is belief. It is also based on knowledge, your chain here was correct - you failed however, when you decided to say that knowledge is based on fact. Knowledge is gained from information, which is often faillible. Your believe in God because you were raised to believe in him; you were given that information by your parents, who were given that information from their parents, and so on. This does not make the information factual.

In addition, even when knowledge goes against belief, people will often stick to their belief - because humans are emotional in nature, not intellectual. If we believe or feel strongly against (or for) something, we will disregard most all evidence against it in favor of what slim or fabricated evidence we have for it.

Of course you're arguing that god exists, you are doing so indirectly by trying to argue that it is possible he exists but that is the goal you are working towards. (I don't mean that in a "The evil jews are trying to convert us all!" kind of way, just mean it in a "Hey, he believes in this and that's what he's giving out" kind of way).

Is infinite illogical? No, but we don't understand it. Is God illogical? No, but we don't understand it.

My belief in God is constructed by something I learned without my parents. Haha. They certainly pointed me in a direction, but everyone is influenced one way or another. In fact, my parents didn't come from religious households.

Not gonna argue the Big Bang, not a physicist either. Nigh certain it created something though.

 See, I'm really not. I'm arguing that the possibility of God is there. Of course I believe in God, but this is beside the point. If I was arguing against something, it'd probably be 'strong' atheism. I'm really arguing for agnosticism more than anything else haha.

In response to your addition, I'd say that back at you.

Please explain your logic then. How can something (that isn't infinite) exist without being created?

Of course it's logical (infinity), and I don't know why you think we do not understand it. Infinity is when something does not end and does not begin, it simply is.

God is illogical, and we do not understand it for that very reason, you cannot understand something that does not make sense or exist.

You then believe that the path you are on is the only true one? Can you honestly say you wouldn't think the same thing if your parents had been Christian, or Sikh, or Hindi, or Muslim? 

You are arguing to persuade me to accept something closer to your own beliefs - in this case, Agnosticism.

I have explained the logic. You can't simply choose when logic applies and it does not. The idea that everything has to be created is violated by existence itself, because if everything had to be created, so would the creator. If you argue that the creator is infinite, then you argue that creation is unnecessary because infinity exists. If infinity exists, the creator is unnecessary because, since it has been established that something does not need to be created to exist, why would there be a creator? It is an unnecessary, illogical addition to the plan - the idea that this one thing is infinite, but nothing else is.

It is far more likely that everything had always already existsed; the idea of an infinite creator invalidates itself.

Now you ask me to explain how something that isn't infinite can exist without being created - and I have to ask why? My argument against there being a creator is that matter, energy and the laws of the universe are infinite (at least, time-wise), because everything that is necessarily always had to have been.

God is infinite. God simply is. Just like infinity. But think, how does infinity 'fit'? How does that work exactly?

Very much so. I am firm enough in my belief that, to me, Judaism simply makes sense. From the crinkly old, 2000 year old writings of the Rabbis to the Old Testament itself. My belief is based on something that is in Judaism only.

Oh no, that's why I'm trying to not put in the word 'debate'. It's evident you're not changing your beliefs, not even closing to something agnosticism. I dunno, you just don't want a God to possibly exist.

You haven't explained that logic at all. God is the infinite. The space-infinity is more limited, to the point that some scientists be leave that the universe will stop expanding at a point and implode. God isn't that exactly, and yet is infinite without those types of constraints.

Although I disagree, perhaps I am choosing that human logic doesn't applies to God. But God was before our logic, and by thus logic wouldn't have to apply to him as it would to us. From everything I've read by MIT-trained physicists (no offense 3J, but I trust Gerald Schroeder more than you haha), time started out with matter. Something must have started things, and I don't see why it couldn't be an omnipresent god-like being.

Don't you remember Drak logic, Tan?

He's right because he's right. There's no need for him to explain his side. He'll just repeat it in different ways until you give up.

Killa, i've explained myself time and time and time again, you simply refuse to acknowledge decent parts of my argument and then insult me because, I don't know, you can't think of any other way to argue with someone? 

So you say, but your refute for Tan saying God is infinite is literally "He doesn't exist and there's no evidence of him, so he can't be infinite".

I mean, there isn't even a connection here. You're literally just repeating that because he doesn't exist nothing about him is true, which means until he's proven, nothing about him can be true, but the things they claim about him to be true are unprovable by us, therefore none of it is true.

If you're going to use quotation marks, how about actually quoting me? It would really be better than making up words to use in the worst possible light against me and then hoping I don't notice, you know? Well, I hope you know, because it would be really really pathetically idiotic if you didn't.

My argument was (and I won't repeat it again after this, because you have proven before that you are willing and capable of ignoring entire sections of my argument to merely repeat yourself and insult me, so either actually listen and take into consideration what I've already said or don't bother to involve yourself) that because, logically, there is no need for a creator, adding a god in is an unnecessary step.

To say that "God is infinite" and then deny the possibility of anything else being infinite is a stretch. God being infinite but matter and energy being finite (in terms of their temporal existence) violates the basic laws of conservation of energy and mass. Therefore, if we are following scientific principles, Matter and Energy have always existed. If Matter and Energy have always existed, then as I have already said, repeatedly explained and outlined (despite continuously having that part of the argument ignored) there is no need for a creator.

Of course there isn't a connection, I never said that. You made it up, and you didn't even do a good job of making it up.

Um, okay lol.

"God is not (infinite), because there is no evidence of him and his existence goes against logical belief."
"He doesn't exist and there's no evidence of him, so he can't be infinite"

Top is what you said, bottom is how I phrased it. With the exception of you saying his existence goes against logical belief, and me just saying he doesn't exist, it's pretty much word for word the same thing.

My argument was that because, logically, there is no need for a creator, adding a god in is an unnecessary step.

It's entirely possible the creator created whatever created everything. Why is there logically no need for a creator anyway? I also don't recall Tan denying that NOTHING else can be infinite as well, not that that point even matters.

Yeah, adding in words that were not said is not what quoting is. 

I didn't forget to add in "Infinte" there, Tan said "God is" (God exists), I said "God is not" (God does not exist).

Tan was arguing that everything needs to be created, except for the creator (who is infinite and therefore has no beggining or end). I am arguing that everything is infinite, the creator is unnecessary.

Tan did deny it (at least, inadvertently, since I was claiming that matter and energy were infinite and he was claiming that the creator created everything - which would mean matter and energy were, by extension, finite).

Of course the point matters, why would I argue for it otherwise?

The essence of the argument is this: Tan says that a creator made all of the universe, and that this creator is infinite (in that he has existed for all of time, not that it occupies infinite space - or maybe he was claiming that too, but that last point would have been irrelevent).

I say that because matter and energy (What, you know, makes up the universe) are infinite, the universe has always existed and a creator was never required. 

Tan says that anything which is needs to be created, I say that this is logically impossible because if everything needed to be created then nothing would exist (because who would create the creator? And who would create its creator?).

(Keep in mind that this is a massively over-simplified version of the arguments, if you want the actual arguments, you can see them.)

 

You're under the false assumption everything we're aware of is everything that exists.

Take the forth dimension. We exist in the third dimension. Everything we know applies to the third dimension. God could be a forth dimensional being. This would imply that:

A) It is beyond our understanding (because we literally can't perceive the forth dimensional)

B) The rules/law of our world/universe don't apply to it, because it exists outside of them

Taking these two points into considering, it's entirely possible a god exists and that we just can't comprehend it. It also suggests that proving such a god exist is also impossible (which in turn means proving it does not exist is impossible as well). Your logic doesn't apply here, because the being in question exists outside of our logic to begin with (which was Tan's whole point).

You are talking about three dimensions, so I will assume you are referring exclusively to spatial dimensions (feel free to correct me if this is not the case - I thought time was officially established as the fourth known dimension).

If there was a fourth dimension, a god would still be visible in the third, second and first dimensions. In addition, another spatial dimension would not invalidate logical thinking or the basics of science (as I understand it, string theory even depends on there being at least 10 dimensions).

I also fail to understand why we would be unable to comprehend such a god - I mean, of course we would be unable to understand what it would look like physically (as with all of the fourth dimension) but why would anything else change?

That wasn't Tan's point at all, Tan said that god created logic (after he came into existence) and is therefore not subject to it This is really a massively different argument.

 

The god would only be visible when it wanted to be, otherwise it would normally exist outside of our perception. It's like placing a piece of paper on a table. It's only when you put your finger on the paper, that you would become visible to the 2nd dimension of the paper, and even then you'd just appear as some weird blob.

I never said it'd invalidate it, I said it might not apply to the new dimension. Maybe the forth dimension has entirely different forces at work within it. Maybe in the forth dimension gravity works completely different. Maybe time in the third dimension is different from time in the forth dimension. This is a dimension we can't even perceive after all, which means that within that dimension forces/objects we can't perceive must also exist.

Well I guess Tan made a weird point then. Then again if he believes god created everything then believing he created logic may also apply there.

(Why do you spell it forth?)

Very well, I suppose that makes sense.

Time is, in and of itself, an entirely separate dimension - I am fairly sure it would necessarily work the same way in all other dimensions. If gravity is based on mass then it would also work the same way regardless of the dimension (an extra spatial dimension would not change the very basic idea that the larger the mass, the greater the attraction). But I get your point, there are any number of things which would work differently (because obviously we can't see it, and assumedly cannot imagine it, as everything we imagine is based on combinations of what we have already seen).

But now all you have done is give me a (surprisingly) plausible explanation for there possibly being a being (or any number of beings) which we cannot see and cannot comprehend - there is nothing to suggest that any of said beings would be a god, or capable of creating the universe.

(Because I can't spell haha)

You're right. There's nothing to suggest any of said beings would be a god, or capable of creating a universe.

But they COULD be, which is all I'm getting at. I only believe it's possible such a being exist, and only because it's impossible to prove otherwise. I find it far more likely that such a being does not exist, but I can't say that I'm 100% sure that it's impossible.

But that's meaningless! There are literally an infinite number of possibilities if we rely on what could possibly be, one of those possibilities out of all of those means nothing! Especially when there is no evidence to support it!

(I know this seems long, half of it is quoting though)

It is something which exists eternally - without beginning and without end. It is not difficult to understand.

God is not, because there is no evidence of him and his existence goes against logical belief. Infinity exists, there is evidence of it (Well, theoretical evidence - if something exists forever, then you would need to have a way to measure "forever" to be able to prove it is, in fact, infinite. However, there is good reason to believe in infinity, because it is the only logical conclusion - whereas God and by extension Intelligent design is not).

You cannot argue for infinity and then argue that nothing else but that one thing you believe in is infinite, and then only so that it could create finite things. The very laws of conservation of matter (and energy) would agree that all matter has always existed, and all energy has always existed - to deny this is to deny two of the most basic and fundamental laws of science, it would be saying that matter and energy could be both created and destroyed. (Yes, yes, I know that they can be to some small degree - or at least, we can partly turn matter into energy, or even entirely turn it into energy with antimatter, however the total amount of energy and matter in the universe remains constant, it cannot be created or destroyed).

It is not that I do not want a god to exist and that is why I am denying its existence (in most religions, this would be fantastic for me - an afterlife is preferable to the cessation of my consciousness), I am denying its existence because I am not willing to deny every single rational part of my being telling me that to believe in it would be nonsense, to deny reason and logic in favor of belief in something that should not and does not exist.

It is not limited at all. Just because these scientists believe that at one point there will be a big crunch does not mean that there will, in fact, be a big crunch. It is not even entirely accepted, merely a theory - one scenario of many, and in addition, you are applying too much stock to belief. Because some believe something means nothing, belief can be flawed (as I have said) and belief can be incorrect. If you decide that because they believe in something, it could be correct, then you are applying the same circular reasoning you've been pushing since the beginning. 

And I have explained the logic (if I haven't explain the logic, then please, tell me what these are?

"I continue to tell you that this is illogical, if we assumed that for anything to exist, everything would need to be created, then even the intelligent designer you claim exists would have had to be created, which would lead into an infinite cycle of creation that would eventually, again, reach that one, inevitable stage - at one point there was nothing, there was oblivion, an eternal void indescribable due to it being impossible to know what unexistence is like - and then there was something.

Logic demands therefore that for existence to exist, creation is unnecessary. Once you have accepted that creation is unnecessary, you can then cut out the Intelligent designer - because an intelligent designer was never needed to create anything in the first place"

"I've explained before and I'll say it again, logically, something need not be created to exist. Even with a god (and I explicitly mentioned an intelligent designer) this is necessary. Everything always existed, because there is no other logical possibility. If you simply claim that "Hey, no, what i'm saying? Logic doesn't apply to it" then again you forfeit the right to truly call your argument an argument (because it's just you making wild claims and saying that logic means nothing when it's used against you)."

"I have explained the logic. You can't simply choose when logic applies and it does not. The idea that everything has to be created is violated by existence itself, because if everything had to be created, so would the creator. If you argue that the creator is infinite, then you argue that creation is unnecessary because infinity exists. If infinity exists, the creator is unnecessary because, since it has been established that something does not need to be created to exist, why would there be a creator? It is an unnecessary, illogical addition to the plan - the idea that this one thing is infinite, but nothing else is.")

I have continuously explained my logic, and you continue to deny even seeing it, apparently. Counter what I am saying, don't ask me to repeat it.

You are obviously and directly choosing that human logic that human logic does not apply to god! You literally said at one point here that he is beyond human logic, how can you possibly disagree with yourself?!

There is nothing "before logic"; logic is reasoning - it was not created created and does not need to be created, nor is it tangible and thus limited to what it can be used on. It's the same thing as saying "your logic", it is inherently false because there is only one logic and it is not "made" by anything, it is assessment of fact in purely calculated terms which will reach a conclusion.

Gerald Shroeder tries to bind science and religion together in an attempt to keep his beliefs from dying. Science and religion cannot be married together because both directly contradict each other; and to those who say that a god made science I say that they make more and more claims that can never be proven, after their original ones are already refuted or destroyed, after they are proven wrong time and time again. They have no solid position, they have no argument, they have no logic or reasoning behind their work, they have god and they tell everyone that it is the answer, regardless of the question being asked.

Their degrees do not give their work validity, it doesn't matter if you've graduated from MIT or Yale, the education is mostly the same - the only thing you buy when you go to these colleges is the reputation that comes with them (And reputation is everything - intelligence and skill be damned). 

Reason is subjective. One could believe God is the only logical conclusion to the answers which we can't solve.

God created science, so it has to run by his rules. Saying religion and science can't co-exist is also silly. 

Education is important, it means you have an idea about what you're talking about. Schroeder worked in MIT's physics department for 5 years, I shall assume he know more than you, 3j, and I all together haha.

Anywho- Sabbath coming up.

Reason is not subjective in the least, if it were then it would be worthless. One could believe god were the only logical conclusion, and one would be both incorrect, and that person would be using faulty logic. Every question can be solved, all that is missing is the means with which to do it.

Science and religion cannot exist because they directly contradict each other, Deism and Intelligent Design (rather similar) cannot exist because they are illogical

Education, somewhat, yes. Schroedger has an education,  but he is using his reputation gained from that education as well as twisting facts to do things like make it seem like the bible (the thing which YOU have argued with me should be taken metaporically) is factual. You would not believe (or maybe you would, I just said that because it sounds better) how many scientists can get away with spouting complete and absolute bullshit and then have their words taken as pure fact, because the people talking to them don't understand what they are saying.

See ya.

@Drakilian

I can tell you with certainty that many people find it 'logical' that due to the complexity of the universe, God must be existent. I know many people who don't, and I know people who reason either way.

As noted before, while this may be a weird point, God created science, and by thus a true religion can't directly affront science. 

Of course, scientists say BS all the time. But I'd lean to their BS over a guy like, say, John Kerry. Even if both are sputtering the same BS. The thing is that Schroeder doesn't 'twist' words of the bible, he's quoting things from the 1600-2000 year old Talmud, which discussed the metaphors in the Bible before he did.

And only one of those groups can be right (because there is rarely more than one true answer). Well, except for the people who reason "either way" (they make no sense).

Unless scientific principles are in direct conflict with religious "facts". 

He also insists that god creating the world in 7 days 8000 years ago is factual.

Either way basically don't care. But the thing is that we don't know the true answer haha.

No arguement there.

He didn't say that at all haha. He stated (in his book) that the world is indeed 16ish billion years ago. The rabbis in the Talmud discussed that the six days being periods of times, not 24 hour days. 

Oh yeah, I read that big, ridiculously long winded (yeah, I know, coming from me) explanation. There was a lot of questionable content in that explanation. A great, great deal of stretching information to accomodate his viewpoint. Specifically, that entire "Evening to morning" section that tries to convince the reader that it was all one big case of time dilation.

The Talmud talked about it though, so he wasn't twisting facts. The bible itself teaches that our rabbis' writings are pretty much he bible itself, etc.

Yeah, I haven't read the Talmud (i'll be honest, I don't even know what religious book the Talmud is, i'm googling it right now).

EDIT: Holy fuck, that's a 6200 page book on religion, not a chance i'm reading that.

That's why I hate/find it hilarious when people claim to know what Judaism is XD (Talmud is a fundamental part, Rabbis typically study it all)

Worse yet, it's also in Aramaic. It's a whole class in school where we basically spend time translating it and the multitudes of commentaries on that (which is more a less a commentary on the bible and the laws). Aramaic is basically the English to hebrew's Latin.

Commentaries on commentaries  on commentaries. So much, to the point that people dedicate heir lives to it (and some Asians spend time rung to decide it). Schroeder's book cites where he got his info from though, so just go the the chapter I guess. 

And there'd be more if the Romans and Greeks didn't burn a lot of it.

I've heard that proof for my whole life, and I've never really liked it. They always start it off with the parable of a watch in a desert, but the problem with it is that we know that watches are made by watchmakers. The universe may be really amaizing and all that, but it doesn't mean something created it, since (to us, at least) it was created by nature and happenstance. A watch could not have been made by nature.

I don't believe in intelligent design but it could be considered science, the problem is, it is untestable and unprovable. The most comment argument is that everything needs a creator, who created the creator is a question that is never answerd.

It may be true, but unless evidence is shown to me, I will not believe it.

Intelligent Design isn't science, admittedly.

But why would the creator need to be created at all?

Whenever I hear about Intelligent design, I always here the argument that everything needs a creator, it would make sense for the creator to have a creator.

Or maybe I am just stupid xD

Why would an omnipresent, all powerful being need to be created? He's omnipresent ;P

But what about before he was omnipresent?

But what about before that?

But what about before that?

Is there a before that? Has the omnipresent all powerful being always existed?

Yes

Now you question how? Because he is "feeling" reality in a different way than we do.

So your argument is "we cannot comprehend it"? That would probably be true if such a being existed, but to someone who doesn't believe in it, that sounds like a very cheap answer that serves more to avoid the question.

So what exactly do you want? To send you pictures of him? This is a matter of faith

I wasn't telling you to answer the question, I even mentioned that if your point of view is the right one, what you said would probably be 100% true, but just try to understand that someone who does not agree with that point of view is not going to take the answer "you just can't comprehend it" as a very good answer.

I agree but anything beyond that point would need me taking pics of God and sending them to the unbeliever.

Well, if he's omnipresent, then technically every picture is a picture of God, right?

Also, nowadays pictures are easy to fake, so that would probably not be enough. XD

Well yes. Technically, God is everywhere and everything, as it is all (in theory) an extension of himself.

"God might as well be equated to gravity"-Aman

So here's your proof :P

One of Judaism's trademarks is that we can't fully understand God's glory. The 'bible' is just it's way of communicating with us.

I guess it's also a cheap cop-out, but it makes sense. How would a human being understand something beyond us? I know people (as I am one) who can't even understand women. And you expect us to get God? 

Funny you'd say that. I've met agnostics who have used the same reason to justify being agnostic "I can't believe in any religion cause if a higher being exists human wouldn't be able to understand him"

That's the thing, if he's omnipresent, all powerful, etc-- he's always existed.

It boils down to what 3J noted below. An all powerful God, immortal being that always existed would have to always exist. As Drako blare mentioned above, God wouldn't confine to our dimension's 'reality'- he's on a different plane, yet controls all at the same time.

It's kinda weird, but it's God.

You're not stupid and that's a very valid philosophical question. When it comes to talking about a creator though, the laws of logic need not apply. If the creator created everything, then he created the laws of logic and he doesn't need to be bound by them. It makes for a boring debate, though.

So... Where exactly does the flying spaghetti monster come into play, and what's the joke behind it?

From what I know of it. It's a Trololo religion and just wants to screw with people.

Nope. It was a "religion" created as a protest that intelligent design was going to be taught in science classes in one of the states. They argued that pastafarianism should also be taught.

That would be a fun class xD

Yeah, but you have to admit it's a good point. The same people who argue that we "need" God in schools would also lose their freaking minds if kids were taught from the Quran. They don't care that creationism needs to be taught - if they did they'd be perfectly fine with all forms of creationism being taught - they just wanted their own specific view of it to be pushed on children so they don't have to explain to them why God exists. 

Aren't all of our cultural values pushed on the mind of our children? Doesn't religion play a significant role in each countrie's culture? The problem is that the Quran, unlike any Christian teaching the class may have, is foreign.

Not that I believe it should be pushed in Science class of course, I'm just playing Devil's advocate

It does, but the US's culture is based around the fact that it has several different cultures. Or at least it's supposed to be. I have no problems with religion being taught in schools, but only as an elective or history rather than a science (because it isn't one). When I was a Freshman or Sophomore you had a chance to choose which history you wanted to learn after your core credits were achieved. They had subjects like mythology or history of the holocaust and I feel like a class like "Major Religions of the West" or something like that would fit in well in a class like that. 

I find the notion of "something happened, which lead to another random thing happened, which caused a million other random things which created you for no reason" stupid. 

^That happens a lot, not the creating you part but the other two.

Science!

But it doesn't happen on random. It has a cause and an effect. Which cause triggered the first effect though? 

Anyway, I find it funny how people think of people from past generations stupider and thinks debates like these are something new when the ideas of multiverses etc have existed for milenia. I wonder what they'll see about us in another thousand years. 

Why?

Because I simply can't believe that the enitre existence of everything is meaningless and the "we're just dust in the universe" when we still haven't found proof that we aren't unique. 

It's unfortunate you think that if there was 'randomness' then there'd be no meaning. Of course, In Judaism at least, 'randomness' doesn't really exist, though as far as I'm concerned God could have (and probably) created the world through evolutionary means, the randomness was just part of his system. Etc. But I think saying it's 'just' random puts it in a bad, simplified light, regardless of what you believe.

Anyhow, I do firmly believe that Evolution occurred. The thing I'm skeptical about is how the Big Bang (of our time) could have occurred 'so successfully' without a god's help.

If it was part of the system he made how is it random? I accept evolution I guess and don't see how it conflicts with Christianity

The same way how a god encompasses past present and future and yet also gives us free will.

He knows the future, she knows what it creates, but he/she/it is all powerful, and can create something that appears random, by mutation, yet is still part of it's plan.

Exactly, it appears random. I think we are agreeing but play with words now :/ 

Well, then technically, "random" doesn't exist, does it? For example, if I flip a coin, is it truly "random" which side it lands on? No, it just appears random because we don't know all the variables affecting the coin toss, and even if we did, our brains would probably not be able to calculate it. If there was a man who knew all the variables in the universe and was able to calculate anything in a split second, I doubt anything would ever be random for him.

Never thought about the coin thing

That's actually a really interesting point.

What about a computer's dice rolling?

It still has variables programmed by someone else, you won't see someone throw a computer dice and roll a tree. So.. it could be as random as evolution if you think about it

I would assume in the same way a computer programmer can write a random number generator. Sure the numbers themselves aren't random, but which ones occur and in what order they occur in are completely out of his hands. So he created, but has no control or plan as to what happens, which means it's random (1. lacking any definite plan or prearranged order; haphazard http://www.thefreedictionary.com/random)

#deism

@Drakoblare

Didn't we already cover that with Tan and Sindri?

But still, it's not COMPLETELY random since there is something behind it. It is still is random though for lack of a better word though.

Not sure, honestly. There are a hundred and something posts on this thread and I'm not going to read every last one :P. 

And nah man, if there's no reason to it, it's random. Even random things can have a cause, but you're thinking of randomly generated here, rather than just random. 

I view myself and in fact all of us as "space dust", but I still find great meaning in life.

I find it much sadder when I see people live their lives according to the purpose created by a religion/deity instead of creating one for themselves for their own lives.

I disagree. Plenty of people have managed to make theirs and other peoples lives better because of religion 

Yes they have. Plenty of people have also made the lives of others worse with their religion.

Well, I am not here to defend all religions. I am here to support my religion and I believe that it can lead to salvation. I do not believe that "freedom from religion" is necessarily going to make the world a better place.

I'm sure I misunderstood what you just said but...did you say that people should not be free to not be part of a religion...as in making religion mandatory? I hope that's not what you meant.

Totally not what I meant.

Good.

But then what did you mean? "Freedom from religion", does that mean "removing religion", because to me, those two sentences should not be synonymous with one another.

I see where your confusion comes from. I was referring to people who say that the world would be a better place if everyone was an atheist. I didn't mean that "freedom to (not) choose religion" is bad

Hmm...well...I don't know if the world would be a better place or not. I mean, the human race will always find something to kill one another over anyway.

And it ain't like Christianity tells you to kill others and blow shit up. That's Islam

Are you telling me Christianity has never lead to any deaths?

I'm saying that it never preached those deaths and that they are the result of politcal games. 

I've heard muslims claim that Jihad is bs that is not actually supported by the religion itself.

Then they haven't read the Quran and ignore that the idea of heaven via sacrifice in the battlefield during Jihad played an important role in the early Arab conquests 

One word: crusades.

Also, the Bible has a lot of violence towards nonbelievers or people of different faith.
 

*Idolators

Mainly the old testament. I'm talking about Christianity here. And yes, I know about the crusades, please, tell me which of Jesus's quotes influenced them.

Ah, so you don't accept the "misguided Christians" as examples? That's rich. We're not talking about "what the intended message is", we're talking about "what the message results" and the results aren't always positive.

That wasn't what I was talking about though. Everyone here knows about the crusades. How exactly did the message result in the crusades? I though it had to do with the overpopulation of W.Europe and the prosperity of Jerusalem as a fief.

Actually the way you changed the discussion to "one word: crusades" was kinda random

But in your logic, if a man says that Richard Dawkin's book inspired him to kill 50 Christians, should we blame Richard even though his books never suggested anything like that?

"I though it had to do with the overpopulation of W.Europe and the prosperity of Jerusalem as a fief."

Yes, the fact that they used the religion as an excuse is a reason why a lot (not all) of people were on board with it, which was exactly my point.

"Actually the way you changed the discussion to "one word: crusades" was kinda random."

Check the message I was replying to, you were talking about how Islam was used to inspire violence in the old days, prompting me to bring up the crusades.

"But in your logic, if a man says that Richard Dawkin's book inspired him to kill 50 Christians, should we blame Richard even though his books never suggested anything like that?"

Are you implying that I'm blaming Christianity? I think I even referred to those kinds of people as "misguided". But yes, that would be an example of someone using a message to validate his violence even though the original message does not in any way support it, just like the crusades.

I agree. I won't deny the religious influence of the CRUSades. But the deal with Jihad isn't the same. Unlike the Crusades and the New Testament, Jihad is clearly on the Quran

Are you sure?

Not sure about the actual verses but I know that the "If a city surrenders don't sack it, but if it doesn't fuck it up for 3 days" is in there... so much for a religion of peace. Islam's peace comes from the dominance of Islam which is spread by the sword, the rest is BS.

And well, Muhamad and his direct followers and heirs did Jihad. Part of his tropps momentum was that they'd die for a holy cause and go to heaven. It even got some Byz Emperor (either Heraclius or the guy after him) to do something similar with Christianity but the Patriarch refused

I was taught Intelligent Design in school.

Then I read some Dawkins.

I am not someone who gets angry easily, but I was pissed off. Here was this all this amazing science, this one elegant explanation for the glorious diversity of life... and instead of learning about it, I'd spent my high school biology class being lied to, so that my teachers could tear down a straw-man version of evolutionary theory. And for what? I'm an atheist, but if I did believe in God, I'd believe in a God who created via evolution instead of 'designing' species.

(And I realize this has nothing to do with the fine-tuned universe argument, but frankly, you already countered that in your first post.)

So how was evolution taught in your school?

I wish I still had my textbook. It was a sufficiently substantial misrepresentation that I concluded it was deliberate, rather than misinformation on the part of the author(s). I may have been wrong about that, of course, and underestimating the power of willful ignorance.

Never doubt how stupid some humans are. Chekc the comments on this video for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkqTM4K68ME

...sorry, life's too short to read YouTube comments. But I'll take your word for it. >_<

This was just a plan for you guys to check this hilarious yet good to listen to video. And this is why we can't have good things

I don't believe in the idea that there is a designer behind the universe because of questions that should be obvious: where the hell did he come from. Either the designer was designed by someone else (if we're assuming everything complex or in fact everything at all needs to have a designer, if we don't, the idea itself of Intelligent Design doesn't have to exist) or the designer has always existed, and the idea that something can exist without having an origin is not something I'll believe without being presented with sufficient evidence.

About the "fine-tuned Universe argument", I think you may be looking at it from an angle that makes it seems more spectacular than it is. I think 3J mentioned this in the thread (I just skimmed over the comments, so I apologize if this is not the case), but the constants that are perfectly aligned to sustain life are so because life evolved in that situation. If the constants were different, chances are we would simple have different kinds of life forms, that would view that situation just as spectacularly aligned to sustain their lives.

Then how would you explain the "matter cannot be destroyed, nor be created" argument?

You're finally here. We need your Bhuddist views on the subject.

Unfortunately, I'm Roman Catholic.  :P

Damn the French...

I totally agree, matter cannot be destroyed nor be created. I don't see how this is an argument against my thoughts on the subject.

Then where the heck did matter come from?  Is it part of the ID?  Was it MADE by the ID?

No, because that implies it was created, which would go against the "matter cannot be created" part.

I think the universe is expanding from the center, caused by the big bang.

And what caused the big bang?

Probably the same thing that caused any god, as in nothing.
 

So you admit that believing in a big-bang/self created universe is as rational as believing in an omnipotent God, right? 

No, not at all. I don't find any rationality in believing in an omnipotent god. I think the universe must have had a stage where nothing became something, otherwise there would just be nothing still, and there's not, we're evidence of that (even if I'm just a consciousness imagining all this, I at least exist as a consciousness, so again, the fact that there is more than nothing is proven), and I think that the step of nothing->something was the big bang.

And how is that more rational than a God that always existed?

Because, as I stated above somewhere, I'll need sufficient evidence before I agree there is such a thing as "always existing without any origin whatsoever". At least with the big bang, it is a start.

But do you have evidence that something comes from nothing? If you look around us, everything came from something

I don't, and aside from the big bang, I don't think it something does come from nothing. I do find it much more plausible than something existing without an origin, which also is nowhere to be seen when we look around us, and neither is omnipotence or omnipresence. The big bang is the most plausible theory for the start of the universe, that doesn't mean it's concrete.

I tend to stick more towards the ID on this one, but...

...hm...I don't think it'd be inane to say that via a random universe, an ID (possibility of many?  Well, if authors create worlds, in text, I can't exactly just shun the possibility of multiple IDs, though really doubt multiple entities can function at that level just for one planet.) rigged a few parts here and there to let life begin, and through the evolutionary path, intelligence just so happened to be very compatible with primates, which resulted in humanity, would it?

As someone who flunked science, I don't understand this at all.....

Just a few points:

@Drakoblare

Your argument is that you don't want to believe that we could exist simply due to happenstance because you feel that this makes your life meaningless. I have two problems with this. First and foremost, that's completely ridiculous. There is meaning because we give life meaning. Secondly, though, it doesn't make any sense to base a theory of the universe on what makes you feel better, inside. How you feel is not relevant to how the universe came to be. Simply because one possibility is nicer (to you) doesn't have any impact on which possibility actually happened.

Also, your argument that muslims are inherently more violent than christians is asinine and incredibly offensive.

@Swiftstryker

No one is saying that it's not reasonable to assert that an intelligent designer exists. It's definitely a possibility. However, there are trillions of possibilities. How do you know that our entire universe is not the fecal matter of a large rhinoceros-like creature that only eats horseradish. You would say: "Why should I believe that?" And I would agree that you shouldn't, because there's no evidence for it. It's possible that an intelligent designer designed the universe, but where is the evidence for that designer?

@11302

It's never too late to learn science.

@SindriV @Swiftstryker

The Big Bang Theory suggests that at some point in time, all matter in the universe was contained in one point, called a singularity. This is considered to be the beginning of the universe. Time is a relative thing, and humans seems to be so obsessed with the 'beginning of time' but there's no reason to believe that the universe hasn't always existed and won't exist always.

"Also, your argument that muslims are inherently more violent than christians is asinine and incredibly offensive."

I never said that. I only said that the teaching of Islam endorse spread via the sword, unlike Christianity

>Inb4 acts of violence in the Bible

Not the same

I thought that Time can only exist when Matter exists? As such, there'd have to be a beginning of time [when matter was first created]. Unless the singularity always existed before.

The idea that matter was created, while nice and fluffy, isn't necessarily true. If time ceases to exist at a singularity, and the Big Bang starts at a singularity, and all of the matter in the universe was contained in this singularity, then matter may have always existed.

...

Below you said that in black holes, time 'ceases to exist', and yet it (may or may not) revolves around a partial of matter, a singularity.

Wouldn't at mean that Time would have had to be 'created'?

Like I said, this is all a little over my head, but I definitely don't think so. I would say that 'accelerated' might be a better term.

"Time is a relative thing, and humans seems to be so obsessed with the 'beginning of time' but there's no reason to believe that the universe hasn't always existed and won't exist always."

I'm not so sure on this one. You use the term "always", but doesn't that term depend solely on time, so always also becomes relative, correct, because it follows time? Always cannot exist without time, in fact, if we take the literal definition of always, it requires an infinite amount of time. Seems like, according to that sentence I quoted you on, time cannot be relative for the universe to always have existed and always exist. Instead, time would have to be a factor that constantly accompanies the universe, but a large part of what defines time is that whatever it is capable of measuring has a starting point and an ending point.

Also, excuse me if I phrased that in a confusing manner, I just spent 30 minutes breathing into an air-mattress and suddenly I feel like my brain is missing.

Time is relative, that's true. This is a very tricky concept and I'm a biologist, not a physicist but I'll try my best to explain it.

Let's look at black holes. Black holes center around a singularity. At this singularity, in essence, time ceases to exist. This is similar to the Big Bang's singularity.

I thought 'time' was just a human concept based around cycles in the universe?

I don't think that's true. Time is a dimension.

Time is a dimension, but humans do have concepts built around it (although, not the other way around), such as second, minute, hour, day, month, year. Those are all arbitary concepts completely created by humans in order to make judging the passing of time easier.

Right. But as I was saying, time is not a human construct.

Normally, I would reply with an "it's impossible for us to really know", but I do believe in intelligent design. I don't believe in miracles; I don't really believe that you can accomplish anything by appealing to the divine (i.e. praying); I don't really believe in an afterlife. However, I do believe that something sentient and intelligent set the laws of the universe in place. I don't think that this "creator" still hangs around and interferes the affairs of humans or anything. Even if something did create the universe as we know it, we are still pretty insignificant, I believe.

Think of Deism's "Divine Watchmaker" idea.

Soo... it just created the universe and then did nothing for the rest of eternity?

That would be Deism (A friend of mine made a funny racist joke about it once, called it the "Black Father" god, because it made us all and then left).

Funny you'd say that, since Deism plays an important role in native african religions :P

Pretty much. The idea is that a watchmaker isn't constantly fiddling with it to make it work; he just makes it, sets it, and goes to do something else.

That's why watchmaking's boring.

I could make a bunch of jokes about that, but I would likely piss someone off.

Intelligent design is pseudo-scientific rubbish trash, with jack all in support of it.

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster! May you be caressed by his noodly appendages.

While you are correct about Intelligent Design being pseudoscientific, you have to applaud its political movements. For those seeking desperately for evidence of God, it is quite persuasive even though it commits a number of fallacies. What I find most interesting about the God question, is that while religious people are happy to question the first cause of the universe, and try to lead it to God, rarely do they question the first cause of God.

Now don't get me wrong, asking who created God is pointless (looking at all atheists who use this argument) because one will be simply creating a straw man of God, after all he is meant to be eternal and also will lead to an infinite regress of explanations. But also 'Goddidit' is a poor explanation of anything: we can't test it, provide no predictive novelty and is usually is a product of ignorance.

This is why Intelligent Design is not science, it flourishes where scientific ignorance is present. What scientists can't explain today, Intelligent Design advocates see it as if it will remain unexplainable. Irreducible complexity is equivalent to irreducible stupidity, stating that the eye is too complex and intricately woven shows signs of design because scientists can't explain is simple an argument from incredibility.

If Intelligent Design is allowed in a science classroom, we might as well go back into caves.

I have a question for those who believe in God. Why is it that most religious people, especially Christians, have a problem with common descent? Is it really that horrible to accept that humans are distant cousins of chimpanzees and that species can give rise to other species? I ask this because of how creationist (and also Intelligent Design) reject common descent even with the overwhelming body of evidence in support of it, I'm just curious if anyone explain it to me, maybe I'm being ignorant of something.

Well said.

To attempt to answer your question, as a former Christian... common descent contradicts the Bible's creation myth. Not that complicated. Why people ignore the evidence, well... I don't know what it's like to be a fundamentalist Christian in the public school system. I do know that what I was taught was that there was no real evidence for common descent, and that the fossil record was rife with hoaxes.

I see... so the issue is that creationists and many Christians takes the chapter Genesis literally and not symbolically, after all it was not meant to be science textbook. It is said that ignorance is bliss and one of my favorite quotes from Aldous Huxley that I think is meant for Intelligent Design advocates and "history-deniers" (as Richard Dawkins calls them) goes:

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

 

>Why is it that most religious people, especially Christians, have a problem with common descent?

Please don't use some Protestants from the US to label "most religious people".

Protestants are not the only ones xD

Mainly Protestants

Nope...I would disagree. Is there some kind of evidence that I can look at?

Last time I checked it was mainly Protestants objecting it. Google that evidence, and if I'm wrong then share them

@Drakoblare, sorry I didn't mean to offend you. When I said "most religious people", I wasn't specifically pointing  at Protestants, after all Christianity (and again, not all Christians reject evolution) is not the only religion that has some negative attitude to evolution and common descent.

I still don't think most religious people don't accept it

And no offense taken, lol.

Most of the Rabbis at my school have a problem with it because it might mean that humans are just another animal, and aren't specially chosen by god or something.

Of course, the way I figure it is that we really are just another animal, we just have an actual soul [insert Kabbalistic babble that I'd really not want to go into here]. Anywho, I and some others I know (some Rabbis as well) don't find it a problem. Yep. 

I have to say, as a European I find it weird as hell that Americans are still seriously debating whether to teach this bullshit as science.

Meh, I'd argue with the "bullshit" part but yeah, why isn't there a Science class and a Religious class like in Greece?

 

In R.E (Religious Education) here in England, we learn about most of the big religions but they never state it as fact. It is mainly so we can understand and be tolerant.

That's what we did in my class this year to, though I still ain't tolerant towards islam.

That is were they failed :D

Wow, is it "bash the religious" day already?

Nope.

I don't think so. That is a topic for a another day, not that I advocate bashing of religious people.

She is not bashing religion, she is incredulous that America dares consider any of this to be valid science. Intelligent Design is a thinly-veiled attempt to pretend religion is science - not something to be considered actual science itself.

^this

Yeah. While ID doesn't actually conflict with science, it doesn't come anywhere remotely near to meeting the standards required to be called science. Not close.
 

I've heard this theory before, but it ultimately seems the same as most creationist arguments do to me. Granted, it's more intelligent than "How can a rainbow exist without God" but it still ultimately holds the same logic of "Things are too convenient to not have been created by a superior being." Take the nuclear example you provided. It's very close to a point that we would die, and so people believe that they must have been prevented from reaching that point from an outside source. However, there's no real reason to believe this other than making us feel safer. In the end it doesn't matter if the nuclear strength was 2%, 3%, or even 50% weaker people would still assume that a omniscient being prevented it from reaching the point. It's the same as when someone is in a horrific car crash and just barely survives when it seems they should be dead. To them, there must be some reason they didn't die. Even though that reason is actually a bunch of factors like how fast the car was going or the direction it was facing or the amount of resistance provided by the seatbelt and airbags, the vast majority of us don't really understand at first glance and so we assume it must be something supernatural.

The same is true for the intelligent design theory. In actuality, there are a number of factors that created life and kept all those constants from wiping out life as we know it. However, we can't understand those factors so it's easier to just assume that some superior force reached down and said "no." So ultimately, my stance remains the same in spite of the intelligent design theory. I know there must be a reason for life or the creation of the universe, however I also know that there's no way in hell my puny little human mind is going to be able to discover or even comprehend it. Therefore, there's as much chance of a creator granting life as there is radiation from a solar flare creating bacteria on an asteroid or something. If there are multiple theories that are capable of happening with no way to prove it for certain, there's no reason for me to choose the creator theory as dominant over any of the others. Therefore, I remain an atheist.

Also, I read your entire post in Itachi's voice and Naruto's dramatic background music. It was actually kinda cool.

> I also know that there's no way in hell my puny little human mind is going to be able to discover or even comprehend it.

Called it :P

I really don't see the logic behind this argument belief.

Oh? Which part exactly, is it the part where I can't comprehend it? If so, keep in mind that I'm not saying that NOBODY can understand what happened, simply that I won't. I'm not much for science, as pretty much anyone who's tutored me is able to see, so I don't pretend that I can I sit here and reason out the cause of creation. However, because I can't why should I accept a preacher's explanation any more than a scientists? 

Because a scientist can't find the cause either. No matter how much science progresses it will still boil down to belief unless a bearded man falls from the skies and starts explaining things. Only thing science can answers is HOW the bearded man did it

Exactly my point. There's no proving it, so why should I believe? You're telling me why it's impossible to prove his existence, not the reason to believe here. The only thing I've seen you state - and don't get me wrong, I haven't read everything here so it's possible you've said more - is that it makes you feel better that God exists because you don't want your life to be meaningless. It doesn't make me feel any different believing that he exists than it does when I don't, so that explanation doesn't apply to me.

Well, there is also the cultural background, some thing I have experienced in my life and things I've seen/heard which lead me to believe. And for that reason I can understand and accept why you don't choose to believe. Nothing wrong with that (as long as you aren't being a dick about it, which you aren't)

And there's nothing wrong with that (besides the cultural background). What happens to you is how you define what you believe in most of these cases. Like I said with the car wreck and people thinking God saved them.

http://www.viruscomix.com/page412.html

 

What I got from that is, it doesn't matter if either of us are right or not, we are going to die eventually anyway or that both ideas somehow cause the same amount of deaths. 

If I am right, I disagree with both statements.

Or it could be suggesting that god isn't a great designer because we all die? *Shrugs*

If you disagree with No-God and God then what exactly do you believe in? Several Gods?

I am an Agnostic Atheist :D

(Pssst, hold your mouse over the comic and don't move it)

(Psst, most of Rowntree's alt text is sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek.)

(I have difficulty imagining that in a sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek-ish tone

Like, maybe if he'd made more of an effort - like "Obviously, the distinction is" or "Clearly" but just saying "Okay, the distinction is that" seems like he's giving his thoughts)

Ah, I guess I should have said that it was fitting with his sense of irony. I could be wrong, but from what I have seen and read by Rowntree, I am lead to believe that he was intending it to be ironic. Like, "The difference is really insignificant, so what does it matter that one of them is wrong? It doesn't actually matter." Regardless, seeing this argument reminded me of Subnormality.