religion

[Tenlaar]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why do you keep it calling it magic

Because you keep insisting that something outside of the laws of the universe exists and has a role in events.

Jesus Christ existed.

Prove it.

[G13]

Originally Posted by Tenlaar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because you keep insisting that something outside of the laws of the universe exists and has a role in events.

A role in events? What events? That's an ambiguous statement at best.

Something existed outside The Universe before it was created. Something existed outside of Space and Time before they existed because Space and Time were created when The Universe was created. The laws that govern the Universe were created when The Universe was created. All Matter and Energy was created when the Universe was created.

You don't need to claim "magic" created these things when you can just look at the complexity and symbiosis of Nature and Life. The complexity of data and structured order in ALL LIFE and Nature.

Mathematics and Probabilities work in favor of Design and Creation. Not random chance. For example musical notes exist. The frequencies in which they operate exist, but that doesn't create music. A creative force behind arranging those notes in specific mathematical calculations creates music. Songs don't write themselves.

Something cannot come from Nothing.

Probabilities

Dimensions

Try thinking outside Materialism which is fast fading in light of Information Theory. It's not difficult if you try.

Prove it.

Prove what?

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Tenlaar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If the laws of the universe don't create anything then anything created has to be by a force outside the laws of the universe. AKA magic.

I guess if that's the term you want to ascribe to it, then whatever. But you know as well as anyone else that the laws of the universe didn't create themselves.

[G13]

Even if you don't believe Jesus Christ was the son of God he existed

Roman Historians at the time have confirmed this. Pontius Pilate and Calaphas were real people. Calaphas tomb has even been discovered. There is a wealth of historical information outside of The Bible that proves he existed. Read Josephus who was far from a Christian.

Very few scholars claim Jesus didn't exist. The only proof Socrates existed were his followers. Did Socrates not exist?

You're aware that Richard Dawkins admitted that Jesus existed right?

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Tenlaar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because you keep insisting that something outside of the laws of the universe exists and has a role in events.



Prove it.

▪ A number of secular writers who lived close to the time of Jesus made specific mention of him. Among them was Cornelius Tacitus, who recorded the history of Rome under the emperors. Regarding a fire that devastated Rome in 64 C.E., Tacitus relates that it was rumored that Emperor Nero was responsible for the disaster. Nero, says Tacitus, tried to place the blame on a group whom the populace called Christians. Tacitus writes: “Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.”—Annals, XV, 44.
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus also mentions Jesus. In discussing events that took place between the death of Festus, the Roman governor of Judea about 62 C.E., and the arrival of his successor, Albinus, Josephus says that High Priest Ananus (Annas) “convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others.”—Jewish Antiquities, XX, 200 (ix, 1).

[Archalen]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't think you can look at how complex and finely tuned The Universe is and come to the conclusion it structured and ordered itself from Nothing or by random chance. The probabilities that our reality was built this way are just not workable mathematically.

The laws that govern the Universe did not write themselves. The obvious engineering and design behind kinds/types/body plans show an obvious creative mind behind their development. You don't see mis-happen and randomly formed life. Quite the contrary. You see life with specific functions that supports other life.

The harmony and symbiosis between plants and animals. The seasons. The self healing and self replicating functions of all life. It's too complex. Time doesn't make things more complex. Quite the contrary actually. Time = Entropy and Entropy damages and erodes genetic code. Things become more disorganized over time.

Clearly aliens didn't build the universe. Didn't write it's laws. If aliens existed they would be ruled under the same laws that govern the entire universe. Time/Space/Matter came into existence with "The Big Bang". If you look at the essence of Matter, a table for instance, 99% of what you perceive as solid matter is actually only about 1-2% Matter. Your reality is governed by how your brain is processing data and electrical signals. Think of your life as literally a virtual reality. Your body an organic machine that temporarily hosts your eternal soul in this reality. There is a creative mind that exists outside Time and Space that is behind our Reality. It's all about perception and perspective.

Time/Chance is not a creative force. Consciousness, Moral absolutes and Love are Spiritual forces and Creative forces beyond the 5 senses. Beyond the physical world. A Creator would obviously let himself be known to his creation. He would want his creations to behave in certain ways to protect them from themselves (sin). He would lead by example through actions, not words, as to what the Love of a parent really is for their children (Self Sacrifice) but at the same time He would want his children to "choose" to love Him willingly out of their own Free Will. He wouldn't create "I Love You" robots.

I firmly believe that Jesus Christ answers all of those questions perfectly. His life. His teachings. His Death and His resurrection. That's not about a religion either by the way. Religion has nothing to do with it. Mankind by his very nature is deceitful and corrupt. If you rely on mankind for Truth you are putting your "Faith" in the wrong place.

Now it's perfectly understandable if you do not share that view and there are plenty of people that believe in Intelligent Design who are not Christians. They are perfectly logical and reasonable people that see the obvious intelligence and creativity in all life. Personally I don't think anyone can be "convinced" to believe in God. Through your own journey in Life you're going to go through shit that leads you down that path, but you're never going to take that first step until you learn grace, humility and forgiveness. These are spiritual things. Intangible things, but it doesn't make them any less real.

This is the problem that Evolutionists can't deal with. They've become too comfortable in their ivory towers dictating how things are to everyone else, except all of their assertions are based upon frauds like Piltdown Man, The Peppered Moth, the bogus embryo drawing ect. When challenged they run from the debate like Leewrong or they call you retarded without offering any rebuttal.

I hope that answers your question.

I am pleasantly surprised; you responded very descriptively and non-defensively. Unfortunately, I don't think I have enough time to adequately discuss every point made here, but I will bring up some issues. I am trying to understand why "intelligent design" is a compelling explanatory theory. Firstly, if starting from scratch, I would have to tease out what is meaningful in your discussion. To do that, I would need technical notions defined with the context of your explanatory theory.

For instance, you use the word "creative" a lot. It almost sounds like "creative," the way you use it in "creative force" and "creative mind," could fit a number of specific definitions. In context, it sounded like a mere complement (I use this technical notion "complement" the way statisticians use it) to "randomness" and "time." You also mentioned that love, consciousness, and moral absolutes belong to the subset of spiritual and creative forces, but you still didn't define exactly what they mean. So far, it's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I don't understand exactly what I'm trying to believe. If you are using "creative" merely as it is defined in a dictionary, we can discuss that, but I would like a specific definition.

Also, I take issue with your understanding of entropy. This is one word you have employed which has a very meaningful technical notion. However, you used the term incorrectly. This law of thermodynamics refers to a closed system, and the earth cannot be isolated as a closed system in this context. For instance, an explanatory theory such as evolution would not violate this law, since the burning of the sun's "fuel" would represent a far greater increase in entropy than the decrease signified by evolution.

I will tell you that by employing the scientific method, we are necessarily dedicated to it's limitations. Namely, that we are merely organisms with a limited cognitive scope. However, this admission doesn't necessarily prove anything within intelligent design, and it doesn't disprove scientific theories, it is just an admission.

I absolutely agree that people who believe in intelligent design can be reasonable and logical. Einstein had a loose notion of God, and it sounded a lot like intelligent design. It is worth noting though that his revolutionary papers in 1905 were all the culmination of a mastery of interplay between mathematical formalism and physical intuition (he referred to intuition basically as the result of previous intellectual learning and experiences), and that in fact his notion that "God does not play with dice" was a big factor in his decision to reject quantum mechanics and pursue a unified field theory until his dying day, which was a dead end road. I think that is very instructive.

[Archalen]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A role in events? What events? That's an ambiguous statement at best.

Something existed outside The Universe before it was created. Something existed outside of Space and Time before they existed because Space and Time were created when The Universe was created. The laws that govern the Universe were created when The Universe was created. All Matter and Energy was created when the Universe was created.

You don't need to claim "magic" created these things when you can just look at the complexity and symbiosis of Nature and Life. The complexity of data and structured order in ALL LIFE and Nature.

Mathematics and Probabilities work in favor of Design and Creation. Not random chance. For example musical notes exist. The frequencies in which they operate exist, but that doesn't create music. A creative force behind arranging those notes in specific mathematical calculations creates music. Songs don't write themselves.

Something cannot come from Nothing.

Probabilities

Dimensions

Try thinking outside Materialism which is fast fading in light of Information Theory. It's not difficult if you try.



Prove what?

This is why defining your technical notions is so important. Now you mention Information Theory. I can't even be sure how you are using the term "entropy" since it is used slightly differently in Information Theory.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Archalen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am pleasantly surprised; you responded very descriptively and non-defensively. Unfortunately, I don't think I have enough time to adequately discuss every point made here, but I will bring up some issues. I am trying to understand why "intelligent design" is a compelling explanatory theory. Firstly, if starting from scratch, I would have to tease out what is meaningful in your discussion. To do that, I would need technical notions defined with the context of your explanatory theory.

For instance, you use the word "creative" a lot. It almost sounds like "creative," the way you use it in "creative force" and "creative mind," could fit a number of specific definitions. In context, it sounded like a mere complement (I use this technical notion "complement" the way statisticians use it) to "randomness" and "time." You also mentioned that love, consciousness, and moral absolutes belong to the subset of spiritual and creative forces, but you still didn't define exactly what they mean. So far, it's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I don't understand exactly what I'm trying to believe. If you are using "creative" merely as it is defined in a dictionary, we can discuss that, but I would like a specific definition.

Also, I take issue with your understanding of entropy. This is one word you have employed which has a very meaningful technical notion. However, you used the term incorrectly. This law of thermodynamics refers to a closed system, and the earth cannot be isolated as a closed system in this context. For instance, an explanatory theory such as evolution would not violate this law, since the burning of the sun's "fuel" would represent a far greater increase in entropy than the decrease signified by evolution.

I will tell you that by employing the scientific method, we are necessarily dedicated to it's limitations. Namely, that we are merely organisms with a limited cognitive scope. However, this admission doesn't necessarily prove anything within intelligent design, and it doesn't disprove scientific theories, it is just an admission.

I absolutely agree that people who believe in intelligent design can be reasonable and logical. Einstein had a loose notion of God, and it sounded a lot like intelligent design. It is worth noting though that his revolutionary papers in 1905 were all the culmination of a mastery of interplay between mathematical formalism and physical intuition (he referred to intuition basically as the result of previous intellectual learning and experiences), and that in fact his notion that "God does not play with dice" was a big factor in his decision to reject quantum mechanics and pursue a unified field theory until his dying day, which was a dead end road. I think that is very instructive.

I personally feel this way. If design is apparent in every molecule in the universe, then by necessity there has to be an intelligence behind it.

There is not one instance ever observed where design is the product of a non intelligent force. I'm not talking about speculation on the bing bang or abiogenesis, let's think beyond that. I'm saying something that has been observed by humans that does not have design.

If there is intelligence then there is a personality behind it. This to has never been observed by humans, intelligence devoid of personality.(I know that someone will use A.I. As an example but that is something created and programmed and shows the personality of the original designer/s)

[RobotElvis]

Ok I got a good question for you Leewong.

Light is the "fastest" thing in the known universe right?

But if the sun went supernova the light would take eight minutes to reach us on earth before we knew that it had went supernova.

But gravity would cease immediately.

So is gravity being a force, faster than light?

Sorry these are the things that I think of when I'm two glasses in to a bottle of Maker's

[radditsu]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok I got a good question for you Leewong.

Light is the "fastest" thing in the known universe right?

But if the sun went supernova the light would take eight minutes to reach us on earth before we knew that it had went supernova.

But gravity would cease immediately.

So is gravity being a force, faster than light?

Sorry these are the things that I think of when I'm two glasses in to a bottle of Maker's

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity



Just cursory search it goes c. C is the fastest things go. Not just light.