Intelligent Design is not creationism

Kjs bullshit:

But, if you read the pontifications of certain people in this thread, you would be certain that the entire issue boils down to God vs. Leonard Susskind, PH.D., and that God is clearly winning because we can measure the cosmological constant, where we can't measure different locales on the inflationary universal membrane.
-----
This is comical -

this all started because you said there is no evidence of design.

I explained to you some top physicsts say you could argue the universe looks designed.

You keep trying to claim I am pontificating something else.

I am not saying God is winning. I have been quite careful in saying "appears" designed. I have never said ---- you must believe.

There are top physicsts who say the universe appears designed... therefore you are wrong when you say there is not evidence of design.

 

Yes, actually, it did. I understood your position prior to you getting to the example of the ruler; and I followed you all through that example, but I must question certain aspects of it, and/or repeat it to you within the scope of my understanding.

Before I do that however, let me just say I’m going to break this up into three posts.

Previously, you were correct in saying that I don't know you, and thus, I can only respond to your statements or anyone else’s at face value. Because I don't know you, I have no idea about the point at which you encountered an idea or ideology about God in the first place. I have no idea who or what influenced that ideology. Nor do I know what turned you away from the idea of the existence of God, whether it was due to life experiences, pain or even unfulfilled desires or some other reason.

I don't know you...but I'd like to, because I'd like to understand your point of view better. I did not come here to judge anyone, to convert anyone, nor to force my perspectives and beliefs on anyone...and if you or anyone else feels that I have done any of that, I sincerely apologize. That was never my intention.

I came here because I like intelligent discussions, and the exchange of ideas, which can lead to mutual understanding... which I'm into. I see no reason why any of us needs to be combative in our positions or perspective, because I think intelligent people are capable of intelligent discussion without an ulterior motive or agenda to bend other's mindset to their own.

"Why can't we all just get along?" Just because we disagree on a concept does not mean we cannot communicate our opposing perspectives without respect. The only way I can fully understand and appreciate where you are coming from is if I get to know you to some degree, because then I can comprehend where you are coming from as well as what brings you to the conclusions or beliefs you have. Do I have to agree with your conclusions? No. But then you don't have to agree with mine either. However, in mutual sharing of ideas...there is understanding which fosters both compassion and respect.

So just as I understand that the conversation and mutual exchange of ideas will be for you...from your perspective; understand that mine will also be from my perspective. Just as you draw verbal pictures for me from your arsenal of information and ideas, I will do the same from my resources and understanding, so please don't think I'm preaching at you.

That being said...back to your statement in the next post.

 

"But, you also don't accept the ruler's existence because even if you could locate it, by definition, you still could never measure its end points."

Doesn't this same analogy apply to a basic line? As I recall, mathematics teaches that a line is infinite. So what I'm wondering according to your statement is...since a line is infinite and one could never measure its end points...how do we know it exists? Yet, we believe and teach that it does.

Do you believe that life only exists in a physical realm that we can see? Do you only believe what you with your limited sight can tangibly see? I don’t think that’s possible. At some point in time, you have to trust in the word of another. Maybe its trust issues that is creating the resistance and lack of understanding.

Let me give you an example: If you stand on the beach and look out over the ocean, can you see the end of it? No, but you know it ends somewhere, right? Can you see land at the opposite end? No. But we know from the testimony of witnesses...people who have traveled its length and breadth, that there is land out there....that there are other countries, and other peoples outside ourselves.

We don’t have individual knowledge of it, but we have collective knowledge, gathered from the actual experiences of others. That is what the bible is; a book of collective experiences with God.

We know of these other lands existentially through the witness of others. Can we still say that we have no proof of the existence of other lands across the ocean? Sure; based on our individual experience. But is this insufficient to prove the existence of the other countries? No. Because by definition, science is: “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” No one could have proved or presented what we deem as factual evidence, if there was no science by that definition.

God is also proven by the same. The evidence of His presence can definitely be identified as phenomena. It has been observed by witnesses, identified, described, and even investigated and theorized.

When I say existential evidence, I am basing my meaning on definitions in dictionary.com: “derived from experience or the experience of existence.” It is empirical evidence meaning: “capable of being confirmed, verified, or disproved by observation or experiment.”

I’m not breaking this down for you because I think you don’t know what these words mean, but so you understand where I am coming from, and which meaning I’m applying here.

“You could be standing right next to that ruler, and there would never be any way for you to know for a certainty the length.”

You are absolutely right about this point, and this is the reason I believe what you said in that analogy of God:

Psa 139:2-12 You know when I sit down or stand up. You know my every thought when far away. You chart the path ahead of me and tell me where to stop and rest. Every moment you know where I am. You know what I am going to say even before I say it, Lord. You both precede and follow me. You place your hand of blessing on my head. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too great for me to know! I can never escape from your spirit! I can never get away from your presence! If I go up to heaven, you are there; if I go down to the place of the dead,* you are there. If I ride the wings of the morning, if I dwell by the farthest oceans, even there your hand will guide me, and your strength will support me. I could ask the darkness to hide me and the light around me to become night- but even in darkness I cannot hide from you. To you the night shines as bright as day. Darkness and light are both alike to you.

This scripture speaks about King David’s existential experience of the infiniteness of God. So I agree with you on that point, but disagree with you on the ability of one to not only cognitively recognize God. I also disagree with you on the ability of someone to walk with God. I do so daily.

 

“You can argue that I can stand next to God and know he exists, without measuring his limits. OK, then show me God.”

Yes...I could argue that, but I’d prefer not to argue, but to show you as you requested. I cannot guarantee the lunch meeting however.

“You can't do this, and even if you could present me with an entity which you claim is of limitless measure, neither you nor I could ever verify that claim, because we cannot measure that which is limitless.”

I beg to differ...I think I could present Him to you...and I believe it’s totally within the realm of possibility that you would be able to verify the “limitless.” Since we’ve already discussed the definition of science, I think we could verify Him by those measures, in much the same way that science is verified.

Of course, you must know that such a presentation will not necessarily flow within the confines of your belief or perspective. However, if you ask me to show you...you cannot then dictate the manner in which I choose to show you. This is not burger king.

“In sum, no matter how you slice it or dice it, there is no possible way for you, me or anyone else to KNOW that God exists or does not exist.”

I believe there is, and I’m willing to run through the slicing and dicing with you even if it results only in one drop in the ocean of your mind.

“Unless, of course, you suggest that God is limited and not almighty.”

No...I would never suggest that. What I am suggesting is...that we are limited and not almighty, therefore it would be difficult if not impossible for us to completely comprehend that which is almighty, don’t you think? I will not sit here and tell you that I can and will give you the breadth and depth (and length) of God. That I cannot deliver, but I think I can give substantial evidence that would cause someone to KNOW He exists...given sufficient time.

“I don't worship mortals, so the alien won't get my tithing. Neither will God, because I don't throw money at phantoms.”

It’s good that you don’t worship mortals. Do according to your understanding. After all, Mar 12:17 says, “And Jesus answering said to them, Pay what is Caesar's to Caesar, and what is God's to God.” If you have no comprehension about what is God’s then no one could rightly expect more of you.

“If God exists and he is a good God by human standards of morality, then I will have nothing to fear from God's judgment. And, if God is vindictive and judgmental, then I don't want to worship him, because frankly, I would view such a God as inferior to myself and many other humans.”

A while ago you mentioned God as being immeasurable because He is limitless and almighty, which He is. So that being the case, why would He need to be a good God by our limited human standards of morality? How can we, the limited, qualify and quantify the unlimited as to what is vindictive and judgmental? And again...how then could we, the limited, then perceive the limitless as being inferior by our standards if His requirements don’t match ours? It is statements like these that caused me to think in the previous post that you reject God, because you say that if He doesn’t agree with you, and your will, you would consider Him inferior to you, and basically not worth your time or consideration.

He is not a demanding tyrant. But my point is (no offense) according to your statement, if He exists, He’s got to fit into your ideological box, or you don’t want to worship Him? How can the limitless be boxed? Even you insinuated that point. So either way you slice and dice it...it sounds like you have backed God into a corner. It sounds like you reject Him, because even if His existence is proven to you...you are still saying that He must then bow down and fit what you qualify as worthy. Not only have you put God in a box, but you’ve put yourself into one as well. You’ve claimed that you don’t deny, nor accept the idea of His existence...that you don’t know if He exists; but at the same time, you shut the door, not only to knowing if He exists; but even once proven, you’ve shut the door to knowing Him if He doesn’t meet your expectations. That sounds like total rejection to me. Correct me if I’m wrong.

And if the question is irrelevant to your existence, what then, would draw you to this forum to debate the issue? IMO...you seek answers, but that’s just my opinion. Peace.

 

The universe may "appear designed," but that appearance is illusory, which is why Susskind's book is entitled "the ILLUSION of Intelligent Design."

If the "appearance" of design is an illusion, then there is no "evidence" of design, because an illusion is not real.

Just like this face on Mars is an illusion.

So, I completely understand your position, jem. Only, it's wrong, because there is no evidence of design. There is only the illusion of design.

 

Oh yeah, you know that the universe is not designed.

Hee hee hee....

 

(We see a lot of this in this thread)

Argument from ignorance

The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:

* Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently explained, so it was not (or could not be) true.
* Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.

An adage regarding this fallacy from the philosophy of science is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case - it is in fact simply lack of evidence, and nothing more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

Responses below...

Quote from Ether64:

"But, you also don't accept the ruler's existence because even if you could locate it, by definition, you still could never measure its end points."

Doesn't this same analogy apply to a basic line? As I recall, mathematics teaches that a line is infinite. So what I'm wondering according to your statement is...since a line is infinite and one could never measure its end points...how do we know it exists? Yet, we believe and teach that it does.

Response: Mathematics is not science -- it's symbolic logic. Mathematics ony becomes science when it can be applied to model the observable universe. 1/0 = infinity. Does this mean that if I take 1 apple and start cutting it apart with a non-existent knife that I can cut the apple into a limitless number of parts? Nope, because non-existent knives don't cut apples.

Do you believe that life only exists in a physical realm that we can see? Do you only believe what you with your limited sight can tangibly see? I don’t think that’s possible. At some point in time, you have to trust in the word of another. Maybe its trust issues that is creating the resistance and lack of understanding.

Response: I don't "believe" in anything or anyone. I accept what is measurable and I remain open to further support or refutation. "Belief" is not part of my vocabulary, unless I'm in the mood to watch Lord of the Rings. Then I suspend my "disbelief" and enjoy the movie. But, when I leave the theatre, I switch back to reality and go about my life as usual.

Let me give you an example: If you stand on the beach and look out over the ocean, can you see the end of it? No, but you know it ends somewhere, right? Can you see land at the opposite end? No. But we know from the testimony of witnesses...people who have traveled its length and breadth, that there is land out there....that there are other countries, and other peoples outside ourselves.

Response: The difference is that I can get on a plane and fly to that land at the other side of the ocean. I cannot get on a plane and fly to Heaven.

We don’t have individual knowledge of it, but we have collective knowledge, gathered from the actual experiences of others. That is what the bible is; a book of collective experiences with God.

Response: You have no empirical proof that any supernatural act written about in the Bible actually occured. Neither does anyone else.

We know of these other lands existentially through the witness of others. Can we still say that we have no proof of the existence of other lands across the ocean? Sure; based on our individual experience. But is this insufficient to prove the existence of the other countries? No. Because by definition, science is: “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” No one could have proved or presented what we deem as factual evidence, if there was no science by that definition.

God is also proven by the same. The evidence of His presence can definitely be identified as phenomena. It has been observed by witnesses, identified, described, and even investigated and theorized.

When I say existential evidence, I am basing my meaning on definitions in dictionary.com: “derived from experience or the experience of existence.” It is empirical evidence meaning: “capable of being confirmed, verified, or disproved by observation or experiment.”

Response: Prove any supernatural event has occured via a repeatable experiment and I will accept God's existence. Many have attempted to do this throughout the history of civilization. ALL have failed.

I’m not breaking this down for you because I think you don’t know what these words mean, but so you understand where I am coming from, and which meaning I’m applying here.

“You could be standing right next to that ruler, and there would never be any way for you to know for a certainty the length.”

You are absolutely right about this point, and this is the reason I believe what you said in that analogy of God:

Psa 139:2-12 You know when I sit down or stand up. You know my every thought when far away. You chart the path ahead of me and tell me where to stop and rest. Every moment you know where I am. You know what I am going to say even before I say it, Lord. You both precede and follow me. You place your hand of blessing on my head. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too great for me to know! I can never escape from your spirit! I can never get away from your presence! If I go up to heaven, you are there; if I go down to the place of the dead,* you are there. If I ride the wings of the morning, if I dwell by the farthest oceans, even there your hand will guide me, and your strength will support me. I could ask the darkness to hide me and the light around me to become night- but even in darkness I cannot hide from you. To you the night shines as bright as day. Darkness and light are both alike to you.

This scripture speaks about King David’s existential experience of the infiniteness of God. So I agree with you on that point, but disagree with you on the ability of one to not only cognitively recognize God. I also disagree with you on the ability of someone to walk with God. I do so daily. [/B][/QUOTE]

You are entitled to your "belief" that you walk with God daily. However, if you want me to accept it as true, then you will have to prove it to me via a repeatable experiment. If you can do this, you will be the most famous person who has ever lived (after Jesus, of course).

 

I seek diversion from a really boring job. I enjoy a good argument. I do seek answers, but I filter all information through the screen of verifiability.

That's it. No mystery -- no magic.

 

I didn't say that the universe isn't designed. I said there's no evidence of design.