Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

oh look, more fairy tales and no evidence, sounds familiar

 

Well "reasoned" out and argued. You are a real "credit" to your cause.

 

You mean like believe that something came from nothing and even though the statistical likelihood that it happened coincidentally is astronomically less likely than winning the lottery every single day for the rest of your life... you believe it anyway?

 

Define "god" please.

Are we taking about the big man in the sky who wrote my biography before my birth?
The one who decides when my day is gonna be a
"Butter Side Down" Day. (buttered bread falls butter side down all day) (a why get outa bed, day)


Moi

r > g

View attachment 32387 ​

 

Intelligent Design does not posit a god. Intelligent design posits a creator. ID says that the statistical probability that we simply came from nothing through an amazing coincidence is so absurdly high that it makes it impossible to believe. The only reasonable conclusion is that SOMETHING or someone designed the framework for our reality.

 

show me where i said i believe that, you can't because i didn't

it has been demonstrated that intelligent design is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses

 

Well I wasn't exactly referring to "you" specifically as much as I was using a generalized "you". However, if you don't believe that, then what do you believe in regards to our existence.

 

As I said then use Deism. You are deliberately claiming that all people that support ID are somehow part of the same group. Do all liberals support soft drink bans because some of them do.

Lack of evidence means absolutely nothing. We can theorize about dark matter and dark energy because we know the effects it has but we have no actual evidence that it exists........other than the fact that universe is expanding and the galaxy rotates at the same rate no matter the distance from the center.

As I said the argument of the atheist boils down to "I can't see god, therefore he must not exist." Its childish and pedantic and the thinking that toddlers espouse.

 

just like i said, a fairy tale

science and evidence trump fairy tales

no i'm not

it means your assertion is unfounded

 

No one is espousing "fairy tales" but you in an attempt to
smear an intellectual argument you have no hope of countering otherwise. Just wanted you to know how transparent your straw man is.

 

this is a fairy tale:

 

That's not an answer. Did we come from a creator or did we just come about as a coincidence?

 

the answer is that i don't know and neither do you

 

A personal god?
One who hears my prayers, etc.

Or a deity that just gets a few atoms going and steps back,
watching the play unfold.


Moi
descendent from Abraham though Issac.

r > g

No ​

 

It's an illustrative analogy. You don't like it? I could have said the elephant in the room because due to atheist's reflexive and emotional rejection of the notion of God (despite good reason to at least consider the possibility) something massive and immutable is being treated as if it doesn't exist.

 

LOL, no that is just wishful thinking...for people that desperately need something to cling to for the fear of the truly unknown. The floor drops out from under people that have convinced themselves there will be a God waiting to greet them at the pearly gates when their number is up if they admit that they just might be mistaken. One can be spiritual and believe in the metaphysical world, but believing that there was a guy in the sky sitting a drafting table and designing this imperfect life-form that we refer to as human, is just plain stupid. If humans were his grand design and the end game for why this God created the world and universe, he (*)(*)(*)(*)ed-up royally.

 

an irrelevant analogy that you made up, like a fairy tale

 

A hypothesis... so nothing new. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

You falsely assume that nature is entirely random. It isn't.

More to the point, the Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy makes it clear that the universe must have always existed in one form or another.

 

Thanks for making my point. Just the prospect of considering the implications of the "elephant in the room" makes you squirm and reject an exercise in honest intellectual evaluation like a reactionary dieophobe.

 

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more. Know what I mean?

 

I disagree completely. And the reason I disagree is that when you posit that the universe simply came into existence through an astronomically unlikely set of coincidences... you only leave yourself that one solution of coincidence.

Whereas if one posits that the universe has a creator (not necessarily a god), you leave yourself room for all sorts of probabilities. It could be that the universe itself has an intelligent/conscious component that developed at the same time. It could be that a God exists outside of our known universe. It could be that there are aliens from another universe that created this one.

Intelligent Design does not posit WHAT the intelligence is. It simply claims that there must be SOME kind of intelligence out there that brought us into existence. There could be any number of scenarios that could be true and because of that you've given yourself far more outs and increased the statistical probability that you're correct.

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously. But the statistical probability that I'm right and that there IS an intelligence out there... is far higher than coincidence.

 

ID doesn't make the claim that there's a god at all. But more to your point ID doesn't claim that whatever intelligence created us and our universe does or does not still influence our lives today.

ID is SOLELY the claim that it is statistically impossible for us to simply pop into existence out of coincidence. There must be some intelligence outside of ourselves.