As it has gone unaddressed, I will ask again: What are the practical applications for God's determined existence? How will knowing scientifically that God exists improve human lives and further the advancement of the species in any practical terms?

(January 14, 2016 at 11:22 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(January 14, 2016 at 10:36 am)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: I'm just gonna leave this here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWZifSXlzlI

That was fantastic, thank you for sharing!

Yeah, that's a goodun.

(January 14, 2016 at 11:54 am)AAA Wrote:

(January 14, 2016 at 9:48 am)The Inquisition Wrote: It's funny when a believer says god exists outside of space and time, they're just stating he only exists in an imaginary place.

Same place as you billions of other universes that you need to exist to make ours not look special

You fail to understand, unless there is evidence for this, it is only imaginary.

Can scientists produce evidence for other universes? Maybe.

Can a believer provide evidence for a place that is outside space and time? Doubtful.

Wisdom teeth, breathing and eating through the same hole, the male prostate gland, the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Just a handful of characteristics of the human body that suggests that if we were in fact designed, an utterly idiotic and incompetent designer did it.

(January 14, 2016 at 11:56 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 14, 2016 at 11:43 am)AAA Wrote: Well considering that photolyase and other proteins arose due to non-repeatable chance events in evolutionary theory, and a non-repeatable creation event in design theory, we can't use typical laboratory science to test the competing models. We have to rely on the method of historical science outlined by Newton. When we try to test competing models we have to look at explanatory power of the options. We have to look at our experience of the origin of such structures. Do we know from experience that random mutations can lead a new specified sequence of characters? Do we know that intelligence can lead to new  specified sequence of characters? The second one explains it better. Is it too religious to be science? maybe according to some people, but I think we should follow the evidence where it goes even if we don't like the philosophical implications.

You don't make a case for your own position by pointing at the limitations if the opposition, even if they are genuine limitations anyway - which is something else that's only been declared and not demonstrated.

So I ask again: how would you set about testing for this designer of yours?

That's exactly how you compare competing hypothesis. We know that a designer could explain the specified sequence. We don't know that mutation could explain it. You can't demonstrate either in a lab because they both rely on a special, non-repeatable event. Laboratory science can't study historical events

(January 14, 2016 at 12:29 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: As it has gone unaddressed, I will ask again: What are the practical applications for God's determined existence? How will knowing scientifically that God exists improve human lives and further the advancement of the species in any practical terms?

first off, I think that approaching science from the standpoint that it was designed will yield better predictions, and therefore technological advancement. For example, we may look to the cell for inspiration on how to design efficient structures. We also wouldn't be inclined to think that most of the DNA was junk. They almost didn't sequence what they thought to be junk DNA, which would have been a huge scientific mistake. We also might realize that our genome is degrading instead of improving as a species. We would be less likely to fill ourselves with carcinogenic materials if we recognized the harm mutation does to us. We would also be more cautious when we act in ways that impact the environment if we get away from the mindset that life can just evolve to handle any new environment. 

I feel like I'm sort of being baited to say that our collective morality would improve. But the belief in a highly critical being capable of punishing us might keep us from acting in certain ways.

(January 14, 2016 at 12:46 pm)The Inquisition Wrote:

(January 14, 2016 at 11:54 am)AAA Wrote: Same place as you billions of other universes that you need to exist to make ours not look special

You fail to understand, unless there is evidence for this, it is only imaginary.

Can scientists produce evidence for other universes? Maybe.

Can a believer provide evidence for a place that is outside space and time? Doubtful.

For like the 5th time, the different dimensional stuff was just a thought, I am not asserting it as fact.  
And of course the scientists can't produce evidence for other universes based on observation from our universe. It would be entirely theoretical at best.

(January 14, 2016 at 12:02 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 14, 2016 at 11:48 am)AAA Wrote: Great, there's CH4, but its one of the simplest molecules, and its presence is very far from proving life existed there.

I agree, which is why I said the jury's still out. If Krasnopolsky and his colleagues are correct, the absence of areological activity doesn't really leave many alternative options other than microbial. This is what following the evidence means in this instance:

Step 1. Observation: methane on Mars
Step 2. Hypothesis: possible presence of microbial life
Step 3. Test hypothesis against observation to eliminate possibilities
Step 4. Revise or abandon hypothesis in the event of falsification

We have methane coming from vents underwater here on earth, and we know that mars has water, and used to have a lot more. Again it is just a carbon atom bonded to four hydrogen atoms. molecules more complex than that arise abiotically. I think that saying life is the only cause is premature. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

True intelligent design:

(January 14, 2016 at 12:21 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 14, 2016 at 11:52 am)AAA Wrote: I must have missed this question. Well it easily could. Can a 3D creature enter into a 2D realm? Yes it could, if we stuck our finger into a 2D realm, the 2D creatures would see a circular cross-section of our finger. Similarly a 4D creature could easily reach into our dimention, and we would see a 3D image only.

Right; then it should leave evidence that can only point, unambiguously, to itself.

How so? a 3 dimensional being claiming to be a part of a higher being doesn't sound familiar?