'Seeking' God

[Captain Scarlet]

Who designs anything without resiliency built into it? Well someone who knows the outcome of course!

You walked into that CS.
Anyways I can't even keep track of the OP in all this.

I would also go so far to say as for the universe has the ‘appearance’ of design; scientists don’t generally say that the universe ‘is’ designed, mostly because it would be unprovable as it would exist prior to the creation of the Universe. The religious are far more openminded about the unexplainable and can postulate that God could have indeed done it. Do you have any subjective personal evidence for anything that is commonly accepted as a potential candidate for something that could have created the Universe or is it just dismissed out of lack of empirical testability?

Hey Tacky, long time no speak; hope you are well etc

If you are going to invoke that to validate the 'is' designed hypothesis. I will respectfully concede that it is logically possible. However I would also respectfully point out that the hypothesis should be that god designed the universe for black holes, not us. The universe is the best possible deisgn for black holes and black holes are where the vast majority of mass and energy resides that god painstainkingly created. Obviously it must be designed right! And because all but out poky corner is cut out for human life it definately proves it was designed and an omnisceint god would know that it would convince all of us, wouldn't he?

---

When you shave away all other considerations, the question remains: was the universe deliberately created? The probability of yes is at least 50/50. When you consider that anything other than an eternal first cause brings you to an infinite regress, that percentage climbs higher. when you take into account the appearance of design it climbs higher. and so on..there are many good arguments to go to from here.

Offering odds of 50/50 you should not go into running betting rings. You have just plucked that right out of thin air haven’t you. Wheras the mathematical models of the wave function of the universe suggest there is over 95% chance of the universe coming into existence in its current state uncaused from nothing. So you have something which is not even a conjecture which you assert is a better explanation than a genuine conjecture with mathematical proof. Not saying either are right, because no one knows. But the arguments you present aren’t good they are terrible…I admit they seem to convince you. By the way who mentioned an infinite regress?, there is no natural explanation that explores this possibility.

Mechanisms are fine, I don't need to invoke God with mechanisms. I invoke God for Agency. A better question is how do you get a star in the first place..hint Star formation is a notorious weakness of big bang cosmology.

Hint…gravity

Everything is equally unlikely when you shave away all other considerations. [snip]

Stick to the point. Don’t speak about probabilities if you don’t understand them

I understand enough to know the evidence isn't there. I started out believing in evolution and was shocked to find out that the entire thing was a shell game. It is also a true fact that anyone who even breathes intelligent design would be ostracized from the scientific community

I think the best one can do with an argument like the one above is underline it.

Oh and can you please stop copying in youtube clips. I do not need as much education as you seem to think I do.

Glad you can admit it. Evolution doesn't meet that rigor either. There is plenty of reason to suspect a higher intelligence, especially in regards to DNA. First, there is no naturalistic process for the information in DNA. Second, information only comes from minds.

Its called intellectual honesty Lucent. Maybe you would like to try it in your arguments.

Define information before you take one step further. You boys really like to harp on about it, but I can name you at least 5 recent (as in the last few hundred years) mutations on the human genome that have taken hold in their populations and have led to improved human characteristics for certain environments and features. These have encoded new ’information’ into that DNA. You will deny this of course opting for the line “well that isn’t new information”, but refusing to define what you mean by information.

My argument is…

Very poor

..the theories that science proposes don't work and don't answer any fundemental question about life, there is an appearance of design in the Universe, the Universe is finely tuned for life, and logic suggests a creator. I am saying a mind is the only plausible explanation for DNA and has more explanatory power.

We did this already Lucent. Repeating an argument from ignorance does not mean it is a good argument.

Even if you could know all there was to know in material reality, you still couldn't rule out a Creator.

Thank you for the clarification, I’ll answer.

Oh but I could. I can point to 3 atheistic arguments just to start with:

1) The god concept and supernaturalism are meaningless. I have given you that argument already (maybe in another thread?). But you cannot invoke a god concept if it is meaningless and has no explanatory power. Supernaturalism can never be true. If we validated supernaturalism (eg ghosts etc), then they would just be a hitherto unknown extension of the natural world. A new branch of physics if you prefer. Supernaturalism is just a fairy tale for adults I’m afraid.

2) The necessity of naturalism. Human knowledge is limited. The necessity of a transcendent knowledge base is a Category 1 presupposition. And we need a transcendent knowledge base precisely because our knowledge is limited to begin with. And since supernatural effects can only be deduced if one has no limits of knowledge, then naturalism is absolute. We can express both lines of evidence in this way:
1. Supernaturalism is only meaningful in that it is a negation of material causes.
2. Negation of material causes would only be possible if humans had no limit of knowledge.
3. A transcendent knowledge base is necessary because we have limits of knowledge.
4. Supernaturalism is impossible. (from 1, 2 and 3)
5. Naturalism is an absolute. (from 4)

The impossibility of divine creation.

1. Divine creation implies an ex ante facto empty state of the universe.
2. Empty states are atemporal and without potentiality.
3. As an action, divine creation requires time and potentiality. (from 1)
4. Divine creation is impossible. (from 2 and 3)