DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Bucky Ball]

You forgot the part about him sitting on his "throne" .... do the gods get any tp at the "throne", and does it flush ?

You have Isaiah 45:7 in your signature.  The ESV has it translated as, "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, who does all these things."

Same diff. Your deity is evil.

You claimed to be an engineer ... yet you understand so little of physics that you ignorantly employ a spatial reference to an environment you know nothing about. "Outside" is meaningless in your context.

I think you are not an engineer.

---

There were not just 10 Commandments. No Jew would be allowed to just follow 10 Commandments.
There are 613 Commandments, most of which religionists break all the time.
Oh the horrors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

[The Grand Nudger]

He engineers some of that finest all beef patties on a sesame seed bun, tellin me that doesn't count? 

OFC CDF is full of shit, that much was made apparent 800 pages back.

[no one]

So full of it, that it seeps out of every orifice.

[Angrboda]

Is this other part of the entire universe that we cannot see a part of the same space-time in which our universe exists?

How the frick should I know if science doesn't even know?

It was a question about what you believe, not an epistemological query. Do you believe that my and everybody's favorite, fluffy ball of energy exists in the same space-time continuum as we do, or is he part of some other thing, as yet undefined? It makes a difference what you are claiming as the germanity of my response and Krauss' response depends on exactly what it is you are claiming. And if you are claiming that it is impossible to know if either case is true, then it becomes impossible to say that Krauss' solution is not the correct one, which would make your claim that, necessarily, according to what you know to be true, God is required, an untrue claim.

You really don't logic, do you?

[Everena]

The Bible is an historical account of what people were doing at that time. If they were doing the right things, they would not have needed the 10 Commandments or for Jesus to come.

Some parts are historical accounts, yes.
Some parts are regulating people's behaviour, like laws.
Some parts are fable.
Some parts are fairy tale.

Discerning these parts is an art form that believers seldom possess.

Both the 10 commandments and Jesus came too late in the story for it to be reasonable that an all knowing blob of energy is behind them.
They appear as knee jerk reactions long after the custom of the land has been established, when such a god as the one you advocate should have foreseen things and acted preemptively. This alone informs me that those two acts are fully man made. Either the stories themselves are man made, or the commandments are man made and Jesus was nothing but a man.

I am not a Christian.  I think all religions are man-made, but with a very good purpose in mind. However, I think it is important to consider that they may have been inspired by actual prophets of God.

[no one]

Profits of god?

[Everena]

Some parts are historical accounts, yes.
Some parts are regulating people's behaviour, like laws.
Some parts are fable.
Some parts are fairy tale.

Discerning these parts is an art form that believers seldom possess.

Both the 10 commandments and Jesus came too late in the story for it to be reasonable that an all knowing blob of energy is behind them.
They appear as knee jerk reactions long after the custom of the land has been established, when such a god as the one you advocate should have foreseen things and acted preemptively. This alone informs me that those two acts are fully man made. Either the stories themselves are man made, or the commandments are man made and Jesus was nothing but a man.

I am not a Christian.  I think all religions are man-made, but with a very good purpose in mind. However, I think it is important to consider that they may have been inspired by actual prophets of God.

---

What are you asking me exactly Gae? I do not understand what the specific question is. Yes, God created the universe, including the earth and our flesh. Our souls have always existed with God in another universe. My theory is that our souls are here and there in superposition, and when we die here, we wake up there as our true selves.

Then meat fairy is not the first cause.  Whatever created it and our souls and that "other universe"..would be.  Your god is no less an incidental than I am.  If that's a problem for me and food, or evolutionary biology and life, it's a problem for meat fairy too.

Nothing had to create God or our true selves. We have always been, alive and well in a far better place.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

Then meat fairy is not the first cause.  Whatever created it and our souls and that "other universe"..would be.  Your god is no less an incidental than I am.  If that's a problem for me and food, or evolutionary biology and life, it's a problem for meat fairy too.

Nothing had to create God or our true selves. We have always been, alive and well in a far better place.

Then there is no first cause.  It would be super helpful if you ever knew wtf you were talking about....about anything.

[Everena]

How the frick should I know if science doesn't even know?

It was a question about what you believe, not an epistemological query.  Do you believe that my and everybody's favorite, fluffy ball of energy exists in the same space-time continuum as we do, or is he part of some other thing, as yet undefined?  It makes a difference what you are claiming as the germanity of my response and Krauss' response depends on exactly what it is you are claiming.  And if you are claiming that it is impossible to know if either case is true, then it becomes impossible to say that Krauss' solution is not the correct one, which would make your claim that, necessarily, according to what you know to be true, God is required, an untrue claim.

You really don't logic, do you?

Everena:
Krauss was already proven wrong. I did that a few pages back. Sorry you missed it

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2...f-nothing/

 As Krauss elegantly argues in A Universe From Nothing, the accelerating expansion, indeed the whole existence of the cosmos, is most likely powered by “nothing”. Krauss is an exemplary interpreter of tough science, and the central part of the book, where he discusses what we know about the history of the universe – and how we know it – is perfectly judged. It is detailed but lucid, thorough but not stodgy.
It is remarkable to think that, a century ago, quantum theory was barely formed, general relativity was a work in progress and only a few scientists believed there was a beginning to the universe. We have come a long, long way since then by developing scientific tools that have proved themselves both reliable and remarkably fruitful. As Krauss’s insightful book shows, these days we really can talk with scientific rigour about the history and even the prehistoric origins of our universe.

Yet despite its clear strengths, A Universe From Nothing is not quite, as Richard Dawkins hopefully declares in the afterword, a “knockout blow” for the idea that a deity must have kicked the universe into being.

Krauss does want to deliver that blow: towards the end of the book, he promises that we really can have something from nothing – “even the laws of physics may not be necessary or required”. Ultimately, though, he has to perform a little sleight of hand. Space and time can indeed come from nothing; nothing, as Krauss explains beautifully, being an extremely unstable state from which the production of “something” is pretty much inevitable.

However, the laws of physics can’t be conjured from nothing. In the end, the best answer is that they arise from our existence within a multiverse, where all the universes have their own laws – ours being just so for no particular reason.

Krauss contends that the multiverse makes the question of what determined our laws of nature “less significant”. Truthfully, it just puts the question beyond science – for now, at least. That (together with the frustratingly opaque origins of a multiverse) means Krauss can’t quite knock out those who think there must ultimately be a prime mover. Not that this matters too much: the juvenile asides that litter the first third of the book (for example, “I am tempted to retort here that theologians are expert at nothing”) mean that, by the time we get to the fascinating core of his argument, Krauss will be preaching only to the converted.

[Bucky Ball]

Krauss was already proven wrong. I did that a few pages back. Sorry you missed it.

Actually the thing that was "missed" is that all the article says which AGAIN you MIS-characterize, is that Krauss was not proven *right*, adequately.
There is a vast difference.
I know that's a deepity for a stupid Woo Princess, but in fact your *claim* is false, and yet more proof you are unable to comprehend what you read.
Sucks to be *that* dumb.