savoirfaire said:

I get 2 things out of this...

1. There is a 50/50 chance for God/order or Science/Disorder being correct.

2. God created disorder.

wellbeyond said:

Biases are one main reasons for ignorance, and when people are biased, they tend to close their minds to other possibilities. I know that there is the possibility that we all may be wrong and know nothing about anything, which is why learning from life experience will, more than likely, bring wisdom and understanding to those who seek it with an open, unbiased mind.

JDODSON said:

So very true...I know I have my biases...lol...As for pertaining to God and the creation theory of the universe, trust me, I haven't always been a "believer"...I still, though, believe that God speaks to you internally before He speaks to you externally...so, I guess in my eyes, anyone who looks externally for God's existence before truly looking internally won't find Him...and that includes believers and non-believers alike...

feltbluish said:

The illustration I "borrowed" to share was to demonstrate that like the watch, the earth is also very delicate with many parts that rely on one another to co-exist.

Like the watch, there is much design in our own world.
And like the watch, it must have a creator.

My personal view (no need to start up a new thread for this, right??..lol )...

"...While Hume and later Kant argued convincingly that one cannot prove the existence of God through teleological, or design arguments, it is fair game to study the universe and ask whether it is more reasonable to posit that such a universe could have originated from chemical and physical laws alone, or that it has the markings of an intelligent creator...

...Martin Prozesky (a nonChristian) evaluates the various arguments for and against the existence of God. He considers the arguments from science, especially the big bang, the origin of life, and the anthropic principle to be net positive evidence for God's existence, with the strongest arguments against the existence of a theistic, Christian God being philosophical (evil) and theological (why so many people are going to hell without having heard of Christ).

It should be emphasized one cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God. Nevertheless, it is perfectly permissible to study the character of the universe and ask, "What does it reasonably suggest: an intelligent creator, or a universe which is in some sense self-caused?"


That's me, right there...(well, those aren't my quotes..heh)...I think it's amazingly reasonable to honestly and truthfully ask ourselves if the scientific evidence reasonably suggest a sort of purposeful "intelligence" behind how the universe works and develops...and I think it's amazingly reasonable to allow for that answer to be "possibly, yes"...to say "no way" is to start off saying you already know the answer...you're just trying to make sure the evidence proves that you're right...and that's not good science...



(eh, even Einstein edited himself now and then...)
[This message was edited Thu Oct 24 12:09:51 PDT 2002 by wellbeyond]

wellbeyond said:

I agree. One has to be willing to accept the possibility of God first from within their mind and/or heart, and then learn externally.

I acknowledge the "theories" of both believers and non-believers, I just choose to believe in God for myself personally. A long time ago, I thought to myself, "even if we are going to the ground as dust, and that is it, why not believe in a spiritual afterlife...what do I have to lose?" and I said, absolutely nothing do I have to lose. And the more I believe, the better it helps me. God helps me.

wellbeyond said:

yamomma said:

Is it not also amazingly reasonable to say "possibly, no"?

savoirfaire said:

"Possibly, yes" already indicates that "possibly, no" exists, though...the problem is, not too many people are willing to say "possibly, yes"...only "Oh, HELL no...can't be...must be another reason to explain this beyond some sort of intelligence...give me a minute and I'll think of something.."...





(did I mention that Einstien edited often...well he did..)
[This message was edited Thu Oct 24 12:48:05 PDT 2002 by wellbeyond]

feltbluish said:

Funny thing about what you got about that. the coin toss was an analogy relating to the concept of chance. It removes the concept of God altogether. God did not create disorder, it is not about if there's a 50/50 if it was God or science. IT was about how the complexities of this world can be assembled without some "divine" being doing so.

Please re-refer to my to above posts if this is still unclear. If that doesn't help, well... I can't state my points well enough when trying to simplify things and I'm sorry.

Perhaps my analogy wasn't clear. Sometimes, my philosophy makes sense to no one... but m'self (insert copyright infringement here).

wellbeyond said:

Good point! I was just seeing if you accepted that people can approach this question from both sides with validity to their approach.

savoirfaire said:

Oh, I definitely can...and do..lol.. I said to IceNine in the other thread that I thought both views were rational and had "evidence" to support it...I would never look at someone who believes this all happened by chance or luck to be ignoring scientific "fact"...but I don't feel those who believe some purposeful intelligence is at play to be written off as ignoring scientific "fact" as well...

Much more is known today about evolution, and while I'm not going to say "Hell no!" to the possiblity of a God, it should be clear to anyone who looks closely at Natural Selection that a "designing God" is not necessary to explain the world. Order and Entropy play together in the universe and evolution is the result.


Perhaps some other argument can point to the existence of God, but not "design."

It is like '1984' - I have never seen such a plain denial of obvious fact in my life.

Every time you turn on a light-switch you are testing the prediction of a scientific theory. Everytime you get something cold from the fridge, everytime your car starts in the morning, everytime you use your DVD player, or turn on a computer, or use the internet, or fly in a plane, or do virtually anything in modern civilisation, you are fulfilling the predictions of scientific theories about how the world works.

Please name one of the 'very literate [sic] and specific prophesies' you think has come true.

feltbluish said:

I just dashed through this whole thread. What a surprise...

Bias : there is bias in everything, but if you count to place religion plays in our education and institutions, then we are far more biased to believe than not. I've been heavily conditioned to believe, as did most people throughout history. It has certainly been one of the most enforced beliefs, institutionally-speaking.

"Look at the Earth -- there's God" : I understand our planet is beautiful and that it's only natural for a believer to view it as one of God's many jewels, but as an argument, it is very unconvincing. Would you say that ugly person in the next cubicle is the work of Satan?