The stumbling block for atheists.

[TLK Valentine]

Well, then you come up against the insurmountable infinite regression paradoxes of both being and location.

Exactly. Perhaps that's one of the many stumbling blocks? The old "If everything needs a creator, who created the creator?" question?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not necessarily. The Big Bang may have been a transformation rather than a beginning.

Quite so -- one stage in an infinitely repeating cycle...

 

[PsychoSarah]

So now to believe in the existence of something the inference MUST suddenly be based on DIRECT observation?
Please note that such a requirement isn't scientific since many inferences are drawn in science based on indirect observation such as the gravitational effects on orbits and lensing of light. Your demand clearly demonstrates the inconsistency of policy which is routinely and illogically deployed whenever the subject of an intelligent designer arises. It also clearly demonstrates how science is casually and routinely sacrificed for the sake of supporting the atheist agenda at all costs.

-_- you took my use of direct a little too literal, my bad, poor word choice.

 

[Speedwell]

It also clearly demonstrates how science is casually and routinely sacrificed for the sake of supporting the atheist agenda at all costs.

Well, that's what you are trying to demonstrate with your ID song-and-dance, anyway.

But it makes me wonder what you think the "atheist agenda" actually is. Atheists are not a very large group, percentage-wise. In what way do you see them as having an agenda they can expect to carry out?

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is that you prefer to attribute intelligent abilities, such as the creation of exceedingly complex organisms which includes the human brain, to the unintelligent mindless chemicals which somehow programmed themselves to do it instead of reaching the logical and sane conclusion that what you are observing is the effect of and intelligent source. Both sanity and common logic usually rebel against that idea for a reason which somehow appears to escape you or else doesn't escape you but you choose to feign an acceptance of it anyway because the alternative is simply too unacceptable. That my friend isn't science no matter how fancifully you might strive to dress it up as such. It's like the old Spanish saying:

El mono,
aunque lo vistan de seda-
mono se queda.

Argument from incredulity.

 

[Loudmouth]

True! The ask-a-question-game is repeatedly used. I call it the "Ï cain't see!" game actually.

You can't see it either. If you could see it, you could present it.

 

[Radrook]

You can't see it either. If you could see it, you could present it.

If I couldn't see it I would be agreeing with you and I don't.

 

[Kylie]

The mind you are introducing into the discussion did not arise.

Citation required.

 

[Radrook]

Argument from incredulity.

You don't know what that even means.

 

[bhsmte]

If I couldn't see it I would be agreeing with you and I don't.

Present it.

 

[bhsmte]

You don't know what that even means.

LOL

 

[quatona]

The mind you are introducing into the discussion did not arise.

So mind needn´t arise.
What was your argument again?
(And no, it wasn´t me who introduced it. It was you who introduced it when postulating an intelligent designer.)

 

[quatona]

Technically God can be defined *as* nature:

An Empirical Theory Of God

Technically, "God" can be defined as anything you want.
With different definitions, though, the word points to different concepts.

 

[Dave RP]

Edwin Hubble proposed at least two potential solutions to the photon redshift distance relationship observation, 'expansion' and 'tired light'/inelastic scattering. Scattering shows up in the lab and assuming that's the cause of redshift, it would result in a static universe which could be infinite and eternal as far as I know.



Not exactly. It depends on how you interpret redshift and whether one insists that "God" must remain exactly the same. Even in a big bang scenario, it's possible that God could simply take a "piece" of himself and create something temporary with it, which is still a part of him. Imagine for a moment I simply changed the terms to 'Godlfation, and God matter, and God energy. Even in an expansion scenario, God could still be the source of all the mass./energy that we have access to today, and it could still be a "part" of him.

Why don't we just bite the bullet and say that God did everything and anything we try to explain in another way, we just put God in front of it. Hence godevoluton resulted in human kind, godglobal warming is dangerous, godoverpopulation is appalling, godwars are bad news, godpoverty and godfamine are irritating especially to those involved, Still one day god will defeat godsatan and some will be saved. Meanwhile the goduniverse will continue ticking along, scienitsts will make occasional discoveries which god put there for them to find, cunningly disguising his creation with what appear to be measurable data but are really goddata all along. Then anything which scientists fail to prove is simply godstuff. Easy.

 

[Radrook]

So mind needn´t arise.
What was your argument again?
(And no, it wasn´t me who introduced it. It was you who introduced it when postulating an intelligent designer.)

LOL!

 

[Radrook]

Why don't we just bite the bullet and say that God did everything and anything we try to explain in another way, we just put God in front of it. Hence godevoluton resulted in human kind, godglobal warming is dangerous, godoverpopulation is appalling, godwars are bad news, godpoverty and godfamine are irritating especially to those involved, Still one day god will defeat godsatan and some will be saved. Meanwhile the goduniverse will continue ticking along, scienitsts will make occasional discoveries which god put there for them to find, cunningly disguising his creation with what appear to be measurable data but are really goddata all along. Then anything which scientists fail to prove is simply godstuff. Easy.

God is what the evidence indicates.

 

[Dave RP]

God is what the evidence indicates.

I think you should more accurately say that you BELIEVE God is what the evidence indicates, because lots and lots of people see no evidence whatsoever for god anywhere. Your belief is fair enough, it's for you to believe whatever you want, but regrettably there is zero real evidence for your god, except in your belief system.

 

[Freodin]

God is what the evidence indicates.

What evidence... and for what occurance?

After all, you are arguing for a completely natural, scientifical intelligent creator, right?

But here you run into a small problem.
The reason why we can indeed find evidence for "intelligent creators" is that we know how natural intelligent creators work

You consider this reason - the main and only point that we do base this "evidence" on - as irrelevant.
You do that so that you can introduce "God" into this equation: an "intelligent creator" where you doesn't need to analyse a method of action... your "God" is extempt from such mundande musings. You do not need to ask how he does it... he just does. "Deus ex machina"... the ultimate solution.

And here's the small problem: when you assume an intelligent creator that can do anything, that isn't limited by anything... you have no way to exclude to option of "Intelligent Creator created a system where unintelligent chemicals can program themselves to create 'minds'."

Your evidence for God dissolves in the very vagueness that you need to assert God in the first place.

 

[KCfromNC]

People are free to assume whatever they wish. That doesn't make their assumption true. As I stated, I am merely arguing for intelligent design. It is the atheists who strive to bring in God into the discussion.

You're the one posting Bible verses here in the science forum, so I'm not convinced your summary of events lines up with reality.

 

[Radrook]

You're the one posting Bible verses here in the science forum, so I'm not convinced your summary of events lines up with reality.

I post Bible verses on threads posted on this scientific forum which involve God. I refrain from posting Bible verses on my threads which are about an intelligent designer.