Why does God leave no tracks?

[Davian]

When you see rain, you see a direct track to ID, who organized the water cycle.

You want to know what the random chance happening of a completely perfect closed loop (life-necessary) water cycle,

The water cycle is not a closed loop. It relies on an external heat source, often referred to as "the Sun".

under the canopy of a perfect (life-necessary) atmospheric bubble, traveling in a perfect (life-necessary)orbit around the sun (at 67,000 mph and spinning on our perfectly (life-necessary) tilted axis at 1,040mph), in the most perfect, sweet, goldilock (life-necessary) position near the sun?

Why would an all-powerfull deity have to rely on such details, if it could have us living on the surface of the Sun?

You at least have to take the number of planets we know of in the universe, and divide that number into the number of planets that have the same (life-necessary) systems that we know of, which = 1. The number you will produce is so near to 0, that it makes the possiblity 0 for a random chance happening. Science has no alternative than random chance natural happening. In this case it is 0.

And you have not started your travels to any of these planets yet, correct?

You ask God who? The answer is ID. Go find Him, use all your energy and intelligence to prove He exists, in stead of the opposite. I promise, your life will be brighter.

No, the burden lies with you to prove your position.

I'll wait.

 

[Peter1000]

ID is not science.
Why do you think Behe had to admit under oath, that if ID was allowed into the classroom, so too would astrology?
Sorry, but ID is a cheap canard to get religion into the schools, and I have contempt for all those who use deceitful and underhanded (typical behavior for cdesign proponentsists) tactics to further their 'ends justify the means,' tact.
You're free to worship your god/s and ascribe his ability to count hairs on your head and cry raindrops, but ID is useless in reality, and nothing more than another sleazy attempt to justify religious dogma.
I ask you again, have you thought about why the only people who care about ID, are gullible religionists, and those who profit from ID?

ID is all of what science is. For instance it is ID that set the mass for the proton at
1.6749286 x 10^-27 and the mass of the electron at 9.109389 x 10^-31. Is this not the heart of science. Can you not see the exact precision of these masses and to think that for billions of years they have maintained this number. Are you kidding, ID is not science. One of his qualities is omni-science (He has all knowledge of science). He had to in order to boot up the universe and maintain it. Like I have said before, there will come a time when science and God will be on the same team. It is already happening in many quarters of the science community.

If you have contempt for those who use deceitful, and underhanded tactics to further their ends, then you have just described the tactics that todays science employs. For the most part, they are not searching for the truth, but for an answer to a godless universe. That is their unwritten agenda.

ID is every reality. Unless He sets the proton mass and the electron mass exactly as He did, you would not be talking to me. ID organized this universe and this earth for you and I. You are part of His reality.

You can either have a religious dogma that dominates the scene or you can have a non-religious dogma that dominates the scene. In the religious dogma, in these days at least you have the right to be non-religious. If you lived in a non-religious dogma, you would find that trying to be religious would not be tolerated. Which dogma do you really want to dominate?

You really don't want to talk about who profits from science, do you. Certainly you are aware of the rat hole you are taking yourself down.

 

[Peter1000]

The water cycle is not a closed loop. It relies on an external heat source, often referred to as "the Sun".

Why would an all-powerfull deity have to rely on such details, if it could have us living on the surface of the Sun?

And you have not started your travels to any of these planets yet, correct?

No, the burden lies with you to prove your position.

I'll wait.

You keep saying, "why would an all-powerful deity have to rely on such details, if it could have us living on the surface of the Sun?

If ID had not provided the proper masses for the elements, there would be no sun. The fine details would have had to be a bit finer if the sun were our home, but ID could have made it happen if that were His plan.

I don't necessarily need to travel to any planets. Science is doing that for me, I study their findings and conclude that of the trillions x trillions of planets in the universe, science has only found 1 perfect planet for life, our earth.

So we conclude scientifically, that 1 divided by trillion x trillions is the odds for an earth just like ours to come into existence by a natural chance happening. The probability is so near 0, the possibility is 0. Again that is all you have to hang your hat on. You must have a lot of faith. If you had that much faith in ID you would be on my side of the discussion.

I have proved that a natural chance happening is impossible. Now you prove your position.

I'm waiting

 

[Ed1wolf]

That's not exactly accurate.
God exists outside our known universe.
I mean, God does not need the universe to exist.
(i think you agree)

Correct.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The first three were once believed by most scientists until all the evidence started pointing toward the Big Bang.

hier: Not exactly true.
The Big Bang is a model, it's a naturalistic model.

Not as naturalistic as you may think. Even non-theistic scientists admit that at time=0, natural laws breakdown so at that point something supernatural had to occur.

hier: There's lots of things it does NOT explain.
The formation of stars and planets is still uncertain in their model.

Actually not exactly, especially stars, stars have actually been SEEN forming. And their formation follows rather simple natural laws. They know a little less about the formation of planets but most of the processes are fairly well known.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, that is the universe where the Cause of this universe resides, what Christians call Heaven.

nv: You agree that the universe could not have been caused.

You then go on to say that the cause of the universe is God.

No, I was referring to the abode of God, OUR universe obviously WAS caused.

 

[Davian]

Davian says:
But one of us is using methodology that minimizes bias, and you are using religion.

Methodology? Are you serious. Just what method are you using to prove that just by chance happenstance the universe flew into existence?

It is not my position that "just by chance happenstance the universe flew into existence".

Do you have any idea how many theories there are today that try to explain this event? A theory is scientific language for "guess".

As religion is common language for "wishful thinking".

There is no methodology involved. Just guessing.

That would be "religion".

For instance, Stephen Hawking, the worlds premier godless scientist has conceeded that the odds are too small for a random chance happening to explain the universe.

<citation missing>

So in his brilliance, he has taken a leading role in the theory of "infinite multiverses". He believes that this theory of the infinite multiverses solves the chance problem, because if there are infinite multiverses, at least 1 of them will have just the right universal constants to bring the universe into existence and maintain it along with bringing life. Our universe, he says is just one of an ifinite number that has the right equation for life.

Or, life evolved to fit the universe, as in the puddle analogy.

Of course, do your scientific methodolgy

Mine? Not really. You are free to use it. No charge.

to find out if this theory holds water. It is the same with the big bang theory, the universe has existed for trillions of years theory, etc,etc,etc... The methodology involved in proving these theories amounts to a big ole laughing guess. But it brings money for research and books, and it is the only line of hope that somehow, somewhere, we will find a godless answer. So it is good, good business to come up with a different theory. Methodology, well we are working on that.

I have not seen that evidenced in your posts.

Besides the idea of ID is not necessarily religious. An ID or ID's made it happen. There is enough evidence that this is true. My methodology is at least as good as any scientific methodology you could produce.

Yet you have yet to show your data, or present a testable falsifiable hypothesis.

Now, let's talk about your religion. I'm positive you would deny you are religious, am I right. Well you are. Your religion is non-religion. You are using your religion even more than I am using mine. You are at least as fervent about godless, non-religion, as I am about my God based religion. Your religion is growing fast these days, because my religion is not serious enough about providing an alternative to scientific methodology (random chance happening). But nonetheless don't deny you are a religious man.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

Davian:
Not useless, if it has explanatory power for why you find yourself unable to substantiate your claims

I have substantiated mine, or given you what you need to substantiate mine.

You haven't even defined your position, or a means by which it can be tested. All you have made are religious assertions.

What have you done to substantiate, through the scientific methodology, how the universe got started and how life on earth started from non-living matter?

I am not making the claim that I know.

One idea is the big bang theory. It says that a small microscopic ball of energy suddenly burst forth and it contained all the elements in the universe.

<citation missing>

Well, explain the methodology that science used to prove that guess.

Big bang cosmology is not about origins, it only describes the cosmos from the beginning of its current expansion.

You don't astronomy much, do you?

Davian:
In the absence of this evidence that you allude to being presented in a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, may I suggest, rational.

If my evidence was absent, then you could use the word "rational", but you have not looked at the evidence nor given it any consideration. So this is what your word equates to:
It is "rational" to ignore evidence of the ID, because I know for sure that ID does not exist.

Do you have a better word that might hightlight your real self.

In the context of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, with robust definitions, you have yet to present any evidence for this "id" that you speak of.

 

[Davian]

life!!

What about life?

 

[Davian]

The first three were once believed by most scientists until all the evidence started pointing toward the Big Bang.

As you have been corrected in the past, big bang cosmology does not address origins, it only describes the universe from its earliest known period until now.

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmologicalmodel for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

[Davian]

That's not exactly accurate.
God exists outside our known universe.
I mean, God does not need the universe to exist.
(i think you agree)

Does this "God" have any effect on our world?

 

[Davian]

Not exactly true.
The Big Bang is a model, it's a naturalistic model.
There's lots of things it does NOT explain.
The formation of stars and planets is still uncertain in their model.

Do you have a citation for this? No?

 

[Davian]

You keep saying, "why would an all-powerful deity have to rely on such details, if it could have us living on the surface of the Sun?

If ID had not provided the proper masses for the elements, there would be no sun. The fine details would have had to be a bit finer if the sun were our home, but ID could have made it happen if that were His plan.

But if the 'fine details' are evidence for both the naturalistic cosmological models and for the religious dogma, then parsimony says we toss the religions, in the absence of corroborating evidence for said religions.

I don't necessarily need to travel to any planets. Science is doing that for me, I study their findings and conclude that of the trillions x trillions of planets in the universe, science has only found 1 perfect planet for life, our earth.

1 is greater than zero.

So we conclude scientifically,

I don't think you know what that word really means.

that 1 divided by trillion x trillions is the odds for an earth just like ours to come into existence by a natural chance happening. The probability is so near 0, the possibility is 0. Again that is all you have to hang your hat on. You must have a lot of faith.

It takes no faith to say "I don't know". You have me mistaken with someone else.

If you had that much faith in ID you would be on my side of the discussion.

I don't even know what your side is, if you cannot define this "id" in the conext of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, with robust definitions.

I have proved that a natural chance happening is impossible.

No, you have merely knocked down a hastily built strawman, and demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the subject.

Now you prove your position. I'm waiting

My position is "I don't know."

Wait as long as you like.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, I was referring to the abode of God, OUR universe obviously WAS caused.

Care to explain how it is obvious?

 

[Peter1000]

But if the 'fine details' are evidence for both the naturalistic cosmological models and for the religious dogma, then parsimony says we toss the religions, in the absence of corroborating evidence for said religions.

1 is greater than zero.

I don't think you know what that word really means.

It takes no faith to say "I don't know". You have me mistaken with someone else.

I don't even know what your side is, if you cannot define this "id" in the conext of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, with robust definitions.
No, you have merely knocked down a hastily built strawman, and demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the subject.

My position is "I don't know."

Wait as long as you like.

If you "don't know", why do you seem to be so antagonistic toward ID.

 

[Peter1000]

John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.",

1 John 4:12 "No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us."

is it possible that no one had ever loved his brother without sinning for all those centuries since the day of the original sin(fall) prior to the moment when St John wrote these verses, because he categorically stated that no one had ever seen God?!, but if no one had ever loved his brother without sinning for that period, then there would not be true Prophets of God such as Enoch, Moses, Isaiah, etc., and this proves that God is not visible/perceptible to the humans in His real form of system Administrator of the universe, though some of them saw Him in one kind of vision or another, but those were visualizations that God projected in their visions, and they saw Him not in His real form, but actually some images of Him with which He represented Himself to them

Blessings

There are around 20 or so men that have seen God since the beginning of the world. Of the trillions of people that have been born on this earth, only around 20 have seen God and it is recorded in the bible.

It is a sure thing that in John's audience, no man had seen God, nor had anyone known anybody personally that had seen God. That is why John could make such a statement.

Later John amended his statement and added, "save he is a man of God, then he hath seen the Father". The word "save"="except" in this case.

If God comes to earth and talks and walks with you, believe me, you are cleansed of your sins and you are clean to be in the presence of God. So although there was only 1 man, Jesus, that was sinless throughout his whole life, other men have been forgiven of their sins in order to enjoy the presence of God.

BTW what form do you think God is in, as the systems Administrator of the universe?

Happy Sabbath.

 

[dlamberth]

There are around 20 or so men that have seen God since the beginning of the world. Of the trillions of people that have been born on this earth, only around 20 have seen God and it is recorded in the bible.

When one looks beyond the limited scope of the Bible, there are many more than those 20 who have seen God.

BTW what form do you think God is in, as the systems Administrator of the universe?

God's form is life itSelf, both the seen and unseen. I wouldn't call God the System Administrator. He's the essence of the System.

 

[Ed1wolf]

As you have been corrected in the past, big bang cosmology does not address origins, it only describes the universe from its earliest known period until now.

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmologicalmodel for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Not according to cosmologist Donald Goldsmith in the Nov. 2007 issue of Natural History magazine, he says that most cosmologists believe that the BB is the origin of space, time and matter. Even Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking believed that.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Care to explain how it is obvious?

Because it has all the characteristics of an effect, thereby needing a Cause.

 

[Peter1000]

Davian says:
But if the 'fine details' are evidence for both the naturalistic cosmological models and for the religious dogma, then parsimony says we toss the religions, in the absence of corroborating evidence for said religions.

That's what I have been trying to tell you. The fine tuned, precisioned, "universal constants" are part of the "fine details". They are not evidence for the naturalistic cosmological model. In fact the math proves, they are evidence against it. If you are for the "naturalistic cosmological model", then you are for the "random chance happening model". They are one in the same. If you throw ID out of the equation, what do you have left? You have a natural event. What causes a natural event, "a random chance happening". Tell me of another cause of a natural event?
Parsimony does not come into play, because the "fine details" identify themselves with ID and against a natural chance happening.

Davian:
In the context of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, with robust definitions, you have yet to present any evidence for this "id" that you speak of.[/QUOTE]

So you say because ID is not falsifiable, it is not a scientific endeavor for research, so there is no room for ID in science. How convenient.
Who decides if ID is not falsifiable?

I know that under the scientific method, many theories, over the centuries have been proven to be a law, partly because it hasn't been proven false yet. But with new and improved experimental equipment, even monumental foundational laws have been at least partially falsified, such as gravity. Newton's gravity fits most situations, but now Einstein's quantum gravity fits others that are difficult for Newtons law.
So testable and falsifiable is perhaps a matter of time.

There are other scientific theories that are not testable, or falsifiable. So how do we move these types of scientific theories from theory to law. For instance, how do we test the multiverse theory? How is it possible to see if there are more than one universe out there? Should this even be considered a scientific theory? If it is not testable or falsifiable, should the theory be justified as science worthy?

Is ID science worthy? Can you test to see if ID exists or not? Is ID falsifiable? Well the answer is yes. There are many scientists that gleefully announce that they have proved that God does not exist. The latest announcement is the discovery of the Higgs boson (the god particle). Why the god particle? It is because this particle is supposed to be able to start the creation of mass from nothing. It is the latest answer from science that now we know how matter came into existence, and it comes with a gleeful note, that ID is not needed.

So now there is a real scientific theory that says ID does not exist. There is also a scientific theory that says He does. It is called the agentivity theory and is based on the testability and falsifiability of the universal constants. No scientist knows exactly how these constants started or how they are maintained. There are lots of theories, but the scientific theory I like the most is the agentivity theory. Now the crew of scientists that discovered Higgs boson are mighty proud of themselves for thinking that they are chipping away at the agentivity theory. But they are going to find out sooner or later that ID does not make matter out of nothing. He takes existing matter and organizes and reorganizes it as He wills, and with his superior intelligence about the elements of the universe.

So keep testing and keep trying to falsify, because the more you do, the more solid ID looks. And the more ID will be accepted as scientific worthy.

 

[Davian]

Not according to cosmologist Donald Goldsmith in the Nov. 2007 issue of Natural History magazine, he says that most cosmologists believe that the BB is the origin of space, time and matter. Even Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking believed that.

They are free to speculate and believe as they like; the "big bang" cosmological model is not about origins.