jump to last post 1-26 of 26 discussions (504 posts)

System of laws is the evidence of God.

  1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago

    Every system of laws requires intelligence.

    Universe is system of laws.

    therefore universe requires intelligence.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The Laws did not make the universe.

      Humans made up the Laws to describe fundamental aspects of the universe that are constant and unchanging. It's a man-made idea.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Good point, especially considering the number of times the "laws" have had to be changed or tweaked as we learned more and more.

        Or does that just mean that god made the laws wrong and poor mankind is put in the position of coming behind and cleaning up His mistakes?

      2. sibtain bukhari profile image61
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Zelkiiro,wilderness, you mean we have supposed laws otherwise universe has no laws? we have assigned laws to universe for understanding? you people are serious or making joke? it is good point or it is good joke? if it is point ,explain?

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Why is it funny to you that we would impose laws on the universe in order to better understand it?

          After all, many models of many things are imposed---models which bear little  resemblance to reality, in an effort to make something understandable.

          An example almost too easy to suggest is the model of the atom. It bears little, if any, resemblance to the reality of atoms but it is a useful model if we are trying to get at some basic understanding.

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            mbuggieh,It is funny to state that universe is not working under some laws and actually we have assigned laws to universe as we know by science that universe is working under disciplines,ordering and calculations and these all have been described as'' laws'' by science,for example if you try to make water by the combination of one atom of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen,you can never do that,now how can you escape by simply saying that this is random phenomena  of nature and not a law .There involves ''calculation'' and that requires'' intelligence''.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry you are not making any sense.

              "we cannot make water"

              "It requires intelligence to make water"

              The only conclusion that can come from your statements is that we are not intelligent and nothing else is.

              If you suggest making water requires calculations then provide the calculations as evidence.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Easy-peasy.  2 + 1 = 1

              2. sibtain bukhari profile image61
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Rad Man,''In chemistry, the law of definite proportions, sometimes called Proust's Law, states that a chemical compound always contains exactly the same proportion of elements by mass. An equivalent statement is the law of constant composition, which states that all samples of a given chemical compound have the same elemental composition by mass. For example, oxygen makes up about 8/9 of the mass of any sample of pure water, while hydrogen makes up the remaining 1/9 of the mass.''[ WIKIPEDIA ]

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What does that have to do with with your logic?

                  "we cannot make water"

                  "It requires intelligence to make water"

                  All you have said was we are not intelligent enough to make water. Given your statement that our intelligence can't make water it is only evidence of water must have been made without intelligence.

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You don't know that. This you must prove first.

      Wrong, humans attempt to attribute laws (rules) to explain/understand the universe.

      If you are wrong on the first two you don't get to make that statement.

      Another logical fallacy. Is this the form of logic that you have been taught?

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Rad Man,what premises is false and how ? you mean like wilderness that the universe is working without laws? you have your self assigned the laws to universe? interesting? you people make good jokes.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You first need to prove the universal laws are from an intelligent source and not randomness. Much like frost forming on a window leaves a pattern without intelligence the universe forms patterns without intelligence. You must first prove that our universal rules are from an intelligent source before stating it as fact, and that you have not done. We've all been down this road before and we are all trying to explain where your error is, but you're just not able to see.

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I hear you. We have been down this road over and over again and to no avail.

            Clearly, and this is something which I really did NOT know until recently, there are many people out there for whom gods and deities are real and substantive beings who created the universe (as if there is just one) in 6 days and are now present and "pulling the strings".

        2. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          First of all, you claim that there are absolute and specific and intelligently designed laws to the universe. This is a false premise OR at least a premise for which there is no evidence.

          God, which I presume underlies your intelligent and law-driven universe, is something of which we have NO proof; something whose very existence depends on faith, not reason.

        3. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Let me ask you again and more directly:

          Exactly what joke is there in any of the comments posted in response to you?

          Mocking those who do not share your Newtonian worldview is not an appropriate response to efforts to understand the premises of your worldview AND why you seek to impose it on the reality of the universe(s) in which we live.

    3. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So - I have to ask again (and I will not bother explaining, once again, why your "logic" is faulty). Now that you understand no educated person is going to listen to your faulty claims - what are you trying to achieve here?

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Mark Knowles, what premises is false and why ?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          This has been pointed out to you on many occasions. Please - I am genuinely interested as to what you hope to achieve.

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Mark Knowles, you are not answering for my questions,therefore,I am supposing that you have no answer .

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I have answered your question several times. As have many others. I am therefore supposing you simply are incapable of understanding.

              Not sure I see the point in repeating myself.

              But - I am genuinely interested as to what you hope to achieve.

  2. JMcFarland profile image92
    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago

    gremlins break toasters
    broken toasters exist
    therefore gremlins exist.

    Your premise is faulty - it is a logical fallacy.  I don't understand how many times someone needs to tell you this for you to understand it.  You just make a forum post until you can't reasonably respond anymore, then you abandon it and start a new one with the same fallacy.  Your logic is based on a faulty premise.  Period.  You cannot make a sound argument based on nothing more than a logical fallacy - you are able to see this in other arguments, but not in your own.  Why do you think that is?

    1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      JMcFarland,which premises is false? and How ?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No intelligence was necessary for the vast "system" of natural laws. 

        The universe is not a system of laws; it is that system along with energy, matter, time and probably a dozen other things.  Laws themselves do not a universe make.

        Another failure to prove Allah - this lie didn't help any more than any of the others did.  One has to begin to wonder, after all the falures, if Allah is even there...

        1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          wilderness,you mean universe is working without laws? I t is simply bulk of matter and energy? science will accept your this suggestion? what are natural laws ? laws have no source of intelligence? ignorance may be source of these laws?

      2. JMcFarland profile image92
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        how many times do we have to point them out to you?  Have you even looked up the information that has been provided to you on fallacies?

        1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          JMcFarland, you are not replying my questions,therefore,I am supposing that you have no answer .

          1. JMcFarland profile image92
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You are begging the question and assuming a conclusion based on nothing more than your assertion.   You have not demonstrated that your first two premises are true,  therefore you are unable to posit your conclusion honestly.   Seriously., look up logical fallacies.   That is all that you have,  and although we have shown them to you multiple times and provided links and resources for you to research,  you have ignored them.  Are you that dishonest?   Does your god teach you to lie?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Apparently so.

              Not unusual, though - supernatural beliefs are very often more important than truth.  Particularly when trying to get others to believe the same thing.

              1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                wilderness,No,you can never escape from the truth of laws of universe, universe is not a system of mass,it is a system of laws,it was possible that a system of mass has been grown randomly, but it is not possible to suppose that a system of accurate laws has been grown randomly,every thing of universe is working under accurate laws that are possible only through intelligence,you can imagine that how accurately,law of gravitation is working in every heavenly body to avoid destruction of universe? How a solar system is working in an atom that was not even possible to be observed? how a same number of electrons are revolving around the nucleus having the same no. of protons, How laws of proportions are working in elements and compounds,you can make water by changing the proportions ? this system of laws is only possible by intelligence.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Evidence please. Elements are produced from a dying star and those elements interact with each other to form matter in a cloud nebula which forms a solar system such as ours. No intelligence needed, however there is apparently intelligence needed to understand matter and the universe.

                  1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Rad Man,Elements interact without law of attraction? solar system is formed without gravitational law? orbits are formed without any laws? sun is providing heat and light and also moving without laws of gravitation and with out the laws of burning of helium gas ? in absence of these laws,solar system was possible?

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "but it is not possible to suppose that a system of accurate laws has been grown randomly"  - Proof this is true, please?

                  "every thing of universe is working under accurate laws that are possible only through intelligence"  - Proof this is true, please?

                  "How laws of proportions are working in elements and compounds,you can make water by changing the proportions "  - Haven't a clue what you are talking about here as there are no "laws of proportions".

                  "this system of laws is only possible by intelligence."  - Prove this is true, please?

                  1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    wilderness, these are proven statements as laws require application of reason,mind ,conscious and intelligence,therefore, you can suppose random collection of mass but not random system of laws,therefore,only defense  you have to prove that universe is random collection of masses and physical laws are not governing the same,you have already tried for the same by supposing that only nature is working,again try,perhaps,you may be capable for providing the reasonable defense.

            2. sibtain bukhari profile image61
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              JMcFarland,you mean universe is working without laws? laws are possible without intelligence? you also believe this joke?

              1. JMcFarland profile image92
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Prove that your assertion is true.   The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that natural laws require intelligence.

    2. aliasis profile image95
      aliasisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      +1

  3. 0
    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago

    I suspect (again) that we are dealing with semantics and with whether or not one subscribes to a Newtonian physical worldview OR a non-Newtonian physical worldview.

    Newton believed that the universe was, in fact, governed by laws that were specifically set into motion by a divine creator. For Newton there was no randomness, no chaos in the universe. For Newton there was order. For Newton the universe was intelligently designed and intelligently executed. For Newton the function of science was to discern those laws.

    That said, the problems with the logic:

    1. Laws do not require intelligence. What we perceive as or label as "law" is most likely consequence or manifestation of some action or activity.

    2.  The term "the universe" is growing increasingly anachronistic and increasingly not useful in terms of understanding the space/time in which we find ourselves.

    3.  A space/time "thing" (for lack of a better word) is not necessarily governed by laws imposed on it externally or by some creator.

    After all, we just may be without reason, without metaphysical cause; without intelligence or design or intervention of some creator.

    1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      mbuggieh,This is not label of law ,this is actual law,you can break actions you can never break laws ,science has not assigned laws to universe ,it has discovered these laws,all inventions were possible only due to physical laws,for example,you can never break law of gravitation,you can make inventions like aircraft  in light of this law ,this law keeps all heavenly bodies in their orbits otherwise universe has been destroyed,you can never afford absence of gravitation for a second,gravity attracts all things with the same rate,similarly ,there is law of proportions,you can ever make water by the combination of one atom of hydrogen and one atom  of oxygen,why? as every thing is in proportion .Laws are only possible by intelligence otherwise the same can never originate.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Once you prove these universal laws are the result of intelligence I'll pay attention. First you have to have an understanding of how and why all these elements exist. You can state that the universal laws are the product of intelligence all you want, but proving it is another matter.

        It may help to start to see if you can imagine a universe without a creator. I can imagine both a universe with a creator and one without and I have to say the one without makes much more sense as you no longer have to have the paradox of a creator without a creator. You no longer have to justify why a loving God would call people to war, create disease, create parasites, and create cancers. The universe starts to make sense.

  4. JMcFarland profile image92
    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago

    Natural "laws" are not evidence of any god,  let alone a specific one.  Here's why:


    http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? … w_argument


    I could make the same exact argument with anything.   I could say that natural law is the result of unicorns playing tag.   You have to prove your first two premises before you are justified in making your conclusion.

    For example:

    if you say that natural laws require intelligence,  you have to prove that claim.   You have not met your burden of proof.   You just made stuff up and called it fact.

    Try this.   You don't need logic to prove Allah is real.   Pray to him. Ask Allah what you should say to me.   If Allah is all knowing,  he certainly knows.   If Allah doesn't answer you or if he answers you incorrectly,  his power fails.   Should be simple.

    1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      JMcFarland,All laws of universe require intelligence,universe is not a construction of mass ,it is a system of laws,you can suppose that a system of mass has been grown randomly but you can never suppose that a system of laws has also grown randomly,science was only possible due to these accurate and specific laws governing universe,science has not assigned these laws to universe, science has discovered these laws and has made inventions in light of the same,for example,law of gravitation,this is not randomly grown law it is accurate law attracting every thing with the same rate ,you can never imagine the absence of this law otherwise universe will be destroyed,similarly,law of proportions,law of action and reaction,law of inertia,law of friction etc,you can make oxygen with one atom?

      1. JMcFarland profile image92
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Saying repeatedly that a system of law requires intelligence does not make it true.   You have to demonstrate that it is and you have to demonstrate the intelligence behind it.   You can't just make shit up and then claim that it is true.   You are making the claim.   The burden to prove your claim is on you.   So far you have not offered any proof of any kind.   Do you know the difference between proof and assertion?

        I'll make it easy.   Does my saying that unicorns are responsible for gravity, gravity exists and therefore unicorns exist make it true?

        I noticed that you ignore my challenge to Allah.   Maybe he's scared.  Or maybe you are.

        1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          JMcFarland, you mean a system of laws is possible without intelligence and through random process of evolution? If so give only one example? One must review himself before such kind of challenge?

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Evolution.

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Rad Man,Evolution is a law depending upon another law of genetic variations,and further natural selection and survival of the fittest ,these all laws have combined effect for emergence of human being after billion years of evolutions,these laws require source of intelligence and supervision of intelligence for avoiding the accidental destruction of life and for maintaining its upward direction .

          2. JMcFarland profile image92
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The burden of proof is on you.   Shifting the goalposts is evidence of your arguments weakness.   

            evolution is the example you're looking for, for starters.   

            You're also demonstrating the argument from incredulity.

            You should really read showing other than your favorite holy book before attempting these debates.

            Aren't you going to prove Allah to me by asking him what to say to Convince me?  Or do you realize it would be stupid to fight for an impotent,  silent,  non existent dish who is not going to answer you?

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              JMcFarland, Laws require application of mind, reason,intelligence and conscious ,your universe is not random collection of mass but a system of laws working accurately,therefore,biological evolution is it self a law and requires intelligence,if it had been working randomly according to your wish,it would have evolved a random collection of life but it evolved the human beings,the master piece of creations,who was himself source of laws and discoveries,you really believe that random evolution can do it ? consequently, you have only defense of proving that universe is working without laws,as you have tried it,please continue your effort,perhaps,you may succeed to convince scientists that universe is working without laws,therefore,never requires intelligence.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's about the tenth (or hundredth) time you've repeated that claim.  That all laws require an intelligence to make them.  Why don't you prove it instead of just repeating it ad infinitum?  Because you can't?

                1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
                  sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  wilderness, '' all laws require intelligence'' this is proven fact, the fact of observation is proven fact,nature requires intelligence or not this is not proven fact.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    IF it is a proven fact, please produce that proof.

                    Because I for one do not believe it.  I don't believe it is true and I certainly do not believe it has been proven.  You have talked around any such proof for too long, absolutely refusing to produce anything but your own unsupported opinion - I do not believe there is any proof.

                  2. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Saying something does NOT make it so---even, as noted, if you repeat it and repeat it.

                    You think, it seems, that there is some law code---some written text, that governs the universe. This is your premise and this premise is at the very bet not proven.

      2. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Everything you mentioned is and can be explained without a creator.

        1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Rad Man,thanks for understanding my argument.

    2. sibtain bukhari profile image61
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      JMcFarland, I have studied link you posted where a difference of prescriptive and descriptive laws have been defined and an argument has been made to the effect that natural laws are descriptive meaning thereby that these laws have been described by human mind for understanding the the phenomena of universe. This argument is itself based over false presumption that we are using the laws assigned by science to universe as our argument ,but this is not our argument and we are not confused about these two forms of laws,our argument is that universe is working under some disciplines and ordering and calculations and these are'' laws of universe'' requiring'' intelligence'' ,and these are also termed as ''laws'' by science as they work accurately,therefore. confusions is in objection.confusion is not in our argument,it is clear.

    3. sibtain bukhari profile image61
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      JMcFarland, further,in your link the ''God'' is used in argument and the objection has been raised ''which God''? this is not the problem in my argument where'' intelligence'' is used,therefore, these laws are only possible by'' intelligence''.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You keep repeating this, but have yet to offer any proof - why not?

        1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Mark Knowles, If you will see  my posts with open eyes,you will find the proof also .tongue

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            If you will see all of our explanations with open eyes you see just how wrong you are.

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Rad Man,I can see evidences,you can never,therefore, whose eyes are closed?big_smile

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You are again mistaken, I can see evidence for almost all things. Looking up at the stars I can see that the light from those stars have been traveling for million of years, so I know the earth is old. I see the evidence for air in the wind. I see evidence for gravity in the fact that I don't float away. My eyes are open, but you have supplied no evidence to prove water can only be produced by intelligence especially when you admit that the best intelligence we know of can't produce water.

                1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
                  sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Rad Man,you have concluded that earth is old by the evidence of travel of light,you have concluded the air by the evidence of wind,you have concluded the gravity from not floating away but I am surprised that you have not concluded'' intelligence'' by the evidence of'' laws ''  of physical universe,,'' definite compositions'' of chemical universe and ''information'' of biological universe and believe that this all is possible without intelligence,therefore, you have closed your eyes from all these evidences for your belief for absence of'' religious God'' and have applied double standard of logic,one for scientific laws and other for creator,although, you are identifying all ''causes'' from other'' effects'' ,but you have decided not to admit the ''principal cause'' of all these great effects .

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Because the universal laws do not imply intelligence. For example if one has two poles, and round one one and a square one and two holes, also a round one and a square one. If we randomly attempt to fit a pole into a hole we will be correct half the time. Do we look at the correct attempts and assume we used intelligence? This is very much how nature and evolution works, no intelligence required. We have no evidence.

                  2. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So - I have to ask once again what you are trying to achieve here. It has already been explained to you that your claims are unsupported and repeating them ad infinitum is unlikely to have any effect.

                    Do you honestly think that repeating your irrational beliefs over and over and over will make any educated person accept them? This may work in a closed society where you are able to kill any apostates, but - here? I think not. In fact - it is considered just plain rude to do as you are doing.

                    So - seriously - what are you trying to do? Wear us down?

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You see evidence or just flawed logical conclusions that you consider evidence even when knowing the flaw?

                1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
                  sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  wilderness,there is great difference between between evidence and flawed logical conclusion, it is evident by the fact that no body has succeeded to give a reasonable answer for the same and only replied with presumptions, therefore,you all must review your belief of atheism based just over some presupposed concepts.

                  1. JMcFarland profile image92
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Just because you have not understood what we've told you does not make all of us wrong and you right.   Each of us have pointed out your fallacies,  assumptions and claims,  and you've ignored us and just repeated your premise.   You have provided no evidence for your claims.   Until you do,  conversation is futile.

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Outside of basing atheism on a total lack of evidence for a supernatural god, what "presupposed concepts" do you think IS the base?

          2. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            My eyes are open. wink

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Mark Knowles,I do not think so.tongue

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Of course you don't. This is why your religion causes so many fights. sad

                1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
                  sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Mark Knowles,No,this is why as my religion is based over reason and conscious.

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I am not understanding now. Are you actually admitting that religion is not based on reason and consciousness?

  5. JMcFarland profile image92
    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago

    sibtain bukhari -
    you need to take a look at this.  Please.  For all of our sakes, but especially yours.

    https://bookofbadarguments.com/?view=allpages

    1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      JMcFarland,Thanks for referring a good book but it points out your logical fallacies and validity of my arguments ,''One of several valid forms of argument is known as modus ponens (the mode of affirming by affirming) and takes the following form: If A then C, A; hence C.    More formally:

      A ⇒ C, A ⊢ C.

      Here, we have three propositions: two premisses and a conclusion. A is called the antecedent and C the consequent. For example, If water is boiling at sea level, then its temperature is at least 100°C. This glass of water is boiling at sea level; hence its temperature is at least 100°C. Such an argument is valid in addition to being sound''.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe (obvious fact, no proof needed). Premise A
        Universe is existing. Premise B
        Therefore Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe. Conclusion C

        1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Mark Knowles, First premises is not proven fact therefore false,I have always presented the proven fact as first premises ,you need to improve your logic:P

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Please prove it wrong. Unless you can do so, we must accept this proven fact.

            I think I have adopted your version of logic just fine thank you.  tongue

          2. JMcFarland profile image92
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Marks' first premise is just as proven as your first premise.  According to you, unless you can prove it wrong, it must be valid.  You need to provide the evidence that demonstrates that the flying spaghetti monster did not create the universe.  That's what you've been asking us to do for your argument.  Now it's your turn.

          3. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Does anyone actually think they're going to get through to this guy?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It appears unlikely. lol

      2. JMcFarland profile image92
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think that you understand the words "humor" or "irony"

        The book is an illustrated guide to logical fallacies.  The only one relying on logical fallacies in this forum is you.  You just keep repeating them.  You're able to notice them in others, but you can't notice them in your own argument?  Why do you think that is?

    2. sibtain bukhari profile image61
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      JMcFarland,''Validity: A deductive argument is valid if its conclusion logically follows from its premisses. Otherwise, it is said to be invalid''.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        At last - you now understand why your argument is invalid. Well done. smile

      2. JMcFarland profile image92
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        but you have not proven your premises true.  You just repeat them.  Saying something a dozen times does not make it more true.  If your claim is that these natural laws have proven repeatedly and factually to be only the result of intelligence, that is a claim that needs evidence.  Saying it again does not equal evidence.

        1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          JMcFarland, physical laws of universe have been discovered by the science,but perhaps, this information has not reached to you and wilderness,therefore,you require proof for the same and consider this fact as claim only? further laws including natural laws are set principles and disciplines and rational ordering of things,there,it is our general observation that laws are results of application of mind and reason and have no source of ignorance,consequently, it is proven fact as ''all men are mortal'',observation proves the same.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            When scientists discovered the laws, did they see who wrote them down?  Did they even find the paper they were written on? 

            No?  They didn't see any intelligence making the laws?  Why do you claim there was one, then?

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Wilderness,laws never require to be written, if a law is not written it does not mean it is not, life of a law is not depending upon its writing down, when law of gravitation was not discovered and written by scientists,it was not ? even many social laws are not written for example, the constitution of Britain is not written, it would mean it is not ? laws are systems of principles,disciplines and ordering of things and never require to be written for their working,I do not expect  such kind of argument from you , Have you seen that any planet is being filled up by gravitation,then why do you believe it? Have you even measured this force of every heavenly body ? then why do you believe it? simply due to the effect of attraction of many bodies not all and due to orbits maintained by this force,therefore , you have adopted a double standard of logic in respect of science and creator,why do you demand that evidence for creator that is not required for scientific laws? belief in creator is also a scientific belief upon the basis of existence of universe,system of laws and system of information in genetic code and human brain .

          2. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            How do you make the leap to universal laws being the application of a mind when you have no evidence of a mind outside our universe? When observing the universe all we can see is us humans are on a planet orbiting a star on the outer edge of one of billions of galaxies. Which is unlike any description from any holy book.

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Rad Man, Universal laws are evidence of Mind outside our universe as the same are not possible without Mind ,why do you presuppose that there is no Mind out of universe,even in the presence of laws of universe? simply upon the basis of the presumption that as you have not seen creator nor creating the universe,therefore no creator,then why do you believe in the gravitational force of attraction in every body of this universe? Even you have not seen the force by your eyes nor you have seen in a single body being filled by this force and even every force of attraction of every body can never be measured but this is the scientific belief because we are observing the effect of this force ,similarly,belief in creator is also a scientific belief not blind belief as it is based over the existence of universe,system of laws of universe and system of information inside the genetic code and brain and all these effect conclude the ''intelligence'' behind the universe, but you all people have adopted a double standard of logic about creator and scientific laws,what is not demanded in science you demand in respect of creator,this is grave injustice you are doing with your God and with your self.

  6. Ricardius profile image61
    Ricardiusposted 3 years ago

    //"Every system of laws requires intelligence.

    Universe is system of laws.

    therefore universe requires intelligence."//

    No, you've got the legal profession, which is full of liars, I mean lawyers, mixed up with reality. Laws were created by men. Existence is observer independent. The moon exists whether I believe in it or not, and it doesn't cease to exist if I don't believe in it or can't sense it. The same with a creator god, he either exists or he doesn't. There's no in-between. Creation itself is irrational, therefore a creator god does not exist. In science we only have possible or not possible. A creator god is not possible.

    http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/God-Doe … d-to-Exist

    http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/CREATIO … re-ETERNAL

    Exist--Object with location, physical presence.

    Object--- that which has shape.

    Location--set of static distances from all other objects.

    1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ricardius, You do not know about layers,as layers always make arguments in accordance with record,it is not possible for them to go out of record,therefore,here,I am also arguing in accordance with ''record of universe'' ,we must workout from this record,consequently, after analysis of the same we find laws are governing the universe,therefore,this ''record of laws'' is the ample proof of the intelligence,this is the scientific,logical,legal and only possible conclusion of this ''record'',If you are interested in denying God,you can do it,but how  can you refute this conclusion of ''intelligence'' out of the ''available record'' ?

      1. joshguill profile image60
        joshguillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You try to prove what you can't prove with science. Theories get changed all the time and this is all your suggesting is a theory. Here's some scientifically "proof" that science is often quite wrong. Blessed are those who don't see but yet still believe.
        Biology
        Spontaneous generation
        Transmutation of species
        Mendelian genetics

        Physics
        Emission theory of vision
        Aristotelian physics
        Ptolemy's law of refraction
        Luminiferous aether
        Caloric theory
        Vis viva
        "Purely electrostatic" theories of the generation of voltage differences.
        Emitter theory – another now-obsolete theory of light propagation.
        Progression of atomic theory
        Plum pudding model of the atom
        Rutherford model of the atom with an impenetrable nucleus orbited by electrons.
        Bohr model with quantized orbits
        Electron cloud model

        Astronomy and cosmology
        Ptolemaic system
        Geocentric universe
        Heliocentric universe
        Copernican system
        Newtonian gravity
        Luminiferous aether theory
        Steady State Theory

        1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          joshguill, You are correct that laws of science are  not certain but probable, but laws of universe confirms that universe is a system of laws and laws have only one possibility and that is intelligence,these laws are facts therefore they prove the intelligence.

      2. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I see you are continuing to repeat your absurd claims. I am still interested as to what you hope to achieve. Clearly you are not interested in a discussion - so what is your goal?

        Got to admit I am impressed with how many times you can come up with to say exactly the same thing while ignoring everything said to you, but - in my culture - we consider that to be rude.

        1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Mark Knowles,I have already replied on another thread that I want to achieve ''truth'',therefore, if you have the same present it in spite of making allegation of lying,why do you believe so strongly that absence of'' Religious God'' is truth and ''god of universe'' is ''reality'' ,there is not possibility of your being wrong? If you prove I am wrong I will also deny the ''religious God''.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You want to achieve "truth" ? I have already shown you how you are wrong - as have many other people.

            How do you hope to achieve truth exactly? You already told me you will never accept the possibility that you are wrong - therefore you are not being truthful when you claim here that you will deny the religious god. This makes you a liar. sad

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Mark Knowles,who,<personal attack snipped>,it is evident  by the way you are arguing,I do not like ,following you ,to declare you <personal attack snipped> in a breath ,it is against what I have learned from Quran,perhaps,as you never believe in any morality,therefore this type of allegations suit you .

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Well - you have told me that you will never accept the possibility that you may be wrong and you have also told me that you will reject the religious god with proof. Which is it?

                In any case - as I understand it - according to the Quran - lying is perfectly acceptable when you are trying to convert some one to your irrational belief system - isn't it? sad

              2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                </personal></personal>

                Interesting, I call Mohammad a liar and get banned for four weeks, you call Mark a liar and you're still here posting.

                The admins here must be Muslims.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

                  Still - you must be impressed with the tenacity of this one. big_smile

  7. joshguill profile image60
    joshguillposted 3 years ago

    The evidence of God is the bible. If your trying to prove God is real by saying that the universe follows a complex system of laws, you'd have better luck telling me that God isn't real.

    1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      joshguill, No doubt, Holly books including Bible are evidences of God but nature also requires God for its reasonable explanation, God of Bible and God of universe are the same and Absolute reality.

  8. BuddiNsense profile image60
    BuddiNsenseposted 3 years ago

    What is it that you try to achieve?

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's called Islamic propaganda. Don't feed it.

  9. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago

    JMcFarland, Mark, Rad, Wilderness,

    Re: No evidence of God... Burden of proof...

    What exactly constitutes as proof of God? Or, at least, proof of intelligent intent? I see plenty of proof.

    1. There's only one observable universe that we know for certain exists.
    2. The values of the constant fundamental laws of this one universe are so exact that if those values were even slightly different there would be no life, or no universe.
    3. Intelligence/Reason is a 'natural occurrence' in this one universe that we know exists and that we know we, the only intelligent beings we know of, had nothing to do with.
    4. Life is built around an intricate system that enables it to retain/pass on genetic information, making what would be a random process accumulative, thus allowing it to gain complexity and retain/pass on what makes it successful. A system that came together 'naturally' in this one universe we know to exist.
    5. Mathematics, though we only discovered it 5000 or so years ago, can be retro-actively applied to the workings of this one universe back over the course of billions of years, long before we ever came about. The same goes for intelligence/reason in general. Though we assume we're the first/only intelligent/reasoning beings in existence, this 'naturally occurring' intelligence and reason can be applied to the workings of this one universe that existed long before it.

    So what exactly are you looking for, evidence wise, to either prove or disprove an intelligent creator? Do you know? It seems to me things like a naturally evolved system that stores and perpetuates genetic information is exactly the kind of thing you should expect to see if you're looking for signs of intelligence. By what standards do you determine what does or does not constitute as evidence of God/creator with intelligent intent?

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So? That's like saying I have a dandelion in my back yard, so someone must have planted it.


      So?Perhaps we are here because of luck. If things were different we wouldn't be here.

      Evolution explains this. No God required.
      Evolution explains this. No God required.

      Math is simply a way of communication. The math does however show that prayer doesn't work and people with faith are more prone to depression.

      First you would need to prove God exist and then you'd need to prove he created the universe. Understanding we are not the centre of the universe, took 14 billion years for us to arrive, are not given any special privileges by nature, prayer don't work, and the fact that the holy books make no sense should be an indication that no God exists or at least not one who cares.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "First you would need to prove God exist and then you'd need to prove he created the universe."

        Before we can get there we first need to establish by what standards something does or does not qualify as proof.

        "Evolution explains this. No God required."

        This statement suggests you have a standard for qualifying what does or does not constitute proof in regards to whether or not a God is required to explain something. How do you know no God was required? Because it occurred 'naturally'? That doesn't exactly mean anything since we're talking about whether or not an intelligent creator created the natural world. That means this God would be the one who designed nature to do what it does. So, this system being a 'natural result' would in itself be the expected result if that natural world is the result of intelligent intent. Not the other way around.

        I would say that all the individual components that work together 'naturally' in such a way as to result in an intricate system of retaining and passing on genetic information strongly suggests an intelligent creator fashioned those components, as well as the environment they exist in, to behave in such a way as to do so. Retaining and passing on information is something we intelligent beings began to employ relatively recently to grow and advance ourselves intellectually/socially/societally. Yet we find out, way after we began to do so ourselves, that nature has been using a very similar method all along to bring about complex multi-celled organisms and eventually the very same intelligence we then used to do the same. Yet we assume it's just 'unintelligent' chance that resulted in the establishment of this system?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "No god required" means that the natural laws and actions of the universe as we understand them can produce the same result. 

          To come back and say that only a god can produce those laws is irrelevant, unless you can produce proof that a god did that.  To the best of our knowledge, no god was required for that, either.

          You are making a VERY shaky comparison between chemical construction of DNA and man's methods of passing on information to others - of all the methods not a single one uses DNA or is even chemically based.

          Do not assume it's "just 'unintelligent' chance that resulted in the establishment of this system",  but do not assume it required intelligence, either.  Either choice requires proof, but without that proof no "assumption" can be made.  Thus, no god is necessary, but cannot be ruled out.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "No god required" cannot be stated unless we know how/why/what about those natural laws and where matter came from the first place. Until we know what's required for these things to be as they are then we can't say what's required.

            The comparison isn't shaky at all. Same basic concept, same basic benefit. With the ability to retain and pass on information, whether it be chemical/oral/written/digital, the benefit is accumulation of information, which has proven in each case to be hugely beneficial. It's the same thing.

            Proof is not something you're going to get as we're talking about the cause of the natural laws and the behavior of matter. Whatever that cause may be it is by definition super-natural, and beyond the scope of the natural sciences. So we're left with making the most of the information we do have. And that information strongly suggests intelligent intent.

            But to say 'no god is necessary' based on the reasoning that "the natural laws and actions of the universe as we understand them can produce the same result" is a fallacy. It just means that in your mind, if a god were involved, then he would have to have manually manipulated the very matter and laws he created to realize a desired outcome. So, you're ruling out a legitimate possibility based on a very particular concept of your own making. If we're to draw any kind of legitimate conclusions then we first need to understand the nature of what we're talking about. If we're talking about a being capable of creating the entirety of the universe, then we're not looking for manual manipulation. We're looking for something that by all accounts just seems to have formed itself. That's the expected result.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      1.  True, we don't know of another universe.  Our ignorance is not proof of a creator.

      2.  You have no idea if there would be life or universe if constants were different.  It might be safe to say that life as we know it could not exist, but that's all.  Ignorance of what would happen does not prove a creator.  Not, at least, unless you also postulate that the purpose of the universe is to produce man - certainly an unwarranted assumption and one that presupposes the god you are trying to prove.

      3.  We don't know of any other intelligence in the universe, but that ignorance does not prove a creator.  We know we didn't cause creation of the universe, but that doesn't prove one either.

      4.  DNA occurs on our planet, yes.  Whether it is found elsewhere or something else takes its place or a totally different system of life developed elsewhere int he universe we don't know.  That ignorance does not prove a creator, and neither does our ignorance of each and every individual step evolution took.

      5.  Mathematics can be applied to the workings of the universe before man cam, yes.  That does not imply a creator, though, let alone prove one any more than gravity existing prior to man does.

      As noted DNA can come about through the stupid forces of evolution; it certainly does not prove a creator.  We may not (and do not) understand every bit of it, but that ignorance proves nothing.

      Basically then, each and every one of your "proofs" is that "In our ignorance, we don't know everything there is to know and therefore goddunnit".  It doesn't work.

      Proof of a god?  See it, talk to it, let it tell us it made us and prove it can by making another universe complete with intelligent beings.  Outside of that, I'm not sure there can be any proof.  You might have some small amount of evidence if you could find another universe, populated by intelligent beings.  That would not be conclusive of course, but would add at least a little bit of evidence to the god theory.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "You have no idea if there would be life or universe if constants were different."

        Actually, this we do know. Change any one of the values of the constant laws and you get basically two results; either the ratio of matter that bonded together to form suns/planets/life would be greatly diminished if you go one way, or everything would be crushed if the universe didn't just collapse back in on itself if you go the other way.

        "We don't know of any other intelligence in the universe, but that ignorance does not prove a creator."

        It's not whether or not intelligence exists elsewhere. It's the fact that intelligence and reason is a natural occurrence in this one universe.

        The basic point is this... the very same evidence often sited as reasons why some say a God isn't required is actually evidence that support's a creator. These things are the kinds of things you should expect to see if intelligent intent was responsible for this one universe/life/intelligence. No, each one of these does not 'prove' God exists on their own, but all together they show that these facts about this one universe do support that this universe was deliberately/intelligently created. These things being as they are without intelligent intent is a far less likely answer.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If I get the gist of your argument... it's basically: everything turned out ok, so God must of have made it. If God wouldn't have made it everything would have went sideways.

          Is that about the sum of it? Or is there something I missed?

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "OK" is relative. What I'm saying is that the more likely answer, given the information we have, is that the universe as it is was deliberately intended and intelligently realized. For intelligent/reasoning/self-aware beings who came about as a product of this universe to then employ that intelligence/reason, because of our self-awareness, to understand where we came from and how we're here, the most likely explanations are either ....

            A) there are an infinite number of universes, each incrementally different than the next, and we just happen to be a product of one of those universes where we actually exist to observe it

            or

            B) we are the product of deliberate/intelligent intent

            We know intelligence and reason can and do exist because they occurred naturally here. Given the sheer number of variables that have to be as they are for this universe/life/intelligence and reason to be here, considering there is only this one observable universe, it requires the least amount of assumptions for this one observable universe to be the product of intelligent, deliberate intent.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, so semantically your argument is: We are here, so that means God put us here. Furthered by We think, therefore we are, therefore something else that thinks must have created us.

              That's what all your typing boils down to.

              Add in "I don't believe it happened THAT way, so it must have happened THIS way"

              That's the TLDR version of your argument.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              C) there are billions of intelligent species in this universe

              D) There is only us, but others will follow in the billions of years till the universe dies

              E) This is the nth iteration of a recycling universe, each with 0, 1 or a great many intelligent species

              There are lots of possibilities, none of which require additional, hidden universes with other intelligent beings.  For that is a very basic flaw with using our intelligence as a reason to believe in a god; now there have to be two universes, each with an intelligent species, and you start all over again with where did it come from.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Whether it's just us or there are other intelligent species in this universe is irrelevant. It's just whether or not intelligent life exists. Whether they exist elsewhere now or come later. The fact is life as we know it can only exist in a universe where the values of the laws are as they are here. Change them and you've got nothing. You've either got no clumps of matter at all or no universe at all. Suns and planets and life are only possible with a very particular/delicate balance between the two other possibilities.

                The 'nth iteration/recycling universe' example is one and the same as the multiverse scenario. Whether they exist at the same time or one after another, it's still a postulation that attempts to explain the exactness of the natural laws.

                In either case you're still just left with the same two options.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Melissa is right, but saying if god didn't do it it wouldn't have worked just is not proof of anything.

          I might point out as well, that IF life develops naturally, by whatever wild coincidence is necessary, that it is likely to produce the very argument you are, whether there is a god or not. 

          Be that as it may, however, all such arguments are based somehow on the idea that we are important; that the universe was created for us.  That without us the universe would be nothing.  Not true.  Mankind is the smallest thing imaginable to the universe; not equivalent to a single hydrogen atom in the whole of earth.  That man developed, with all his vaunted intelligence, means exactly nothing to the universe.  That 4 Hydrogen atoms can be compressed into 2 Helium atoms is incredibly more important than that an insignificant speck of matter in an insignificant solar system in an insignificant galaxy in an insignificant cluster of galaxies in an insignificant super cluster of galaxies on an insignificant galactic string has intelligent life.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Importance has nothing to do with how much space we take up or whether or not we're in the middle. We are important because we are significant/unique. We are significant, not because of intelligence, but because of free will. Unlike anything else in all the known universe, our behavior is not dictated by the natural laws. Our physical bodies, yes. We can't jump and defy gravity. But matter behaves in very consistent ways. So consistent, in fact, that we can mathematically reconstruct the history of the universe. But according to the bible, God created us with free will. The whole theme of the bible is about how humans behave contrary to the will of our creator. If we do truly make our own decisions, if our behavior, as well as the behavior of the entirety of human history, was deliberate willful choice and not simply determined by the matter our brains are made of, then we are significant. No matter how insignificant we may seem space or time wise. If we are not, then we are nothing more than biological machines, passively observing everything we do under the illusion that we can control it.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well, perhaps that's the biggest disagreement we will have.  Mankind just is not significant at all.  Man is no more unique than any other animal or plant - every one has some attribute that is unique to that species.  Most have as much free will as man does. 

              And you're right - we're nothing more than biological machines, chemical factories that can reproduce themselves.  The universe was not formed around humanity; mankind was formed to fit into what the local universe offered in the way of environment.  Just as every other plant and animal was.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                See, this is what really bothers me with this whole materialist movement thing. To fit the entirety of existence into a material box means robbing humanity of actually being human. It means that none of us can actually control our behavior. That the entirety of human history was simply determined by the behavior of matter and we are merely passive observers who have never actually had any control. It means that not only is our freedom of choice an illusion, but so is everything we think we care about. Everything from the people we love and care for to our favorite color is nothing more than sensations and inklings determined by chemical happenings. That we as humans are totally insignificant, that we simply cease to be at death, and that the entirety of our time here, no matter what we accomplish, is the equivalent of a burp in a ripple of causation. All of this just to boil everything down to being strictly material, even though each of us experience a mind that in itself doesn't fit in that material box.

                I disagree. I argue that we are different. And it's not just reason and logic that makes us different. Humans have had that for a long time, but only recently changed behaviorally. We humans used to live and behave much like many mammalian species in the animal kingdom. No matter where you go a horse is a horse and a cow is a cow. And for tens of thousands of years a human was a human. Behavior wise, humans were indistinguishable all around the world. Then came a change. Within the same species and without any discernible change to the physical brain we completely changed how we behave. Where before humans lived in harmony with nature, from this point forward we actively began to try to control it. And though we are clearly mammals in every physical sense, its at this point that we more began to exhibit the behaviors of parasites than mammals. We wipe out resources and then move on and wipe out more. I think there's a reason why we instinctively discern between what is 'natural' and what is 'man-made'. We're not natural. We're an anomaly. Physically we are natural. We're mammals of the homo genus. But behavior wise, we're unlike anything else.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Interesting that you know humans used reason and logic 50,000 years ago. What evidence do you have of this? Also - I am interested to see the physical evidence you have that our brains did not change - where did you find 50,000 year old intact brains to be making this claim? I suspect there are many scientists that will be interested in the evidence you have uncovered. How many intact brains have you discovered and why have you not shared this finding with the world at large?

                  I suggest you do some more research into animal behavior before making these wild, unsupported claims. Army ants work very similarly to humans. They move to an area, use up the resources they can use and move on to another area.

                  Populations explode and recede due to over use of the resources they thrive on all the time. When the resource runs out, the population recedes. We have simply not reached that point yet, because we are technologically developed, extremely mobile and capable of utilizing a wide range of resources. We will do. wink

                  No matter how verbose you become, you are making exactly the same unsupported claim that our OP was making.

                  It is clever and I don't understand it, therefore goddunit. sad

                  Your mind fits in a material box. Try switching off the oxygen supply and see what happens. wink

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm using the same information available to everybody. The ancestors of the Aborigines migrated out of the African continent earlier than 50,000 years ago, and they're capable of logic and reason. Plus, that's around the time that our tool making got much more intricate, exhibiting progressions in their ability to use logic.

                    We reached anatomical modernity around 200,000 years ago based on the fact that the brain cavity in our skulls have not changed in size or shape in that time. Plus, if there were a structural change to the physical brain then there'd now be a structural difference between our brains and those of Aborigines. There isn't.

                    Ants are insects, not mammals.

                    "We have simply not reached that point yet, because we are technologically developed, extremely mobile and capable of utilizing a wide range of resources."

                    So, in other words, humans are different.

                    As for the mind fitting in a material box, do you mean to tell me we could put George R.R. Martin through a CAT scan or whatever else and I can finally find out how Game of Thrones ends? Because if you ask him he already knows how the rest of the story goes. So it's in there somewhere, yet a scan of his brain and a scan of mine would look the same, yet I have no idea how the story will end.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It is true that our use of environment is accelerating.  That is a natural result of a growing knowledge base; a base that feeds on itself to produce more knowledge.  But it has nothing to do with being special or having the universe designed for us.

                  It's nice to think we ARE special, that we have control.  It just doesn't have much basis in reality.  If another dinosaur killer comes next week, do you think we can control it?  The Andromeda galaxy is heading for a collision course with ours; do you think we can control that?  We can't even control a simple tornado or volcano, let alone the forces of the universe!

                  As far as being unlink anything else - unlike the locust horde that strips the land bare?  The ant colonies that, when moving, does the same?  The jellyfish horde that is overrunning Japan and will ruin their fisheries? 

                  All species taken whatever they can and expand as far as possible.  We're just a little more efficient at it than most are, that's all.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That "growing knowledge base" in itself is something that sets us apart. That alone makes us special in comparison. We're borrowing on something nature employs, only we came up with it long before we realized nature used it. Something we came up with using our intelligence is employed 'naturally' to allow for accumulative complexity.

                    The fact that that dinosaur killer came and removed the dominate species at the time off the planet, which made way for our little rodent-like ancestors at the time, who somehow survived this, to then take the reigns as mammals became the dominant species, in itself suggests we're special. We were made by a very particular series of events, that dinosaur killer being one of them. Yes, we are limited by our physical bodies, but our non-physical minds are free of such restraints and it reflects in our behavior. All of this made possible by in-numerous events just like that dinosaur killer, climate changes, etc.

                    Notice how you have to look to insects to find behaviors that are similar. That wasn't always the case. Human behavior for tens of thousands of years was very much like other mammals. Then we changed. Even indigenous cultures still in existence today don't behave that way. They don't eat up resources like we 'civilized' humans do. We even treated indigenous humans as if they were somehow less than we are all throughout history, though we're physically and genetically identical. Indigenous humans are simply more content than we are and don't feel the need to take more than necessary. The change that sets us apart can be seen in the evidence to have happened in a very specific time and place and spread from there.

                3. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What you're saying is that you simply reject what science has to say about the world around us because you simply don't want to accept it, thus you must distort what science says by stating things like "robbing humanity of actually being human and our freedom of choice an illusion, but so is everything we think we care about" which is all pure baloney. And, it is obvious to anyone that you reject what science says because of your religious beliefs.



                  Again, that is all pure baloney based on the fact you want to reject what science says about the world around us because of your religious beliefs.

                  You are totally dishonest about all of it.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I haven't rejected anything science has to say. My statements are firmly grounded in science. I'm not rejecting science, I'm using it. Explain how what I said about materialism robbing us of being human is wrong. Explain how we really can be in control of our actions if our actions are determined by the physical matter our brains are made of. Matter only behaves as it behaves. Having free will would mean we can willfully change how matter behaves. How's that possible?

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              We are under that illusion and there is no reason to think other animals are also under the same illusion. Give me one example of something humans do that go against nature that an other animal does not.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We make chemicals and materials that don't break down naturally. Our actions have an impact on the ozone layer. We don't usually find 10,000 year old ruins of beaver damns. We're the only species to this date that's been to space, that we know of. We have a rover on Mars. Meanwhile, primates went from getting ants using a stick thousands and thousands of years ago to getting ants with a stick.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The first animals sent into space were fruit flies aboard a U.S.-launched V-2 rocket on February 20, 1947. Albert II, a Rhesus Monkey, became the first monkey in space on June 14, 1949. Numerous monkeys of several species were flown by the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s.

                  Sure we are smarter, but so what we are week. that was the evolutionary trade of for us having a complex brain, Some whales however have bigger and more complex brains that can understand it own version of sonar. We can't do that so they are special. Didn't you see or read the Hitchhikers guide to the universe?

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, I have read Hitchhiker's Guide. That's why I always make sure I have a towel and that's how I know the answer to everything is 42.

                    I just recently saw a special about a blind man who is able to use his own form of sonar to get around by making clicking noises with his mouth to locate objects.

        3. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The basic point is this...

          If your God created this universe for us we would be in the centre of it as was described in every holy book. We are not. We are not even in the centre of your own galaxy.

          If your God created this universe for us we would have special privileges here on earth, which we do not.

          If your God created this universe for us there would be no reason to not reveal himself, he does not.

          If your God created this universe for us and wrote the bible as instructions for us prayer would work. It does not.

          The fact that we are here is not evidence of any God, just as we as individuals are here or not is not evidence of any God because if we were not here someone may be here in our place.

    3. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Anything really. There is no proof of an intelligent creator. There are people such as yourself who need there to be one and therefore claim there is proof. But this is simply a lie and the reason why your religion causes so many fights. If there was proof - you would not be fighting and arguing and pleading as you do. Please, please, please!, see that there is a god because trees grow/birds fly/humans is clever. lol lol lol

      I have proof that there is no god, because humans evolved naturally - prove me wrong. wink

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No pleading. Just pointing out the logical fallacies that are hampering the discussion. If a Christian were hampering the discussion by refusing to accept evolution based on the reasoning that crock-o-ducks don't exist I'd do the same thing.

        You don't have proof that there is no god based on humans evolving naturally. Because humans did evolve naturally who/whatever first set the laws and who/whatever 'caused' or created matter and energy is who/what is responsible for humans being here. But because you nor no one else can say who/what caused the laws or the matter/energy you cannot make that statement. Humans evolving naturally means the cause is, by definition, super-natural.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is not a logical fallacy.  By definition huh?  lol

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Humans evolving naturally means the cause is, by definition, natural.
          That's better...

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The 'cause', because we evolved naturally, isn't attributed to anything other than natural happenings from the onset of the universe forward. The series of events, the environment, 'caused' humans to evolve. So, the 'cause' is whatever set all of that into motion. The fundamental laws and all the matter/energy in the universe was in the form of a singularity at the beginning. We do not know what caused that. However, because everything 'natural' is what came from that singularity forward, whatever 'caused' that singularity is, by definition, super-natural.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Interesting - you have some evidence that there was a point where this singularity did not exist?

              Prove it.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Whether the singularity existed before that point or not doesn't matter. If a previous universe collapsed down into that singularity, same thing. What we call 'natural' is everything that came from that singularity forward. So, whatever came before, whatever caused that singularity to be there, is 'super-natural' and beyond the scope of the physical sciences.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  There was no "before" as I understand the physics. You are the one claiming some body created the singularity. Some body super natural . Prove it.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You're right, 'before' is a poor choice of words. Being that we too are products of this universe, our thinking and even our language is hopelessly tethered to the concepts of time and space.

                    I didn't say "some body". I just said that whatever caused it is, by definition, super-natural. That could be another universe that collapsed, that could be some sort of multi-verse mechanism that spawns universes like flowers budding on a bush. Doesn't have to be "some body".

        3. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "You don't have proof that there is no god based on humans evolving naturally" and therefore a god did it?  Doesn't work that way...

          "Because humans did evolve naturally who/whatever first set the laws and who/whatever 'caused' or created matter and energy is who/what is responsible for humans being here"  But if there was no cause?  Nothing set it in motion?  Again, saying there was a cause and the cause has to be god just doesn't follow.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Understand, I'm not saying 'therefore God did it'. I'm simply pointing out how/why the statements being made here are false. As for the 'cause' of the singularity, nobody is claiming there wasn't a cause. That's why we postulate things like a multiverse scenario. That's what science is, trying to determine what caused this to be this way. The same thing applies to the singularity. And, to be clear, I'm simply pointing out that whatever that cause was, it was 'super-natural'. I don't mean that to be one and the same as God. I'm just pointing out that all that is 'natural' is the result of what came of that big bang. Unless that singularity just existed infinitely, yet 13.7 billion years ago inflated, then it doesn't make sense for there to be no cause. Something set it in motion to change it's state. Even if the singularity itself was infinite and had no cause, the expansion/inflation does. Otherwise, how do we explain an infinitely existing singularity changing without cause?

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, that is exactly what you're saying. We all know that, so don't even attempt to deny it.

      2. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You know...

        The truth is that NONE of us knows anything. We are as presumptive in our lack of faith and religion as are those invested in faith and religion.

        We have no proof of the existence of OR the non-existence of anything that might be described---to use our words or language as a divinity.

        Intellectual conceit makes some of us sure we are right, but at the end of the day, we just do not and (and at least at this point) cannot know.

        Admit it and move on.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry - please take the trouble to understand who I am replying to before jumping in. Thanks. wink

          You seem to be saying that a belief in a majikal super being is the same as not believing because there is no evidence either way therefore it is just as likely - no need to apply reason or anything like that.

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So, prove your position. Prove there was no "creator"...wink

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Couldn't be bothered huh? The only time I make that claim is to people who say - "there is a creator, prove there wasn't."

              Lazy. sad

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                For the record: I am neither religious nor a creationist.

                That said, proving a counter-factual is impossible. Proving, for example, that you do not have something or that something does not exist is not possible. And, neither is proving something to exist for which there is no extant evidence.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  And?

  10. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago

    Center = important/significant is your own thing. And the bible doesn't say anything about us being at the center.




    Like dominance in the animal kingdom? Reason? Free will? We as a single race dominate every inhabitable corner of this planet and we dictate what happens on it as if it belongs to us.



    Not true. I can think of a reason. We have free will. Faith and belief without seeing is choosing and acknowledging Him as God willfully. By our own choice.



    It does work. Prayer is how I met my wife. Prayer is what led me to my current career.



    Each of us as individuals are here because two people with free will chose to (whether deliberately or not) mate. But we as an intelligent/self-aware/reasoning/free-willed species being a product of this one universe, the most likely cause of us being here is a deliberate/intelligent creator.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Go ahead and lock yourself in a cage, naked, with a grizzly bear. Show him who's boss.

  11. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago

    If you'll recall the Egyptians were part of the story as well. As were the Sumerians, which is where Abraham's father was from. This was all going on in a populated world. This being true of ancient Egypt as well only solidifies it further as they were around during that time too. They're a direct result of the events described, as are the Sumerians, as are those in the Indus Valley, and the Hittites and the Canaanites.



    I have a whole hub detailing how they do. Do I seem to you to be someone who would just make a statement like that without being able to back it up in extreme detail? This story was obviously written in a way in which humans could grasp and understand, and the events they describe accurately match what it would have looked like from a human perspective. Beginning with an accurate description of the state of the Earth during the Archaeon eon in the 2nd verse and continuing on from there.



    Just think about that for a minute. Our brains are made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe, right? Or, as Sagan once put it, "we're made of star stuff". What about the matter that our brain is made of makes it exempt from being dictated by the natural laws unlike anything else? The brain does its thing, it remembers past events, considers options, imagines potential outcomes, weighs pros/cons, then decides a course of action. In that moment of deciding between competing options, if it were truly possible that you could have chosen any differently than you did in any given moment would in itself be a violation of natural law. Matter's behavior is so consistent that we can reconstruct the formation of the universe. Unless there is a non-physical/spiritual aspect of the self, a soul, willful choice would be a violation of natural law.



    This right here is exactly what I mean about free will being underappreciated or misunderstood. Think about it like this. God exists apart from the universe if He created it. Which means He exists apart from space-time. There's no span of time between the beginning and the end. There's just what exists and what doesn't. If everything behaves according to God's will then everything plays out just one way along the one timeline. He sees and knows all. Now, if you then take that same universe and introduce free will at a specific place along that timeline, it changes how things play out. Because these behaviors are not dictated by His will, by design, then He cannot account for it until He introduces it and sees how it plays out. All at once because time is irrelevant. So then He makes tweaks at particular points to account for it. In the case of Abraham's test, God wouldn't know because the situation that made Abraham make a decision wouldn't have existed if God didn't create that situation. Without the situation existing within the timeline then Abraham's decision wouldn't have existed. Therefore God wouldn't know. So He created a situation that then made Abraham make that decision. Then it existed. Then He knew.

    This does not diminish God. This stresses the power of free will, which is what He intended to make. He willed it to be and it is exactly what it's supposed to be.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "Matter's behavior is so consistent that we can reconstruct the formation of the universe" 

      But we cannot predict where an electron will be or where it came from.  We cannot predict when a subatomic particle will pop into existence (without cause) or when it will disappear once more.  And no, we most definitely cannot reconstruct the formation of the universe; the best we can do is make some educated guesses at what happened immediately after the big bang.  General guesses, not specific ones.

      And all that's a good thing - if physical laws were as you say there could be no free will at all.  Perhaps that's why God can't read the future either - it actually hasn't happened and follows no rules when it does.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        From our perspective the future hasn't happened, and because we're the ones actually making the decisions, that's all that matters. But to God's perspective, there is only one timeline and things can only play out one way. You may have the free will to choose however you like in any given moment, but that moment only happens once and that decision is then set in stone. The only exceptions to this are those I pointed out in the biblical stories where God, existing outside of this environment, made a change. That alters the timeline that would have been. God can and does see the future because everything that plays into the decisions you and I make is all still part of the same timeline so it still only plays out that way. For God to get involved is to change it again.

        Our reconstruction of the universe goes well beyond that. We can understand how matter first formed. We can create models that result in the formation of stars and planets and atmospheres and such that matches up with what we see. This is why people like Hawking look at all we now understand and make statements about how no God is required.

        What you speak of in quantum physics is the uncertainty principle I referred to earlier. Like in the case of electrons, because as an observer we cannot simultaneously calculate the location and rate of speed of an electron we are unable to predict where it will be. But these happenings at the subatomic level do nothing to resolve the free will/determinism debate. Willful intent and it's ability to willfully determine the behavior of matter is well beyond simply not being able to predict the location of an electron. Even with all that's going on sub-atomically, there's nothing there to even suggest that matter can at some point take a form that allows it to make conscious/willful decisions. At best this would open the possibility of a random choice, versus pure determination. But not a willful choice.

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It appears to me that you are understanding the concept of free will in a way that enables your belief. I'm not sure if that makes sense as MY written language is clunky at best and doesn't adequately reflect what my mind is thinking=D First of all free will is an illusion as I've said before. All mammals do things they shouldn't. Chimps sometimes murder other chimps in there own group. Dogs bite their owners, cats attack for no reason. Humans just sometimes do stuff on a much bigger scale. Humans are no different then any of animal when it comes to nature. We even have parasites that only attack humans. A polar bear will eat us like they were pulling a seal from the ice. They don't see us as anything other than soft on the outside and crunchy on the inside.

      But the reason I jumped in here is because you mention God watching this unfold from outside our universe in a place without time and mentioned him adjusting things to see how they played out. Sounds kinda like a Star Trek episode if you ask me, but you must have given him the power to be outside our universe and inside so he can watch and communicate with us, as that requires time. But if he was in a place outside time aside from the fact that he would have no time to watch us let alone create the universe. If he could still manage to watch us go through time would know instantly the outcome of our actions as he would see the future and the past all at once. He would know he was about to test Abraham, know what Abraham would say (as he would be looking at the future) and instantly know how all of this would play out, which completely negates free will. Rather than trying to fit the concepts of space-time and free will into the story, why not try to understand the concepts and see if the story would be possible.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There's a big difference between instinctual behavior and behavior through reason. It's like the difference between unintended manslaughter where the result of death was not deliberately intended versus a murder that was premeditated/calculated and carried out knowingly and deliberately. Dog/cat bites and attacks, chimps killing chimps, even human attacking parasites, these are simply living things doing what they've been preconditioned to do to survive. They have defensive mechanisms and instincts and inherited behavior that can arise in what we may assess to be inappropriate ways that are still very much 'natural'. Life feeds on life, and we, being products of this very same well that all life sprang up from, we are not immune to this. Many humans have been food for many an animal and there will be many more.

        You're right, being apart from time means God knows all past/present/future. But He only knows what actually happened along that timeline. This is what I find so interesting about the story it tells. There's really only a couple of places where He had to account for something as if He didn't see it coming. And both come right after an alteration. The first being the introduction of free will, the other being the test scenario God created for Abraham. These two events altered what would have happened otherwise in that timeline. You and me, though we have free will too, there's nothing that impacts our lives that isn't also part of the same timeline, so our actions don't change and there are no surprises. But to you and me, being the ones actually making the decisions, and being that we do actually exist in the moment that we made the decisions, the future is not set. It all has to do with who the observer/decider is, and whether or not the one making the decisions and choosing the actions exist within time or not. God seeing past/present/future all at once does nothing to diminish free will because He is not the one making the decisions or choosing the actions.

        A Star Trek episode is a good comparison. For example, if the situation that caused Abraham to make that decision didn't exist, then looking to the future doesn't matter because the decision was never made, so it doesn't exist in that future. Only when God intervened and created the situation that then made Abraham make that decision would that decision then exist in the future so that God could see it. God, existing outside of the timeline, yet intervening and changing the course of events, changed the future. It caused Abraham to make a choice that he never would have had to make otherwise.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Again, even if we assume anything could exist and get anything done without time, the moment (time) he knows he will ask the question (which he must have always know he would ask) is the moment he would see the results.

          It just doesn't work.

          As for us the only species which plans, that's not true at all. I'd like to have time to show you all or even some of the studies done on other species and how they plan. Got no time.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That's not true because it's still up to Abraham to make that decision. If it were God's decision, then yes. But the scenario actually had to play out, within time, with Abraham doing His part. Once that situation exists, so does Abraham's decision. Then God can 'immediately' know. But for that to happen Abraham has to contribute his part. His making of that decision once the scenario existed that required it must happen for God to then know what it would be. Without Abraham having made that decision in that scenario, the ability to see the future wouldn't matter because neither the scenario nor the decision would exist.

            And I don't mean for my manslaughter/first degree murder comparison to muddy the waters. The brain evolved to be able to plan. To weigh risk versus reward. That sort of thing. So just 'planning' in and of itself isn't the key. It's not strange, in the scenario I'm presenting, for animals to share the same behaviors because the same capabilities that evolved in us evolved through them via our common ancestors, at least to some degree. What makes us distinct is our higher evolved capabilities. The end result is the true key. Our higher capacity for realizing what we will to happen comes through a more capable and more evolved brain. Our self-awareness and our ability to scale our decisions with that self-awareness and realization of eventual death and our need to ensure a future for ourselves. It takes us well outside of the realm of what's possible in the rest of the animal kingdom and the results can be seen in the world we live in. It's the 'knowledge of good and evil'. It's no longer instinctual brain function, but the willful carrying out of deliberate actions based on our self-aware assessment and choosing actions based on individual need/want.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              All our big brain has given us is the illusion of free will. And ours is not the biggest or most complex brain.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It's also given us the ability to understand and then manipulate the natural world unlike any other creature. We create materials that don't exist naturally, like plastic. We've altered the landscape considerably. The dark side of the Earth is lit up, visible from space, and that's our doing. We create rovers and put them on other planets unlike any other species. We are capable of, and actually do things, that are decidedly un-natural when compared to the rest of the natural world. Yes, other animals may have bigger brains, but we're the one species where 90% of our brain mass is made up of a neocortex, and that difference alone is infinitely significant, and the results reflect.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, evolution is remarkable.

  12. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago

    Clearly you're not paying attention, probably because you have absolutely no respect for me because of my beliefs.



    Uh-huh, yet no explanation for the 'cause' of the natural laws, yet they are what shaped the natural world. Therefore, whatever 'caused' the natural laws, and matter, created everything. Do you see the problem? You're injecting opinion and personal leanings as if it were fact.



    Well that's good to know. Sorry if I misspoke.



    Based on what exactly?

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It doesn't take much to see you inject your God into it.

      And yes, you are correct for once, I don't respect your beliefs at all.



      No, you are injecting your God. Pay attention.



      Reality, of course.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Based on that same reality I argue that the evidence strongly suggests it to be the product of deliberate intent by an intelligent creator. That given what is observable, deliberate intent is the more likely answer. Not an injection, but a logical conclusion.

        Can you demonstrate that my conclusion isn't valid? Can you demonstrate that your statement that "a creator isn't valid" is factual, based on reality, and not just your admittedly biased opinion/belief?

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sure, we've done this a few times now but, Steven Hawking said it best, "before time, God wouldn't have had the time to create the universe." It takes time to get anything done. Sure, you will argue that God is outside our universe and therefore time doesn't apply to him, however we have time inside the universe and we know no time existed before the universe.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, we don't know that. We don't know anything about what came "before" this universe. We just know that time as we perceive it only exists in this universe. That doesn't mean time does or does not exist apart from it.

            However time only really matters in the material world because everything physical is impacted by it. We cannot fathom anything else because that's all we've ever experienced. All we do know is that at the beginning, through whatever means, there was a singularity. And for that physical singularity to change states requires time. And time as we know it began when the change of state in that singularity first began. So there must be something that resulted in that singularity being there and there must be something that set it in motion. What, however, is beyond our scope.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              While I don't think Rad man's comment that God had to have time to make the universe, I don't think you've got it right, either.

              Being outside time, in another place without it, does not mean that nothing got done.  It means that time wasn't necessary for anything to happen and thus God did not need time to make our universe.  He could make it at the same "time" He made the universe.

              But to say that a singularity outside our universe required time to change states is equally invalid as is proclaiming that there had to be a cause for that change of state.  It did not exist in our universe, and was not subject to the laws of our universe; there is no way of knowing what laws (if any) that singularity existed within.  You cannot declare it needed time OR a cause simply because everything we know now does (and even that is untrue).

              The Big Bang (change in state of the singularity) does not prove Goddunnit and neither does it it show that God did not dunnit.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's the one thing we do know. You're right, we don't know the environment or the rules/laws that govern it, if any. But we do know that singularity is the origin of the physical world, made of physical stuff, and the rules still apply to it. The changes in state described by the big bang require time from the first instant.

                Now that doesn't mean time HAD to exist apart from it. That just means that whatever set it in motion was something apart from it as time as we perceive it didn't begin until it did. We don't know anything beyond the singularity, but we do know the rules still apply to that singularity because that's physical matter.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  We know that matter goes into a black hole, but haven't a clue as to what happens to it then.  Change to energy?  Remain matter?  Enter another universe?  We don't know and cannot say that the rules of our universe apply to a singularity, particularly that first singularity.

              2. 0
                mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Exactly.

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              We do know that sub-atomic particles pop in and out of existence with any apparent cause. So we do know that not all things have a cause and that the universe could have popped into existence without a cause. Meaning no God or cause required (it could have happened without a God or a cause). Look at all the abilities one has to give his God to be able to have created the universe, they are in fact more mind boggling then the universe itself.

              "beyond our scope" and yet you seem to know how it started because you inject God into what you feel is beyond our scope.

              Nietzsche said it best when he said "Gott ist tot". We just need to morn and move on and learn how to life life without him.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's not entirely accurate. Assuming you're referring to 'virtual particles', these are states that exhibit characteristics of normal particles, but only 'exist' for a short time. However, this doesn't just happen without cause. These are transient states that arise in interactions between normal particles. The key here is that while they exist in this 'virtual particle' state, they still interact and have an impact, so they must be accounted for. But that doesn't mean they just pop in and out of existence without cause.

                God or no God, the answer is going to be fantastical. It's not that we're having to assign more and more complex abilities to God, it's that the universe itself is indeed that strange. Our understanding changes as we learn. That doesn't change God, only our grasp of Him. If God exists then He's constant. But our understanding constantly changes. That has nothing to do with God or the universe. That's just our perception.

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Exactly. There is more to the behavior of particles than coming/going from nothing; some of the particles are theoretical and their behavior equally theoretical. And, as you note, the universe is a strange and complex place.

                  God existing/not existing is---even for many (perhaps most) physicists and  cosmologists an "if"; a theory; an explanation.

                  And whether or not there is a god is not important and changes nothing. Science is either an explanation of what god is doing or an explanation of what non-god "stuff" is doing.

                  As for Nietzsche: He was not god either. He was not the alpha and the omega or all-knowing.

                  Einstein believed in god. Max  Plank believed in god. Richard Feynman and Carl Sagan believed in god. Many scientists believe in god; many do not.

                  The bottom-line for atheists and non-atheists alike: "Where evidence is lacking, concrete proof cannot be attained. Thus -- at this time -- we cannot conclude that God exists, but we also cannot conclude that God does not."

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Exactly right. I totally agree.

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well I guess you are more informed than Steven Hawking.


                  Remember when it was thought the universe was a few thousand years old?
                  Who old is it now?

                  Remember when it was thought the stars were the heavens?
                  Where is the heavens now?

                  Do you still think Jesus rose to the heavens (stars) and exist somewhere body in tact?

                  Seems to me you've got to change the bible and it's translations as well God's abilities to keep up with science.

                  1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Somewhere out in space, a bloated human carcass floats gently towards a distant star...

                  2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Can you show me where Hawking said something that contradicts what I said? Because everything I've read is consistent with my statement, and nothing I've read supports yours.

                    Everything you're speaking of is human perception. It's no surprise it changes as we learn more. Nothing strange there.

                  3. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The points you are making, in terms of the existence of God, are ridiculous. The existence of a god does NOT require that Christian doctrine is true. Nor does it require that the Bible is literally true.

                    Problem #1: You want to conflate the existence of God with religion.

                    Problem #2: You want to equate the existence of God with Christian theology and modern Christian religious thought.

                    What you are doing when you pit science against religion---which you think proves that there is no God, is arguing that the claims of the Bible and of some religious sects counter scientific fact. This proves nothing about whether or not in an infinite universe God exists. It simply proves that some theology and some religious texts got it wrong in terms of what science now knows about the workings of the universe.

                    Do you not understand at all that it is possible to believe in God and subscribe to NO religion? Do you not understand that not all religions are Jesus-based or Bible-based?

            3. 0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Physicist Simon Singh says it best when he suggests that the instant before the "Big Bang" (in which he firmly believes) is an instant---at least at this point and in this time, for St. Augustine.

        2. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          As for Hawking, he has also written a book (a magnum opus of sorts) which he titles "God Created the Integers". In this book he argues that if one cannot determine the "causes" of X, then one is prone to---as have many scientists and mathematicians claim that "God did it".

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I get that and I agree. It's not a 'natural' conclusion for intelligent beings to assume an unintelligent cause. It takes a lot of 'finagling' to convince ourselves of that. When we see order and structure we're prone to lean towards deliberate/intelligent intent and not just pure 'unintended' causation.

            What we're 'prone' to do is the product of a naturally evolved brain whose origin is the same as the universe. Whatever this mind is, and whatever it is 'prone' to do, came about without us having anything to do with it. We just came along later and started trying to assign labels and definitions to everything. Doesn't mean its wrong or totally off-base. After all, what our minds are 'prone' to do got us here in the first place.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But we don't see order and structure.  Not in the cosmic sense and on a cosmic time scale.

              Compress the next billion years into a 30 second detailed video of our solar system and THEN try and claim it has order and structure at this point.  Or watch as Andromeda collides with the Milky Way and find the "order" in THAT!

              We perceive it because we want to.  We disregard the thousands of meteors that strike this planet every year because they don't "fit" within our demand for order.  We disregard the very movements of the earth under our feet because it doesn't fit.  We conveniently ignore the changes in our own DNA, commenting that we are static and not evolving.  We FORCE order where there is little to none.

              Giving us an excuse to declare that an intelligence was necessary.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It's hard to look at the universe and not see order. If you consider the universe is 13.7 billion years old and that the earth is 4.54 billion years old, that means that this solar system and this planet have sustained for over 1/3 of the time that the universe has existed. Though it has 'settled' into its current state, this planet has remained inhabitable for 4 billion years because of the order. Something doesn't last a 1/3 of the time of the entirety of the universe has existed and not have order. The universe in itself recycles itself. The natural world on this planet recycles itself. Land recycles. Air. Water. Even the cycle of life is order.

                Einstein sited the order he saw in the cosmos as his reason for believing intelligence was involved in the formation of the universe.

                1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
                  sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well done, Mr.HeadlyvonNoggin, your arguments are convincing and reasonable but it is very difficult for atheists to appreciate the same as they have very strong belief in absence of God and even most of them rule out the possibility of a creator,they feel convinced for believing in the'' magical universe'' and declare the same as the'' logical'', they are reluctant in discovering the limitations of the reason and are interested in ''capturing'' and'' killing'' their ''god ''by their'' cruel logic'',it is more interesting that they declare all arguments for God as ''nonsense'' and pose themselves as the most ''scientific'' ,'' rational'' and'' logical.'', they destroy the disciplined,ordering and balanced universe with a single stroke of the arguments and they discord the great systems of laws, information and intelligence and translation present in the universe , human brain and genetic code, they close their eyes from all great evidences and signs of God and then suppose that there is no creator and evolution and nature is sufficient to explain universe.They have right and freedom to close their eyes and we have right and freedom to have opened our eyes.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I agree. I think much in the same way religious beliefs can make otherwise completely rational people irrational, the same holds true on the other side of the fence. There are a lot of perfectly reasonable/rational people who have been led astray by misinformation and misunderstanding. And, much in the same way people of faith can have a misguided sense of entitlement in 'knowing their right', rendering themselves incapable of accepting what seems obvious to most everyone else if it conflicts with what they think they know, the same holds true the other way. Once you're convinced you're right, or the other is wrong, it's hard to see things clearly.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No, they're not, they are as silly and ridiculous as yours.



                    That is false, there is no evidence or signs for any gods. Evolution explains all life on earth and no creator was required.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "Though it has 'settled' into its current state, this planet has remained inhabitable for 4 billion years because of the order" 

                  Yet life has been virtually wiped out several times from disorder.  Disorder that varies from the dozens of falling stars we see each night only by size. 

                  And no, most of the universe does not recycle.  Earth does, although only of it's own material, but Mars is long since dead.  A death that earth will follow one day and all recycling will cease.  Only then will you find even a temporary order, only on earth and only until the sun swallows it.

                  You only see order because of the extreme limits you set on the time allowed.  Yes, the earth has been around for 4 billion years, very few of which showed the universe the face it shows now.  From a molten ball of lava to a snowball and everything in between, disorder has changed the face of our planet many, many times in it's short lifespan.

                  Nor will you look at the disorder of small things in short times.  The massive disorder of molecules bouncing around to ants running through their nest, bouncing off each other.  Open up, Headly, and look around you.  Any order you see is illusory and fleeting; everything is disorder on a scale you can hardly imagine.

                  1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    wilderness,you really believe that universe is working without systems, laws and balance,just randomly,in the present scientific age? you have no belief in the laws of gravitation,the laws of definite compositions,laws of conservation of energy and matter etc,and according to you universe is working in a magical fashion without systems of laws,if so,then what is blind faith ?

                  2. sibtain bukhari profile image61
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    wilderness, Order may be discovered from disorder? if an infinite system of universe is maintaining itself without collapsing by the conflict of stars and planets,it would mean it is working in order and balance and what examples you mentioned are necessary to support this order,your point of view may be accepted when universe had been random collection of masses,planets and stars were colliding with each other and nothing was possible to be maintained, therefore, I say ,by such type of arguments from atheists ,that they first close their eyes from infinite system of universe and life and then say '',they can never see God'', ''prove your God'', pl. open yours eyes,you will find your God.

                  3. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "Recent observations have shown how galaxies are able to recycle huge amounts of hydrogen gas and heavy elements within themselves. In a process which begins at initial star formation and lasts for billions of years, galaxies renew their own energy sources." - http://www.universetoday.com/91078/do-g … -material/

                    "The infinite, eternal universe continually recycles energy and mass at both the subatomic and macro-atomic level, thereby destroying and then reassembling atoms, molecules, stars, planets and galaxies (Joseph 2010). Mass, molecules, atoms, protons, electrons, and elementary particles are continually created and destroyed, and matter and energy, including hydrogen atoms, are continually recycled and recreated by super massive black holes and quasars at the center of galaxies, and via infinitely small gravity holes also known as "black holes", "Planck Particles", "Graviton Particles", and "Graviton-holes."" - http://journalofcosmology.com/Cosmology5.html

                    It's not just here on Earth. True, this is ultimately a finite universe and everything will indeed 'play out' eventually. It's a place in constant flux, changing all the time. It's a ripple, essentially, that began 13.7 billion years ago and is simply playing out. But within that ripple of causation arose an environment where life sprang up and evolved into intelligent, self-aware beings made possible by billions of years of stability in this galaxy/solar system. And throughout those billions of years the landscape has changed dramatically. There have been at least six mass extinctions. But it's those mass extinctions, those 'edits' along the way, that eventually 'made' us.

                    Ants bouncing off each other is because they pass pheromones back and forth as a means to communicate. And the way in which molecules bounce around, or bond together and condense, is how things work as they do.

                    But the fact is that both this sun and this earth have existed for as long as stars and planets have existed. They all formed around the same time, roughly 5 billion years ago. And they've been here ever since. You're right in that it seems chaotic and violent at times. Yet it's ultimately this beautiful dance happening in the midst of what's essentially a chaotic explosion.

                    "Einstein was puzzled as to why the universe didn’t cave in on itself. Empty space, he suggested, contained a mysterious energy pushing outward, resisting the universe’s inward collapse. After he published this idea — what came to be known as the cosmological constant — he regretted it. He said it didn’t emerge naturally from his equations; he’d tacked it on like a cheap piece of plywood over a hole in a roof.

                    Einstein eventually denounced the cosmological constant. And that, it turns out, was his big mistake. In the 1990s, physicists discovered dark energy, something very similar to that mythical force." - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/books … l&_r=0

                    Einstein, to balance out his equation, plugged a constant into it only for us to find out decades later that that 'fictitious' constant was real.

                3. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Where exactly do you see order? How do you define that order.



                  That does that mean, "settled"?



                  You're reaching false conclusions. What order?



                  What does that mean, "recycles itself"? How do you defined that? Provide examples?



                  You need to define your terms, explain what you're talking about and provide examples, so far, it is just so much word salad.



                  That is nonsense. Provide the exact quote in which he said that?

  13. amer786 profile image79
    amer786posted 3 years ago

    Well put, sir. Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible", that it works. And its not just basic order, whether you study the sprawling macro-cosmos or the invisible micro-organism, it is a breathtaking orchestra. Reason, sound judgement, rationality, prudence and logic dictate that God is among the possibilities, perhaps even a great one. Obstinate refusals and consideration is almost as if against the human spirit of progress and understanding.

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, exactly!

    2. bBerean profile image61
      bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      +1.  Appropriate, pithy and profound.

  14. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago

    Here are examples I provided in a previous post ...
    "Recent observations have shown how galaxies are able to recycle huge amounts of hydrogen gas and heavy elements within themselves. In a process which begins at initial star formation and lasts for billions of years, galaxies renew their own energy sources." - http://www.universetoday.com/91078/do-g … -material/

    "The infinite, eternal universe continually recycles energy and mass at both the subatomic and macro-atomic level, thereby destroying and then reassembling atoms, molecules, stars, planets and galaxies (Joseph 2010). Mass, molecules, atoms, protons, electrons, and elementary particles are continually created and destroyed, and matter and energy, including hydrogen atoms, are continually recycled and recreated by super massive black holes and quasars at the center of galaxies, and via infinitely small gravity holes also known as "black holes", "Planck Particles", "Graviton Particles", and "Graviton-holes."" - http://journalofcosmology.com/Cosmology5.html




    "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, but this is what Einstein says about gods and creators...

      "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it"

      Obviously, Einstein was referring to folks like you.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Nothing about that quote says anything about a personal God. He made clear that he believed in a God much like Spinoza did. And he also made clear that he saw order in the universe as his reasoning for why Spinoza's idea of God appealed to him.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "I do not believe in a personal God"

          Did I miss something?

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Not ATM's quote, the one I referred to ....

            "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So you just ignored his quote because it doesn't support your view?

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                In this quote Einstein was clearly referring to a very specific kind of God, a personal God. But it's well documented that what I said, and the quote I referred to, is what he believed. The order which he saw in the cosmos was why he believed in an intelligent creator. He saw the idea of a personal God judging morality as being a childish concept, and made that very clear. But he also made clear that he was not an atheist and why. And when he explained why it was because of the order he observed in the universe.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  There is nothing in any of those quotes that says he believes in an intelligent creator.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, you might have to look beyond those two quotes to get a sense of his beliefs....

                    "Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations"

                    "Einstein referred to his belief system as "cosmic religion" and authored an eponymous article on the subject in 1954, which later became his book Ideas and Opinions in 1955.[37] The belief system recognized a "miraculous order which manifests itself in all of nature as well as in the world of ideas," devoid of a personal God who rewards and punishes individuals based on their behavior. It rejected a conflict between science and religion, and held that cosmic religion was necessary for science.[37] He told William Hermanns in an interview that "God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified."" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ … t_Einstein

                2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  There is really no point in quoting Einstein to support your irrational beliefs, it is quite simply, dishonest.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The point is that Einstein stated emphatically that the beliefs of YOUR God were childish and that he did not accept them at all, and that he wanted to make it clear that anyone who used his quotes in regard to God were lying.

  15. amer786 profile image79
    amer786posted 3 years ago

    And the physical order is just one aspect. Think deeply about the 'articulate speech', 'conscience', 'thought-process', 'awareness', 'mind' etc etc.-- these are not convincingly understood as having developed per physical observable evolutionary process.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Of course they are, and humans are not the only mammal to have all these attributes.

      1. amer786 profile image79
        amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        humans not being the only ones to possess the attributes is not the answer. besides which mammals have articulation in speech, highly developed and complex language? which mammals have rich and diverse cultures? which ones have high states of intelligence that they can comprehend science and manipulate the environment to advantage? which ones feel shame and are adverse to nakedness?

        kindly name a few

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          We could start with humanity as the only species stupid enough to think their bodies are shameful and should be covered at all times.  No other animal is anywhere near that foolish.

          1. amer786 profile image79
            amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Wilderness, do we start with you walking the streets naked then? Don't post any pics smile

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Not all humans are ashamed to be naked. It's something that's taught to us.

              1. amer786 profile image79
                amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                If it is mere inculcation, why don't you just disabuse yourself of it? what's holding you back?

                1. BuddiNsense profile image60
                  BuddiNsenseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The same reason that make you hold on to the nonsense that was taught you, I guess.

                  1. amer786 profile image79
                    amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    But I have faith in convictions and follow my beliefs. Where as you, by your own admission, do not. I am clothed, and so are you.

                    I see conviction on one side, and a lack thereof (confusion) on the other.

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The law for one. Every see a child walk around naked? Ever see images of tribes in south America or Africa walking around naked?

                  They seen to not care.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You shall not see me walking the streets naked.  That would be cruel and unusual punishment to any observers.

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                wink

              2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Interestingly enough, if no one wore any clothes other than say fig leaves, for example, everyone would probably maintain their bodies. Obesity would probably not exist. We would all be in excellent shape.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Not me.  Vanity has never been an option - there is nothing to be vain about whether excellent shape or not.

                  1. amer786 profile image79
                    amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Ah! Inhibition! Indeed. I will leave you to reflect upon your inhibitions sir, and how those would have evolved.

                2. amer786 profile image79
                  amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "other than say fig leaves" ?? still holding on to the fig leaves? you need to stand better behind your convictions, if they had merit that is.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I have no idea what you're ranting about.

                3. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You're kidding right? Have you ever seen the bodies (!) of some so-called "naturalists"?

                  Freaking' scary!

              3. amer786 profile image79
                amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                cruel and unusual punishment? why o why? thought it was meant to be the 'au naturale' state

  16. Disappearinghead profile image88
    Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago

    Laws are for little people. People who do not understand how to or refuse to behave in accordance with good conscience in a civilised society, need laws to direct them to live their lives. Laws are also instigated by those who wish to control others for their own personal gain.


    Religious laws are largely man made in order to keep people in line and to instigate fear.

    To live according to good conscience and a duty of care to fellow man; against these there is no law.

  17. mcafultime profile image59
    mcafultimeposted 3 years ago

    I have researched that  scientists are now finding that the universe in which we live is like a diamond studded Rolex, except the universe is even more precisely designed than the watch. In fact, the universe is specifically tweaked to enable life on earth.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Makes one wonder if the bullet and fire ants of Brazil think the Brazilian environment was made specifically for them?

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      While you may have read statements by people saying that, I would suggest you limit your "research" to those that study science, not religious myths.  Because for sure, no scientist worthy of the title will claim the universe has been designed, let alone specifically tweaked to enable life on earth.  Only the massively egocentric religious have ever made such a ridiculous claim.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "The universe appears to have bent over backwards to accommodate life." - Physicist Russell Stannard

        Russell Stannard is a retired high-energy particle physicist, who was born in London, England, on December 24, 1931. He currently holds the position of Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Open University. In 1986, he was awarded the Templeton Prize for ‘significant contributions to the field of spiritual values; in particular for contributions to greater understanding of science and religion’.


        "The Universe knew we were coming." - Physicist Freeman Dyson

        Freeman John Dyson FRS (born December 15, 1923) is a British[4]-American[5] theoretical physicist and mathematician, famous for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering. Dyson is a member of the Board of Sponsors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You quote the statements of a lay preacher as evidence that scientists believe the universe was designed?

          A lay preacher that also says that "It is my contention that one can neither prove nor disprove God's existence on the basis of such reasoning" (that the universe had to be designed to fit life on earth, or mankind) in the same religious tome that has your quote?.  One that apparently swallows the philosophical double talk of the "Anthropic principle" that says the universe is designed because if life were impossible no one would know it?

          This is what your "research" produced as "scientists now conclude the universe is tweaked to allow human life"?

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Lay preacher? For one thing he's a high energy particle physicist who worked at CERN at one point in his career and was involved in some of the most notable breakthroughs in quantum mechanics in recent years. You may disagree with him philosophically, but that's all this is. A philosophical difference.

            If you want to limit your worldview to only what can be determined through the scientific method, that's fine, as long as you recognize it as a philosophical choice and don't make the mistake of thinking your viewpoint is the only rational one. The naturalistic viewpoint of the scientific method, while it is a necessity in the practice of science, it is not a necessity in the formation of your worldview. And the same applies to scientists. In their work they can maintain their naturalistic viewpoint, yet take the information learned to inform their worldview that allows for more than the purely material. You can either think the material world is all there is to reality (Materialism), or you can recognize it as only being applicable to one aspect of reality. And if it's only part of the story, then science can only fill in part of the blanks.

            To not recognize this leads to things like convincing yourself that anyone who reaches different conclusions than you, because they allow for more than the material to be at play, must be delusional. You end up reducing clearly qualified people down to being 'lay preachers'. Which means, according to recent polls, nearly half the scientific community would have to be delusional, as well as half the world's population. Which, of course, is exactly what a vast majority of believers think. So, it's ultimately just a belief that leads to making the same old mistakes of the past. It makes you dismissive of others based on nothing more than a personal bias.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know the man and have never heard of him.  "Lay preacher" came from Wikipedia.  And if you think half the scientists of the world qualify for that terminology you are sadly mistaken.  Very few have written religious texts.

              You are absolutely right that I can limit my worldview to the materialistic.  It is my choice, and one I make because I wish my worldview to coincide with reality, not with some made up imaginary world.  That most definitely limits my view, but it is my choice.

              Nor is it a "wrong" choice somehow; your insinuation that it is inferior to using imagination to define a personal view of reality is, as you say, delusional.  I do agree, however that it makes me dismissive of others based on their use of imagination to define their perception of reality.  I don't swallow it, I don't agree that it is valuable to me (it can be very valuable to the believer, though), and I absolutely will dismiss it out of hand.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                What I meant in regards to nearly half the scientific community is the somewhat recent poll results that show a much higher percentage of the scientific community have spiritual beliefs in one form or another. I wasn't aware of Stannard's book until I went to find out what you were referring to, though I'm definitely going to read it now. And it's nothing more than my own ignorance that took 'lay preacher' to be derogatory, and I apologize for that.

                And I did not intend to come off as saying the materialist viewpoint is inferior. I don't think that. But I do find it common amongst those of the materialist persuasion to look at anything else as inferior. To, as you put it, see everything else as imaginary or fantasy. If science has made anything clear to this point it should be that there's much more going on below the surface that we're only faintly aware of. Just because we've discovered one bag of tools useful in determining what's what doesn't mean it's an all-in-one tool that covers everything. It's just what we have so far. So I see the flippant dismissal of the non-materialist as being a lack of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature. A lack of humility that you'd think history should have taught by now should be avoided. Neither viewpoint is more valid than the other.

                Here's another example of a Christian scientist, Dr. Francis Collins, who's very much reputable and respected in the community. In fact, he's currently the director of the Human Genome Project ... http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collin … l?_s=PM:US

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You're confused. Although Collins make have respect for his work, he certainly has very little respect for his religious beliefs. He is viewed as a hypocrite and his books are considered intellectual suicide.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "In 5,000 pages of transcribed interviews, she said that scientists who view religion as compatible with their professions frequently cited religious scientists as examples of how the two fields can work together. Scientists most often spoke highly of Francis Collins, the physician and geneticist who is the director of the National Institutes of Health. Collins has spoken frequently about being a Christian and a scientist and released a book, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief," on the topic in 2006."

                    "The most religious scientists were, overall, described in positive terms by their nonreligious peers."

                    - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/2 … 74116.html

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Seems to me you brought one of those guys in the past and we established that the awards were given for his preaching and that's pretty much what he's been do for some time using his profession to confuse people into thinking the science establishes something it doesn't. But I could be mistaken.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We have discussed Dr. Stannard in the past, but we definitely didn't establish any of that. There's undoubtedly confusion, but that's not Dr. Stannard's fault. He doesn't claim science establishes anything that it doesn't. He's just one of many examples to illustrate that knowledge or understanding of science in no way has anything to do with belief in spirituality. As this poll illustrates, it more has to do with the individual's views on religion in general, in regards to how narrow or broad they are, and whether or not they see science and religion as being at odds with one another.... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/2 … 74116.html

            3. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Half the scientific community? Where do you get that number? Gallup polls say that less than 5% (including mechanical engineers, computer scientists, etc.) are believers. There is a list of about 700 scientists out of some half-million that are believers, which constitutes about .015%.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                "In the course of her research, Ecklund surveyed nearly 1,700 scientists and interviewed 275 of them. She finds that most of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. Nearly 50 percent of them are religious. Many others are what she calls “spiritual entrepreneurs,” seeking creative ways to work with the tensions between science and faith outside the constraints of traditional religion…..only a small minority are actively hostile to religion. Ecklund reveals how scientists–believers and skeptics alike–are struggling to engage the increasing number of religious students in their classrooms and argues that many scientists are searching for “boundary pioneers” to cross the picket lines separating science and religion."
                - http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inter … loKTH-CWuI

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Did you even read the comments on that page? They are all scathing criticisms of Ecklund and her so-called study. They are calling BS on it.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah, that's weird. A bunch of random people on the internet who didn't like what the results had to say criticized her 'so-called'/'alleged' study.

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "Ecklund did her study at “elite” universities, but if you look at “elite scientists,” i.e., those who have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, the degree of disbelief is even higher: 72% are flat-out atheists and another 21% are doubters or agnostics, with only 7% accepting a personal god. (The NAS data are from an independent study.)

                  What else can one conclude but that American scientists are far more atheistic and agnostic than the American public, and that the more elite the scientist, the weaker the belief in God?"

                  http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com … ing-again/

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That's something else studies like these are concluding. That a big reason why a higher percentage of 'elite' scientists are atheists is because of public perception of science and religion. People who grew up in non-religious homes over the past century or so were more prone to self-elect fields of science, where those who grew up in religious households were less likely. It's a trend that's showing clear signs of turning around as ignorance lessens.

    3. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      lol Sorry, but scientists are saying no such thing.

  18. mcafultime profile image59
    mcafultimeposted 3 years ago

    so I guess scientists will agree that all life on earth and the universe itself with ALL of its PERPLEXITIES had no intelligent designer behind it? So all of the universe happened just by chance?

    Now I understand why after some time has passed junk yards turn into corvettes. Yea...that makes more sense.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Of course, only believers who embrace myths and superstitions believe such nonsense.



      No, it happened as a result of the physical laws.



      Where do you get that nonsense? It makes no sense at all.

  19. mcafultime profile image59
    mcafultimeposted 3 years ago

    First, let us consider the science of thermodynamics: In Psalm 102:25,26, we read, "Of old hast Thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt Thou change them, and they shall be changed."

    In verse 25, we find, restated, the fact that God is the Creator of all that exists. Verse 26 then tells us something highly significant, not about the initial, created state of the universe, but about the present state of the universe. According to this Scripture, written three thousand years before the dawn of modern science, we learn that the universe is like a suit of clothes that is wearing out. In other words, the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly.


    There is certainly no doubt, then, that modern scientific research has verified the truths expressed in Psalm 102:26. Many years of careful measurements by scientists, repeated many thousands of times, established beyond doubt the scientific truths expressed in that verse of Scripture.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think ancient scribes saying, "Clothes decay, so it makes sense that the heavens decay, too," coinciding with the discovery of entropy is truly that big a revelation. The scribes were simply extrapolating what they saw on Earth to the heavens, and it just so happened that, this time, they got it right.

      Now, get back to me when we find rivers of liquid water and organized streets of gold floating around in space somewhere.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If that's what you're waiting on then there's a bit of a kink in your logic. You're wanting physical/observable evidence of God's/heaven's existence as if God could somehow be a detectable part of His own creation. If He created it He exists apart from it, meaning He's not going to be a detectable part of it. How can the one who made the causal chain be a link in it?

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And there I saw it as a statement that God is not subject to entropy.  Maybe because He is not only extra terrestrial but extra universal as well.  And of course the ancients knew that, too.

    2. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No, science has not verified anything of the sort. You simply lack an understand of thermodynamics.

  20. mcafultime profile image59
    mcafultimeposted 3 years ago

    Revelation 21:1, 3-4, 15, 18-25 NLT

    Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared. And the sea was also gone. I heard a loud shout from the throne, saying, “Look, God’s home is now among his people! He will live with them, and they will be his people. God himself will be with them.  He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever.” The angel who talked to me held in his hand a gold measuring stick to measure the city, its gates, and its wall. The wall was made of jasper, and the city was pure gold, as clear as glass. The wall of the city was built on foundation stones inlaid with twelve precious stones: the first was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, the twelfth amethyst. The twelve gates were made of pearls—each gate from a single pearl! And the main street was pure gold, as clear as glass. I saw no temple in the city, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. And the city has no need of sun or moon, for the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its light. The nations will walk in its light, and the kings of the world will enter the city in all their glory. Its gates will never be closed at the end of day because there is no night there.

    There you go homie!! :-) anymore requests?

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Did you find that is space somewhere?

    2. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Regurgitating biblical myths and superstitions has nothing to do with science.

  21. mcafultime profile image59
    mcafultimeposted 3 years ago

    Not at all. I found it in the bible :-)

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I know, but you were asked to find it in reality.

  22. mcafultime profile image59
    mcafultimeposted 3 years ago

    A Trouble Man, I understand now why your " A Troubled Man"

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ah yes, here comes the personal insults, right on time. lol

  23. mcafultime profile image59
    mcafultimeposted 3 years ago

    No insults brother, just messing with you a little. no disrespect.

  24. aware profile image70
    awareposted 3 years ago

    slavery use to be legal.

  25. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    To me, systems of   o r d e r  ( which are found in nature) are evidence of God. This is true. There is no arguing it. The intelligent scientists comprehend this truth. And as far as God being intelligent? I disagree, the force of God found in nature and all life is way beyond intelligent...  even genius is an understatement!  Brilliant? Obviously beyond our ability to describe.

  26. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Our morality, civilized laws, music, literature and art owe a lot to our Greco-Judeo-Chrisitian religious heritage. However, belief in God is a matter of faith, not certainty nor science.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      We just don't have man-made technology to detect God. However, God is a reality on the metaphysical plane of existence... detectable by intuition.
      According To My Research.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        lol Your research? lol

      2. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You admit God is undetectable by any means except the human mind. Yet you can't prove he is detectable by the human mind, what makes you sure it's God your mind is detecting? Which God does it detect? The Christian, Muslim, Jewish or one of the thousands of Hindi Gods?

 
working