The Case For Intelligent Design (ID)

[Occupational Hubris]

22 hours ago, Only_ said:

Looks like ''nothingness'' as you describe it is in fact an intelligent agent. That it has a will of it's own.

That's the problem with those ''quantum fluke'', a ''Universe from nothing'' (Lawrence Krauss) explanation for the origin of the Universe.

What was before the quantum vacuum? Where do the laws of physics came from? It stops there and fails to provide a serious explanation.

So your answer to that is your invisble friend did it? Great serious explanation. 

[psyche101]

22 hours ago, Only_ said:

Wikipedia is not a reliable source in this case.

Really, anyone can edit that page to fit a particular bias. The skeptic societies are hijacking it. It's too controversial.

Please illustrate where the source links are incorrect 

A broad sweeping statement isn't reliable by any means either.

[psyche101]

On 2/5/2023 at 2:55 AM, Ell said:

In the beginning there was nothing.

That could not endure eternally as there was neither time nor distance.

So nothing fell apart into nothingness, but there were still neither time nor distance, merely the semblance of both.

Next nothingness decided it required a watch, and created the universes of time and space and watched those, waiting for a watchmaker to evolve.

 

Nowadays we have done away with watches, mostly. When we want to know the time, we consult our mobile phone.

Thusly we have surpassed nothingness.

Is this supposed to be serious?

It's not funny if that was the intention.

[psyche101]

23 hours ago, Only_ said:

Stephen C. Meyer was invited on The Michael Shermer Show (a skeptic podcast).

It was an amazing conversation. They treated each other with respect, although they obviously disagreed. Meyer made a lot of good points.

And this means what? 

If Meyer made good points in your opinion that doesn't translate into credibility. Nor do Shermer's good manners when lowering himself to that level. 

What point that Meyer made do you feel is significant? 

23 hours ago, Only_ said:

Stephen C. Meyer, as well as Michael Behe, William A. Demski, Douglas Axe, David Berlinski are very intelligent people and scholars in their own respective disciplines.

Qualifications from the discovery institute aren't real qualifications. 

More like cereal box cutout qualifications. 

I wouldn't consider them intelligent, more imaginative. There are many far more intelligent people with real world qualifications who not only refute their basic ideology, but exceed it with working principles subject to actual testing. 

23 hours ago, Only_ said:

Intelligent Design (ID) cannot be easily dismissed.

Actually it can. Easily. I'm not sure why you think this. ID is simply a creationist view of the big bang to go with the creationist view of evolution. It's dispenses with sensibility and reverts to goddidit. The watchmaker principle, the fine tuned universe, the replacement of evolution with basically magic, none of them are supported, are illustrated by the universe or offer so much as basic observations. Quite clearly to any thinking person they are nothing more than farcical musings from the story tellers at the discovery institute. They don't do science there, they make crap up and consult each other on it. 

[psyche101]

20 hours ago, Only_ said:

Consciousness.,s

As for the origin of the Universe, I think we have to posit a first-cause. That's the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

Consciousness is not required. There's a specific thread on that. 

That's not an argument for god. That's an argument that bypasses method. 

Goddidit is not a viable answer. It's made up stuff. 

The universe changed state to result in matter. The first cause is pure energy. A difference of potential created by movement. 

[Alchopwn]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

The universe changed state to result in matter. The first cause is pure energy. A difference of potential created by movement. 

I have recently read a book by an eminent cosmologist who suggests (and then proves) that all the pre-Big Bang cosmological queries we have can be explained by Spacetime curvature. link

[Tatetopa]

On 2/1/2023 at 8:22 AM, jmccr8 said:

Does god eat?

Heavy duty question.  Some say we are created in God's image.  I was always dubious of the purpose of toenails and nose hair in space, I hadn't even thought about eating and all that goes with it.

[Tatetopa]

On 2/1/2023 at 8:27 AM, Only_ said:

not an undirected process such as natural selection.

It is hard to consider natural selection "undirected".  Species don't just pop out random features for fun, natural selection is a response to environmental pressure. 

[Tatetopa]

 

On 2/1/2023 at 9:27 PM, pellinore said:

That shut me up! You can't argue against that!

[Sojo]

E Pluribus Unum

Maybe within the eternal now, once eternal mind decided to stop focusing on who they were and how they came to be, they finally decided to just be and see what could be created with what was available.

Maybe a plan was figured out on how to always keep part of itself "in the know", while simultaneously allowing other of itself to "forget" for awhile and to constantly take joy in rediscovering itself in an uncountable number of ways.

Just a thought,

Peace, Sojo

[+razman]

On 2/1/2023 at 10:22 AM, jmccr8 said:

Does god eat?

Maybe he eats energy. After all it is basically what we are doing , though in the form of seasoned char broiled flesh .