New and varied scientific and physical proofs of the Reality of GOD|DESS

[c.s.lewis]

Hey, Guys Gals Everyone !:

I'm the one who started this topic several years ago, and although this was not new back then when i shared it here at UM, there were dislikes on the way it was being handled and my two topics on GOD|DESS were closed, so here i tell you that these proofs of GOD are accelerating, because GOD is really the top and best topic ever etc, without a shadow of a doubt...

So here i shall share with you all the new proofs (books, vids) each month more or less...

For example, there's a brand-new book proving GOD scientifically/physically, indirectly, which will be published this Thursday, Nov 16 2023!!! (of which they give a free pdf sample of its praises, table of contents and foreword, in the following article, and i also share two other books to make them 3 for now, and more the next month, so here we go.

(oh, and from what i know, GOD has Their own feminine personality side, so that's why They are GODDESS.)

article of this book: 'Ahead of New Book Edition, Geoglyphs and Natural Features Test Dembski’s Design Inference' (Nov 9 2023)

sample of its foreword:

Quote

IN 1998 PHILOSOPHER AND MATHEMATICIAN WILLIAM DEMBSKI published a book with Cambridge University Press that would forever change the debate about design and purpose in biology. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities provided a powerful conceptual framework for understanding the origin of complexity and purpose in living things. The second edition of this seminal work, co-authored with software engineer Winston Ewert, is a profound and long-awaited reflection on the design inference and its relevance to biological complexity, specification, and information.

For millennia, philosophers and scientists ascribed biological complexity and purpose to design. In the age of theistic faith, the awe-inspiring purposefulness and complexity of living things seemed as convincing an argument for divine providence as could be imagined. With the publication in 1859 of Darwin’s Origin of Species, and the accompanying tsunami of atheist ideology, a new age of atheistic faith inundated the scientific world. It seemed that biological design could be explained away by invoking Darwinian random heritable variation and natural selection.

In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins famously summed up the Darwinian perspective. “Biology,” he admitted, “is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”1 But, he quickly added, any such appearance of design is illusory: “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”2 Because all biological design is thereby explained away, Dawkins concluded, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”3

Of course, even after Darwin, perceptive scientists continued to point out that the complexity and purpose evident in living things still left atheists a bit short of intellectual fulfillment. Darwinian faith was de rigueur in the twentieth century, and this despite the discovery of a computer code in DNA and astonishingly elegant molecular nanotechnology in living things, including cellular organelles like the bacterial flagellum that work according to obvious engineering principles.4 Nonetheless, it took a brave soul to dare question the Darwinian paradigm in biology. Those scientists who did question atheist dogma tended to become unfulfilled in the sense of “unemployed.”

[...]

the 3rd book, Your Designed Body (2022), has already been shared here on UM, so there you go! 😎

luismarco, 39, mexico city

ps: the Admins might change the subforum this topic is in, that doesn't depend on me, but i would leave it here on Science and Tech...

Edited November 15, 2023 by Luis Marco

[Alchopwn]

Having repeatedly lost this debate, the Theists are up for yet another round of getting their @sses handed to them?  Do they realize how little room there is for their God of the Gaps in this argument yet?  Every year the Theists lose the argument a little bit more as Human Knowledge grows. Some Theists have just bowed out and simply asked "Why wouldn't an intelligent God use Evolution?".  Of course this is a problem because if Evolution is true, then the story of Adam and Eve is false, and that would mean there is no Original Sin, and in turn that would mean that Jesus, who died to save Humanity from Original Sin would have died for nothing but his own ambition to lead a Theocracy in Roman Palestine.

[c.s.lewis]

answering the above, a final excerpt from the foreword to The Design Inference: Eleminating chance through small probabilities:

Quote

[...]

This book, The Design Inference, is ideologically neutral. Its design inferential logic is a tool for research, not an assertion of faith. It confers scientific rigor on the inescapable everyday intuition that we can discern design in many of the designed objects around us. This logic can provide compelling evidence for design and, as an impartial arbiter, it can be used to raise legitimate doubts in cases where someone may have erroneously ascribed design. It is as relevant to the Darwinist as to the design scientist. Both intelligent design theory and Darwinian theory key off of the design inference, as opposite sides of the same coin.

Oddly, the Darwinian reaction to the design inference has not been analytic. It has been allergic. The quest for the truth about design in biology seems to be the farthest thing from the Darwinian mind. This book’s generous gift of a scientific methodology that could convincingly confirm or disconfirm Darwinian theory has been met by Darwinists not by relief and gratitude but by evasion and contemptuous silence punctuated occasionally by outright malice.15 Some of the explanation for this unscientific response is undoubtedly the challenging mathematics inherent to the detection of specified complexity and the discomfort evolutionary biologists understandably feel over the quantitative analysis of their own claims. Much of the Darwinian opposition to the design inference is ideological.

What is needed in biology is a willingness by biologists to subject Darwinian evolutionary claims to objective quantitative testing. The time for “mountains” of anecdotes has passed. In this superb new edition of The Design Inference, Dembski and Ewert set design science on a solid scientific foundation and provide scientists with the opportunity to test their theories for and against design using objective quantitative methods. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the Darwinists’ striking refusal to engage this work thoughtfully and honestly is motivated by the strength, not the weakness, of the challenge the design inference poses to modern evolutionary theory.

Only by applying the design inference will biologists be able to decisively confirm their theories about the origin of biological complexity, specification, and information. The risk, of course, is that doing so will instead disconfirm them. But such are the hazards of any scientific enterprise, whose primary concern must always be the rigorous pursuit of truth. Full scientific rigor in the biological sciences requires the logic of the design inference as laid out in this book.

[...]

Edited November 15, 2023 by Luis Marco

[Saru]

Moved to Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs.

[Essan]

Why am I suddenly reminded of Oolon Colluphid's "trilogy of philosophical blockbusters": Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes and Who is this God Person Anyway? 

[eight bits]

What with UM being a discussion forum and all, would Luis care to explain what that rambling article to which he linked on Evolution News has to do with the topic?

Ironically, despite being signed by a self-described "science reporter," the article seemed to lack intelligent design.

[Piney]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

What with UM being a discussion forum and all, would Luis care to explain what that rambling article to which he linked on Evolution News has to do with the topic?

Ironically, despite being signed by a self-described "science reporter," the article seemed to lack intelligent design.

'The Design Inference' article doesn't even make any sense. 

 

[XenoFish]

Been quite some time since ive seen a cover art thread. 

[+Desertrat56]

11 hours ago, Luis Marco said:

ps: the Admins might change the subforum this topic is in, that doesn't depend on me, but i would leave it here on Science and Tech...

   It did get moved to where it belongs.   At first I thought you might be one of the authors of the books you posted, but I see you aren't.

Good luck with this discussion.   I assume that you are looking for like minded people to tell you thank you for posting this.   

[c.s.lewis]

9 hours ago, Saru said:

Moved to Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs.

@Saru, you deleted something you said here, i was gonna answer you but got busy, and what you said is that this issue is not scientific, because it's a question in general, and also a debate; but to some it is a question coz they don't look, a debate to others coz they don't look enough, and yet to others of us GOD proven physically is a Reality/certainty coz that's what the proofs and evidences point to, so, that's what actually happens...

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Mate …. You can’t prove you exist, let alone proving God exists. 

[Saru]

11 minutes ago, Luis Marco said:

@Saru, you deleted something you said here, i was gonna answer you but got busy, and what you said is that this issue is not scientific, because it's a question in general, and also a debate; but to some it is a question coz they don't look, a debate to others coz they don't look enough, and yet to others of us GOD proven physically is a Reality/certainty coz that's what the proofs and evidences point to, so, that's what actually happens...

That's not what I wrote - I was going to say that there is no definitive scientific proof of God because, if there was, God's existence would be established fact and there would be no debate about it. It doesn't matter what the book you are referencing says, it's not going to change that.

[cormac mac airt]

10 minutes ago, Luis Marco said:

@Saru, you deleted something you said here, i was gonna answer you but got busy, and what you said is that this issue is not scientific, because it's a question in general, and also a debate; but to some it is a question coz they don't look, a debate to others coz they don't look enough, and yet to others of us GOD proven physically is a Reality/certainty coz that's what the proofs and evidences point to, so, that's what actually happens...

Actually it’s not, it’s simply an unproven and unprovable belief. 
 

cormac

[c.s.lewis]

1 minute ago, Saru said:

That's not what I wrote - I was going to say that there is no scientific proof of God because, if there was, God's existence would be established fact and there would be no debate about it.

we are very limited beings, some are more intelligent, some less, we are like in a latter where we have to climb higher, so to other higher beings like angels, archangels, Melchizedeks etc (see the URANTIA revelation), GOD is an established fact and reality and actuality.

[Saru]

2 minutes ago, Luis Marco said:

we are very limited beings, some are more intelligent, some less, we are like in a latter where we have to climb higher, so to other higher beings like angels, archangels, Melchizedeks etc (see the URANTIA revelation), GOD is an established fact and reality and actuality.

There is no evidence that these 'higher beings' exist so this is a bit of a meaningless sentiment.

Belief in God is a personal thing - it's up to the individual to decide what to believe. If it was conclusively verifiable, no faith would be needed - it would simply be fact.

[c.s.lewis]

17 minutes ago, Saru said:

There is no evidence that these 'higher beings' exist so this is a bit of a meaningless sentiment.

Belief in God is a personal thing - it's up to the individual to decide what to believe. If it was conclusively verifiable, no faith would be needed - it would simply be fact.

no no no: GOD|DESS has already been proven a Reality in this age of ours etc, faith is not needed to ascertain GOD|DESS, but also science is not needed necessarily for GOD|DESS to be Real; anyway, for those of us interested, tonight at midnight will be published the latest book from some of the main spearheads about the Intelligent Design theory/movement: GOD proven already.

anyway, debate is and will always be great, so i'm willingly open regarding this topic!

Edited November 15, 2023 by Luis Marco

[cormac mac airt]

Just now, Luis Marco said:

no no no: GOD|DESS has already been proven a Reality in this age of ours etc, faith is not needed to ascertain GOD|DESS, but also science is not needed for GOD|DESS to be Real; anyway, for those of us interested, tonight at midnight will be published the latest book from the some of the main spearheads about Intelligent Design: GOD proven already.

anyway, debate is and will always be great, so i'm willingly open regarding this topic!

Claiming so doesn’t make it true. 
 

cormac

[c.s.lewis]

1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

Claiming so doesn’t make it true.

denying it doesn't make it unreal: but claiming this so can make it real and is, in this case with tons of proofs, real.

[Saru]

10 minutes ago, Luis Marco said:

no no no: GOD|DESS has already been proven a Reality in this age of ours etc,

How so ?

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, Luis Marco said:

denying it doesn't make it unreal: but claiming this so can make it real and is, in this case with tons of proofs, real.

That tells me you have no idea what “proof” means but are stuck in your belief. Claims are proof of nothing, they’re simply claims. 
 

cormac

[Guyver]

Alright!  We finally get the physical proof we need to prove that gods and goddesses are real!  Awesome!  Wait, it’s a few books written by Creationists?  Sigh.  False alarm.  Oh well, here’s hoping!

[Guyver]

15 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

That tells me you have no idea what “proof” means but are stuck in your belief. Claims are proof of nothing, they’re simply claims. 
 

cormac

Please don’t be so harsh.  He has tons of proofs.  This one must be real.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

25 minutes ago, Luis Marco said:

no no no: GOD|DESS has already been proven a Reality in this age of ours etc, faith is not needed to ascertain GOD|DESS, but also science is not needed necessarily for GOD|DESS to be Real; anyway, for those of us interested, tonight at midnight will be published the latest book from some of the main spearheads about the Intelligent Design theory/movement: GOD proven already.

anyway, debate is and will always be great, so i'm willingly open regarding this topic!

Proof denies faith, and without faith God is nothing. 
you have therefore by proving god exists, proved god does not exist. 

[c.s.lewis]

16 minutes ago, Saru said:

How so ?

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, Guyver said:

Please don’t be so harsh.  He has tons of proofs.  This one must be real.

Right, and I have proof I own the descendant of Odin’s steed Sleipnir. The proof is “Because I say so”. 
 

cormac