Proof-existence of an intelligent Creator+His Purpose

[Buccaneers FC]

Let's just be cool and give all of the intelligent design to me.

It'll be fun...come on...you know you want to...

Disclaimer: In Soviet Russia, God prays to YOU!!

[Tekania]

Appearantly I need to go back to the post to which it is a response:

Did you know about 50% of americans dont believe in evolution
35% on top of that 50% believe evolution happened but it was initiated by an Abrahamic god.

This means only 15% of Americans are actually right.

gotta know your stats

The text in red is a religious statement.

It's not testable. It's not scientific.

It's a maxim declaring that an Abrahamic God does not take part in evolution. Does not seek to even attempt to disprove God. Does not test this God, does absolutely nothing but declare a religious statement as a fact... This poster is no different than the people at CRI...

If you assert a God in science, or a non-existance thereof... It's no longer science. You've entered philosophy/theology...

Argue all you want. It is not science. It is not testable. And I will treat you like the ravenous religious zealot you are (even though you'll deny it, being in such a state of denial).

[Dolbri]

I remember hearing about the expanding universe when I was in grade school which most certainly wasn't 1998. Seem to recall Humble "observed it" over half a century ago. Anyways I bothered to check, and it's been known since 1929 not 1998.

We have known since '29 that the universe is expanding, but we have only seen in '98 that it is expanding at an accelerating rate.

[Maurepas]

Didnt we just have one of these,

[JarVik]

I remember hearing about the expanding universe when I was in grade school which most certainly wasn't 1998. Seem to recall Humble "observed it" over half a century ago. Anyways I bothered to check, and it's been known since 1929 not 1998.

We have known since '29 that the universe is expanding, but we have only seen in '98 that it is expanding at an accelerating rate.

Ahh I should have read more carefully..

[Dolbri]

I was not aware the proposing "no god(s)" was anymore "right", scientifically than proposing "a god(s)"... In either case proposition of "God(s)" within a supposedly scientific framework automatically makes it pseudo-science whether in affirmation or in negation. "God(s)" existence or non-existence is disregarded within the confines of physical science.

We have (in spite of severe efforts) not been able to observe God. Therefore, to a statistically high degree of certainty, he is unobservable. Therefore, for all practical purposes, he does not exist. Is that proof? Of course not. But, practically speaking, it makes more sense to say that God does not exist.

[Heronfield]

Firstly mathematically the laws of physics break down in the time, before, during and just after the big bang so a first action to start the big bang is not required, and newtons laws of motion don't apply. Secondly there is a theory for how the big bang started, and it is to do with M theory (membrane theory), and it suggests that our universe collided with another alternate reality causing a massive energy burst aka the big bang.

[Tekania]

I was not aware the proposing "no god(s)" was anymore "right", scientifically than proposing "a god(s)"... In either case proposition of "God(s)" within a supposedly scientific framework automatically makes it pseudo-science whether in affirmation or in negation. "God(s)" existence or non-existence is disregarded within the confines of physical science.

We have (in spite of severe efforts) not been able to observe God. Therefore, to a statistically high degree of certainty, he is unobservable. Therefore, for all practical purposes, he does not exist. Is that proof? Of course not. But, practically speaking, it makes more sense to say that God does not exist.

Not scientifically. Scientifically it makes more sense to not mention "God(s)".

By applying a "God" maxim, whether in negation or affirmation, you're establishing a theological argument; thus leaving science, and entering religion...

[Dolbri]

Not scientifically. Scientifically it makes more sense to not mention "God(s)".

By applying a "God" maxim, whether in negation or affirmation, you're establishing a theological argument; thus leaving science, and entering religion...

"Not mentioning" something is not very good scientific practice. God is a hypothesis that, like any other hypothesis, needs testing.
I'm also quite fuzzy on the distinction between "scientific" and "practical". I thought these were one and the same -- at least with regards to this discussion.

[Shoshogo]

Your reasoning is fine until you get to the part where you call the Prime Factor "perfect". As someone already mentioned, there is no reason why it should be perfect (perfect is also a very subjective and ambiguous term; what do you mean by perfect?). You also assume that it is sentient and created the universe for a purpose - in other words, that it is God. You provide no evidence for this. You then go on to describe how it is our duty to read the existential "instruction manual" laid down for us by God. Sorry, but that is theology, not empirical scientific reasoning.

[Risottia]

Did you know about 50% of americans dont believe in evolution
35% on top of that 50% believe evolution happened but it was initiated by an Abrahamic god.

This means only 15% of Americans are actually right.

gotta know your stats

So...
You know for a fact that the Abrahamic god does not exist? Where's your proof?

27342.I, being thy LORD and Creator of All,
27343.Also known as The Abrahamic God,
27344.Told him that I - being Myself - don't exist.
27345.Yep. I existed, but got bored off My skull,
27346.And chose to slid back out of reality
27347.Into a comfy virtuality. So I, being thy LORD,
27348.Don't exist anymore.
27349.And don't thou jump saying "this cannot be",
27350.Because, as thou shouldest know, I,
27351.Being thy LORD, The Abrahamic God,
27352.am omnipotent and My ways are mysterious.

27385.Oh by the way, yep, that party was
27386.Quite wild, until that hippie Son of Mine,
27387.the One with The Long Hair,
27388.Started singing "We Shall Overcome".

[Tekania]

"Not mentioning" something is not very good scientific practice. God is a hypothesis that, like any other hypothesis, needs testing.
I'm also quite fuzzy on the distinction between "scientific" and "practical". I thought these were one and the same -- at least with regards to this discussion.

Not mentioning that which has no supportive evidence is not a good scientific practice?

An hypothesis is something which must be testable, to be scientific. God is an hypothesis, yet... an untestable one. So "mentioning" it automatically makes the statement unscientific... Does not matter whether your hypothetical maxim is that "God(s)" exists, nor your hypothetical maxim is that "God(s)" do(es) not exist... By applying such maxim, in either direction, you become absolutely no different than the pandering of the OP.

[The Alma Mater]

An hypothesis is something which must be testable, to be scientific. God is an hypothesis, yet... an untestable one.

To a degree. We can test for Gods actions. Like testing if earth and the fruit bearing trees on it are older than the sun like genesis claims, if that huge global flood the Bible mentions left any sediments or if praying leads to a desired outcome more often than random chance would suggest.

Of course, since people can always say "but God used his magic wand and therefor the tests find the wrong results" you are quite right it is not science. But not wholly untestable.

[Maurepas]

An hypothesis is something which must be testable, to be scientific. God is an hypothesis, yet... an untestable one.

To a degree. We can test for Gods actions. Like testing if earth and the fruit bearing trees on it are older than the sun like genesis claims, if that huge global flood the Bible mentions left any sediments or if praying leads to a desired outcome more often than random chance would suggest.

Of course, since people can always say "but God used his magic wand and therefor the tests find the wrong results" you are quite right it is not science. But not wholly untestable.

It would simply be an incorrect hypothesis then, doesnt get the creationists any further to what they want,

[Dolbri]

Not mentioning that which has no supportive evidence is not a good scientific practice?

Ignoring things that might be relevant is not good scientific practice. God might be relevant.

An hypothesis is something which must be testable, to be scientific. God is an hypothesis, yet... an untestable one.

How so, untestable? Are you saying that God is by definition unobservable? That makes him by definition scientifically (or practically, you haven't explained the difference yet) nonexistant.

... which kinda proves the point that it makes more sense to claim that God does not exist, than to claim the opposite.

[Treznor]

"Not mentioning" something is not very good scientific practice. God is a hypothesis that, like any other hypothesis, needs testing.
I'm also quite fuzzy on the distinction between "scientific" and "practical". I thought these were one and the same -- at least with regards to this discussion.

Not mentioning that which has no supportive evidence is not a good scientific practice?

An hypothesis is something which must be testable, to be scientific. God is an hypothesis, yet... an untestable one. So "mentioning" it automatically makes the statement unscientific... Does not matter whether your hypothetical maxim is that "God(s)" exists, nor your hypothetical maxim is that "God(s)" do(es) not exist... By applying such maxim, in either direction, you become absolutely no different than the pandering of the OP.

It keeps getting brought up, largely in the context of filling in the gaps of what we do not yet know. It is therefore not helpful to "not bring up" God when God keeps getting pushed into the discussion. It demands an answer. The answer, as Bottle so eloquently put it, goes as follows:

Hypothesis: God
Experiment: no testable hypothesis is possible
Observation: no evidence found
Conclusion: for lack of any observable data or testable hypothesis, there are no gods.

It's kind of like string theory: esoteric, controversial and unobservable, so until better evidence comes along that can be tested, it's assumed not to be correct. An exciting hypothesis, nothing more.

[Port Arcana]

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

[Tekania]

[
It keeps getting brought up, largely in the context of filling in the gaps of what we do not yet know. It is therefore not helpful to "not bring up" God when God keeps getting pushed into the discussion. It demands an answer. The answer, as Bottle so eloquently put it, goes as follows:

Hypothesis: God
Experiment: no testable hypothesis is possible
Observation: no evidence found
Conclusion: for lack of any observable data or testable hypothesis, there are no gods.

It's kind of like string theory: esoteric, controversial and unobservable, so until better evidence comes along that can be tested, it's assumed not to be correct. An exciting hypothesis, nothing more.

Hypothesis: God
Experiment: Not possible

Done... You can not "conclude" something without evidence... Hypothesis is left standing... But continues no further until either observational/experimental materials become available to either affirm towards its validity, or such arises which contradicts its premise. THAT is how hypothesis are formulated and developed... Once they meet such criteria and are tested and matched with observations, they become THEORY.

As such, God is a hypothesis.... A statement of "right"/"wrong" on the hypothesis is a statement of belief without facts. It's non-scientific.... Belongs in philosophy... As such someone using statistic figures to show how many people are "right" as a logic point regarding God<->Evolution cross involvement is no more valid than the OP's failed logic to propose the contrary in a framework.

Both rely on unfounded hypotheses, philosophical/theological maxims to pump up their pseudo-science.

I find it hard to believe some of you would defend it. Really makes you no different than the OP's pseudo-scientific posing. Quite sad really.

[Maurepas]

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

May you all be touched by his Noodly Appendage,

[The Alma Mater]

[
It keeps getting brought up, largely in the context of filling in the gaps of what we do not yet know. It is therefore not helpful to "not bring up" God when God keeps getting pushed into the discussion. It demands an answer. The answer, as Bottle so eloquently put it, goes as follows:

Hypothesis: God
Experiment: no testable hypothesis is possible
Observation: no evidence found
Conclusion: for lack of any observable data or testable hypothesis, there are no gods.

It's kind of like string theory: esoteric, controversial and unobservable, so until better evidence comes along that can be tested, it's assumed not to be correct. An exciting hypothesis, nothing more.

Hypothesis: God
Experiment: Not possible

Done... You can not "conclude" something without evidence...

The argument here is that since there is no measurable indication for Gods existence or involvement in our life, God, if He exists, has chosen for all practical purposes as far as we are concerned to act like He does not - and therefor it is most logical to act as if He does not either.

True - not scientific, but philosophically not entirely unsound.

[Tropical Montana]

Of course, since people can always say "but God used his magic wand and therefor the tests find the wrong results" you are quite right it is not science. But not wholly untestable.

its not a magic wand! All Hail his great noodly appendage!

[Tunizcha]

The central argument is that since there was a "beginning" of the universe, something must have caused it. The OP cites Singularity without understanding that prominent physicists have devised models of the universe without the existence of a Singularity.

And even if you discount everything I just said, there was no causation "before" the Big Bang because time did not exist "before" the Big Bang. I say "before" very lightly, since, as I mentioned, no time equals no causation.

Even if you discount that, what makes you think that the Abrahamic God was the Prime Mover? Why would a conscious being be more viable to the existence of the universe than some other physical reaction?

The Creator also must be created, or else we have the same steady state theory for the universe to disprove yours. And then explain why it took about 14 billion years for humans to develop if the Creator was supposedly omnipotent.

[Pritisakiah]

[
It keeps getting brought up, largely in the context of filling in the gaps of what we do not yet know. It is therefore not helpful to "not bring up" God when God keeps getting pushed into the discussion. It demands an answer. The answer, as Bottle so eloquently put it, goes as follows:

Hypothesis: God
Experiment: no testable hypothesis is possible
Observation: no evidence found
Conclusion: for lack of any observable data or testable hypothesis, there are no gods.

It's kind of like string theory: esoteric, controversial and unobservable, so until better evidence comes along that can be tested, it's assumed not to be correct. An exciting hypothesis, nothing more.

Hypothesis: God
Experiment: Not possible

Done... You can not "conclude" something without evidence... Hypothesis is left standing... But continues no further until either observational/experimental materials become available to either affirm towards its validity, or such arises which contradicts its premise. THAT is how hypothesis are formulated and developed... Once they meet such criteria and are tested and matched with observations, they become THEORY.

As such, God is a hypothesis.... A statement of "right"/"wrong" on the hypothesis is a statement of belief without facts. It's non-scientific.... Belongs in philosophy... As such someone using statistic figures to show how many people are "right" as a logic point regarding God<->Evolution cross involvement is no more valid than the OP's failed logic to propose the contrary in a framework.

Both rely on unfounded hypotheses, philosophical/theological maxims to pump up their pseudo-science.

I find it hard to believe some of you would defend it. Really makes you no different than the OP's pseudo-scientific posing. Quite sad really.

So, are you saying that the existence of anything which is unfalsifiable we must remain unsure about? That we should withold judgement on the existence of a giant purple fairy called Gerald who exists outside of space/time? In fact, we can be more sure of God's non-existence, as He/She/It has supposedly influenced our universe, and therefore God's effects must be observable. In the absence of any evidence for God, it is wholly scientific to dismiss the notion of a deity, as it is for the Gerald Hypothesis (by the way, if it turns out that the universe was created by Gerald, remember that you heard it from me first).

[Pastafarian Piraticae]

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

May you all be touched by his Noodly Appendage,

ALL HAIL HIS NOODLY APPENDAGES!

[Heronfield]

The Creator also must be created, or else we have the same steady state theory for the universe to disprove yours. And then explain why it took over 14 trillion years for humans to develop if the Creator was supposedly omnipotent.

The universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. No trillions.