Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Please refer to post # 4 and explain to me the odds of the rate of the expansion of the universe at a fixed ratio of 1:1055 all over the universe being a chance occurrence, please explain why the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle is wrong and you @Napoleon is correct

a ratio is nothing more than a representation of a phenomena using math.

That things appear to be consistent or inconsistent is in no way pointing towards some "intelligent designer"

Discovering something and applying your human senses to developing a pattern does not therefore mean a pattern actually exists OR that there as some "intelligent designer" behind it.

Grow the fukk up already.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Too bad.

You claim to believe it and assert it as true. You don't get to dance when pressed to actually substantiate your argument.

If you don't know, then leave it there. Don't insert bullshyt in lieu of that.

We can dance if we want to
We can leave your friends behind
Cause your friends don't dance
And if they don't dance
Well they're no friends of mine
Say, we can go where we want to
A place where they will never find
And we can act like we come from out of this world
Because you're one far behind

Listen. There was no bullshyt. I never said there was necessarily an "intelligent designer"...I said that it is unprovable but I believe that I have seen, heard and read enough about the Universe to say that I believe that it wasnt a random design. There could have been causes and sources ad infinitum for it and I wouldnt be arrogant enough to say one or the other is TRUE..let alone that what I personally believe is, with certainty, true or false one way or another. I believe it to be more likely to be true than false but even that may be because of an underlying gut instinct or embedded information that my brain has processed over time. I dont even think Simulation Theory is less feasible than my beliefs because they can easily co-exist within one another. Anyone claiming definitive knowledge on the subject of the origin or cause of everythingness is remarkably arrogant intellectually. Thats why even the top of the top scientists can claim atheism but only have theories. Its not scientifically provable one way or another.

 

[blackzeus]

There was plenty of information in here that "supports" the "belief" in intelligent design of some sort. I dont claim to know because I do not think its provable one way or another as true...therefore, under the JTB basic foundation of what knowledge is, I cannot say it is true or false. Hence me saying I simply believe in intelligent design of some sort. The cause or source of that design, to me, cannot be determined at the given time..perhaps ever. There is enough order and intricacies within the order that lends credence to the theory that the universe hasnt come to be simply via happenstance..and Im not talking about just biology or on Earth. Through science and mathematics, there has also been many patterns and systems on different planets, galaxies etc that further justifies my belief. Im not quite sure why you get so frazzled by anyone claiming anything other than atheism or agnosticism but it's not really my concern. In fact, Im not even sure what exactly my religious/spiritual/supernatural "label" would be..but I align philosophically to Taoism in many ways but I do not adhere to their religious rituals or a portion of their beliefs that stray too far from the "basics".

I respect your your statement, but I completely disagree with it's staying. ID is not 100% provable, why, because we haven't met the Designer in person. However, we can reduce the probabilities that the world was created by chance to less than 1%, or in the case of cosmic rate of expansion, less than .1% It takes more faith to not believe in ID than to believe in it

 

[blackzeus]

a ratio is nothing more than a representation of a phenomena using math.

That things appear to be consistent or inconsistent is in no way pointing towards some "intelligent designer"

Discovering something and applying your human senses to developing a pattern does not therefore mean a pattern actually exists OR that there as some "intelligent designer" behind it.

Grow the fukk up already.

My man, for a supposed biologist you understand very little about statistics. @Dafunkdoc_Unlimited already posted about dark energy and the cosmological constant. Please calculate the odds of the cosmological constant in our universe and one 7 billion light years away being the same, strictly due to a chance occurrence

Or better yet, please advise the odds of a random walk search being able to produce a functional string in 1 megabyte


EDIT: This nikka just said "applying your human senses to develop a pattern doesn't mean the pattern actually exists". Nikka just sh*tted on the scientific method and did not even realize it So according to this nikka the Newtonian laws of force, the quantum effect, the hydroelectric effect, .... doesn't necessarily exist

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

I respect your your statement, but I completely disagree with it's staying. ID is not 100% provable, why, because we haven't met the Designer in person. However, we can reduce the probabilities that the world was created by chance to less than 1%, or in the case of cosmic rate of expansion, less than .1% It takes more faith to not believe in ID than to believe in it

1. Even if we did meet this "thing", there would be no way to prove that it/he/she actually did design everything..regardless of the proof it shows. The universe is so immense..I mean ill just leave it there.
2. That was close to the point of why i posted verbatim what Napoleon posted, back at him. Im not sure exactly what it would be in terms of a faith equivalency so I dont know about more or less but it clearly takes faith to believe in nothingness and randomness and I dont think we will see him post any evidence which can substantiate nothingness and randomness any more that what you have posted throughout the thread.

 

[blackzeus]

1. Even if we did meet this "thing", there would be no way to prove that it/he/she actually did design everything..regardless of the proof it shows. The universe is so immense..I mean ill just leave it there.
2. That was close to the point of why i posted verbatim what Napoleon posted, back at him. Im not sure exactly what it would be in terms of a faith equivalency so I dont know about more or less but it clearly takes faith to believe in nothingness and randomness and I dont think we will see him post any evidence which can substantiate nothingness and randomness any more that what you have posted throughout the thread.

Not only does it takes faith to believe in randomness, the odds of randomness creating the earth are so miniscule that it's equivalent to believe in Vishnu or flying pigs And don't mind Napoleon, he couldn't neutralize sodium hydroxide if his life depended on it

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

My man, for a supposed biologist you understand very little about statistics. @Dafunkdoc_Unlimited already posted about dark energy and the cosmological constant. Please calculate the odds of the cosmological constant in our universe and one 7 billion light years away being the same, strictly due to a chance occurrence

Or better yet, please advise the odds of a random walk search being able to produce a functional string in 1 megabyte


EDIT: This nikka just said "applying your human senses to develop a pattern doesn't mean the pattern actually exists". Nikka just sh*tted on the scientific method and did not even realize it So according to this nikka the Newtonian laws of force, the quantum effect, the hydroelectric effect, .... doesn't necessarily exist

statistics have nothing to do with this argument.

First off, the cosmological constant is being perverted by you all which don't even understand what its trying to measure. Its not some all knowing entity.

Furthermore, you're applying computer science measurements to things that are COMPLETELY unrelated.

This is the same cargo cult bullshyt i'm talking about

You don't get to mix and mingle scientific ideas so you can claim to know what you're talking about.

 

[blackzeus]

statistics have nothing to do with this argument.

First off, the cosmological constant is being perverted by you all which don't even understand what its trying to measure. Its not some all knowing entity.

Furthermore, you're applying computer science measurements to things that are COMPLETELY unrelated.

This is the same cargo cult bullshyt i'm talking about

You don't get to mix and mingle scientific ideas so you can claim to know what you're talking about.

Nikka, if a random walk can't produce a functional string in 1 megabyte, the chances of the earth being created by chance are 0, literally. If randomness can't produce a functional string in 1 megabyte of data, how in the f*ck is it going to produce a planet? Are you going to claim different types of randomness now?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Nikka, if a random walk can't produce a functional string in 1 megabyte, the chances of the earth being created by chance are 0, literally. If randomness can't produce a functional string in 1 megabyte of data, how in the f*ck is it going to produce a planet? Are you going to claim different types of randomness now?

This literally doesn't mean anything.

You aren't understanding the terms you're using.

You've fallen prey to the argument that nature can create computer data or is somehow equivalent to it.

 

[blackzeus]

1) The man is primarily talking about the Christian faith, please refer to posts #7, #11, #12, and #14 on this topic (@VMR this is exactly why I took the lengths to post so much, I knew sh*t like this was gonna happen)

2) Even the orator himself admitted ID is probable, with the caveat that just because ID is true, doesn't mean the Christian God exists, which is what any TRUE proponent of ID will tell you.

The guy obviously had a beef with Christian theology, that's all good, I just don't see how that relates to ID, ID is based on empirical evidence, not just causal theory. You can't take one part of ID and misconstrue as it representing all of ID.

 

[blackzeus]

This literally doesn't mean anything.

You aren't understanding the terms you're using.

You've fallen prey to the argument that nature can create computer data or is somehow equivalent to it.

You've fallen prey that the complexity of computer data is even remotely comparable to the complexity of nature. No ad hominem, but you're a tape recorder, you're just saying stuff without even realizing you're sh*tting on your own argument Are there different types of randomness? That's the only way your argument makes sense

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You've fallen prey that the complexity of computer data is even remotely comparable to the complexity of nature. No ad hominem, but you're a tape recorder, you're just saying stuff without even realizing you're sh*tting on your own argument

You're saying dumb shyt like "how come a plant doesn't represent 2 gigabytes of data"


Do you know how fukking stupid that sounds?

 

[blackzeus]

You're saying dumb shyt like "how come a plant doesn't represent 2 gigabytes of data"


Do you know how fukking stupid that sounds?

My God man, there is no way you are even a college graduate, let alone a biologist:

1) Analogy: a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

2) Randomness can't produce a functional string with 1MB of data, what does that mean? That means it would take the entire existence of the universe for random walk to produce 1 functional string out of just 1MB of data. In layman's terms (I'm starting to think I'm being too scientific here) assuming the 1MB of data was a bunch of random letters, it would take the entire existence of the universe for random walk to produce one coherent sentence, let alone a paragraph

3) So the analogy is that while randomness can't make sense out of 1MB of data, you are proposing it can create a universe and everything that exists within it

 

[Fervid]

1) The man is primarily talking about the Christian faith, please refer to posts #7, #11, #12, and #14 on this topic (@VMR this is exactly why I took the lengths to post so much, I knew sh*t like this was gonna happen)

2) Even the orator himself admitted ID is probable, with the caveat that just because ID is true, doesn't mean the Christian God exists, which is what any TRUE proponent of ID will tell you.

The guy obviously had a beef with Christian theology, that's all good, I just don't see how that relates to ID, ID is based on empirical evidence, not just causal theory. You can't take one part of ID and misconstrue as it representing all of ID.

Honestly, I just came across that vid on another tab when I entered this thread.
It contained the phrase "Intelligent Design", so I thought it would be relevant.

 

[blackzeus]

Honestly, I just came across that vid on another tab when I entered this thread.
It contained the phrase "Intelligent Design", so I thought it would be relevant.

C'mon breh, appreciate the input, but please either read the thread for a primer or at least have some background in ID before you post something contrary Again, ID /= Christianity, it only states that the world as we know it is not a matter of chance, but intelligent design, nothing more, nothing less. ID doesn't state who the designer is, or WHY he designed it, or WHO designed the Designer, it states and only states that the world as we know it was created by intelligent design, not chance.