11 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm curious.....would you, or any other poster care to offer what evidence of God would be sufficient to accept it?
Except design doesn't account for it either.
Sorry, but your argument boils down to 'I don't understand it therefore its design'. Bad argument.
Would He need to spontaneously appear in front of you?
What if He turned a sunny day immediately to night?
Would you accept anything?
Or honestly....would your first instinct be to scientifically explain such things in what you already perceive to be a universe with no God? Or to simply brush it off as some sort of 'incident' that science will someday find the reason?
What would suffice?
11 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3Convincing evidence.
I'm curious.....would you, or any other poster care to offer what evidence of God would be sufficient to accept it?
Would He need to spontaneously appear in front of you?
What if He turned a sunny day immediately to night?
Why would I attribute either of those events to the existence of a god?
What would god appearing in front of me look like? Is God some sort of physical entity? What colour is he? How would I know that the object in front of me was God and not my cat?
If a sunny day became night, I would suspect either an eclipse, smoke or blindness. Why would I attribute it to God?
Would you accept anything?
Yes. Convincing evidence that actually pointed towards the existence of God.
Or honestly....would your first instinct be to scientifically explain such things in what you already perceive to be a universe with no God?
Yes, that would be my first instinct for all unusual phenomena. And so far, it has always proved correct. I am yet to find a single phenomena that pointed towards the existence of God.
11 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3Why must it be 'immediately accepted' and not studied and analysed?
The primary reason for the above question is to find out what evidence could be sufficient and be immediately accepted as God, without the rush to the lab, to explain away the 'anomaly' that occured.
Perhaps you could answer this one:
What evidence would convince you that aliens live amongst us?
11 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat is convincing evidence?
Convincing evidence.
[b]Would He need to spontaneously appear in front of you?
What if He turned a sunny day immediately to night?
Why would I attribute either of those events to the existence of a god?
What would god appearing in front of me look like? Is God some sort of physical entity? What colour is he? How would I know that the object in ...[text shortened]... s proved correct. I am yet to find a single phenomena that pointed towards the existence of God.[/b]
Can you provide an example?
11 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo, if an 'entity' appeared in front of you, from nowhere, that is normal to you?
Convincing evidence.
[b]Would He need to spontaneously appear in front of you?
What if He turned a sunny day immediately to night?
Why would I attribute either of those events to the existence of a god?
What would god appearing in front of me look like? Is God some sort of physical entity? What colour is he? How would I know that the object in ...[text shortened]... s proved correct. I am yet to find a single phenomena that pointed towards the existence of God.[/b]
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28860
11 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3What evidence of God 'not' existing would be sufficient for you to accept it?
I'm curious.....would you, or any other poster care to offer what evidence of God would be sufficient to accept it?
Would He need to spontaneously appear in front of you?
What if He turned a sunny day immediately to night?
Would you accept anything?
Or honestly....would your first instinct be to scientifically explain such things in what you alre ...[text shortened]... off as some sort of 'incident' that science will someday find the reason?
What would suffice?
Originally posted by chaney3Evidence that convinces me.
What is convincing evidence?
Can you provide an example?
No, I don't think so. I can't think of anything that would be best explained as being evidence for the existence of God. (neither can you, which is why you had to lie about eclipses instead).
And this thread, by the way, has convinced me beyond any reasonable doubt that you are not a reliable source of information and generally haven't got a clue what you are talking about most of the time.
11 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3Well my son appears in front of me every morning.
So, if an 'entity' appeared in front of you, from nowhere, that is normal to you?
But if you mean appearing in some strange way, then no, it is not normal by definition. But that doesn't mean it is God. I do not know anyone who believes God is a physical entity, so clearly that wouldn't even fit the normal definition.
If an entity appeared in front of you, would you:
1. believe it was God.
2. believe it was an alien.
3. believe it was a fairy.
4. swear to start drinking less.
5. take another swig in the hope it will go away.
11 Feb 17
3 edits
Originally posted by apathistWhere and when there is good evidence FOR design is the idea of it being designed NOT idiotic.
So the 'design' idea doesn't annoy you, but it is idiotic?
.
Example;
We have good evidence that cars are designed thus there is nothing idiotic about cars being designed.
Where and when there is good evidence AGAINST design is the idea of it being designed IS idiotic.
Example;
We have good evidence that modern species where NOT designed (evidence for evolution clearly implies NO design) thus it is idiotic to believe they are designed.
What part of that do you not comprehend?
11 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3Actually, we have a description for and explanation of the quantum Zeno effect that does not invoke design.
While I was doing more study of uranium, I came across the Quantum Zeno Effect, which basically says that if you observe the nucleus of uranium, it will not change. Yet, once you walk away, it changes, as if it's aware you are watching and will do nothing until you leave.
Only design can account for this. Unless you want to give intellect to atoms, like you do for evolution.
12 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadI didn't mean you personally. You can go on and on about pretty much anything, so your posts here do not indicate that a nerve was struck. But if the subject here didn't strike some nerves, at some level, even among science-minded non-believers, then this would be just another short thread that goes nowhere.
What issue? Design doesn't annoy me and it doesn't 'strike a nerve' with me. Its an interesting topic when there is someone actually capable of rational discussion.
I think of dirt, I think of a cell, and wonder why and how the same collection of matter can be an incredibly organized and vital microcosm, or just some undifferentiated sludge. A human is between dust to dust, and I see the wonder in that. There is something going on besides just atoms bouncing around.
12 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by apathistI think you misunderstood what 'struck a nerve' with many people. I actually started posting in the forums many years ago because of push to teach creationism in the schools in the US and I felt I needed to speak up. I think several of the posters in this thread do have a legitimate concern about people who clearly know nothing about science trying to proove the existence of God via 'intelligent design'.
But if the subject here didn't strike some nerves, at some level, even among science-minded non-believers, then this would be just another short thread that goes nowhere.
I think of dirt, I think of a cell, and wonder why and how the same collection of matter can be an incredibly organized and vital microcosm, or just some undifferentiated sludge. A human is between dust to dust, and I see the wonder in that. There is something going on besides just atoms bouncing around.
And I study the topic and am yet to conclude that design was involved. There is more going on besides just atoms bouncing around, but that 'more' is not design. Evolution is an incredibly complex phenomenon built on deceptively simple rules. I am also fascinated by fractals, biological reactions and how the brain works. Have you seen animations of what goes on in the cell? How order arises from chaos and how highly complex order arises is a fascinating topic. But it isn't design.
Many people do have the incorrect intuition that order cannot arise from chaos on its own, yet if we look around us, it happens all the time. My favourite example, is take a bottle, fill it with muddy water, shake it up, then leave it to stand. It will sort itself into different layers of materials due to nothing more than the influence of gravity.
12 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou have proven your arrogance. You will never believe in a 'creator' because you think too much of yourself and your 'supposed' intelligence. You are proof of a human god.
Evidence that convinces me.
[b]Can you provide an example?
No, I don't think so. I can't think of anything that would be best explained as being evidence for the existence of God. (neither can you, which is why you had to lie about eclipses instead).
And this thread, by the way, has convinced me beyond any reasonable doubt that you are not a re ...[text shortened]... rce of information and generally haven't got a clue what you are talking about most of the time.[/b]
You cannot even fathom a scenario of proof of God. Why is that? I suggested an 'entity' just appearing in front of you, from nowhere, and you compared it to your son.
Your limited mind will continue to fight against design, because you twhitehead, are your own god.
You are not open minded at all, as you previously lied, you are god.
12 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by chaney3Nonsense. Just because you don't understand my answer it doesn't make me arrogant.
You have proven your arrogance. You will never believe in a 'creator' because you think too much of yourself and your 'supposed' intelligence. You are proof of a human god.
You cannot even fathom a scenario of proof of God. Why is that?
Neither can you apparently. Why is that?
I note that you haven't answered any of my questions and I note that you haven't yet apologised for all you lies and false accusations in this thread and I note that you haven't yet provided that reference I asked for ages ago. Why is that?
I suggested an 'entity' just appearing in front of you, from nowhere, and you compared it to your son.
'from nowhere'? How does one know where an entity that appears in front of you came from?
Your limited mind will continue to fight against design, because you twhitehead, are your own god.
So with your unlimited mind, please answer the questions I asked.
You are not open minded at all, as you previously lied, you are god.
I did not lie. Sorry to spoil your day, but between the two of us the only liar is you. (might I also recommend you get out a dictionary and look up what the word 'lie' actually means. It doesn't mean 'wrong' )