|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design == Human Design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1613 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote:It's a debate and you asked for quotes. quote: He put it where he felt it should be. His main objective was his science. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
It's a debate and you asked for quotes. Which you have yet to provide. You linked a website and pulled an Einstein quote out of your ass.
Einstein writes:
Still think Einstein believes in god?
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.-- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear: Scientist's Reply to Sell for up to 8,000, and Stoke Debate over His Beliefs" The Guardian, (13 May 2008) He put it where he felt it should be. So you don't know. What it boils down to, as far as Newton is concerned, is that the only mention of god is in the epilogue: The General Scholium., which was not even part of the first edition of the Principia.
Published for the first time as an appendix to the 2nd (1713) edition of the Principia, the General Scholium reappeared in the 3rd (1726) edition with some amendments and additions. As well as countering the natural philosophy of Leibniz and the Cartesians, the General Scholium contains an excursion into natural theology and theology proper. In this short text, Newton articulates the design argument (which he fervently believed was furthered by the contents of his Principia), but also includes an oblique argument for a unitarian conception of God and an implicit attack on the doctrine of the Trinity, which Newton saw as a post-biblical corruption. The English translation here is that of Andrew Motte (1729). Italics and orthography as in original.[1]
Source You've proven yourself dishonest thus far. You've shown you just pull crap off creo websites without sourcing it for yourself. If you want to actually have an honest debate, let me know. "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
tesla writes:
I doubt that you have any evidence to support this.
The scientists of today are ignorant of why the greatest minds of mankind believed in God, ... tesla writes:
It is more likely that they did not choose at all, but were simply raised at a time and place where religious indoctrination was a part of the cultural tradition.They did not choose their beliefs because they were dumb. they chose to believe because they were smart. Many of the scientists I have known were Christian. But their religion played no role in their science. They were very effective at compartmentalizing their lives. They did not bring their religion to the science lab, and they did not apply their scientific methods in their churches. I should add here, that I am only assuming that they were Christian. I did not attempt to discuss religion with them, and they did not attempt to discuss religion with me. Moreover, I will admit that in the two cases where the topic of religion happened to come up, my assumption was probably wrong. In one case my colleague, who was a regular Church attendee, confided that "it's a bunch of hooey." My best guess is that he was attending Church only as a social event. In the other case I knew that my colleague regularly attended Church, and was the organist there. A bunch of people in the coffee room were talking - I am not sure what was the general topic. I remember throwing out the rhetorical question "what do you call an atheist who regularly attends Church?" Without hesitation, my colleague replied "The organist."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1613 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: Hypocrisy is a recurrent theme. Christianity and God have been used by many many many people over the years to meet personal objectives. Child molesters and the like. But a religious fanatic chooses their fanaticism apart from truth. There are those who also use science in a similar way: promoting their own objectives instead of complimenting and improving knowledge. This is done again both ways. In order to debate a topic such as this i personally have to choose evidence over opinion. henceforth, my beliefs. Anyone with an open mind has the potential to change their beliefs with the right information. The information i have gathered so far promotes God. All arguments against it are ignoring the laws that i trust: The things i can say definitely about this place we exist in. theories abound; But what does the data say? What do the laws say? Its difficult here not because there is opposition; Its difficult because the opposition has no desire to ignore their positions to truly examine data. IE: can a vacuum exist without edges. NO would be a significant discovery because it would prove the universe as we know it Finite, yet because of expansion it would be expanding inside an "apparently infinite" area. That to me is significant data. and it could aid the right scientist in better explaining expansion and other area's of issue in the BBT. I'm practically begging for DATA. not Opinion. but all the debates Ive been in rush to opinion with little data to support it. (Unless you count other scientists opinions also based on data with no verifiability such as WHY newton believed in God etc.) You now should know my motivation. I'm searching for the truth and i have accepted my beliefs based on the evidence i can verify enough to accept. Edited by tesla, : mouse is acting crazy, deleted unnessecary quoteing. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
But he is human and trusts his own intelligence too far.
As opposed to what? "Divine" revelation or some such? 3,000 year old scripture? If revelation and scripture and the like were empirical evidence from which reliable conclusions could be drawn we wouldn't have some 4,000 world religions and 40,000 different denominations and flavors of Christianity all claiming to have the TRVTH. So I ask again, as opposed to what? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1613 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: As opposed to examining data. He does not accept what he does not know. He is suggesting he knows another persons reasoning when he never met the man.
quote: Your making the mistake of others when debating God with me on scientific grounds. your talking religion, I'm talking God. view my other posts on this debate where i show the laws of science that have led me to my definition of God. I can only debate the scientific evaluation of God. Not religions and interpretations based on divine inspiration. There are other forums here to discuss religions interpretations. Edited by tesla, : repaired quote box. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
tesla writes:
There has been a severe scarcity of evidence in your posts.
In order to debate a topic such as this i personally have to choose evidence over opinion. tesla writes:
That's not evidence. That's a question, though poorly punctuated. As written, it is a meaningless question. You would have to precisely define what you mean by "vacuum" and what you mean by "edges", before anybody could make sense of it.
IE: can a vacuum exist without edges.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2971 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Think about this oni: Ok...
All the greatest scientists believed in God. Lets correct this a bit, since I am thinking about it upon your request for me to do so. It should read: Most of the greatest scientist believed in a god concept. Since there have been great scientist from all sorts of religious background. Hindu, Buddist, Muslim, Jewish, etc.
See what scientists today do not understand is the REASON.
I'll assume that you feel you do understand why, yet the greatest minds of today don't understand why? You can see why I'm reluctant to believe you, right? You like DeGrasse, lets take him for example. Do you feel you know more than him about the religious beliefs of Newton? If so, I would be curious as to what you're using as evidence to prove that.
many choose to believe that its because they reached a limit. Well, no, that's just plain wrong. It's not a choice, that's just what the evidence points to. Newton discovered the equations for gravity and the laws of motion. But he couldn't understand what gravity was or where gravity came from. As his famous quote goes:quote: But along comes Einstein and changes everyone's understanding of physics with his new field equations. He explains what Newton could not explain, and by doing so, Einstein removed god from the equation. Not by choice, he didn't choose to remove god. The equation simply didn't require magic anymore. The questions that Newton had were answered. This is how god was removed from practically every field of science. By simply answering the question the scientist before you couldn't answer and had to infer an intelligent designer.
Einstein for instance believed in God, and after life, because " energy cannot be created or destroyed, but changed from form to form. I don't know where you got that from but he most certainly did not.
Sourcequote: Now, show me your evidence to support the claim that he did.
The truth is, they did not have access to the data we have today, or they would have added a lot more. My friend, it's the data of today that has removed god from the equation. That doesn't mean that today's scientist don't believe in god, on the contrary, many/most of them do. The difference is, today when a scientist approaches a question about a phenomenon that he/she may not have all the answers to, they don't stop looking for answers and say, "god-did-it." Instead, they keep doing science. Eventually the answers come, and in no case, ever, ever...ever...has the answer been god-did-it. They always find a natural cause. In fact, show me one single example where a consensus is in and god-did-it is the only possible answer to a question.
They did not choose their beliefs because they were dumb. they chose to believe because they were smart. They were raised in societies where the had to believe in god. Remember Galileo and his problems with the church? Or Keplers problems with the church? Or Darwins? Newtons? Copernicus? Shall I keep going? They believed in a god, their version, not the Abrahamic version. This was their issue most of the time with the churches. It wasn't that they didn't believe in a higher power, the church called them heretics because they believed in intelligent design and not in the god of the Bible. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
What field and what were your contributions? CBT and service improvement for the nhs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4736 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Quite right, I did. No you didn't. You asked for an explanation (with passages from their works), not a bare link. Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar. "Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1613 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: Oh cool I saw where one hospital owner decided to use a checklist at surgeries that reduced deaths from malpractice by 40%. He also saw a huge improvement at his own hospital. That surprised him because he considered his hospital top of the league. He had gotten the idea from aviation. when the pilots started flying two engine aircraft there was too much for one pilot to keep up with. So they implemented a checklist for the one pilot. I thought that was cool anyways. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1613 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: No. I'm saying i will not claim to know what no one can know.
quote: No he did not. The equation was never finished.God is not magic. Nothing is magic. Its all natural we just do not understand its parameters because our senses are too limited. quote: No. It's the interpretation of that data. It needs re-examined and advanced.
quote: Oh hell no lol. In that day there was never a more crooked and corrupt place than the church. people had to go. They didn't have to believe. These scientist's chose to believe, Knowing the church was a corruption. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Its all natural we just do not understand its parameters because our senses are too limited. Yet you want it to be taught as if we DO know.
No. It's the interpretation of that data. It needs re-examined and advanced. Then re-interpret it and examine it. So far, all you are doing is asking us to do so for you. "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1613 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Can a vacuum exist without edges?
quote:Ok. 1: vacuum : Negative pressure. 2: edges : Having a boundary or a border I sometimes take for granted we all speak the same language. Too bad its so poorly defined. These are the definitions for how I'm using these words. Edited by tesla, : No reason given. Edited by tesla, : i really need a new mouse. Edited by tesla, : No reason given. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1613 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote:I want people to accept the obvios. And i want to accept what IS true. Just because i do not like something doesn't mean i should ignore the data. There is some data that is trustworthy. One mans observation means nothing until It is verified. This data has to be examined for its truth or falsity. Of the observations that lead to my definition of God; Which ones are reliable? What are the odds on it being false? (odds: as a mathematical term.) I come here because I'm hoping someone here is smarter than me. If they are, they can explain to me where my data is wrong. or, they will agree with the data, and progress what it implies. Edited by tesla, : No reason given. Edited by tesla, : No reason given. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024