Intelligent Design == Human Design?

quote:

---

At any rate, we are a bit off topic. If you would like to quote mine some more famous people in your appeal to authority, start a new topic.

---

It's a debate and you asked for quotes.

quote:

---

Where does Newton mention god? In the beginning? Throughout? Or at the end?

---

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

Which you have yet to provide. You linked a website and pulled an Einstein quote out of your ass. Still think Einstein believes in god? 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. SourceYou'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.

---

I doubt that you have any evidence to support this. 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.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."

quote:

---

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."

---

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

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.

quote:

---

So I ask again, as opposed to what?

---

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:

---

"Divine" revelation or some such? 3,000 year old scripture?

---

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

There has been a severe scarcity of evidence in your posts. 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.

Ok... 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. 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. 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:

---

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

---

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. I don't know where you got that from but he most certainly did not. Source

quote:

---

In a 1954 letter, [Einstein] wrote, "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.

​

In a letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind, Einstein remarked, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

​

Einstein had previously explored this belief that man could not understand the nature of God when he gave an interview to Time Magazine explaining:

​

I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.
Albert Einstein

---

Now, show me your evidence to support the claim that he did. 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 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.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

CBT and service improvement for the nhs.

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

quote:

---

CBT and service improvement for the nhs.

---

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

quote:

---

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?

---

No. I'm saying i will not claim to know what no one can know.

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.

---

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:

---

My friend, it's the data of today that has removed god from the equation

---

No. It's the interpretation of that data. It needs re-examined and advanced.

quote:

---

They were raised in societies where the had to believe in god.

---

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

Yet you want it to be taught as if we DO know. Then re-interpret it and examine it. So far, all you are doing is asking us to do so for you.

---

Can a vacuum exist without edges?

quote:

---

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.

---

Ok.
1: vacuum : Negative pressure.2: edges : Having a boundary or a borderI 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

quote:

---

Yet you want it to be taught as if we DO know.

---

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