The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

Heres an experiment: Live your life the way you want to, by what feels right. and then grow old and die.After you have died, is there more?ID, IMO, Is simply recognizing the perfection of balance of all that exists. It recognizes that intelligence existing in our minds, is a dynamic inside of a much larger existence.man can build a computer, see it, and recognize it came from intelligence. Then, This same man can look at the dynamics of the universe and realize that its alot more complex than a computer.Its difficult to Prove ID to somone who wants to turn on a microphone and say:" Calling God...Calling God" and get a reply. That might not be impossible. However, if you do not understand the microphone, how can you understand the reciever?For me, supernatural things are not supernatural. The phenomenons we call supernatural do exist. Supernatural is just saying : "Nobody understands".I believe one day we will. either in death of flesh, or in flesh. Until that time we can search honestly, or we can just bicker and argue a decided position.For me; I have a decided position, that I argue honestly. I do not ignore data, but i'm not going to accept opinions exept my own.Do you agree this is a good descision? What is proven? Do you think my proposed experiment is an effective one?Edited by tesla, : No reason given.Edited by tesla, : Spelling, yadda yadda.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Hi Larni Not exactly. I probably define my belief in intelligent design differently, but I do believe that the universe was set in motion decidedly by an intelligent force.Supernatural is a word only used to describe 'mind boggling' phenomenon. Simply put: we don't know why the behavior exists, but it’s apparently impossible with our understanding of physics.I.e. Edgar Cayce: This man was an unusual phenomenon, yet truly did exist and accomplish apparent supernatural abilities.I don't believe the phenomenon of psychics' is not a natural dynamic of physics. It is simply not yet understood.The experiment is to live until you die, and then see if there is anything more after you die. Does the electromagnetic field or electric field of the human body retain the information of memories and thoughts of the body it hosted even after the body is gone?I find it odd that information can remain imbedded in a computer and transferred as data that can be sent at light speed and re-interpreted and stored essentially forever. Does this dynamic work in living things but by a different recording method?The universe is full of mystery, and though God remains one, it doesn’t mean he is not there. Perhaps the dynamic of his existence is so different from our own perspective it appears supernatural.Belief has power. It’s evident in psychiatric patients who have physical ailments from extreme mental hang-ups in their belief system. But perhaps a positive outcome is possible with the proper belief system in the other extreme. If belief has power on physical things, then we know very little about physics. This would not surprise me. As always, the fact anything can exist at all boggles my mind. For me the evidence is simply that intelligence exists, and that our universe is full of strange and wonderful dynamics on a scale so large our entire planet is a speck of a spec inside it. Does my belief mean I should give up trying to understand it? Should the possibility of it being designed by a creator that cares be dismissed? I don’t believe so.For me, evolution has proven God is, because as long as two things are in an evolved state, before that is a relevant question. So when we get to one thing without time, how can it evolve? And decision is the only answer I can find. Existence just was, yet I can’t figure out how anything can exist at all. confused? Don’t sweat it. If I had the answers I would tell you. I don’t. But I know what I believe and why.I debate to find more answers. If you’re comfortable with your belief, so be it. But make an informed decision. Because no science or evidence has 'proven' anything concerning God, without faith.I.e. there is no proof of God, so I take faith in God.
You have no proof God isn’t, yet you proclaim by faith there is no God.Edited by tesla, : : after cayce and capitalized T in 'This'

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

See message 42

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

LOL Quite right. see message 42 if you want more amunition =)ID is an argument about how it all came to be the way it is. Not that things are the way they are. One side says its random designation of interation; The other position says its a design by an intelligence. If i'm wrong, correct me?If not: Its a matter of faith to say its random, and a matter of faith to say its God's design.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

If that were true, you would not be arguing against ID for so many years.If you call I.D religion based only, then this site needs to evolve. Religions interpret the will of God, while as an I.D. proponent, I simply recognize God is there scientifically. I accept the basics of evolution, while reject the interpretations until more evidence can confirm links.Just because things have evolved does not mean it wasn’t intelligently designed to behave that way. Adaption is necessary for survival in a world with ever changing dynamics.I am a practicing Christian. based on the evidence I have found and UNDERSTAND as true science, vs. wild guesses that scientist love to pull out calculus and say hahaha *point* your stupid.Fine, I don't have to accept your "educated guess" because it’s still a guess, and you can't explain it in a way I can understand, meaning in my mind: YOU don't understand it either.I have frequently been disappointed in the sophistry of this site. ying becomes yang, double speak becomes superfluous axioms designed to appear smart when it’s the same political debate tactic of appearing deaf dumb and blind for the sake of winning an argument. HOW can truth ever be discovered if the goal isn’t the truth?Yes there are other things besides 'biological evolution proves all things have randomly came together so screw donkeys if you want to' science.Simply because: biological evolution only proves that the dynamic of our universe is to evolve. And it does not explain how the first evolution became possible.Edited by tesla, : S in proponent.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

My observations are not dogma. its an untested half educated guess. But it makes more sense than accepting everything sprang out randomly for essentially no purpose at all.The same empirical evidence we all look at when we open our eyes is the same data you say is proof there is no God, and I use to point out there is. It's the same evidence: viewed from a different logical perspective.My logic say's it's too perfect in it's natural order to exist without a purpose. Which say's to me: 'Purpose' supports the dynamic of a design from intelligence.I know you will not agree, But that doesn't mean that a version of I.D. will not one day be taught in the classroom.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Well if you don't want to look past your nose, you certainly do not have to.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I agree. It's the 'well established' part, the 'order' part that shows to me 'purpose'.
The random part is well contained by laws. If the natural order was lawless I would be less inclined to believe in creation.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

lol I love you jar. You always ask the right questions.You first need a scientific definition viable to scientific observations of what is. Some aspects of theory cannot be proven, in even our most accepted scientific theories. There is enough evidence and belief for the belief of God and a created universe, vs. the belief the universe exist from random energy interactions (chance)Double speak aside: either chance or direction was the universe brought into being.What’s missing is a scientific definition of God that will be accepted. Accepted being the key. It has to fit the science.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Logic and observation. First, know what you DO know. The rest is interpretation.You know me well enough that the logic of existing in an evolving state suggests: as long as two things ARE before that is a relevant question. Therefore, a true singularity is true T=0.Science does not have the ability to define T=0, as either a singularity, or other theory, which though considered theory, is still a pretty wild guess.Here’s a better response from: Tim Paglione, Ph.D., Research Assoc./AMNH: My argument is that the assumed 'universe' being 'everything' is wrong. And the opposite position needs explored. For a decent assumption all probabilities need equal review.My argument isn’t that the universes we know, and its interactions, don't have specific laws and rules to govern them, therefore being self governed by those laws for interaction. my argument is that it was designed that way by an intelligence, and the position of most great scientists is that it’s just those interactions that gave birth alone, and intelligence a product of interactions from non intelligence, whereas, I say intelligence was first, and lesser intelligences (such as mankind) were a decided product and outcome by the first greater intelligence. The first intelligence is assumed.The assumption of the first intelligence being a necessity, is by the logic, one thing, (singularity, true T=0, inevitable by my first logic) cannot evolve without anything else to interact with, and no environment. Therefore; the first evolution is only possible when intelligence is a factor in a singular energy.I realize the supposition. I realize the assumptions of my logic. HOWEVER; they are no different than the assumptions of scientists today. i.e.: assuming the 'universe' incorporates ALL there is, having no edge, with no proof.Therefore: by faith science assumes no God, and by faith I assume there is.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Maybe one day. Not today. You can see my reply to jar for my current position. I’m still doing data crunching and unless I am able to convince an astrophysicist to do the math I need, it’ll be a few years before I can show the validity of my hypothesis for a potential theory.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Scientists.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

What’s to eliminate? String theory or plate theories etc? They fall under 'chance' since no theories accepted by science include the direction of a creator.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

We are not dealing with 'apple falls, there’s gravity' science. The realm of creator vs. no creator is a step into the darkest corners of understood science.It starts with a wild guess; some math appears to verify something, and then an interpretation of the math that could very well be wrong. Its wild guesses. You think that the big bang theory is solid science?This is from Camden university orPage not found | Relativity and Gravitation Group And that’s just the BBT, our most accepted theory. You can imagine what kind of holes are in 'other' theories.How much do you trust science? If you truly trust it: then trust them when they say 'we don’t know'.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Can you further elaborate?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides