Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you see a top spinning on a table, you don't say that its ability to remain upright is due to "chance", since it's not. It's due to the design of the top and it being given an effective spin at the start. It's the same with our universe. It's ability to function properly is not (in my scenario) due to "chance" at all, but due it doing what it was designed to do.
This would be an appropro analogy if there was evidence that the laws that govern our universe are not part and partial of the universe itself, that they didn't originate from the big bang. In other words, if it can be shown that the laws of the universe originate from outside the universe and are independant of the origin of the universe, you might have a point. Got anything like that?
Maybe the OP should build a house. He/She might then understand creation. Or if you can't afford that, build a house of cards. Or to understand the absurdity of the world NOT having a creator, take 52 playing cards, throw them up in the air until they all come down and form a nice neat house. Of course that will not happen. Every house needs a builder. Consider a living one cell organism. Man, with all his technology cannot create one living cell that can reproduce, repair itself etc, yet I am supposed to believe that the wide array of life in this world all got here by chance. Take the human body itself. Science is still unlocking its mysteries, yet it all is just a happy accident?????????????????????
Like Rifleman, I have to assume that you haven't done your homework with regard to your argument. Here is a link to that argument and why it fails:
No, I envision God as infused in the very energy and matter that makes up the Universe. In fact, that is my definition of God. I don't view God as a separate entity orchestrating reality or anything of that sort.
No, I envision God as infused in the very energy and matter that makes up the Universe. In fact, that is my definition of God. I don't view God as a separate entity orchestrating reality or anything of that sort.
Human beings, and in fact, every plant and animal on the planet is also "infused in the very energy and matter that makes up the universe". Are they also gods?
Human beings, and in fact, every plant and animal on the planet is also "infused in the very energy and matter that makes up the universe". Are they also gods?
God can be defined in a thousand ways, take your pick which silly definition you can live with.
And that is precisely one of the reasons I don't believe in any god.
If you can systematically prove to me using the scientific method of verifiable empirical and measurable evidence, then I will believe. Until then it's pure conjecture and anyone can make up any crock and stick a stamp on it saying 'This is what god is'.
God grief, the stupid New Age garbage is just as off putting as the bible/koran god.
It blows my mind what nonsense people will believe in.
Dressing up a belief system in the trappings of seeminhly sophisticated language and jargon, as in ("All the Omni's are human hubris mandating requirements for God to qualify to BE God") means nothing without evidence, experimental testing, and corroboration. Because science has such a powerful mystique in our society, those who wish to gain respectability but do not have any evidence try to do an end run around the missing evidence by looking and sounding "scientific." Here is a classic example from a New Age Column in the Santa Monica News: "This planet has been slumbering for eons and with the inception of higher energy frequencies is about to awaken in terms of consciousness and spirituality. Masters of limitation and masters of divination use the same creative force to manifest their realities, however, one moves in a downward spiral and the latter moves in an upward spiral, each increasing the resonant vibration inherent in them." How's that again? I have no idea what this means, but it has the language components of a physics experiment: "higher energy frequencies," "downward and upward spirals," and "resonant vibration." Yet these phrases mean nothing because they have no precise and operational definitions. How do you measure a planet's higher energy frequencies or the resonant vibration of masters of divination? For that matter, what is a master of divination?
Exactly, orogenicman. I don't have the language utility some here do, to make up mystical stuff like that: my "higher education" was more focused in the practical matters of making an automobile work, or understanding the "hows and whys"of biology, gentics and biochemistry that we have discovered. I perhaps should have spent a year or two in Hubris 410 or Psycho-Babble 956 in order to properly brace myself for these fora.
Meantime, in case our more devout and intransigent Christian readers here don't want to read about Hoyle's errant "junkyard to 747" Hypothesis, here's the thing in a nutshell:
(His) argument conflates the difference between the complexity that arises from living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves (and as such may change to become more complex over time) with the complexity of inanimate objects, unable to pass on any reproductive changes (such as the multitude of parts manufactured in Boeing 747), the comparison breaks down because of this important distinction.
According to Ian Musgrave in Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations:
These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors.
√ They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
√ They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
√ They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
√ They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
√ They underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.[1]
....and thereby, the logical and intellectually courageous investigator can rather easily see that this so-called unrebukable argument is exactly that; easily discredited as being unrelated to the biogenesis argument.
In particular, the problem is that life is eminently capable of reproducing itself, and thus benefiting from it's own mistakes and/or positive changes, incorporating them over time, and thus improving in capability and complexity over time, whereas an inanimate object is severely limited and, in fact never improves unless externally directed. Life needs no such external influences. Factual and demonstrable.
To ardently and repeatedly make this fallacious argument is to show one's essential illogic, one's lack of appropriate reading on the subject (as in: not from the error-filled texts over at Answers in Genesis, which is, after all, highly biased...), and one's desperation to avoid, or lack of understanding of the key processes and origins of organized life.
Because then, when one has been shown to be completely wrong, why would an honest individual NOT want to learn about the facts, rather than hide from them?
Dressing up a belief system in the trappings of seeminhly sophisticated language and jargon, as in ("All the Omni's are human hubris mandating requirements for God to qualify to BE God") means nothing without evidence, experimental testing, and corroboration.
What conceivable evidence, experimental testing or corroboration could possibly be necessary to validate the fact that . . . all the Omni's attributed to God are human fabrications specifying what God MUST be to qualify as God???
Trying to associate my posts with New Age crap to elicit guilt by association is shabby and unworthy behavior.
What conceivable evidence, experimental testing or corroboration could possibly be necessary to validate the fact that . . . all the Omni's attributed to God are human fabrications specifying what God MUST be to qualify as God???
Trying to associate my posts with New Age crap to elicit guilt by association is shabby and unworthy behavior.
I wasn't trying to associate your response with new age crap or any other crap other than to point out the logical fallacy inherent with your post. If I misunderstood what you were trhing to say, then perhaps you could further explain it here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Eternal entity?
