nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How do you convince people god exists?

ILoveYourVibes

How do you in history?

And how do you do it now?

With all the evidence etc.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Time is a concept that humans created to help organise ourselves. Everything we do is based around time... start, middle, end.

I think the universe has just always been here and always will be. It’s us that come and go.

Hard concept to grasp for us. But there is no start or finish. Only for us

magicbastarder

how do you distinguish between a 'time' (i'll let you suggest more appropriate terminology there) when humans didn't exist, and when humans did?

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

Time is a concept that humans created to help organise ourselves. Everything we do is based around time... start, middle, end.

I think the universe has just always been here and always will be. It’s us that come and go.

Hard concept to grasp for us. But there is no start or finish. Only for us

Nonsense

Time existed before there were any humans to perceive it. The existence of atoms and stars is impossible without it. In Einstein's theories of relativity, time is in effect another dimension of space - space-time.

The universe was not always here (at least in its present form) - it's approximately 15 billion years old, if we reverse the observed expansion of the universe we end up with a singularity at that time ago. We also have direct observed evidence of the big bang - Cosmic background radiation.

Apiarist

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

How do you in history?

Easy. Tell them people that whoever does not believe in your God, gets their head chopped off. Alleluia!

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

And how do you do it now?

Fake news. This is the most fashionable way now.

NaFirinne

kneemos wrote: »

If a God didn't allow cancer you'd say why is there starvation? Get rid of starvation you say why do folk fall down stairs,etc,etc,etc.

What you're talking about is an impossible utopia where the ultimate logical conclusion is a world where everyone lives the same perfect pain and trouble free life.

I would say it's more because we don't live in God's Kingdom. We live apart from God.

magicbastarder

like an estranged couple you mean? fighting over the cat?

storker

NaFirinne wrote: »

I would say it's more because we don't live in God's Kingdom. We live apart from God.

In the same way as we live apart from Zeus, Odin, Cthulhu, etc.

NaFirinne

storker wrote: »

In the same way as we live apart from Zeus, Odin, Cthulhu, etc.

Only because they were driven out by the flood.

kelly1

IAmTheReign wrote: »

Your whole argument is a logical fallacy. IF life had to start with a minimum of a complete cell then you could argue that he natural formation of a self-replicating cell is inconceivably improbable. But you have zero evidence to support your claim that life had to start with a complete cell. Not understanding how something happened is not evidence that God did it, the only thing it's evidence of is that we need to keep expanding our knowledge as a species.

Cells are the fundamental units of life. Do you know of anything less that can survive long enough to replicate? Something that would be considered life?

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

Cells are the fundamental units of life. Do you know of anything less that can survive long enough to replicate? Something that would be considered life?

I think the units and stage of evolution you're looking for here are RNA and RNA world.

Cabaal

NaFirinne wrote: »

Only because they were driven out by the flood.

So Zeus, Odin, Cthulhu, etc are real gods too?, interesting.

Which flood? Was there a giant turtle involved?

storker

Cabaal wrote: »

So Zeus, Odin, Cthulhu, etc are real gods too?, interesting.

Which flood? Was there a giant turtle involved?

I assumed the comment you were replying to was tongue in cheek. Have I been tripped up by Poe's Law (again)?

kelly1

smacl wrote: »

I think the units and stage of evolution you're looking for here are RNA and RNA world.

But they can't exist alone can they? Just think about it.

The simplest cells require something like 300 different types of proteins in order to function i.e. survive for long enough to replicate. If it's so improbable that a single protein would assemble naturally, how is it possible for that to happen with 300 types?? All have to assemble in the right structure and within a very short space of time e.g. 1 second. If the assembly doesn't happen quickly, including the protective membrane, the cell will be broken apart by natural forces, e.g water dissolution and UV light causing breakdown.

On top of that, you need lipids, sugars, enzymes. Then the reactions have to be stopped at just the right time. Reactions will naturally continue past the point where a protein is useful.

Did you watch the 2 vids I linked?

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

Did you watch the 2 vids I linked?

Your two videos come from Illustra media which are closely tied to the Discovery Institute, described as follows;

Wikipedia wrote:

The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design (ID). Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to permit the teaching of anti-evolution, intelligent-design beliefs in United States public high school science courses in place of accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects when in fact there is none

We've already been through the debunking of ID pseudo-science at considerable length in this forum in what was one of the longest running thread on this forum. Read all about it in the Origin of Specious nonsense threads. This 'Teach the controversy' is utter claptrap and has been found not to be a valid science for educational purposes in a court of law in the states.

Wikipedia wrote:

"Teach the Controversy" is a campaign conducted by the Discovery Institute to promote the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design, a variant of traditional creationism, while attempting to discredit the teaching of evolution in United States public high school science courses.

The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics. A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a "false perception" that evolution is "a theory in crisis" by falsely claiming it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community. In the December 2005 ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge John E. Jones III concluded that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".

kelly1

smacl wrote: »

We've already been through the debunking of ID pseudo-science at considerable length in this forum ...

So you label ID as pseudo-science and drop the mic? That doesn't address the problems I mentioned at all. Why don't you engage instead of giving me a genetic falacy?

Just what is unscientific about ID? The only difference between ID and "mainstream" Darwinian science is that both groups come to different conclusions based on their observations.

Odhinn

kelly1 wrote: »

So you label ID as pseudo-science and drop the mic? That doesn't address the problems I mentioned at all. Why don't you engage instead of giving me a genetic falacy?

Just what is unscientific about ID? The only difference between ID and "mainstream" Darwinian science is that both groups come to different conclusions based on their observations.

....but the 'darwinian science' is backed up by the methodology of the scientific method, whereas 'ID' presumes "goddidit" and works from there.

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

So you label ID as pseudo-science and drop the mic? That doesn't address the problems I mentioned at all. Why don't you engage instead of giving me a genetic falacy?

Just what is unscientific about ID? The only difference between ID and "mainstream" Darwinian science is that both groups come to different conclusions based on their observations.

Firstly, it is not my label. Intelligent Design is broadly regarded as pseudo-science, by the public at large, scientific community and mainstream media.

Wikipedia wrote:

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, so it is not science. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States.

It is nonsense, plain and simple.

kelly1

smacl wrote: »

Firstly, it is not my label. Intelligent Design is broadly regarded as pseudo-science, by the public at large, scientific community and mainstream media.

It's only labelled pseudo-science because they come to the conclusion, based on evidence, that there is an intelligent designer behind life. They actually do real empirical work.

And you still haven't addressed the problem/questions I presented. Leave the ID people out of this please.

magicbastarder

kelly1 wrote: »

based on evidence

what does the evidence say about the nature of the intelligence behind this design?
or is it a lack of evidence that is leaving the door open for 'it must be an intelligence' speculation?

storker

kelly1 wrote: »

It's only labelled pseudo-science because they come to the conclusion, based on evidence, that there is an intelligent designer behind life. They actually do real empirical work.

No. It's labelled as a pseudo-science because it starts with the assumption that there was an intelligent designer (a.k.a. God), and looks for evidence to confirm this. It's the exact opposite of the scientific method, and has more in common with the methodology of conspiracy theorists than it does with any science.

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

It's only labelled pseudo-science because they come to the conclusion, based on evidence, that there is an intelligent designer behind life. They actually do real empirical work.

And you still haven't addressed the problem/questions I presented. Leave the ID people out of this please.

It's labelled psuedo-science because, among other issues, it was found in a US court of law to be a form of creationism.

This was denied but is evidently clear because of how ID is inherently logically and scientifically flawed. It's main argument is based on irreducible complexity, that certain things (be they cells or proteins etc.) are so complex that they could not have come from something simpler. But this means that what they came from must be more complex, and then what those precursors themselves came from was more complex and so on. An infinite loop of complexity, the only way to break is, well wouldn'tcha know, an all powerful being who can just magic these things into existence.

Maybe try looking at some scientifc papers about abiogeniss and evolution in general, as opposed to youtube vids horribly mis-using statistics.

Hotblack Desiato

Your signature is very appropriate for that post, Mark!

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge"
Isaac Asimov, 1980

kelly1

magicbastarder wrote: »

what does the evidence say about the nature of the intelligence behind this design?

Since ID actually is science (IMHO), they conclude that life had an intelligent designer but it's not within their scope to say anything to about the nature of the designer.

Some would say "aliens did it" but that doesn't solve the problem since you then have to ask who designed the aliens. Philosophically speaking it's logical to conclude that the designer is immaterial.

kelly1

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Maybe try looking at some scientifc papers about abiogeniss

Looking at that article Mark, it says "Peptides can form without amino acids". That's a bit like the 3rd rung on a ladder with a million steps. Let's be honest here, scientists really have no clue how life arose from inorganic compounds.

The more we learn about the complexity of cells the more intractable the problem becomes and the knowledge gap grows. That's not progress.

Is James Tour stating anything incorrect in this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y

magicbastarder

kelly1 wrote: »

Since ID actually is science (IMHO), they conclude that life had an intelligent designer but it's not within their scope to say anything to about the nature of the designer.

ForestFire

storker wrote: »

No. It's labelled as a pseudo-science because it starts with the assumption that there was an intelligent designer (a.k.a. God), and looks for evidence to confirm this. It's the exact opposite of the scientific method, and has more in common with the methodology of conspiracy theorists than it does with any science.

Are you sure about this?

"Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that doesn't fit into a currently accepted scientific theory. In other words, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory."

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Sin City

ForestFire wrote: »

Are you sure about this?

"Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that doesn't fit into a currently accepted scientific theory. In other words, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory."

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

an idea that can be tested scientifically

magicbastarder

ID is a process of using lack of knowledge/lack of evidence to reach a conclusion, rather than using knowledge or evidence to reach a conclusion.

it'd be like a court deciding 'we can't find evidence that the accused *didn't* commit the crime, therefore he is guilty'.

Sin City

kelly1 wrote: »

Since ID actually is science (IMHO), they conclude that life had an intelligent designer but it's not within their scope to say anything to about the nature of the designer.

its not a science
It cannot be tested that there is an Intelligent Designer

Some would say "aliens did it" but that doesn't solve the problem since you then have to ask who designed the aliens. Philosophically speaking it's logical to conclude that the designer is immaterial.

The truth is we dont know
maybe it was aliens
maybe it was evolution

The thing is we dont just say God did it because we dont know

ForestFire

Okay but every scientific idea or hypothesis starts with little or no evidence, and this is what needs to be done to prove it.

ID Is still at this stage and not proven, but to say you started with an assumption, then everything later is invalid is not correct.

Did Newton not start with an assumption of a force "pulling" the apple to his head and then whet on to collect the evidence, to finally prove the law of gravity?

(I must confess(to somebody?) I only stumbled in here and have not read the entire thread)