My Case for Intelligent design behind existence

@Khethil,

Hi, All

Who ran around the universe putting up speed limit signs? :perplexed:

Maximum speed not to exceed 185 999 miles per second, trying to go faster will result in a traffic fine of death :perplexed:

Imagine you and I are on a road called eternity and we both come to a crossroad, one sign says eternal life and the other eternal death

Which road will you choose??

I will choose the road that leads to eternal life

If you are so adamant that their is no god and your little meaningless mortal life shall be extinguished on death

Tick off this statements below,

God is a delusion and god does not exist..........................

I want to cease to exist when I die.................................

My beloved family and that I love so dearly are just a mistake of nature..........................................

I wrote a poem that addresses this dilemma some time ago so here it is

As I approach the infinite long dark night
I resist it with all my might
I try and try to comprehend this end
To which all men must descend

Is it a sleep that all must take?
Or is it an eternal end that all must make?
I like to dream of awakening in light not dark
In a beautiful place to which all righteous men depart

Do we sleep the sleep of forever?
Or do we awake some other place together?
Does the answer to this ultimate question
Remain forever a process of eternal redemption?

Alan

@Alan McDougall,

Lets talk about the almost infinite complex of the huge DNA molecule

While it is true given enough time anything that can happen will happen :perplexed:

If you took all the metal in the known universe and made type writers from it. Then you captured , hypothecally, a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion monkeys to type constantly for a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years , you would not produce even one of Shakespeare's sonnets

But we are expected to believe that the almost infinitely more complex molecule, the blueprint of life arose by chance I our relatively young universe. :bigsmile:

Intelligent design is not creationism Smile

It is astonishing to think that this remarkable piece of machinery, which possesses the ultimate capacity to construct every living thing that ever existed on Earth, from giant redwood to the human brain, can construct all its own components in a matter of minutes and weigh less than 10-16 grams. It is of the order of several thousand million million times smaller than the smallest piece of functional machinery ever constructed by man.:deep-thought:

@Alan McDougall,

You understand that someone doesn't necessarily have to live a dreary, dark, loathing existence if they don't accept a notion of "God", right? Perhaps you feel there are only two paths constructed by your need to believe in a greater being, but do know there are other paths for others. Have you ever looked at it from this angle: Instead of just saying 'meaningless mortal life shall be extinguished on death', maybe understand we are the ones that apply meaning, create our own purpose, and can still thoroughly enjoy this life without *needing* to believe in a "greater power". There doesn't have to be an "ultimate purpose" to our existence, we just are, just like the many different creatures that have come before us.

How you go from this:

Quote:

If you took all the metal in the known universe and made type writers from it. Then you captured , hypothecally, a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion monkeys to type constantly for a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years , you would not produce even one of Shakespeare's sonnets

To this:

Quote:

But we are expected to believe that the almost infinitely more complex molecule, the blueprint of life arose by chance I our relatively young universe. :bigsmile:

is beyond me. You're aware of evolution, right? Namely of the mammalian brain (ours). Of course a dolphin or a monkey cannot write a sonnet, how does this prove there is some greater being eliciting intelligence?

Quote:

Intelligent design is not creationism

Of course it is. If you're implying there is a greater intelligence behind everything, you are implying it was created. If it wasn't created, how would you see the intelligence?

As for your poem: Death. Well, my personal sentiments are that, yes, it is like an eternal sleep. That's it, we're done being conscious forever. Does this not sit well with you?

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

Lets talk about the almost infinite complex of the huge DNA molecule

While it is true given enough time anything that can happen will happen :perplexed:

If you took all the metal in the known universe and made type writers from it. Then you captured , hypothecally, a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion monkeys to type constantly for a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years , you would not produce even one of Shakespeare's sonnets

But we are expected to believe that the almost infinitely more complex molecule, the blueprint of life arose by chance I our relatively young universe. :bigsmile:

Intelligent design is not creationism

It is astonishing to think that this remarkable piece of machinery, which possesses the ultimate capacity to construct every living thing that ever existed on Earth, from giant redwood to the human brain, can construct all its own components in a matter of minutes and weigh less than 10-16 grams. It is of the order of several thousand million million times smaller than the smallest piece of functional machinery ever constructed by man.:deep-thought:

Alan i have had the same thoughts as you and more but it has never led me to discover a creator i could describe..Be amazed , stand in awe ,wonder , yes i understand your question are these all coincidences ? BUT this does not confirm nor deny..I have mused about our reason for being able to muse, your not alone its a human condition. If you can be questioned on the details you have solved all our problems.

@Alan McDougall,

Zetherin

Firstly you have not responded to my statements from my previous post so I put then in again for you to consider

Which road will you choose??

"I Alan have will chosen the road that leads to eternal life"

If you are so adamant and sure that their is no god and our little meaningless mortal lives shall be extinguished on death

Tick off this statements below,

1) God is a delusion and god does not exist..........................

2) I want to cease to exist when I die.................................

3) I am at a crossroad and have reached an irrevocable decision reject god and free all my beloved ones from this dangerous delusion..................................??

4) My beloved family and that I all those I love so dearly are just a mistake of nature..........................................

5) Have you ever seen a little girl dancing in joy in the summer sun................?

6) Have you heard the first cry of a new born baby...........?

7) Have you looked into your children's, grandchildren's eyes and seen them shining back at you full of love..................?

8) Have you looked at your spouses or parents eyes and seen them shinning with the love inner radiance of their beautiful souls.................?

9) If you have seen the above then you have reached up and touched the face of god!!

"If you have not seen those realities, then you have looked into the darkness of the eternal void, that you have taken an irrevocable stand and firm decision never ever to believe in in god

It is your decision and mine somewhere on this earthly mortal life life to choose between life or death. I was faced with this decision years ago and chose life

"Intelligent design is not creationism Smile

"

your quote

Quote:

Of course it is. If you're implying there is a greater intelligence behind everything, you are implying it was created. If it wasn't created, how would you see the intelligence?

"No intelligent design is not creationism, especially from my viewpoint, creationist are fundamentalists and "full of religious dogma", which I am not.

Is it beyond you to understand that a person can believe in ID and at the same time be non- religious

In fact religion in any form irritates me and I have made up my own mind that there is an intelligence behind existence.

I would like you to put forth a meaningful case against intelligent design which you have not. :perplexed:

Your position of opposing ID without any substance to back your belief and yes faith, that ID is untrue smacks of the same silliness as that of fundamental creationism.

You must have a basis for what you believe

I do not know how?, who? when? where? all that we see all around us came into being, but I am informed enough to see all this unimaginably complex universe is not just some great accident. Smile

How could I in my limited capacity ever hope to understand the thinking of an infinite mind, but understand or not I know this universe is a construct far beyond human comprehension? :perplexed: Smile

To finish off this post, if I die and never wake up I have absolutely no problem with this.

Indeed I was dead for eternity before I was born and given the precious gift of life

I hope my use of colors are not irritating to you, I like colors because I am really a colorful old grizzled critter

Believe it or not I find it very invigorating to debate with you

Alan

@Alan McDougall,

XRIS AND ZETHERIN

You guys know there is one or two infallible sources of wisdom, namely your dear mother if she is still living or your spouse. :bigsmile:

Print out my posts as well as yours and give them to your wife's or moms and you can be sure the posts she agrees with will be true?:perplexed:

I really mean it guys , we all have this infinite source of wisdom right at hand but hardly ever use it

My wife brings me down to earth when I get to full of myself and is quick to point out my stupidity :nonooo:

And I admit it at times my stupidity exceeds that of a earth worm

Mom has sadely past on as her wisdom exceeded the greatest minds I am sure about this :bigsmile:

Good man!! go for it

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

XRIS AND ZETHERIN

You guys know there is one or two infallible sources of wisdom, namely your dear mother if she is still living or your spouse. :bigsmile:

Print out my posts as well as yours and give them to your wife's or moms and you can be sure the posts she agrees with will be true?:perplexed:

I really mean it guys , we all have this infinite source of wisdom right at hand but hardly ever use it

My wife brings me down to earth when I get to full of myself and is quick to point out my stupidity :nonooo:

And I admit it at times my stupidity exceeds that of a earth worm

Mom has sadely past on as her wisdom exceeded the greatest minds I am sure about this :bigsmile:

Good man!! go for it

My dear departed mother was a confirmed atheist as is my wife ....

@xris,

Quote:

Firstly you have not responded to my statements from my previous post so I put then in again for you to consider

You want me to rebut your most recent laundry list of natural wonderment? Sorry, not up for it.

Wait, oh, you want me to respond to these:

Quote:

God is a delusion and god does not exist

Rather than typing this all out again, I'm just going to copy from another thread: Notionally, anything can exist. We have the power to construct notions on a whim, and every human has the ability to accept or denounce the notions of anyone else. I'm not a theist because I believe that humans have the ability to believe there is no God; I know the notion can sometimes not exist. I'm not an atheist because I believe that humans have the ability to believe there is a God; I know the notion can sometimes exist. I'm not an agnostic in regards to theism because I know both of these classifications can exist and be believed depending on the consciousness rationalizing.

Quote:

I want to cease to exist when I die

This is personal. Answering this will tell you what exactly?

Quote:

I am at a crossroad and have reached an irrevocable decision reject god and free all my beloved ones from this dangerous delusion

It's not dangerous until it becomes evangelized or used to maliciously hurt another. If people don't try to *force* their spirituality on another, I find absolutely no problem with it -- in fact, I believe everyone should advance in a spiritual path, everyone should have the opportunity to come to their own conclusions. Now, you could say I'm being a hypocrite since I've attempted to denounce your ID, but I do feel it is different; You're attempting to support your claims through an ill-interpretation of science. I just wanted to simply bring to your attention that there is scientific understanding behind the 'proof' of ID you have shown.

Quote:

My beloved family and that I all those I love so dearly are just a mistake of nature

This is another personal notion you've constructed. I don't really know what to make of it except to say: There are other perspectives - find them. "God" is not the only answer, trust me. If you want "God" to be your answer, so be it, but don't assume there's only one other path, a path which regards your family as a mistake. Not so at all, my friend.

Quote:

Have you ever seen a little girl dancing in joy in the summer sun

Are you asking if I'm a pedophile? Nope, I date 21+

Quote:

Have you heard the first cry of a new born baby

No, I have not.

Quote:

Have you looked into your children's, grandchildren's eyes and seen them shining back at you full of love

I've had some look at me with love, yes.

Quote:

Have you looked at your spouses or parents eyes and seen them shinning with the love inner radiance of their beautiful souls

.......
.......
.......

Quote:

If you have seen the above then you have reached up and touched the face of god!!

Or I could have just reached up and touched the face of my girlfriend? No? God it is then!

Quote:

"No intelligent design is not creationism, especially from my viewpoint, creationist are fundamentalists and "full of religious dogma", which I am not.

You say ID is not creationism, yet you never accurately differentiate the two besides the religious aspect (Or, is that really the only difference?). Ok, I understand, you're not keen on the religious dogma. So, you still believe there is intelligent design (design implies creation), and are not religious? Fair enough.

Remember, I believe you to be a respectful person, and none of this is intended to attack your personal character. I also enjoy these debates with you, and though we don't necessarily agree, that doesn't matter. What does matter is that we exchange ideas and respect one another.

Thanks for your insights,

Zeth

@Alan McDougall,

Hey Alan! Many people don't know this about me, but when one of my closest friends became an evangelical and started spouting intelligent design gobbledygook, I went to the library, looked into a few (well, quite a lot, actually) books on the subject, and after reading endless argument and counterargument and thinking someone really ought to write a decent popularization that gets to the crux of all these theories I came to the rather simple realization pertaining to the role of intelligent design in science:

Intelligent Design is not science.

Science, as defined, means the process of finding natural explanations for natural phenomena. Since the Christian God, by definition, hardly acts in nature (in fact, I frequently characterize Him as acting ex mundi, or outside the confines of what we can perceive via naturalistic phenomena), whatever His veracity may be, He cannot be invoked as a form of naturalistic explanation.

That said, since intelligent design is still a cogent and logical idea, even if it does not belong in the far more specialist world of science, it still can find a home in our misfit world of philosophy. While we must bear in mind that the metaphysical implications of discarding evolution (which is what the movement calling itself "intelligent design" seeks to do) necessarily involves the rejection of all hard science, the grander idea behind intelligent design--that God created the universe--is still a logical, cogent, and wholly adequate explication.

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

Intelligent Design is not science.

Science, as defined, means the process of finding natural explanations for natural phenomena. Since the Christian God, by definition, hardly acts in nature (in fact, I frequently characterize Him as acting ex mundi, or outside the confines of what we can perceive via naturalistic phenomena), whatever His veracity may be, He cannot be invoked as a form of naturalistic explanation.

That said, since intelligent design is still a cogent and logical idea, even if it does not belong in the far more specialist world of science, it still can find a home in our misfit world of philosophy. While we must bear in mind that the metaphysical implications of discarding evolution (which is what the movement calling itself "intelligent design" seeks to do) necessarily involves the rejection of all hard science, the grander idea behind intelligent design--that God created the universe--is still a logical, cogent, and wholly adequate explication.

Sir, I salute you! ID is valid theology, and it has its place in philosophy. The thing that invalidates ID the most is its pretence of being a science. This undermines its sincerity, highlighting its alterior motives.

For thousands of years we marvelled at the world around us, its perfection, and deduced design. Then the evidences of that design became explicable in terms of more fundamental phenomena. We marvelled too at those, and some insisted therein lay the design, til those too became explicable via more fundamental phenomena, and so on. Wherever there is a question unanswered, the defenders of the church will claim that as their proof. Once we were made of clay and Godbreath, then DNA, so where in us do we find God's work now? In the electrical permittivity of free space, the charge of the electron, the strong nuclear force... things we only know of because we withheld judgement and kept looking. And when one is shown to be necessary from more fundamental considerations, these will cease to be God's work and the newly discovered fundamental phenomena will take their place.

Science builds; religion salvages. The last Pope received regular lectures on scientific discovers to keep up to date. I don't know which I respect less: the puritans denying all scientific discovery and taking the Bible 100% literally, or the re-re-re-revisionists scrabbling for scraps of metaphysics among the unanswered questions of nature.

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;48721 wrote:

Paul, and others

I am really really perplexed how hot under the collar some of you get when ID is brought up

I'm not hot under the collar. I'm just waiting for you to demonstrate an intelligent designer using the scientific method. Or at least propose a method to do so. What is your method?

If you can't even propose a method, then your idea is at best metaphysical and therefore divorced from the physical world that exists outside our logic.

If you dug up a 3 billion year old rock that had an inscription "I created this rock", that would be a curiosity but STILL would not be evidence of intelligent design -- maybe if you found them throughout the world and had a way to date the inscription, and we found them on the moon and on mars, then you'd turn some heads.

By the way, it's amazing how proponents of intelligent design don't ever point out our biological flaws. We are filled with junk DNA that doesn't encode anything, we've got all kinds of vestigial things like an appendix and pseudogenes and body hair, and we were designed to be bright enough to screw up the world faster than we can adapt to it. Sounds like our intelligent designer decided to design us unintelligently.

@Aedes,

My greatest qualm with the so-called evidence presented is that it amounts to untestable presumptions applied to simple facts. E.g. saying that if X were different then there could not be life. This is absolutely speculative and just shy of a wild guess. We cannot even predict the weather beyond a few days(and even then not very accurately), and dynamical systems(math associated with chaos theory) suggest that we may never be able to, so to say that if this aspect of physical reality were different, then life could not exist has no validity beyond possibility. We cannot prove it false any more than we can prove it true.

Not only do we not have a scientific framework comprehensive enough to debunk logically possible events, but even if we did, it would not be comprehensive enough to make the predictions being made when one says if a fundamental law were altered then life could not exist as they system would ultimately rely on probability and non-linear dynamics(chaos theory again).

@Alan McDougall,

Exactly, the whole point is that there's no way of even proposing a corroborative test. Until someone shows us that there is a 1:1 correspondence between human logic and planet earth, a logical argument about a scientific topic can't do anything more than motivate a formal scientific study.

@Bones-O,

Zetherin

I have tolerated your immaturity for as long as I can and will no longer respond to your inane @#$%*

Have you ever seen a little girl dancing in joy in the summer sun

[QUOTE]Are you asking if I'm a pedophile? Nope, I date 21+
[/quote]

"This is offensive, ugly and even shows an potential for that evil, and I will ignore any post from you directed at me.

This possibility exist in your mind not mine"

XRIS

Quote:

My dear departed mother was a confirmed atheist as is my wife ....

I have no problem with a confirmed atheist , my brother Roger is one and he is a really great guy

But it will still interest me if you could get your wife to read the topic and get her take on the matter :bigsmile:

hammersklavier

Quote:

That said, since intelligent design is still a cogent and logical idea, even if it does not belong in the far more specialist world of science, it still can find a home in our misfit world of philosophy. While we must bear in mind that the metaphysical implications of discarding evolution (which is what the movement calling itself "intelligent design" seeks to do) necessarily involves the rejection of all hard science, the grander idea behind intelligent design--that God created the universe--is still a logical, cogent, and wholly adequate explication.

Thank you for a meaningful thought out response Smile

And yes ID IS NOT SCIENCEI never said it was, only that some factors of classical physics indicate there might be an ID Thus the long list of fundamental constants etc Smile

Quote:

Sir, I salute you! ID is valid theology, and it has its place in philosophy. The thing that invalidates ID the most is its pretence of being a science. This undermines its sincerity, highlighting its alterior motives.

Again an informative response thank you. I Read your post very carefully and it makes real sense Smile

I agree we can never prove ID scientifically only give substantive clues though science that there might be an ID no more no less Smile

I belong to no religious organisation, but I really don't mind if others do, so long as they do not try to force feed me with their exclusive ideas on creation etc. I make up my own mind, but I am flexible and can be moved from my position with telling dialogue, communication an debate by other informed folk, indeed some much more informed than me

Aedes

Quote:

I'm not hot under the collar. I'm just waiting for you to demonstrate an intelligent designer using the scientific method. Or at least propose a method to do so. What is your method?

That was just a generalised comment not aimed specifically at you, sorry if you took it that way.

I unfortunately cannot put god or whatever you like under a scientific petry dish.

I can only suggest that there are indicators like the fundamental laws that hold the universe give us clues that there "might be a great and mighty mind" behind you and me and our families as well as the rest of the universe.

I am not silly enough to think I could ever describe this infinite ID possibly it is as far removed from me as I am from a cockroach

The cockroach being the greater intellect in my case according to some on this forum :perplexed: :bigsmile:

What is your scientific method of proving there is no ID I am really interested in that

Either way the truth will remain the truth no matter which side of the fence we care to sit on. Do I have the truth , I do not know, do you do you know.

It is important to know what we do not know, don't you think :perplexed:

Zetetic11235

Quote:

We cannot even predict the weather beyond a few days(and even then not very accurately), and dynamical systems(math associated with chaos theory) suggest that we may never be able to, so to say that if this aspect of physical reality were different, then life could not exist has no validity beyond possibility. We cannot prove it false any more than we can prove it true

True we can not predict the weather because entropy is a built in reality of our universe and everything tends to go from order to chaos

But we are getting better at it by the day and one day (long after I have gone) when computing power increases in speed and might by use of the quantum computer we might be able to track the path of every fundamental particle in the universe

Thank you guys :bigsmile: , with the express exclusion of one :mad:

@Aedes,

YO!

If life developed/adapted to realitively chaotic conditions that life would then see those chaotic conditions as order. development is then interrelational, life to conditions/environment, part to part, part to the whole and the whole to each of its parts -- totality, yet an open system.

@boagie,

boagie

Quote:

If life developed/adapted to realitively chaotic conditions that life would then see those chaotic conditions as order. development is then interrelational, life to conditions/environment, part to part, part to the whole and the whole to each of its parts -- totality, yet an open system

.

True one mans order might be another mans chaos and the reverse. I bet it is freezing cold over there in beautiful Canada, but it is warm sunny and lovely in the land of sunshine South Africa where I live.

But would you exchange the cold beauty of a Canadian winter for the warmth of a SA one, where in the depths of winter the day time temperature hardly ever goes lower than 20 centigrade

I have only seen snow fall three times in my life in SA . Never had a white XMASS ect

@Alan McDougall,

You say this:

Alan wrote:

I have tolerated your immaturity for as long as I can and will no longer respond to your inane @#$%*

After I say this:

Quote:

Remember, I believe you to be a respectful person, and none of this is intended to attack your personal character. I also enjoy these debates with you, and though we don't necessarily agree, that doesn't matter. What does matter is that we exchange ideas and respect one another.

Thanks for your insights,

Zeth

This processes well with you? Hm.

If you ask someone:

Quote:

Have you ever seen a little girl dancing in joy in the summer sun

How in the world would you like them to respond? I had to joke with you, as I was perplexed that you would even attempt to use this in support of Intelligent Design. Because I can see a little girl dancing in sunlight, there's a "God"? Come on now. I was laughing, I had to.

Judging from your malicious response, it appears the respectful person I thought you were may not be so. I'll still give you the benefit of the doubt, however. Perhaps you've just misinterpreted my posts. I didn't mean to offend you with the pedophile comment, it was all in a jocular fashion.

I think you've got the idea. I and others have approached this from differing angles, and you should have gotten the idea by now. If not, I'll be here to clarify -- in a not-so-funny manner (don't want to offend you again)

@Alan McDougall,

Allan,

The problem of determinacy is two-fold: The less technical of the two is the problem of an infinite loop. As data is gathered, data is created by the action of its gathering so we cannot have a complete set of data. This is one way of looking at it without getting into Russel's Paradox ect. Also note that a theory of everything would necessarily be self explanatory as the theory would necessarily account for its own existence and the logical processes which allow for it.

The second problem is that of the dichotomy of consistency and completeness in any logical system. No system is both complete, meaning that every theorem constructable in a first order language is either provably true or false and consistent that is, no theorem can be proven both true and false in it. So either some theorems are not provable or some are provably true AND provably false. There are some attempts to get around this, but no groundbreaking successes I am aware of; thus even if we could show logic to be isomorphic (1:1)(Wittgenstein made some convincing arguments, and the more fringe Chris Langan has some...interesting ideas in this respect) with the real world, we still cannot have a complete and consistent theory of everything.

That we likely cannot have such a complete all-encompassing system is the most compelling reason for some belief in the mystic or at least a sense of the mystic.

@Zetetic11235,

zeth

I said I would not respond but much of what you have said has made me rethink the matter

Quote:

How in the world would you like them to respond? I had to joke with you, as I was perplexed that you would even attempt to use this in support of Intelligent Design. Because I can see a little girl dancing in sunlight, there's a "God"? Come on now. I was laughing, I had to.

The lovely little Happy dancing laughing little pony tailed girl i was referring to was my beloved little ten year old granddaughter.

So a response like "do you think I am a peadophile" came over as not funny at all to me and I hope you can relate to that
The most despicable crime is to harm a little child especially in a depraved sexual manner

Even is the most terrible prison, with the worst offenders one can imagine, "if the inmate find out you were a child molester" your life span is very very short indeed. When the other inmates get their hands on a reprobate of this depravity they simply murder him (I am not justifying it just stating a fact of truth).

So maybe now you can see why I got angry with your response and in a million years I could still never see it as a joke

But let us put all that aside as a misunderstanding as an old fella like me can not always relate to the humor of the young Smile

Taking the position that there is a god then to me gods most beautiful example and handiwork can be seen in a little bright eyed girl. Can you now see what I was trying to get over? The most intelligent thing any designer could do would be to design a little girl

And if it is a result of evolution then to me it is the very peak of evolutionary nature and chance.

That is why I used a little girl as an example of gods or evoltions work and feel free to take your pick Smile

Quote:

Judging from your malicious response,

OH Now again your immaturity is showing, where tell me did I ever ever respond to you in a maliicious manner. Do you even know the meaning of the word?

Some synonyms of Malicious are hatefully, spiteful, malevolent, cruel, nasty, iniquitous , wicked, unfair mean unjust etc etc where man where?? did I do that to you??

Hey!

Zetetic11235 :bigsmile:

Quote:

Allan,

The problem of determinacy is two-fold: The less technical of the two is the problem of an infinite loop. As data is gathered, data is created by the action of its gathering so we cannot have a complete set of data. This is one way of looking at it without getting into Russel's Paradox ect. Also note that a theory of everything would necessarily be self explanatory as the theory would necessarily account for its own existence and the logical processes which allow for it

.

Yes what you say is is really true and maybe my quest to find the "Uncaused Cause" of existence is futile but why not try. Life is after all just a search for meaning.

To me the Uncaused Cause is what the religious refer to as god

I think it was Stephen Hawking that said once we find the equation and formulae for the "Theory of Everything" then we will know the mind of god, or TOE would equate to god and the concept of a creator or god would become unnecessary

If one thinks about it there is really no difference between TOE and god. all forces are to be found in TOE and all things emanate from god, if you believe in god that is Smile

@Alan McDougall,

Quote:

The lovely little Happy dancing laughing little pony tailed girl i was referring to was my beloved little ten year old granddaughter.

If you type, "little girl", don't expect people to immediately understand your personal emotional attachment to the common noun. For you to get angry over this doesn't even make any sense to me, as I feel you should have the understanding to realize that I am not a mind reader and did not intend to hurt you. This is especially considering that one question about the little girl was one of EIGHT questions, that, for the most part, were completely general.

Instead of spouting an ambiguous question, this is all you had to say initially:

Quote:

Taking the position that there is a god then to me gods most beautiful example and handiwork can be seen in a little bright eyed girl. Can you now see what I was trying to get over? The most intelligent thing any designer could do would be to design a little girl

The reason why I thought you were being nasty was because of this:

Quote:

I have tolerated your immaturity for as long as I can and will no longer respond to your inane @#$%*

I hope we've come to an understanding, and you realize I'm not trying to approach this immaturely.

Be well,

Zeth

Philosophy Forum

My Case for Intelligent design behind existence

Quick Links

My Account

able2know