Scientist In Fight With NASA Over Intelligent Design

[Byblos]

Byblos
I get it. A simpleton created the universe. Classic!

No wonder why Doctor Antony Flew left Atheism in 2004, He simply saw that atheism was no longer intellectually tenable and iseeing the kind of arguments put forth by atheists, its no wonder why the greatest atheist philosopher of the last half of the 20th century left atheism lol

A position that leads to complete denial of rationality and, by extension, science. Ironically the supposed bedrock of atheism.

[bippy123]

Byblos
I get it. A simpleton created the universe. Classic!

No wonder why Doctor Antony Flew left Atheism in 2004, He simply saw that atheism was no longer intellectually tenable and iseeing the kind of arguments put forth by atheists, its no wonder why the greatest atheist philosopher of the last half of the 20th century left atheism lol

A position that leads to complete denial of rationality and, by extension, science. Ironically the supposed bedrock of atheism.

Supposedly is the key word Byblos, if you look at their websites you will see nothing but words like free thinking, reason etc etc its like their not only trying to convince everyone else that they are rational but they are also trying to convince themselves. As I said before Atheism is an emotional objection to God not a rational one.

[Byblos]

Supposedly is the key word Byblos, if you look at their websites you will see nothing but words like free thinking, reason etc etc its like their not only trying to convince everyone else that they are rational but they are also trying to convince themselves. As I said before Atheism is an emotional objection to God not a rational one.

Exactly.

And incidentally, what are you still doing up? Isn't it like midnight where you are?

[Katabole]

God is too complex to have “just happened.” Some super intelligence must have designed him.

Coldblood, your statement is implying that God must have been created, therefore you are conceptualizing a created God. Created gods are a delusion. For centuries they have been called idols. Your statement is an example of a statement that already rules out the explanation that is most likely to be true because the Christian claim is that God wasn't created.

So since God was not created, {In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)}; God already was, so the central Christian claim is that God is Eternal, without beginning or end. Your statement cannot apply to the Christian concept or written revelation of God.

The Greeks of the first century were interested in the things that came to be; the created things and the things that already were. Similarly, John's Gospel is aimed at the Greeks (Gentiles), those who would have first read the Gospels. The first two verses in John's Gospel cover the things that already existed (were). And the third verse of Chapter 1 cover the created things.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:3

Maybe you should have asked, "Is there a thing or being that never came to be?" Because, as a Christian I believe that the being that never came to be is called God.

[bippy123]

Supposedly is the key word Byblos, if you look at their websites you will see nothing but words like free thinking, reason etc etc its like their not only trying to convince everyone else that they are rational but they are also trying to convince themselves. As I said before Atheism is an emotional objection to God not a rational one.

Exactly.

And incidentally, what are you still doing up? Isn't it like midnight where you are?

Yea its way past midnight buddy, its a very long story. Remember what Mother teresa went through for 50 years?:)

[Byblos]

And incidentally, what are you still doing up? Isn't it like midnight where you are?

Yea its way past midnight buddy, its a very long story. Remember what Mother teresa went through for 50 years?:)

Then you must not be where I think you are. We need to chat (soon).

[bippy123]

And incidentally, what are you still doing up? Isn't it like midnight where you are?

Yea its way past midnight buddy, its a very long story. Remember what Mother teresa went through for 50 years?:)

Then you must not be where I think you are. We need to chat (soon).

Wecan chat anytime u want to my friend. I also have ocd and scrupulosity but Thanks to Mother Teresa and good spiritual advice from a few friends im doing what God expects of me.
Faith isnt about warm fuzzy feelings my friend:)

[coldblood]

byblos wrote:

. . . God is the exact opposite of complex . . .

Complex antonyms: noncomplex, non-complicated, plain, simple, uncomplicated

Byblos, your position is not untenable. All you need do is explain, in the space provided, how a noncomplex, plain, simple intelligence (as you describe God to be) could create everything that exists.

[coldblood]

Katabole

Roughly, the ID argument is that the universe is too well designed (ordered) not to have a designer. Some like that argument, some do not. In general I think the argument is plausible. At least it is worth considering. However, when one extends the ID argument to God, one typically gets immediate knee-jerk reactions such as you can see here; mostly trite slams against atheism, although one responder did make the claim that God was simple.

You share the belief that God was always here, and that is ok. I can think of two possibilities, although I suspect there are more. Accepting the existence of God -- the two possibilities my limited mind can come up with are: (1) Either God was always here, or; (2) He was not always here.

While I cannot wrap my mind around either possibility, somehow, the first seems inexplicably more likely to me. That is, if there is a God, and I believe there is, I think it more likely that he has always existed.

Similarly, if I were an atheist, I would be inclined to theorize that the universe always existed. The idea that the universe, or God, came from nothing is just too boggling a concept for my imagination to entertain.

The IDers go to any lengths to show that the universe had to be created; it is much too ordered, fine-tuned, etc. But when it comes to God they quickly throw that reasoning out the window and fall back on faith. To them, the universe that we observe could NOT have come from nothing (or have always existed). But God? Oh yeah, sure, he could have always been here, no problem.

I would propose that the existence of an eternal God would be a far greater occurrence than the existence of an eternal universe without God. To that extent the atheists’ claim is far simpler than that of the Christians’.

[Byblos]

byblos wrote:

. . . God is the exact opposite of complex . . .

Complex antonyms: noncomplex, non-complicated, plain, simple, uncomplicated

Byblos, your position is not untenable. All you need do is explain, in the space provided, how a noncomplex, plain, simple intelligence (as you describe God to be) could create everything that exists.

Non-complex meaning He is not composed of parts, he is not reducible to lesser and lesser complex parts. He is absolutely simple because He does not depend on anything nor need anything. You can look up the doctrine of divine simplicity for starters, there's a thread going on on the subject right here. In it you will find a link to a thesis written by one of our members, JAC3150. He lays out the case for divine simplicity pretty well.

[coldblood]

byblos wrote:

Non-complex meaning He [God] is not composed of parts, he is not reducible to lesser and lesser complex parts. He is absolutely simple because He does not depend on anything nor need anything. You can look up the doctrine of divine simplicity for starters, . . .

You have designed God very well.

[Byblos]

You have designed God very well.

Whatever dude. I honestly have to question what is your purpose for being here. If it's only to hear yourself offer snide remarks then be my guest, you've done a good job. But I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage such juvenile non-answers.

[seveneyes]

I think he could have a case, but it really has nothing to do with ID. Based on the article, his religious beliefs and how hard he pushed them on the office were bothersome to others. Depending on the nature of the "complaints of harassment" that are referenced in the article, the case could go either way.

If anything, the only case they have is that he may have been fired for his religious beliefs, and how outwardly he expressed them. If he was given ample warning about not bothering others with his religion, he won't win. If they simply fired him immediately, he deserves compensation. Simple as that. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be allowed to express his religion, but if it becomes disruptive or divisive in the workplace, an employer certainly has the right to ask him to hold back or save it for another venue.

As far as ID, I don't see where he gets off saying that it was the cause of his firing. Clearly the problem according to NASA was that the project was closing and that he was being disruptive...He says something entirely different, but sort of related to his religious beliefs.

And for the record, I don't see how you seriously defend ID as science. The only people who believe it is science are those who support it overtly...no neutral source has ever supported it's place as a science. On the contrary, in every instance, neutral arbiters and the vast majority of scientists see ID as it is...a non-science founded only to eliminate evolution from science, and based only on lack of evidence for evolution, which it claims is evidence for ID...which is anti-science, for the record.

I find intelligent design to be based on mountains of circumstantial evidence and the testimonies of eyewitnesses. Science does not have the ability to prove the existence of any spiritual entity, so saying that ID is anti-science is pretty inaccurate because it is science itself that has deficiencies in establishing things as fact regardless of the mounds of evidence. If they cant test it, they cant establish it, but that doesn't mean that people with intelligence should deny eyewitness collaborating testimony as well as the mountains of evidence as toward the incredible architecture displayed within the universe. You know, DNA is information. The smallest and most extensive compact disk as it were of pure information. It is the programming and blueprint of life itself. Something caused this! If you genuinely dismiss this as a blind act of chance, you are purposely wearing blinders, even if science has no capability to test and conclude intelligence behind it. (the lack of capability to test and conclude is the absence of proof, not the affirmation of non-existence. Science cannot prove non-intelligent design and by your words can only be considered Anti-Science)

[Ivellious]

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to who "witnessed" Intelligent design and why I've never heard of anybody witnessing miraculous creation of new animals in our lifetime...Your arguments are rather thin...If you wanted to write down an actual piece of "data" instead of just vaguely referencing mountains of supposed evidence that I've never heard of, please do.

[seveneyes]

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to who "witnessed" Intelligent design and why I've never heard of anybody witnessing miraculous creation of new animals in our lifetime...Your arguments are rather thin...If you wanted to write down an actual piece of "data" instead of just vaguely referencing mountains of supposed evidence that I've never heard of, please do.

The eyewitnesses are eyewitnesses of God and his power and omnipotence. If God exists, he (it) is the designer clearly. We see the witnesses throughout history and their accounts are consistent with one another. There are some who claim to have witnessed and have not, yet the true ones are verifiable in the consistencies within the testimonies themselves. In a court of law the amount of verifiable accounts of God from so many different and credible witnesses would be enough to sentence a criminal to the electric chair if the testimonies were of a capital crime. We are willing enough to believe testimony that will justify condemning a man to death, but skeptical to use those same standards to understand the gift of God which is life. Makes little sense to me. Also, I dont need to justify the fact that mountains of data suggests Intelligent design over random chance if one is willing to entertain the possibility. Clearly as I said before the amazing architecture of the universe definitely implies a far superior intellect as the designer.