If you're not sure what to do, ask yourself, "What would God do?"

God would use God powers, something humans don't have. NEXT!

---

^^ Gary, awesome. LOL

---

#resist

[ETA]Could this be where some here picked up their debating tactics?[/ETA]

ETA?

ETA = Edited To Add

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I see our friend I.D. is at it again.
Cannot read and understand,
fails to answer the questions,
because he either doesn't know or doesn't have the ability to find the answers,
or if he did know or find the answers, didn't like them,
So, as usual,

I.D. Changed the Subject.

I.D. Answer the questions and find some true and corrct evidence to back up your claims.

At the moment you are failing miserably. Out of score, on a scale of one to ten, you are on the minus scale.

You're full of it. I have given good reason for a belief in God. Simply becuase you cannot follow sound logic and wish to place that logic in the wrong department in College or University does not make the problem just go away.

You simply stating that there is no God does not make what you say true.

You simply stating that there is no God does not make what you say true.

Now we're getting somewhere because I fully agree. Which also makes the reverse true - simply stating that there is a God does not make what you say true. So then the question becomes: how do we resolve the issue? We turn to observable evidence backed by empirical logic. Since there is no evidence for the existence of God, there is no reason to believe one exists.

Having said that, I can totally respect someone saying that they believe in God despite the lack of observable evidence because they have faith (and the very definition of faith is to believe in something so strongly without any evidence to support the belief).

Though somehow I know that won't be good enough for you. You'll continue to assert that Atheism is a faith in nothing (contradictory and untrue) and that there is room for the supernatural (God) in science.

I see our friend I.D. is at it again.
Cannot read and understand,
fails to answer the questions,
because he either doesn't know or doesn't have the ability to find the answers,
or if he did know or find the answers, didn't like them,
So, as usual,

I.D. Changed the Subject.

I.D. Answer the questions and find some true and corrct evidence to back up your claims.

At the moment you are failing miserably. Out of score, on a scale of one to ten, you are on the minus scale.

You're full of it. I have given good reason for a belief in God. Simply becuase you cannot follow sound logic and wish to place that logic in the wrong department in College or University does not make the problem just go away.

You simply stating that there is no God does not make what you say true.

If you think you are logical, then prove it. Because so far you have shown virtually no knowledge at all.

I have given good reason for a belief in God. Simply becuase you cannot follow sound logic and wish to place that logic in the wrong department in College or University does not make the problem just go away.

You simply stating that there is no God does not make what you say true.

CPMO attempted to give good reasons for belief in God at the start of this thread. I believe others have shown there may be flaws in his arguments. I am not sure you have provided a similar systematic approach to your reasons for belief in God. Perhaps you could start a thread and succinctly detail them.

It seems to me the word science is generally used interchangeably with the natural (or physical) sciences, and, as has been mentioned, I believe for the natural sciences, logic is similar to mathematics, it underpins much of science and is used as a tool by science's practitioners. To avoid confusion about what I mean when I use the word "science" I typically prefix it with the word "natural".

Logic, like mathematics is a formal approach to dealing with abstract concepts, and thus neither are natural sciences. Logic, like mathematics, can usefully be applied to the concrete physical universe, and it's usefulness is why the practitioners of the natural science take advantage of these tools.

I'll readily admit that science is a broader discipline than the natural sciences, though given the general usage of the term "science" (and related terms like "scientist", "science classroom" and "scientific method") to typically mean the only the natural sciences, I would suggest it is incumbent on those wishing to employ the term in its broader sense to state so explicitly to avoid confusion.

From wikipedia entry on Logic:

Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the study of valid reasoning. Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. It examines general forms that arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. In philosophy, the study of logic is applied in most major areas: metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, and ethics. In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language. Logic is also studied in argumentation theory.

Logic was studied in several ancient civilizations, including India, China, and Greece. In the West, logic was established as a formal discipline by Aristotle, who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy. The study of logic was part of the classical trivium, which also included grammar and rhetoric.

Which I believe provides a good basis (from Aristotle onwards) to believe that logic is a field in philosophy. Philosophy encompasses fields used and studied by many other disciplines, indeed, I suspect many (including myself) believe philosophy provides a framework for all other disciplines. The scientific method certainly arises from philosophy.

That being said, from the wikipedia article on Formal Science:

The formal sciences are the branches of knowledge that are concerned with formal systems, such as logic, mathematics, theoretical computer science, information theory, Game theory, systems theory, decision theory, statistics, and some aspects of linguistics.

Unlike other sciences, the formal sciences are not concerned with the validity of theories based on observations in the real world, but instead with the properties of formal systems based on definitions and rules. Methods of the formal sciences are, however, applied in constructing and testing scientific models dealing with observable reality.

Which clearly indicates that logic can be considered as a discipline of the "formal sciences". If you have been using the word "science" interchangeably with the term "formal science", then I can well understand why I and others have been confused by your posts.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

So then the question becomes: how do we resolve the issue? We turn to observable evidence backed by empirical logic. Since there is no evidence for the existence of God, there is no reason to believe one exists.

Having said that, I can totally respect someone saying that they believe in God despite the lack of observable evidence because they have faith (and the very definition of faith is to believe in something so strongly without any evidence to support the belief).

Well that's the end of this thread then. When's the second formulation?

I suspect the end of the thread comes when all parties agree. First ID, Guy, and others that think like them need to acknowledge the difference between faith and non-faith so that we can begin to understand why Atheism is not a faith in nothing (and by definition it can never be), and why the idea of Intelligent Design is not a natural science at all.

I won't hold my breath waiting for their admission as it undermines their rationalized view of faith and their fallacious view of Atheism.

I have Four Billion Years Of Life Evolution in my body. Maybe more if Strong Panspermia is considered.

If My Mind Believes In GOD; If My Soul Feels It; If My Very Essense is Full Of GOD, then There Is GOD.

And No Science will Disuade Me. Evidence Against(In Science's Mind) Be Damned.

A World where it seems to many, 'How can there be a GOD? Not Considered. No Weight.

My Family, Home, Everything Destroyed in front and around me as I take my dying breaths, and can't believe it happened-not good enough.

GOD is Here. GOD is Real. GOD Forever.

AndThat'sTheWayItIsDullNanDO

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Prove it they say.......

Fine and I'll go back to a very old and well used line of thought.

Do you love someone? Do you love your mother and father? Do you have children and do you love them. If you do love them saying it to me dosen't prove it. Prove they love you back. You say you don't have a Faith. I don't believe you.

Prove there is a God they say.....

Prove you science is correct. You misplace your Faith in that science, prove it's correct.

Intelligent Design takes logic and science one being the same as the other just as Albert Einstein told you in my quote of him, and statistical mathematics along with many branches of science, DNA, Drakes equation revised, many, many more things of that nature and when done; Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Arthur Conan Doyle

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Arthur Conan Doyle

...but whose truth?

---

And let us not forget that the views and opinions being expressed here are our perspective on certain things, not necessarily nature's or God's perspective on the same matter or subject of things.

Does there have to exist "supernatural" things in nature when not everything we already do know about is supposed to exist is always explainable?

In the end, we will not be able to explain everything that is around us.

Prove it they say.......

Fine and I'll go back to a very old and well used line of thought.

Yes, it's called deflection and you appear to use it frequently.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Yes, it's called deflection and you appear to use it frequently.

I believe the word you meant to say was "constantly."

---

If as I.D claims there is a god and that god is the designer why did he make such a bad job of designing humans.

Any electronics installation or repair engineer will tell you;
we are too big,
we're not tall enough,
the head is not well protected,
our skin is too easily cut and burnt,
our arms are too short,
they are also not flexible enough,
we don't have enough hands,
we don't have eyes on stalks so we can actually see what we are doing.

If as I.D claims there is a god and that god is the designer why did he make such a bad job of designing humans.

Any electronics installation or repair engineer will tell you;
we are too big,
we're not tall enough,
the head is not well protected,
our skin is too easily cut and burnt,
our arms are too short,
they are also not flexible enough,
we don't have enough hands,
we don't have eyes on stalks so we can actually see what we are doing.

Well put, further evidence that we are nothing more that a product of an ongoing evolution, and definitely not of any specific design.

---

#resist

If as I.D claims there is a god and that god is the designer why did he make such a bad job of designing humans.

Any electronics installation or repair engineer will tell you;
we are too big,
we're not tall enough,
the head is not well protected,
our skin is too easily cut and burnt,
our arms are too short,
they are also not flexible enough,
we don't have enough hands,
we don't have eyes on stalks so we can actually see what we are doing.

Well put, further evidence that we are nothing more that a product of an ongoing evolution, and definitely not of any specific design.

Totally agree, we evolved.

In all that I didn't mention knees,
knees are too delicate,
they give up too easily if bent or twisted beyond a very narrow angle,
they suffer if the ankle is too restricted because we might have to wear boots,
they have no padding,
and don't like being bent for too long, like when working at ground level.

but priests should know that already, because they spend too long praying to a make believe god who doesn't have enough time to listen to them

I would include the vast variance of human intellect. There are those that shoot from the hip, without the ability to reason much of anything, to those with super intellects by human standards, and everyone in between. One size fits all does not apply. I am not even referring to mentally handicapped. Just the vast range of intellect.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

As an adaption from previous models, evolution, it is quite good, but for even some basic jobs that man has been doing for thousands of years, like cooking and building. We could do with more hands and eyes.

When cooking we quite often have to steady the pot, stir continuously and add ingredients. That strictly speaking require 3 hands. And that ignores the requirements to look after the other items that are being cooked.

And try boring a hole in a piece of wood so that the hole is perpendicular to the piece of wood in both planes without another person to observe one of the planes. So we could do with extra eyes on stalks to increase productivity and to do it in small enclosed spaces.

If man was designed, as fit for purpose, as I.D. and all those that say that all animals were put on this earth, as they are now, would have us believe then it is not very good.

I'm wondering what would make up a perfect human.
A couple more hands would certainly be good, as well as octopus style eyes, in the back of our heads as well as the front. The ability to run like a cheetah, fly like a falcon, and swim like a dolphin, all with the strength of a gorilla. We would have the immune system of a crocodile, and the intellect of a super computer.

Each plant or animal is adapted to a certain environment, based on evolution with changes in the environment, and lack of a natural disasters. Torture, killing, stealing, lying would be relics of the past.

Perfect beings? I think we have a long, long way to evolve before we can say that.

Steve

Edit: The longevity of a tortoise would be nice too.

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website