IT Employment

Our forums are currently in maintenance mode and the ability to post is disabled. We will be back up and running as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience!

General discussion



By zealot144 ·
Why Can't you see it? Drop the ad hominem BS for just a moment, and ask yourself "Why am I a Doubter". Conversely, "Why am I so Sure"?

The question posed for more than two millennium is not whether their is a creator, but whether you can see him (it/her). Naturalists wish to believe that EVERYTHING can be seen, and that which cannot be seen does not exist. To assume that everything can be seen is the apex of narcissism, yet this is the motor that drives science and naturalism. Science is beneficial. Naturalism is faith. It is necessary to define what the character of "natural" is, to exclude which is most difficult to see, or that which seems least likely, in order to be a "naturalist". That which is extremely improbable or empirically invisible must not exist. But, that is essentially the description of our known cosmos.

When brilliant mathematicians like Roger Penrose calculate the odds of our observable universe being so coincidentally appropriate to life as ten to the tenth to the negative one hundred fiftieth, a number close to the number of all particles in the known universe taken to the power of all the known particles in the universe, the word "coincidence" loses all meaning. Penrose was not yet considering biochemical complexities, only the coincidences of physics deployed in the big bang. Is this extremely unlikely? Is it more unlikely than "unnatural" or "supernatural"?

The key argument for atheism has lately become evolution. One learned discourse I recently encountered in Uncommon Dissent was the "logical" claim that the universe not only created itself but also programmed itself to be perfect for life. This is an attempt to find a middle ground between teleology and naturalism. It walks around questions about primacy and information theory, not to mention probability and statistics. Which was, amazingly, the focus of the argument, that being that the cosmos is full of nonphysical realities like law, justice, truth, mathematics (philosophers wonder how everything seems so amenable to description by such a precise mechanism as ordered numbers), and a number of other abstract realities that don't easily fall to scientific scrutiny, i. e., things that are real, but not scientific. Evolution has chosen to embrace such things and declare them the result of natural selection. The question of origins (biologically, at least) has been determined by Darwinism, so everything else logically must be the result of the same unimaginable cosmic coincidence.

Darwinists view poor design, like Dodo birds or elephants, as evidence there was no designer. Yet, if evolution is driven by natural selection, the survival of the fittest, why did poor designs survive? Either they are not poor designs, or the concept of the quality of the design as driving force is suspect. The same reasoning applies to "vestigial" organs, assumed to be leftovers, but which may actually be useful. If they are leftovers, why wasn't the design deleted long ago? Excess genetic baggage and excess tissue differentiation cannot be viewed as "naturalistically selected". If they are not the result of natural selection, the assumption that "if there was a designer, then the designer is stupid" is even more stupid, as we cannot know the goals of the designer, and design of such complexity is truly beyond our wildest imagining.

Even if we, as humans, can eventually engineer a living organism, it is only because we are emulating existing design paradigms within a cosmos already fortuitously amenable to the physics of life, environmentally, chemically, and astronomically.

To look at a house and not know who it's designer was is not only feasible, it is likely. I look at houses every day without any hint of who designed or built them. But, to look at a house and lack the mental capacity to realize that it WAS designed, that it was built, is inconceivable, regardless of intelligence. A monkey may see it as no more remarkable than a cave or a tree, but I don't know any way any human capable of speech could fail to recognize design. And, the most complex structure ever made by man is less than a sandcastle compared to the convenient and interactive universe we live in. We are living inside a miracle. WE are a miracle.

The question is not properly "What is SCIENTIFIC"? The proper question is "What is REAL"?

MUST all of reality bend to the scientific method? If not, then is it not possible that not all of reality is comprehensible, since not all of what is "real" may be directly observable and quantifiable? Is it not POSSIBLE that some portion of REALITY may only be concluded by implication? Is it possible that there is SOMETHING outside our cosmos, something NOT constrained by time or the logic of primacy and causality? Is it POSSIBLE?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Wow, so much to choose from

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Possibility

to choose from.

Three quarters of particle physics have only been observed by implication.

No one has even seen an electron 'orbiting' a nucleus.

What does it mean an entity not constrained by time?. How does it percieve duration then, in fact how does it percieve anything?
Not bound by our time, I'll accept.

So let's say the creator can insert itself into anywhen in our time.

We are bound by causality and time (it's decision !), it is impossible for us to percieve any action such a being took unless they chose (or were forced) to act only in ways we could perceive.

If something just appeared in our past, it was always there or it didn't. If something appears now, big deal, if something appears in our future, as far we are concerned it does not yet exist.

So even if this unconstrained being did design our existance, the very act precludes it from ever acting again unless it chose to become part of it's own creation and be bound by it's limitations.

Collapse -

Science or real

by rob mekel In reply to Possibility

Science means research checking out possibilities and yes some times try to predict a result. It has a lot to do with try and error/succeed.

Fundamental research does bring new views on things there for it will bring changes to establishment/given "rules"

For instance in the early 19xx the atom was the smallest particle mankind new. Now a day's, at least I hope, we all know this isn't so.
Taken this to a larger scale ...
Why can't the earth be the electron in a larger body ... or ... let our solar system be a chemical chain in a bigger body ... an asteroid be a quarks ... or ...

Fantasy can take you anywhere :)
Even to: may be true places


Collapse -

About Roger Penrose's calculation...

by Absolutely In reply to Possibility

Do you know what he took as "given" when he calculated the probability of our existence? I'll give you a hint at my motive: my existence is not a probability, it is an axiom. Rene Descartes explained it to me.

Collapse -

Actually, you're all figments of my imagination

by NickNielsen In reply to About Roger Penrose's cal ...

I think, therefore you are.

"Of course I believe that solipsism is the correct philosophy, but that's only one man's opinion."

-- Melvin Fitting

Collapse -

What's behind you?

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Actually, you're all figm ...

Did you ever wonder if nothing exists if you're not looking at it, and when you turn your head everything is recreated from the mass of what you were looking at before?

Collapse -


by maecuff In reply to What's behind you?

You've been ***** slapped one too many times, haven't you?

Collapse -

It was a valid question, Mae

by NickNielsen In reply to Palmetto

And the answer is, if I don't see it, it doesn't exist.

At least, according to the philosphy.

Collapse -

I have no problem believing that

by maecuff In reply to It was a valid question, ...

my husband doesn't see all kinds of know, dirty clothes left on the floor, stuff like that. I guess that means they don't really exist. Sounds like a good excuse to go shopping. :)

Collapse -

Male enhancement

by CharlieSpencer In reply to I have no problem believi ...

Woman 1: My husband's taking some of those "male enhancement" pills.

Woman 2: Really? How's that working out?

Woman 1: Well, he still got a pot belly, leaves his clothes on the floor, won't take out the trash, and doesn't put the seat down. It hasn't enhanced him at all.

Collapse -

re: male enhancement

by rob mekel In reply to I have no problem believi ...

by "woman1 ... pills" you did mean by any chance the Czech Pilsner ergo beer, that would be a very nice explanation for the rest of the story


Related Discussions

Related Forums