Evidence for Design?

[MindOverMatter2]

There is an image – no attempt to explain its origin has been successful yet.

And science will remain silent and it should keep its mouth shut. The so called image will not be taught in science class rooms and I will gladly stand against it, rather than allow you to belittle God to the level of a scientific theory.

The idea makes me sick.

“Get it out of ya head you” (Joe Pesci) You need to get it out of your head that science is going to prove God’s existence.

 

[tonyrey]

it is significant how some people regard it as a fake on principle

Undoubtedly. “Rationalists” are irrational in their reduction of reason to unreasoning processes.

 

[reggieM]

I don’t think my mind is closed. I just dont readily accept claims of the supernatural. I don’t think all natural causes or processes could have been explored yet. Scientists have only ever been allowed to work with the tiniest pieces of material.

It’s good to hear that you keep an open mind to the possibility of a supernatural cause.

No. I could simply never make such a statement with any credibilty.

I think it’s important to ask yourself – “with the evidence that may be available, what would strengthen my idea of the possibility that God exists”?

I have never once said God does not exist, as an emphatic statement. I have said I do not see any evidence of the supernatural.

You might consider that evidence can be strong, weak or non-existent.
So, evidence comes in a variety of forms. You accept many forms of evidence already without personally validating all of them.

For example, you accept that Julius Caesar existed, even though you only have testimonial evidence of that.

Why don’t you consider testimonial evidence in other matters to be evidence? Perhaps it is too weak for you to find convincing, but would it really be correct to say that there is “no evidence at all”?

 

[reggieM]

And science will remain silent and it should keep its mouth shut.

As I already showed with a massive amount of evidence thus far, science does not remain silent – it actively makes claims about immaterial essences quite often (even if it is unnecessary in the case of the Shroud).

The so called image will not be taught in science class rooms …

First of all, you say it is a “so called image” – does that mean that you don’t even think that there is an image on the cloth at all?

If not, then that would be the first thing to try to be convinced about. Even atheist girl accepts that the Shroud has an image on it.

After that, since scientists are doing research on the cloth and are publishing science papers on it – I don’t think you would want to forbid students from learning about such things, right?

… and I will gladly stand against it, rather than allow you to belittle God to the level of a scientific theory.

If you had the power, would you put me in jail for stating that there is scientific evidence in support of the existence of God?

The idea makes me sick.

It sounds like you dislike science very intensely!

“Get it out of ya head you” (Joe Pesci) You need to get it out of your head that science is going to prove God’s existence.

I would have to put it in my head first before trying to get it out.

I think I explained this already – science does not offer absolute proof of anything. It only offers evidence that has a degree of certainty - either greater or lesser depending on repeatability and conditions and initial assumptions, etc.

There – I think that should make you feel a lot better.

 

[tonyrey]

I think I explained this already – science does not offer absolute proof of anything. It only offers evidence that has a degree of certainty - either greater or lesser depending on repeatability and conditions and initial assumptions, etc.

**All **scientific propositions are regarded as provisional by most philosophers of science…

 

[buffalo]

I live the only way I can that makes me blissfully happy.

I built the life I knew I wanted to live but I was driven to do it. We went through some though times that we could have easily avoided for the sake of a different lifestyle.

I couldnt have it any other way. I couldnt and wouldnt live in a town or a city. There are tons of things that could be foised upon me, which would require such momumental changes of me I wouldnt be the person I am.

Could I actually live another way - of course. Could I CHOSE to live another way - no.

Sarah x

You desire to be blissfully happy? Why?

 

[buffalo]

That does seem to be the case.

I dont think my mind is closed. I just dont readily accept claims of the supernatural. I dont think all natural causes or processes could have been explored yet. Scientists have only ever been allowed to work with the tiniest pieces of material.

No. I could simply never make such a statement with any credibilty.

I have never once said God does not exist, as an emphatic statement. I have said I do not see any evidence of the supernatural.

I dont think I have a closed mind - I have a very open but skeptical one.

Sarah x

Here is another one to ponder:

Our Lady of Guadalupe ‘completely beyond’ scientific explanation, says researcher

The Mystery in Our Lady’s eyes



**New Discoveries of the Constellations on the Tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe **

http://www.catholicintl.com/images/stories/Tilma_Diagram_thumb_medium400_612.jpg

 

[reggieM]

Our Lady of Guadalupe ‘completely beyond’ scientific explanation, says researcher

The Mystery in Our Lady’s eyes]

Researcher and physicist Dr. Aldofo Orozco told participants at the International Marian Congress on Our Lady of Guadalupe that there is no scientific explanation for the 478 years of high quality-preservation of the Tilma or for the miracles that have occurred to ensure its preservation.

Dr. Orozco began his talk by confirming that the conservation of the Tilma, the cloak of St. Juan Diego on which Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared 478 years ago, “is completely beyond any scientific explanation.”

Just basic open mindedness and an unbiased wonder about the world might ask this:

Science claims to have the true (banned discussion) theory which explains “all of the variation in nature”. Science claims to have detailed knowledge about the beginnings of the entire universe, the formation of planets and solar systems, and our own earth. Scientists claim some confidence in what they know about the origin of life from inanimate matter, and the origin of human consciousness from chemical processes, the origin of eyesight, language, mathematics and even of religion …

But when asked to explain the origin of a single image on a piece of cloth in Mexico…

… science has no explanation.

On a piece of cloth in Turin, Italy …

… this is beyond what science can explain.

 

[tonyrey]

Researcher and physicist Dr. Aldofo Orozco told participants at the International Marian Congress on Our Lady of Guadalupe that there is no scientific explanation for the 478 years of high quality-preservation of the Tilma or for the miracles that have occurred to ensure its preservation.

Dr. Orozco began his talk by confirming that the conservation of the Tilma, the cloak of St. Juan Diego on which Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared 478 years ago, “is completely beyond any scientific explanation.”
Just basic open mindedness and an unbiased wonder about the world might ask this:

Science claims to have the true (banned discussion) theory which explains “all of the variation in nature”. Science claims to have detailed knowledge about the beginnings of the entire universe, the formation of planets and solar systems, and our own earth. Scientists claim some confidence in what they know about the origin of life from inanimate matter, and the origin of human consciousness from chemical processes, the origin of eyesight, language, mathematics and even of religion …

But when asked to explain the origin of a single image on a piece of cloth in Mexico…

… science has no explanation.

On a piece of cloth in Turin, Italy …

… this is beyond what science can explain.

Thank you, Reggie, for pointing out a frequently overlooked fact - that we all need a sense of proportion… especially with regard to the limitations of science:“There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
We know her woof, her texture; she is given
In** the dull catalogue of common things**.
Philosophy will clip an Angel’s wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine—
Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made
The tender-personed Lamia melt into a shade.” - John Keats

(In this context philosophy = science)

 

[inocente]

There is an image – no attempt to explain its origin has been successful yet.

Why do you think it’s impossible that the image has a supernatural origin? Would you close your mind to a real possibility, even though you truly don’t know what caused it?

George Lemaître, Catholic priest and originator of big bang theory, put it like this:

He (the Christian researcher) knows that not one thing in all creation has been done without God, but he knows also that God nowhere takes the place of his creatures. Omnipresent divine activity is everywhere essentially hidden. It never had to be a question of reducing the supreme Being to the rank of a scientific hypothesis.

 

[inocente]

Thank you, Reggie, for pointing out a frequently overlooked fact - that we all need a sense of proportion…

Au contraire, a sense of proportion is not just bad philosophy, it is poor heath & safety:

*The Total Perspective Vortex derives its picture of the whole Universe on the principle of extrapolated matter analyses.
To explain — since every piece of matter in the Universe is in some way affected by every other piece of matter in the Universe, it is in theory possible to extrapolate the whole of creation — every sun, every planet, their orbits, their composition and their economic and social history from, say, one small piece of fairy cake.
The man who invented the Total Perspective Vortex did so basically in order to annoy his wife.
Trin Tragula — for that was his name — was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.
And she would nag him incessantly about the utterly inordinate amount of time he spent staring out into space, or mulling over the mechanics of safety pins, or doing spectrographic analyses of pieces of fairy cake.
“Have some sense of proportion!” she would say, sometimes as often as thirty-eight times in a single day.
And so he built the Total Perspective Vortex — just to show her.
And into one end he plugged the whole of reality as extrapolated from a piece of fairy cake, and into the other end he plugged his wife: so that when he turned it on she saw in one instant the whole infinity of creation and herself in relation to it.
To Trin Tragula’s horror, the shock completely annihilated her brain; but to his satisfaction he realized that he had proved conclusively that if life is going to exist in a Universe of this size, then the one thing it cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion.

Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy*

 

[grannymh]

George Lemaître, Catholic priest and originator of big bang theory, put it like this:

He (the Christian researcher) knows that not one thing in all creation has been done without God, but he knows also that God nowhere takes the place of his creatures. Omnipresent divine activity is everywhere essentially hidden. It never had to be a question of reducing the supreme Being to the rank of a scientific hypothesis.

Very true.

An additional way to look at the concept “that not one thing in all creation has been done without God” is to recognize that God continually upholds and sustains all creation. This naturally follows from the concept that God created out of nothing.

“For you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made:”
Wisdom 11: 24-26

 

[grannymh]

“…
Science claims to have detailed knowledge about the beginnings of the entire universe, the formation of planets and solar systems, and our own earth. Scientists claim some confidence in what they know about the origin of life from inanimate matter, and the origin of human consciousness from chemical processes, the origin of eyesight, language, mathematics and even of religion …”

May I respectfully point out is that the purpose of all the disciplines which come under natural science is to present evidence for analysis. It is the individual person who interprets. Thus it is not necessary to knock science itself.

 

[tonyrey]

Au contraire, a sense of proportion is not just bad philosophy, it is poor heath & safety:

*The Total Perspective Vortex derives its picture of the whole Universe on the principle of extrapolated matter analyses.
To explain — since every piece of matter in the Universe is in some way affected by every other piece of matter in the Universe, it is in theory possible to extrapolate the whole of creation — every sun, every planet, their orbits, their composition and their economic and social history from, say, one small piece of fairy cake.
The man who invented the Total Perspective Vortex did so basically in order to annoy his wife.
Trin Tragula — for that was his name — was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.
And she would nag him incessantly about the utterly inordinate amount of time he spent staring out into space, or mulling over the mechanics of safety pins, or doing spectrographic analyses of pieces of fairy cake.
“Have some sense of proportion!” she would say, sometimes as often as thirty-eight times in a single day.
And so he built the Total Perspective Vortex — just to show her.
And into one end he plugged the whole of reality as extrapolated from a piece of fairy cake, and into the other end he plugged his wife: so that when he turned it on she saw in one instant the whole infinity of creation and herself in relation to it.
To Trin Tragula’s horror, the shock completely annihilated her brain; but to his satisfaction he realized that he had proved conclusively that if life is going to exist in a Universe of this size, then the one thing it cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion.

Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy*

Thank God I don’t base my values on science fiction!

 

[inocente]

Thank God I don’t base my values on science fiction!

There’s some neat philosophy in that book. Adams is making a spiritual point. It would be truly humbling to really see for even one instant how utterly insignificant we are compared to the cosmos, compared to God. One way to avoid that assault is, like the wife in the story, to get lost in the day-to-day and never look up. A better way is to find value in others, in seeing the color purple*, and of course for a Christian, Christ dying for us. (* Alice Walker, The Color Purple, highlighted dialog here)

This is basically my issue from earlier (the 170 billion galaxies) about arguments from design - whatever purpose anyone can come up with isn’t going to be nearly grand or meaningful enough.

 

[atheistgirl]

You desire to be blissfully happy? Why?

Because I have this one life, so I try and make every moment matter, and derive as much happiness as I can from it.

I also like others to be happy, so I’m very actively involved in local politics and charity/voluntary works through which I try and do my little bit.

I like to think for the time I was here, not just me and my family, but others, including animals and gthe environment we all have to share, also benefited from the things I did and the person I am.

Happiness is wonderful. I love to spread it where ever I can

Sarah x

 

[buffalo]

Because I have this one life, so I try and make every moment matter, and derive as much happiness as I can from it.

I also like others to be happy, so I’m very actively involved in local politics and charity/voluntary works through which I try and do my little bit.

I like to think for the time I was here, not just me and my family, but others, including animals and gthe environment we all have to share, also benefited from the things I did and the person I am.

Happiness is wonderful. I love to spread it where ever I can

Sarah x

How do you know you only have one life?

Do you have any desires that cannot be satisfied?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

How do you know you only have one life?

Do you have any desires that cannot be satisfied?

Bottom line, she doesn’t want to have faith in God. If she can hide behind scepticism and a smiley face she will.

 

[grannymh]

Thank God I don’t base my values on science fiction!

With our intellective powers (spiritual soul) we are fortunate to be able to learn from many sources, including science fiction.

 

[atheistgirl]

How do you know you only have one life?

I don’t have any evidence to the contrary.

Do you have any desires that cannot be satisfied?

Depends on what level we’re talking about. On a national and global level I have many desires for peace and harmony, sustainable environmental practices, food production and management and animal husbandry that would ensure no one goes hungry, political systems that give priority to the poor, that probably will never be satisfied.

On a personal level, no, not really, I pretty much can’t complain.

Sarah x