Crazy Bible Stories

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hmm complexity , conformity, principles, not random. No wonder some people see design - (not to mean it is actually true) because they would have no idea (myself obviously) of the example below:

A cake that nobody baked looks invisible.
They were asking you the equivalent of...what the laws of physics be like if they were unpredictable and chaotic.

Mostly empty universe made up of mostly empty atoms, yeah that is as efficient as it can get.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

At least partially because Liberty University has never been hit by a meteorite the size of, say, the one that created Vredefort Crater in S. Africa: somewhere between 6 to 9 miles in diameter, creating a crater 191 miles across and probably some fast-acting climate change.

Naked stone-age parents + talking snake = asteroids + belly buttons

Religious algebra 101. Whooda thunk it?!

 

[Lion IRC]

Speaking of Crazy Bible Stories, check out Numbers 22, the story of Balaam and his talking donkey....[snip]

…In other words, go do what you were already doing before I threatened to stop you from doing. Utterly and truly bizarre.

You didn't explain that it was Balaam's vacillating motives which were the reason for the stop/go/stop.

 

[James Brown]

Speaking of Crazy Bible Stories, check out Numbers 22, the story of Balaam and his talking donkey....[snip]

…In other words, go do what you were already doing before I threatened to stop you from doing. Utterly and truly bizarre.

You didn't explain that it was Balaam's vacillating motives which were the reason for the stop/go/stop.

It's possible I've missed something, Please point out Balaam's vacillating motives.

 

[DBT]

A cake that nobody baked looks invisible.
They were asking you the equivalent of...what the laws of physics be like if they were unpredictable and chaotic.

Assuming the universe is a creation....why believe that 'God' - whatever that is - did it? If there are super advanced aliens in existence, they may be generating any number of quantum simulated universes into existence, which makes that a far more likely option to assume than some unknown, non definable supernatural agency.

 

[James Brown]

Maybe God did indeed kick off the Big Bang but he died in the explosion. Accidents happen all the time, you know, and the universe is certainly a deadly place.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Maybe God did indeed kick off the Big Bang but he died in the explosion. Accidents happen all the time, you know, and the universe is certainly a deadly place.

Nah.
He literally kicked it off. Wasn't watching where he was going, bumped the singularity.
It went off.
Now he's embarrassed by the mistake and hiding from scrutiny.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Who's to say God doesn't have Alzheimers, by now? Divine Alzheimers, an occult subject unless you're a deity. Not treatable, even by divine physicians. The hovering angels are all nervous around him, fearing the insane decisions he's about to -- oh wait, that's Trump.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Maybe God did indeed kick off the Big Bang but he died in the explosion. Accidents happen all the time, you know, and the universe is certainly a deadly place.

Surely God would have worn goggles.

 

[Learner]

[O]ur ability to
recognize man-made characteristics depends on our ability to identify characteristics that are not
found in nature. If, for example, a man was to design an object which looked like a natural rock in
every respect, then, while this object would in fact be the product of design, another person could
not tell this from merely examining the rock. As far as he is concerned, this rock is a product of
nature. The closer the resemblance between a designed artifact and a natural object, the more
difficult it is to determine that the artifact is in fact a product of design.

--George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

When someone says, "That watch appears to be designed," it's reasonable to ask, "Compared to what?"

"Compared to the beach that the watch is laying on," goes the answer.

Come on Mr. Brown, agreed or not agreed, I think the obvious is that they see it as compared to an observable picture e.g. mechanisms, cyclic not random, clockwork-like , forecasts and predictabilities in such, that we can rely on their properties and behaviours of each element to create tables and graphs, to repeat the processes by the same methods (for lack of articulation ..pardon me).

Not because the answer is so simplistically .... "Compared to the beach that the watch is laying on,"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

[O]ur ability to
recognize man-made characteristics depends on our ability to identify characteristics that are not
found in nature. If, for example, a man was to design an object which looked like a natural rock in
every respect, then, while this object would in fact be the product of design, another person could
not tell this from merely examining the rock. As far as he is concerned, this rock is a product of
nature. The closer the resemblance between a designed artifact and a natural object, the more
difficult it is to determine that the artifact is in fact a product of design.

--George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

When someone says, "That watch appears to be designed," it's reasonable to ask, "Compared to what?"

"Compared to the beach that the watch is laying on," goes the answer.

Come on Mr. Brown, agreed or not agreed, I think the obvious is that they see it as compared to an observable picture e.g. mechanisms, cyclic not random, clockwork-like , forecasts and predictabilities in such, that we can rely on their properties and behaviours of each element to create tables and graphs, to repeat the processes by the same methods (for lack of articulation ..pardon me).

mechanisms, cyclic not random, clockwork-like , forecasts and predictabilities

 

[Learner]

Come on Mr. Brown, agreed or not agreed, I think the obvious is that they see it as compared to an observable picture e.g. mechanisms, cyclic not random, clockwork-like , forecasts and predictabilities in such, that we can rely on their properties and behaviours of each element to create tables and graphs, to repeat the processes by the same methods (for lack of articulation ..pardon me).

mechanisms, cyclic not random, clockwork-like , forecasts and predictabilities

Applying Across the board .... e.g. biology and chemistry,(where quite a few religious scientists reside "unconvinced"). Forget the areas of physics - astro-physics.. for these types of debates. You open one door you get many more ... so to speak (is my limited understanding).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Come on Mr. Brown, agreed or not agreed, I think the obvious is that they see it as compared to an observable picture e.g. mechanisms, cyclic not random, clockwork-like , forecasts and predictabilities in such, that we can rely on their properties and behaviours of each element to create tables and graphs, to repeat the processes by the same methods (for lack of articulation ..pardon me).

mechanisms, cyclic not random, clockwork-like , forecasts and predictabilities

Aplying cross the board .... biology and chemistry,(where quite a few religious scientists reside "unconvinced"). Forget the areas of physics, - astro-physics.. you open one door you get many more. (is my limited understanding).

Your limited understanding is apparently grounded in poor unintelligible grammar.

 

[Learner]

All's good, I can accept that opinion.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

[O]ur ability to
recognize man-made characteristics depends on our ability to identify characteristics that are not
found in nature. If, for example, a man was to design an object which looked like a natural rock in
every respect, then, while this object would in fact be the product of design, another person could
not tell this from merely examining the rock. As far as he is concerned, this rock is a product of
nature. The closer the resemblance between a designed artifact and a natural object, the more
difficult it is to determine that the artifact is in fact a product of design.

--George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

When someone says, "That watch appears to be designed," it's reasonable to ask, "Compared to what?"

"Compared to the beach that the watch is laying on," goes the answer.

Come on Mr. Brown, agreed or not agreed, I think the obvious is that they see it as compared to an observable picture e.g. mechanisms, cyclic not random, clockwork-like , forecasts and predictabilities in such, that we can rely on their properties and behaviours of each element to create tables and graphs, to repeat the processes by the same methods (for lack of articulation ..pardon me).

Not because the answer is so simplistically .... "Compared to the beach that the watch is laying on,"

It torpedoes ID right out of the water using the very argument for ID. It demonstrates that ID is crock. A person can hand wave all they want while they're backing up, which is what you did here, but it does not change the fact that your argument has been revealed as unsound.

But that's how religion always works when it comes to incorporating science. Religious folk seem to be wearing blinders for the most part. They like the religious view, it feels good. But eventually something always comes into view that unsettles some aspect of their religious belief.

So maybe religious behavior is symptomatic of a learning disability. Considering how folks embrace all those crazy bible stories maybe it is.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

*hand wave*

FIFY

 

[Lion IRC]

A cake that nobody baked looks invisible.
They were asking you the equivalent of...what the laws of physics be like if they were unpredictable and chaotic.

Assuming the universe is a creation....why believe that 'God' - whatever that is - did it? If there are super advanced aliens in existence, they may be generating any number of quantum simulated universes into existence, which makes that a far more likely option to assume than some unknown, non definable supernatural agency.

God is a "super advanced alien" And as for the creation (out of nothing) of quantum simulated universes, that sounds pretty close to what you can read in the book of Genesis.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A cake that nobody baked looks invisible.
They were asking you the equivalent of...what the laws of physics be like if they were unpredictable and chaotic.

Assuming the universe is a creation....why believe that 'God' - whatever that is - did it? If there are super advanced aliens in existence, they may be generating any number of quantum simulated universes into existence, which makes that a far more likely option to assume than some unknown, non definable supernatural agency.

God is a "super advanced alien" And as for the creation (out of nothing) of quantum simulated universes, that sounds pretty close to what you can read in the book of Genesis.

You mean the story that spends almost all of its time talking about the creation of Earth, with only an extra-curricular nod to the sun and moon?

 

[Learner]

*hand wave*

Thats all I really got to argue with. No scientific claims or denials of science to argue against unfortunately.

FIFY

 

[skepticalbip]

God is a "super advanced alien" And as for the creation (out of nothing) of quantum simulated universes, that sounds pretty close to what you can read in the book of Genesis.

Now that sounds a lot like Last Thursdayism.