Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator.

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread

I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.

I await the evidence.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 119:

Some snippage for brev

Also, I may have gotten the order fouled up, but won't bother to fix it, as it seems not to change the issues at all...

Hello Joey, thanks for stopping by.

Howdy back, here's hoping all the puddles you stomp are full.

...
I agree that we share a lot of properties with animals. Almost as if the Creator created the animals, then took some designs from each one and decided to create man!? Up to this point (Adam laying there in the dirt, there is not much difference in flesh of man and the animals.

I seek to show that considering oneself as "not an animal", or even "not an ape" is an irrational way to go.

Sure, we're so much more'n "mere animals, mere apes". I'm proud to know this animal is so vastly different from so many other'ns. But here I sit, being all animaly. And apey. Lots and lots of apey

I conclude that so many religious folks are ignorant - clinical term - of science when they refuse to accept we are apes, and animals. Why? Why reject such otherwise readily accepted terms?

I propose the god concept works to ensure its place in the human psyche, up to and including a refusal to accept mere definitions. We're apes. No controversy, other'n how much of an ape we act or look


I encourage you, arian, friend and foe, to accept that we are animals, apes, and that there's no inherant insult to being just that. Of course we consider tone and context when we speak of ourselves in these terms, but scientists use these terms as fitting descriptors, not to attempt to insult or slander.

They have feet, and some like the monkeys even have hands like me, and so do I. As if the same Designer and Creator made us both?

I can dig it. My concern is with those who may find "animal", or "ape", or other scientifically valid definitions as insults.

I also agree, that if we Vulcanized all humans and for many generations removed all their emotions (lobotomized them like they did the Dark Knight shooter), made them walk on all fours, cut out their tongues, brainwashed them for generations to believe they were animals, and made them live like animals in the wild, it would become harder and harder to tell them apart.

Your language is suggestive of a mere rudiment of an understanding of the issue.

We can, and have observed evolution (micro, if ya will), and make a reasoned conclusion that as change builds up, change is inevitable. With this change, we can conclude that eventually a group of animals will have incurred sufficient change such that we can recognize distinct differences that allow us to consider a new species.

Granted, there are legitimate arguments as to exactly what change makes a new species, but that's really a matter of labels, and not a fundamental problem with evolutionary theory.

But Joey, I made a very clear distinction between the body/flesh and the mind, and here is where I continue on to reveal the Creator, for He has no body/flesh.

Your notion here is useful in identifying things that ain't there.

What I said was that the 'Theory' called Evolution as it is presented today could not be the creator of us humans, or the animals.

I dig it.

I still don't understand why the negation of evolution somehow supports the notion in the OP.

And that the gods that the humans (I don't know of any animals creating their own gods)

Humans! Humans create their own gods! Humans are animals! You know of animals that create their own gods!

You know of at least one species - Homo sapiens sapiens that has created gods. You know of apes that have created gods. You know of mammals that have created gods.

Same thing. They are saying that if a duck keeps on changing, generation after generation, .. over billions of years, .. it WILL become a crocodile, or some completely different species of animal. Either way the duck eventually turns into a crocodile (just sayin) unobserved, by a story.

Ah, but that's the thing. We make reasoned conclusions based on the observed. Scientists reason out that if change keeps occurring, eventually animals stop looking like they once did, stop having the same DNA and such, to a point where it'd be folly not to consider 'em a different species.

What does arian do?

The exact same thing!

You look at this world around us, and you don't just say "Beats me, there must be a God". You think it through, and do the best ya can.

So, we have competing notions, what do?

We look at the arguments and do our own concluding.

I propose that you remain in a weaker argument when all you can do is present a distorted, rather ignorant (clinical term) representation of evolutionary theory in support of a theory regarding a creative entity we can't observe.

You sound to me like you get your understanding of evolutionary theory from Ray Comfort, not the folks who've spent entire lives actually studying the theory.


"We can't observe evolution across vast time scales, so all conclusions about it are wrong, but we can make some conclusions regarding a god we can't observe, 'cause don't it beat all, that's what I've concluded."

It's weak.

weak.

I mean even to consider fossils lined up in a specific pre-planned and prearranged order as proof about evolution that happened over billions of years is IMHO just sad.

Who says it was preplanned, and prearranged?

Christians often tell me God has a plan.

Did God preplan or prearrange these fossils?

If you think so, please present confirmatory data for analysis.

So does this mean that the single celled bacteria in that primordial soup were individual species of animals including man?

That is so ignorant of the ToE that I'll just stop here.


I think we have enough data by now, if we ain't just piling it on, to conclude you simply don't have sufficient grasp of the theory, that you could in any way upend the apple cart of scientific progress this theory allows.

Stick with God.

Maybe some day he'll evolve into an observable, testable entity


Keep being awesome.

[arian]

From Post 119:

Some snippage for brev

Also, I may have gotten the order fouled up, but won't bother to fix it, as it seems not to change the issues at all...

Hello Joey, thanks for stopping by.

Howdy back, here's hoping all the puddles you stomp are full.

He, he, he, .. you ever thought of compiling all your posts into a book? I mean, how do you come up with all this stuff Joey? Your greeting actually made my day, it brought back memories of simpler times, less evolved times lol. Just sayin'

...
I agree that we share a lot of properties with animals. Almost as if the Creator created the animals, then took some designs from each one and decided to create man!? Up to this point (Adam laying there in the dirt, there is not much difference in flesh of man and the animals.

I seek to show that considering oneself as "not an animal", or even "not an ape" is an irrational way to go.

Sure, we're so much more'n "mere animals, mere apes". I'm proud to know this animal is so vastly different from so many other'ns. But here I sit, being all animaly. And apey. Lots and lots of apey

Well, I don't see you being all apey, especially in here debate. As I said, our human flesh , our bodies have many similar parts with rats too, but I would not consider myself all 'ratty'. Maybe more and more like a big fat cuddly Panda!?

I conclude that so many religious folks are ignorant - clinical term - of science when they refuse to accept we are apes, and animals. Why? Why reject such otherwise readily accepted terms?

Well, .. it's like this; let's say you just bought a really nice Dining Table, made of some of the most expensive wood on earth. There it lay in your dining room, and having spent a small fortune on it, you invited your friends and relatives for Thanksgiving so they too could enjoy this piece of work-of art. Your cousin Louie walks in and looking at the table says: "Nice piece of tree trunk Joey! So you finally got to cut that big ol' termite infested Oak in you back yard ey?"

I propose the god concept works to ensure its place in the human psyche, up to and including a refusal to accept mere definitions. We're apes. No controversy, other'n how much of an ape we act or look

Well in those terms, we might as well identify each human with the animal they resemble, like me for instance, my kids say I resemble a cuddly Panda, .. a shaven hairless one.

I encourage you, arian, friend and foe, to accept that we are animals, apes, and that there's no inherant insult to being just that. Of course we consider tone and context when we speak of ourselves in these terms, but scientists use these terms as fitting descriptors, not to attempt to insult or slander.

Well, .. if I was laying all mangled on the side of a highway, my motorcycle up in a tree somewhere where they had to call in scientists to identify my body, I sure hope they wouldn't be staring at me rubbing their chins saying: "Hmm.. what do you think Professor? I see kidney, a liver, .. a chunk of brain, .. I don't know, .. chimp, bear, .. gorilla, .. what?"

News Brief!
The latest in; .. It was not a bear, as one scientist contemplated, nor a deer!
After a DNA test on the mangled body found on the side of the road yesterday reveals that it definitely was an animal, specifically of the ape-family.

They have feet, and some like the monkeys even have hands like me, and so do I. As if the same Designer and Creator made us both?

I can dig it. My concern is with those who may find "animal", or "ape", or other scientifically valid definitions as insults.

Well, generalizing usually is insulting.

I also agree, that if we Vulcanized all humans and for many generations removed all their emotions (lobotomized them like they did the Dark Knight shooter), made them walk on all fours, cut out their tongues, brainwashed them for generations to believe they were animals, and made them live like animals in the wild, it would become harder and harder to tell them apart.

Your language is suggestive of a mere rudiment of an understanding of the issue.

We can, and have observed evolution (micro, if ya will), and make a reasoned conclusion that as change builds up, change is inevitable. With this change, we can conclude that eventually a group of animals will have incurred sufficient change such that we can recognize distinct differences that allow us to consider a new species.

Yes, .. dogs would be a good example of this, only they are still in the dog family and can reproduce with their own kind. Dog, dog, dog, dog, dog, and yes, dog.
But with man it's chimp, chimp, chimp, human, with a story (ideas-speciation) that the human, or man is just another ape through deception and magical illusion on the intellect, NOT by observation. "You are an ape, an animal, .. you are an ape, an animal, .." Until you get; "I am an ape, .. an, .. animal - I am an ape, an .. animal"

Now evolutionary religion doesn't require the 'actual' observation of one species turning into another, they only require that they see God the Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind create, which by all reason and logic would require that you the created, witness your own creation.

Was there a before-ape family, or does the 'ape-family' go all the way back to the primordial soup? You know like; lizard, lizard, lizard, bird, bird, bird, bird, ape, ape, ape, ape? Or does lizard family remain lizard family, bird family remain bird family, and ape family remain ape family?

Granted, there are legitimate arguments as to exactly what change makes a new species, but that's really a matter of labels, and not a fundamental problem with evolutionary theory.

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations

Evolution by natural selection is a process inferred from three facts that sounds like as if Darwin observed himself, about populations:
1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, and if you have been around for billions of years as the great scientist Darwin has, this would be evident for you too arian!
2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction (and this is evident by the survival of both lion and gazelle living in the same environment, same conditions, same earth for millions and millions of years.)
3) trait differences are heritable, (but not till you become another specie)

If he proposal that one type of animal could descend from an animal of another type doesn't convince you arian, then how about; 'heredity, variation, mutation, sex and recombination, gene flow, natural selection, .. still not convinced of the possibility, then how about 'biased mutation' huh? If gross mutation doesn't convince you of evolution how about 'biased mutation'?
Just look at the conflicting evidence in cross breeding to get the best out of a species like horses for instance, vs. the result scientists get from mutating species into having offspring's with two heads, Cyclops eye, another head growing out of the mouth of infants, 6 or more fingers, 3 or more arms, or legs! One, by selective breeding becomes better, bigger (or smaller depending on what we are aiming for) stronger, faster, vs. an agonizing horrid few moments of what I wouldn't even call life of suffering, sickness and death.

Still not convinced arian? Then how about; Genetic drift, or genetic hijacking, .. er, .. I mean 'genetic hitchhiking', or this is a good one; Gene flow which is the exchange of genes between populations and between species that don't interbreed, lol.

Now clear your mind arian, and close your eyes, take a deep breath, .. relax and just accept all these possibilities as if somebody has actually observed and documented these things; Evolution influences every aspect of the form and behaviour of organisms. Most prominent are the specific behavioural and physical adaptations that are the outcome of natural selection. These adaptations increase fitness by aiding activities such as finding food, avoiding predators or attracting mates

This is why gazelles and lions evolved over the billions of years, to avoid predators lol. Instead of the gazelle evolving armor, and the lion to eat the grass when meat is scarce, here they are what they are. You know, by genetic drift through mutated evolution.

But Joey, I made a very clear distinction between the body/flesh and the mind, and here is where I continue on to reveal the Creator, for He has no body/flesh.

Your notion here is useful in identifying things that ain't there.

You mean like gravity, space (not the things in space but space itself) our mind, the 'nothing', time, energy and all the other things that aren't really there?

What I said was that the 'Theory' called Evolution as it is presented today could not be the creator of us humans, or the animals.

I dig it.

I still don't understand why the negation of evolution somehow supports the notion in the OP.

As I said, I evolved, from the time I was conceived to about 30 I evolved, .. then something happened, an incurable unseen disease (yes it's there) called entropy/aging finally started to take its toll.
I am not against evolution in its true term, what I am against is the idea that time, mutation and a bunch of other religious claims be considered as part of evolution/improvement, where things get better, stronger, wiser and survive longer over longer 'time', by 'mutation' and so on. And that this religious un-observed, unscientific claim is the Creator.

And that the gods that the humans (I don't know of any animals creating their own gods)

Humans! Humans create their own gods! Humans are animals! You know of animals that create their own gods!

You know of at least one species - Homo sapiens sapiens that has created gods. You know of apes that have created gods. You know of mammals that have created gods.

I am NOT of the same species as gorillas, baboons, chimps, or any other animal. If you insist in your undeterred religious belief that you are an animal, a Homo sapiens, sapiens, belonging to a family of apes, I will not argue about your religion. I am here to answer the OP Z called me out to prove; the Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of the Creator.

I dream and create and ask questions like "Who am I?". Does any animal do that? This alone should be evidence enough that man is NOT just another animal.

Same thing. They are saying that if a duck keeps on changing, generation after generation, .. over billions of years, .. it WILL become a crocodile, or some completely different species of animal. Either way the duck eventually turns into a crocodile (just sayin) unobserved, by a story.

Ah, but that's the thing. We make reasoned conclusions based on the observed. Scientists reason out that if change keeps occurring, eventually animals stop looking like they once did, stop having the same DNA and such, to a point where it'd be folly not to consider 'em a different species.

This is NOT observing science by definition. Yes, my DNA is different from my parents and even my own siblings, this evolution is evident by observation. But a chimp changing, turning, over billions of years into a human, a man is NOT observed and documented science.

What does arian do?

The exact same thing!

You look at this world around us, and you don't just say "Beats me, there must be a God". You think it through, and do the best ya can.

So, we have competing notions, what do?

We look at the arguments and do our own concluding.

I propose that you remain in a weaker argument when all you can do is present a distorted, rather ignorant (clinical term) representation of evolutionary theory in support of a theory regarding a creative entity we can't observe.

Well, I might agree with you there, that my ignorance is bordering on 'clinical', but I'm working on it, OK?

OK, call it what you want that I have an ignorant representation of 'evolution theory', and it may be so. But you know what, even Richard Dawkins has an ignorant representation of the theory he defends, and so does just about anyone defending evolution. I am not going into detail to point this all out again and again, this is not about religions and what 'claims' they make.

Yes, I look at the universe, and I looked at myself in a mirror and asked some deep philosophical questions. Now Z pointed out how silly my statement sounded when I said; "I looked at myself in the mirror, ..", and actually if I read this believing that I was an animal, an ape, it IS funny. I can just see a monkey staring at himself in a mirror, .. I mean it's funny as hell. .. I mean not that hell would be funny, or fun in any way, shape or form, just sayin' a monkey staring in a mirror is funny.

My proof is the Creator, and in a scientific content as; "Creator, God, the Answer to Everything, etc."

When I describe God I am describing someone who is;
physically an undeniable presence
philosophically; a Creator (not to be confused with any of His creations or some created objects or ideas. This is about FACT.)

I have a brain - physical fact
I have a 'mind' - philosophical fact that can be observed through science, just as gravity, space, time and all those other things we cannot see can be.

You sound to me like you get your understanding of evolutionary theory from Ray Comfort, not the folks who've spent entire lives actually studying the theory.

No I don't, and even though I did hear him and Kirk Cameron some years back, what I know of God our Creator is way beyond Mr. Comfort and his religiously created plural triune Deities. In this sense, both Ray and Kirk have been "Left Behind".

"We can't observe evolution across vast time scales, so all conclusions about it are wrong, but we can make some conclusions regarding a god we can't observe, 'cause don't it beat all, that's what I've concluded."

It's weak.

weak.

But we CAN observe God, in our own mind, and can be verified by logic like; There can only be one; Infinite, - Eternal - Creative Mind.

My mind and your mind is of ONE source, it is eternal and infinite. The things we imagine in there and create is finite. Our bodies, our brain is finite.

I mean even to consider fossils lined up in a specific pre-planned and prearranged order as proof about evolution that happened over billions of years is IMHO just sad.

Who says it was preplanned, and prearranged?

I mean just look how they 'build' on the idea, it was not something some scientist has observed; "Wow, did you see that monkey change into a man?" or one species change into another, but a hypothesis what if they did? The problem with this is 'infinite regress', the created creating the created, creating the created, ..

Christians often tell me God has a plan.

It is the only logical evidence, ID which had to be planned.

Did God preplan or prearrange these fossils?

If you think so, please present confirmatory data for analysis.

No, but as evident in this awesome creation that He did plan and create the universe and everything that exists. ID is evident when we observe the world around us (science)

So does this mean that the single celled bacteria in that primordial soup were individual species of animals including man?

That is so ignorant of the ToE that I'll just stop here.

I think we have enough data by now, if we ain't just piling it on, to conclude you simply don't have sufficient grasp of the theory, that you could in any way upend the apple cart of scientific progress this theory allows.

I see 'religious progress' in evolution, but fail to see 'scientific observable' progress.

Stick with God.

I will, why spend my life in fairytales, assumptions, guess sos, when I have reality which I can observe through science in the here and now to spend my time on!?

Maybe some day he'll evolve into an observable, testable entity

Keep being awesome.

God our Creator IS an observable Being, and we were created in His Image, .. now how cool is that?

You too my friend, and; "Ya all come back now ya hear!" (I really miss that show "the Beverly Hillbillies" don't you?)

[JonDarbyXIII]

Arian, the biggest problem I see with [your argument] is in the numerous leaps of logic. You say that "something" had to have "created" man, but there is nothing to suggest that the cause was "someone" (you seem to assume personal agency) or that the cause was a "creation" (creation being a term that unfairly assumes a creator). Along these same lines, you look for something "that can plan, reason, and create" you and your complexity, but again, even if we think this needs a cause, the cause need not have planned, reasoned, or created anything. Likewise, even if we were to assume personal agency, there is nothing to indicate this would have to be all-knowing. Such a creation could have been a complete accident or even something that was so inconsequential as to go unnoticed by this 'creator,' a cosmic fart if you will.

Your concept of entropy seemed to be somewhat flawed as well. First, when you say that space reveals entropy and therefore is not eternal, this is not accurate. Entropy represents an overall decline of usable energy. Although I know many theists are fond of using this argument as evidence for a starting point of the universe--and therefore evidence of God--the universe is eternal because it will technically continue forever. This, I see as one of the great ironies: I would assume that if there were a god, only he could put a definitive end to the universe, so without god, the universe must be eternal. Theists may say that an eternal universe can't exist.. therefore God. However, really, the concept is that if there's no god, not only can an eternal universe exist, but it must exist. Also, it seems to be a common misconception that entropy is a constant decline when it absolutely is not. The human body as you noted is certainly subject to entropy. However, if entropy always ruled out an increase in order, we could never be formed in the womb. In short periods (and millions of years is a short period of time in a 14 billion-year old universe) there can be huge increases in order. Entropy merely leads to an eventual, inevitable degradation. The human body is not, as you say, a self-contained biological unit. It is subject to and reliant upon a host of outside influences and factors. This is why we can grow from a small cluster of cells into a fully grown adult as well as why we can evolve... from a small cluster of cells into a fully grown human. (side note: I love your phrase, "Time is not a creator but a destroyer." Beautiful!)

You express disbelief at the concept that the universe could have just magically popped into existence out of nothing some 14 billion years ago, but it seems you fail to see that this is exactly how we see your explanation too: 'if all this suddenly appeared from nothing, God must have snapped his fingers and made it so.' I agree with you that science is lacking in its answers on this, and honestly I'm not sure I expect too much more in my lifetime. Yet, postulating sky wizards seems to be giving up on the question. Me... I want answers, and I'm not going to be content with anything that is even moderately less than acceptable. [Zzyzx said] you would have been better off (more credible) if you had just left it at "I believe in God," but I strongly disagree. The very problem is when you stop trying and refuse to look any further.

I'm always somewhat surprised to see people try to dispel the Big Bang Theory since, more and more, I see this used (though not terribly successfully in my opinion) by apologists to tie into the entropy argument (if we can see evidence of the universe having had a beginning, it proves God.) What really surprised me though is your assertion that the Big Bang is not a theory. Yet, viewed in light of your comments about evolution, it seems you may not fully understand what a theory is.

The Big Bang is a theory; evolution is a theory--and a fact.

Evolution is a fact in that we see it every day and can recreate it in controlled settings. Flu vaccines have to be redeveloped because of strains that become resistant. Plants become resistant to herbicides. Bugs become resistant to pesticides. We see evolution (change) in species all the time, all around us. It is a fact.

A theory in science, is something that cannot be proven by testing it directly or by recreating it in a lab, yet which is backed up my evidence and facts which can be tested directly or recreated in a lab. We cannot recreate an evolutionary process that took millions of years and we certainly can't test an event that occurred 14 billion years ago. However, evolution (the mechanism of evolution as descent with modification) and the Big Bang are supported by evidence from countless fields of science. Both these, therefore, are valid scientific theories.

What a theory is not is a wild supposition--an entirely unsupported or undocumented claim. This would be called a hypothesis (a claim proposed to answer a question and then tested so that it can either be accepted or rejected). Religion--at best--would be a hypothesis since it does not have the scientific backing.

I don't see much , if anything, in your statement that would be "undeniable scientific evidence." You criticize science, rejecting many of its conclusions, but a rejection of science is not, of itself, scientific; simply saying "that can't be right" is not science. You defend mental/emotional/psychological processes by saying that they are necessary to understand evidence, but that is only a distraction from the greater point that they are not, themselves evidence.

You even mention quantum physics as having shown proof of God. I assume you are referring to the so-called "God Particle" since you mention Higgs Boson. This term, however, is actually a very unfortunate mislabeling. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson) This says nothing about theology (either for or against the existence of God). Also, contrary to what you assert, scientists are not specifically looking for God, and they most certainly did not build CERN for that specific purpose. We are not seeking a creator but rather truth as [Zzyzx] pointed out. This is the problem when [you say] you wouldn't expect verifiable info from Richard Dawkins because he is set in his beliefs. Just because someone is rigid does not mean the info is unverified (or unverifiable). You mention his preconceived notions but can they really be called preconceived if they are the result of many years of studying his field? If you start by searching for the truth, your conclusions cannot then be called preconceived.

However I'm going to have to disagree again with [Zzyzx]: science absolutely does deal with things that cannot be detected. There are lots of hypotheses which are formulated, postulating things which have no current means of being detected. Dark matter, for example, cannot itself be detected. What we detect is an effect which we have attributed to it.

However, this does not justify a belief in God from what are seen to be his effects. For Zzyzx had it right when he mentioned the inability to deal with something that can't be described. God is only described by what he is not. God is infinite. He is ineffable. He is immaterial. Thus, God is best likened to 'nothing.' Without descriptive qualities of what something is, it is not scientific.

Diverting from the main question of science and getting into epistemology (just for a little bit since that is not what this thread was really about), [you said that] knowledge is useless without belief in it. I don't understand this at all. Knowledge is a subset of belief. You believe x number of things, and of these, you know only a portion. I don't see anything that can be known without being believed.

This ties into [Suzy's question] about knowing with certainty that there is not 'something' behind life. That is the very conclusion that I have come to [that there is no god], and it's what I believe. Do I know it? No. And certainly not with 100% certainty. And not to say that they don't exist, but I've never met an atheist who makes that claim.

Finally, there's one specific statement where you appear to blatantly contradict yourself.

Once you understand and see the obvious and undisputable PROOF of the Creator, who can be known through His creation especially man, all questions of 'god concept will start answering themselves. No one can see God, so looking at the gigantic haystack of the physical creation, you will never find God. God is Spirit, and only those in the spirit can know/see Him.

You say that the creator can be known by his creation, but in the very next sentence, you say you will never find God by looking at his physical creation. I'd love to hear an elaboration of this.

[arian]

Arian, the biggest problem I see with [your argument] is in the numerous leaps of logic. You say that "something" had to have "created" man, but there is nothing to suggest that the cause was "someone" (you seem to assume personal agency) or that the cause was a "creation" (creation being a term that unfairly assumes a creator). Along these same lines, you look for something "that can plan, reason, and create" you and your complexity, but again, even if we think this needs a cause, the cause need not have planned, reasoned, or created anything. Likewise, even if we were to assume personal agency, there is nothing to indicate this would have to be all-knowing. Such a creation could have been a complete accident or even something that was so inconsequential as to go unnoticed by this 'creator,' a cosmic fart if you will.

Wow, .. thank you JohnDarby for that civil, sincere, honest response to my posts. I dearly appreciate it friend!

Yes my friend, looking and observing the world around me the best and most logical conclusion I have come to (and I do explain this in my posts, sometimes in so much details, examples and so on, that debaters find it overwhelming and even burdening) is that there is an undeniable plan and design in 'everything' that I see and observe.

Now this doesn't mean that I have not considered the BB Evolution theories, because I honestly have, and continue to keep an open eye/ear and mind to anything new that comes out from this religion. Why?
Because they have combined science within their belief system, or what is obviously their religious doctrines.

The same with the Christian religion, because they have invested so much Bible Study into their religion, I still listen to what they have to say to keep an 'open mind', and in many cases (just as in the science part in Big-bang Evolution) I find some helpful observations that builds up my 'evolving' belief system in our Creator.

You say; "The cause need not have planned, reasoned, or created anything", and as hard as I have tried, and I honestly did try, .. but just can't seem to imagine, even after considering every scientific or science fictional (by the way, I love science fiction) proposed possibilities that I have seen out there, an 'uncaused, unplanned chaotic accident to 'evolve' the universe and all biological life is just religious nonsense to me. And I am sorry, but I consider those that push this 'religious belief' psychotic, and even dangerous as I have numerous times likened it to the 'Heavens Gate' cult Marshall Applewhite and his space-crew.

As a scientifically minded person, I can ONLY go by what I can observe, which is the world around me. This includes space and the objects I can see in space, the earth, the dirt, the mountains, the sea and whatever I can see in it, (biological life) and other biological life like the animals that walk the earth, and looking in the mirror I observed myself as a unique creature that obviously sticks out from amongst the other creatures both physically and spiritually (mentally).

I can see ID in a car, where the engine 'reacts' to the gas/air mixture coming in from the carburetor, right? But I have never, not once have observed a fuel/air mixture create an engine, not alone a car. Now I did try to imagine this by using the Big-bang theory method, but I end up cracking myself up. Another words I cannot keep a straight face, or make myself believe that something, no matter how quantum, can reside on no-thing, and accidently create Spacetime that after 14 billion years can 'observe' itself from. And on top of this to be able to expand while it is still residing in no-thing, or nothing!?!

Now I did try to imagine an agency that is non-intelligent, had no intent, no plan, no purpose, no will, no drive like the basic, basic quantum speck of element that they are trying to find in the LHC-CERN that may have created/caused the universe and biological life, but again, I can't even make myself believe this. I have even tried to force myself to go on reading, searching in hopes that maybe at some point in all this elaborate work that has been dedicated into such a system of belief, all this billions and even trillions of $ and man hours that has been dedicated to this idea (and all it is, is just an idea, since I doubt even his holiness Georges Lemaitre actually witnessed a Big-bang in nothing) that maybe there was a point in all this that would make sense, something I could accept? But I am sorry, the bigger they make the story, the more obvipous it becomes that it is a religious belief invented by some religious god/gods/creator worshiping people.

Your concept of entropy seemed to be somewhat flawed as well. First, when you say that space reveals entropy and therefore is not eternal, this is not accurate. Entropy represents an overall decline of usable energy. Although I know many theists are fond of using this argument as evidence for a starting point of the universe--and therefore evidence of God--the universe is eternal because it will technically continue forever.

OK, I se you just came on this forum and don't know about me or all the examples I have given debating BB evolution.
So let me brief you on some things; first, I said if space reveals entropy, it cannot evolve for a long time because 'time' itself would be its greatest enemy.

Second, I am not a theist, or is my understanding and the actual personal knowledge of our Creator God from religious theological doctrines, but through scientific observation (looking in the mirror, and observing the world around me) I don't look in the mirror and see myself, a human, a man created in the Creators image and turn around, walk away and forget who I am, .. some evolving animal in a family of apes.

Third; I can see, touch the universe, and I am a part of it, thus it is finite, and finite can NEVER become Infinite, .. especially if given more time, since time is the opposite of Eternal.

Even if there was no entropy, and the universe and everything and everyone in it was to live on throughout eternity, we would still be finite. Like what we call 'infinite numbers', they are finite numbers that just go on in infinity. They cannot become infinite, but can go on in infinity.

The Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind God "I Am Who I Am" is not the finite dying creation, but the Infinite and Eternal Creator.

This, I see as one of the great ironies: I would assume that if there were a god, only he could put a definitive end to the universe, so without god, the universe must be eternal. Theists may say that an eternal universe can't exist.. therefore God. However, really, the concept is that if there's no god, not only can an eternal universe exist, but it must exist.

No, you are confusing what I say with what theists, Deists, multi-god worshiping religionists say about the universe, and not hearing or understanding what I am saying.

Look, what's the best, the most in depth, the most comprehensive ideology of the existence of the universe out there outside of a Creator by ID?
The BB theory, correct? So let's look at the quantum speck that is just sitting there in nothing. It doesn't take up space, correct? Why, because space hasn't .. evolved, or hasn't been created yet, either by ID or by chaotic chance, right? This quantum-speck is there though, correct? (even though this concept defies logic, means it is only accepted by religious indoctrination, or blind faith)

So since the universe and us man is part of this quantum speck in nothing, then we are finite, and had to have a cause, or a creator to exist. If we were Eternal and Infinite, we wouldn't need a 'cause', or a Creator. But since we are finite, (a quantum speck), we need to have had a creator or we are facing 'infinite regress'.
If we expand, we cannot be in 'nothing'.
If we experience time/decay/ we cannot have been forever but had to have a beginning. I am just using simple logic, not forcing some unscientific belief that you must accept by 'blind faith', or "because I said so's".

I would ask you to stop reading my posts, especially about our Creator and about what I say of His creation, from a religious POV, but listen and study what I am presenting here?

But if you see/understand religion to automatically mean god/gods and the worship of these gods, then you will never understand what I say. Religion does not mean god/gods, or has to mean worship of these gods, it means doing something repetitiously. This can be anything, and can be a very healthy thing, like if you exercise religiously, visit the sick and the widows, the orphans religiously.

Also, it seems to be a common misconception that entropy is a constant decline when it absolutely is not. The human body as you noted is certainly subject to entropy. However, if entropy always ruled out an increase in order, we could never be formed in the womb. In short periods (and millions of years is a short period of time in a 14 billion-year old universe) there can be huge increases in order. Entropy merely leads to an eventual, inevitable degradation. The human body is not, as you say, a self-contained biological unit. It is subject to and reliant upon a host of outside influences and factors. This is why we can grow from a small cluster of cells into a fully grown adult as well as why we can evolve... from a small cluster of cells into a fully grown human. (side note: I love your phrase, "Time is not a creator but a destroyer." Beautiful!)

Thank you my friend. But to elaborate more on time, we must understand that this is something that was added to creation, .. or existence if you prefer after it's existence. Time is just a tool to slow the process between existence and extinction, or non existence. This has no effect on Infinity/Eternity which simply exists with no beginning, nor end, but just Is, or as I have learned from observing the difference between my mind and my brain, He Is since I can reason. And the best way this Eternal and Infinite being can be described as is: "I Am Who I Am".

You express disbelief at the concept that the universe could have just magically popped into existence out of nothing some 14 billion years ago, but it seems you fail to see that this is exactly how we see your explanation too: 'if all this suddenly appeared from nothing, God must have snapped his fingers and made it so.'

Again, this would be a theist/atheist god/gods created by religionists POV, not mine.
Look, how much materials do you need to think up a nice new car concept?
What is the limits to your imagination?
Where is the 'nothing' in your imagination/mind? It doesn't exist until you/we creat it.

You see, your mind is "I Am", or part of "I Am", and you can create nothing just as you can a concept of a car. 'Nothing' is a creation of "I Am", and I have identified and can show you the existence of 'nothing'. Actually I have learned the actual use and benefit of 'nothing'. It is used by the Creator to differentiate between one thing and another. Since the Creator cannot have 'something' between one thing and another, He put 'nothing' between them. It exists exactly as it was created, a true 'nothing', and by my experiment I can show you that it is extremely powerful, because 'something', that is anything other then 'nothing' cannot come between 'nothing'.

I agree with you that science is lacking in its answers on this, and honestly I'm not sure I expect too much more in my lifetime. Yet, postulating sky wizards seems to be giving up on the question. Me... I want answers, and I'm not going to be content with anything that is even moderately less than acceptable.

I bolded it to draw attention to this comment.

You have no idea how wonderful that sounds to me. I agree, and am the same mindset with you on this. Here is my suggestion; Get rid of all the stories of sky-wizards, stop listening to divinations from demons (they do exist let me tell you) get out of the millennia's of 'indoctrinated mind control', learn the difference between scientific observation and making up stories to explain a thing; Science looks at something that is there, observes it, dissects it, and even uses high energy to smack it into walls to see what a thing is made of. This is science.

But there are people that want to influence us by making up stories of the things we scientists see and observe; and you'll know them because they start out with something they could never have been able to observe themselves. They even distance their ideas by millions and even billions of years, and will make fun of you before others when you ask them if they actually observed this or not? They will use mockery like: "Look at this guy, he is asking if I observed something that I'm telling him happened 14 billion years ago! Hellooo, .. is arian stupid or something? Who could observe something that happened even a million years ago, not alone Billions of years ago?"

And of course his captive audience laughs along with him, and eagerly wait to hear more of this magical fairytale that happened a long, long time ago before time even existed, in a "point in space" before space existed.

With the help of my Creator, by being more and more in One mind with Him I give you scientific proof that is in the present, that you can observe, think about and experiment with in the here and now, not give you stories what I 'think' may have happened billions of years ago, or what things that you cannot see, and may never see may be out there in space ready to swallow you and this entire universe up in unless you do as I say, .. like Marshal Applewhite's suggestion; "Come kill yourselves and come with us before the Earth recycles itself and kills you!"
This idea is being pounded into peoples minds, to a point where they are destroying the earth, our skies, our rainforests, our rivers and oceans and all biological life in them right before our eyes as everyone just watches helplessly!?
Who says 'fluoride' in the water is not effective? It worked on the Jews during WWII and it is working at mass scales world wide.

You want answers? How would you like these answers, wrapped in some religious doctrine, or told by a sci-fi fairytale, or do you want the truth, as in the form of absolutes. Not using several opposing definitions of words like gay to mean homosexual, but concrete terminology.

Now if you don't believe in absolutes, that truth is what each individual makes it to be, or that words can have as many definitions as there are humans, we then definitely have a problem. Actually you would have a problem since language has lost its meaning, its usefulness, which is EXACTLY what the religionists want to achieve and so far achieving great success as anyone can see.

And once we loose the true meaning of language, what are we left with? We are left with blind faith, and this leads to beliefs that are the most advertised, that have the most money and time invested in, or what is trending now, the most popular beliefs of the time and so on. And it should be no secret who controls the masses, those that control the mass media, the churches and their religiously created god/gods.

I remember back in the old Communist Country, when you were asked in public, or in school about your opinion on communism and the equality it has brought into our country vs. the American devil where the rich rule, we said "communism, is the only true way, God does not exist" but inside people prayed to God, and hated communism, dreaded it, and we were terrified of it. We practically forgot what freedom meant, just as what is happening now in this country and the world, by the same religious ideologies, .. unless we say "No!".

[Zzyzx said] you would have been better off (more credible) if you had just left it at "I believe in God," but I strongly disagree. The very problem is when you stop trying and refuse to look any further.

I'm always somewhat surprised to see people try to dispel the Big Bang Theory since, more and more, I see this used (though not terribly successfully in my opinion) by apologists to tie into the entropy argument (if we can see evidence of the universe having had a beginning, it proves God.)

When one defends blind faith in religious indoctrinations of creators like the BB and Evolutionary ideologies, or god/gods, you will hear any excuse to justify their faith.

Entropy is time that slows down the process of death. So instead of sudden death, you have time to recoup, to rethink your actions and make a change.

What really surprised me though is your assertion that the Big Bang is not a theory. Yet, viewed in light of your comments about evolution, it seems you may not fully understand what a theory is.

The Big Bang is a theory; evolution is a theory--and a fact.

Evolution is a fact in that we see it every day and can recreate it in controlled settings. Flu vaccines have to be redeveloped because of strains that become resistant. Plants become resistant to herbicides. Bugs become resistant to pesticides. We see evolution (change) in species all the time, all around us. It is a fact.

The Big bang is an unobserved fairytale of what some religionist assume may, or may not have happened billions of years ago, and the Evolution theory that man evolved from a single celled bacteria billions of years ago is no different. Yes we evolve but not one species into another. I rather not go into this again, I am not here to debate religious ideologies.

A theory in science, is something that cannot be proven by testing it directly or by recreating it in a lab, yet which is backed up my evidence and facts which can be tested directly or recreated in a lab.

"14 billion years ago a chicken egg hatched the universe into existence" = Theory, .. correct?
"We can see chicken eggs hatch all the time in the lab" = fact which can be observed and tested.

"Over billions of years a lizard evolved into a bird" = Theory
We observe lizards and we observe birds in the lab = fact.
Come on now, what does this prove?

We cannot recreate an evolutionary process that took millions of years and we certainly can't test an event that occurred 14 billion years ago. However, evolution (the mechanism of evolution as descent with modification) and the Big Bang are supported by evidence from countless fields of science. Both these, therefore, are valid scientific theories.

As I pointed out we can make a valid scientific theory out of anything. "That rusted car under that tree fell out of one of the pods on the tree. See the pods on the tree? Well those are a lot smaller then the one the car fell out of,.. that one decayed with the last ice age, and was swallowed up by an earthquake as the tectonic plates were moving apart.

What a theory is not is a wild supposition--an entirely unsupported or undocumented claim. This would be called a hypothesis (a claim proposed to answer a question and then tested so that it can either be accepted or rejected). Religion--at best--would be a hypothesis since it does not have the scientific backing.

Religion is something we do repetitiously, why would that be a hypothesis at best? I walk to my mailbox every day, .. it's a fact

But if a quantum speck residing in a point in space in nothing can get hotter and hotter, denser and denser till it suddenly inflates with a bang into no-thing can be considered a theory, then just as I said; then any idea can be a theory

I don't see much , if anything, in your statement that would be "undeniable scientific evidence." You criticize science, rejecting many of its conclusions, but a rejection of science is not, of itself, scientific; simply saying "that can't be right" is not science.

Differentiating between what is considered science, and what should not be considered science is NOT science, I never said it was. It is common sense.

You defend mental/emotional/psychological processes by saying that they are necessary to understand evidence, but that is only a distraction from the greater point that they are not, themselves evidence.

Isn't 'understanding and differentiating between what is evidence and what is not evidence of the mental/emotional/psychological process itself?

What I meant was, that I can think, reason, dream and command (send impulses to my brain) to create, .. this is fact and I can prove it. Now there sits Einstein's brain and can't do diddly, no matter how much electricity you pump into it and what or how complex of a monitoring system you use to receive some kind of mental communication from it.

Observation; The mind is active, creative, innovative, it can communicate in many levels, .. while the brain just sits there waiting for information or outside influence from sensory perceptions on the body that the mind interprets and sends a response to back to the brain.

You even mention quantum physics as having shown proof of God. I assume you are referring to the so-called "God Particle" since you mention Higgs Boson. This term, however, is actually a very unfortunate mislabeling. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson)

No, .. I said that in quantum physics they are looking for a Creator, a God concept and that I say they are looking in the wrong place, at the physical created, and that looking at the created (finite) will never reveal the Creator (Infinite).

Unfortunate mislabeling seems to be the norm in the Big bang theory, .. and the so called sciences that are there to try to make it sensible enough to be believable. Just as other Catholic Inventions like the Trinity Doctrine, the Big bang theory was invented by a Catholic priest/monk and the best achievement so far is that they made both concepts (replacements of our Creator God) extremely confusing that even they admit cannot be comprehended by the human mind.

The Big bang is not really a Big-bang, and the best explanation they have as far as I understand is that it is more of a big swoosh, an implosion that we on the inside can observe as an explosion, or a super fast sudden expansion, but not from the outside since there is no outside, this silent magical fart created a beginning called time, which made things better and more organized as it passed.

The God delusion is not a competing ideology of creation/Creator, then what is it? Dawkins seem to use the word God a lot!? So do BB believing atheists.

The Higgs boson or Higgs particle is an elementary particle in the Standard ... and complex experimental facilities to date, CERN's Large Hadron Collider, able ... In mainstream media the Higgs boson has often been called the "God particle" but of course this is false right? They are just looking for the creator, or cause for the existence of the universe. Why in the world would anyone in their right mind would tie this to God our Creator just boggles the mind, .. right?

This says nothing about theology (either for or against the existence of God).

Exactly, I am not presenting a god from a theology, which is the study of the religiously created god/gods. But the Big bang theory IS all about a created-god that could somehow replace the Creator God.

"We don't know = God concept" once they find a good enough explanation, or once the world is finally forced, tricked, brainwashed to accept an explanation, then the "we don't know = God concept" will be changed into "We know, and it is not God" and this will be the new and the only acceptable form of science, religion. I know, communism didn't even have a replacement theory, but either torture, a very long prison sentence, or the death penalty.

Also, contrary to what you assert, scientists are not specifically looking for God, and they most certainly did not build CERN for that specific purpose. We are not seeking a creator but rather truth as [Zzyzx] pointed out.

Must be a lot of misprints then, because I can show you a bunch of articles, videos, documentaries that says exactly that; the answer to everything, god particle, creator of the universe, oh yea, .. sorry, what I meant was; what caused the universe? lol as if we understand cars, toasters to be caused into existence.

Truth? You call the Big-bang Evolution religion truth? But I guess if Islam is the ultimate truth, then BB Evolution has a good chance with the right One World Military enforcement to be the truth too, .. right?

This is the problem when [you say] you wouldn't expect verifiable info from Richard Dawkins because he is set in his beliefs. Just because someone is rigid does not mean the info is unverified (or unverifiable). You mention his preconceived notions but can they really be called preconceived if they are the result of many years of studying his field? If you start by searching for the truth, your conclusions cannot then be called preconceived.

Cannot be called 'preconceived'? As soon as I say the word God, the preconceived understanding is religion, as in the belief and worship of god/gods.
When I say the word; "Bible", again it is automatically considered religion. But pick up a book from Dawkins and it is automatically considered non-religious even as determined and rigid or religious his devotion to his set of beliefs he is.

My God, our Creator can only be understood through scientific observation and the proper usage of words and their meanings.
I can read Dawkins book, or the Bible religiously every day for a half an hour and not pray, worship or believe in any God concept. But this can be only understood outside of religious indoctrination, because as I keep saying; the world has been heavily indoctrinated to see and understand things that are either not there, or not see/understand things which are, like our mind, the 'nothing', the infinite differences between 'finite and Infinite, time and Eternity' and other things I have mentioned.

If Dawkins is such a big Big-bang Evolutionary expert, then why the "God delusion debate?" If he is a true believer in Evolution, and a true atheist that doesn't believe in the existence of God or ID, then why does he use it so much?

"Intelligent Design, what, .. what's that? God, Creator, .. not part of my vocabulary, I observe one species turning into another species all the time, every day because I am a scientist!"

However I'm going to have to disagree again with [Zzyzx]: science absolutely does deal with things that cannot be detected. There are lots of hypotheses which are formulated, postulating things which have no current means of being detected. Dark matter, for example, cannot itself be detected. What we detect is an effect which we have attributed to it.

Thank you, I guess this reveals just what lengths some people will go to defend their religious beliefs.

However, this does not justify a belief in God from what are seen to be his effects. For Zzyzx had it right when he mentioned the inability to deal with something that can't be described. God is only described by what he is not. God is infinite. He is ineffable. He is immaterial. Thus, God is best likened to 'nothing.' Without descriptive qualities of what something is, it is not scientific.

So studying the mind and its interaction with the brain would not constitute science?
Identifying words and clarifying finite vs. Infinite cannot be science?
Black holes, dark matter, gravity, energy, string theory, the gravitational wave theory and the hundreds of other invisible and undetectable things can flood the so called scientific world, of which some are so vaguely described that it hardly makes any sense, or has absolutely no use in science except that it tries to add to some un-evidenced religious assumption of some sudden expansion in nothing. But it is God the Creator that must be separated from science?

What 'descriptive qualities' of God have I left out? I have even shown that we are created in His image, our mind, our body is also structured in a way that represents God in His Spiritual being. We create, God creates, or more like since God creates, we create. Father like son.

Ask me a question about our Creator and see if I can't answer it, and this I will do outside of any religious ideologies and doctrines? Deal?
You ask me a question about God our Creator, and then I ask you about your creator the Big-bang theory/fact or whatever you want to label it as?

Diverting from the main question of science and getting into epistemology (just for a little bit since that is not what this thread was really about),[you said that] knowledge is useless without belief in it. I don't understand this at all. Knowledge is a subset of belief. You believe x number of things, and of these, you know only a portion. I don't see anything that can be known without being believed.

I know of a lot of things both true and false. I 'know' of the BB theory, and I believe that the theory exists, but I do not 'believe' in what they claim is the reason for its existence. I believe in many gods and I know they exist, only I don't believe that they are the Creator of the universe and man. So it is the 'claims' that these beliefs make that is in question, not that the claims themselves don't exist.

My claim; "The undeniable Scientific evidence of The Creator" is in question here. I am not talking about religiously created god/gods, these exist in their own story, like Santa Claus, Peter pan and fairies, but my claim is scientific, not myth or religiously created ideologies. It seems that religion has so dominated mans minds that even true science is seen through them. As if science (observing the world around us) can be only interpreted through religion!?

This ties into [Suzy's question] about knowing with certainty that there is not 'something' behind life. That is the very conclusion that I have come to [that there is no god], and it's what I believe. Do I know it? No. And certainly not with 100% certainty. And not to say that they don't exist, but I've never met an atheist who makes that claim.

One thing I do is try to know before I believe. If you are walking by the edge of the Grand Canyon, and believe you have at least a good twenty more steps before you fall a mile deep, but don't know this, or are not sure of it, would it be wise to go even one step further based on blind faith (faith without substance or evidence)?

You have come to the conclusion that there is no God, and you believe this, right?

Now let me ask you, is it possible that you are not looking for the same God I present here? What I'm saying is; as you are walking, what if you were thinking of the endless flat desert, and your next step as going up a mountain instead of the mile deep fall off the Grand Canyon?

What I'm trying to relay here is that why do people walk by faith, instead of first checking out, examine and get to know each step coming up before they believe and keep on walking by blind faith? As you said, you are not really sure, yet this is what you believe, and that my friend is walking by blind faith. You trust what others said, like BB Evolution, or whatever other religions say.

Finally, there's one specific statement where you appear to blatantly contradict yourself.

Well thanks again my friend, I appreciate your honesty.

Once you understand and see the obvious and undisputable PROOF of the Creator, who can be known through His creation especially man, all questions of 'god concept will start answering themselves. No one can see God, so looking at the gigantic haystack of the physical creation, you will never find God. God is Spirit, and only those in the spirit can know/see Him.

You say that the creator can be known by his creation, but in the very next sentence, you say you will never find God by looking at his physical creation. I'd love to hear an elaboration of this.

See, I hope others see this, you asked that I verify my statement instead of just commenting of what 'you' thought I said. Thanks again, I appreciate it my dear friend.

And without elaboration it doesn't seem to make sense, I agree. So here, let me explain;

We can only see creation, the finite, correct? What do you ask in your mind when you see creation? For me, I ask who created this, or where did this, or where did I come from? Or what caused this to be here? (doesn't matter which POV you are asking this from, hopefully it's from a non-religious scientific POV)

I am a man, I don't know of any of my cousins being animals, when a human body is scraped off of the freeway they are identified as a person, not an animal from the ape family. Now maybe I have missed it, but so far an animal is still identified as a carcass of an animal and human is identified as a body of a mon, or woman. Nor have I met any animal ape, chimp, half chimp half human come up to me and say: "Hi, I'm your distant cousin Caesar, they call me 'Bright Eyes'!"

I have never, nor do I know of any scientist claim to have seen one species of animal turn into a human, or into any other species of animals (I will not go into the tens of thousands of gnats with VD scenario here), . I do see apes of all kinds, each after their own kind, and I do see man of all kinds and after their kind. Because of infinite regress I realized that I will never see the Creator in any of these creations doesn't matter how they appeared, or from where.

Now I just said Creator, why did I say Creator? Fine, let's call this Creator a "First Cause", or "Chance" or "Time", or "a Chaotic Accident", but something had to make this universe appear, and result in us humans asking all the questions, .. are you with me so far?

The Universe is here, I can see this and feel it in many ways.
To have "Chance" as the Creator, or the 'cause' for our existence, there has to be a dice or something that can create chance. Chance alone cannot create chance.
Time before time could not create time, or time couldn't create itself either.
Nothing in this universe, or no single elementary particle could create itself either, so logic dictates that the created creating itself is out of the question.

We need a Creator, and something that is not part of creation.

I noticed that I can think, dream, contemplate, design, ask questions, and none of this is visible to my physical senses other than the effects, impulses created by my mind when it dictates (like when we type on the keyboard programs or commands for the computer) to my brain.

So, by simple deduction my mind must be that 'Creator', and it is intelligent, it knows he exists, it is unbelievably fast, especially when we consider even something as simple as a kid on the streets throwing a basket and making a shot 'nothing but net'. The mind has to figure out every calculation, wind direction, speed, each step, each bend, each arm as to how to move, which muscles and how much energy each one is to exhort and how far to stretch to throw that basketball, each heart beat, each breath, every organ every cell in the body has to be harmonized to be able to throw and make that swoosh sound throw after throw. Given all the distractions, the thoughts like hearing mom telling him not to skip school and go play basketball all day, or his friends yelling to distract him from his throw, all this is without a doubt can only be possible by The Creator, and Is The Creator.

Only if my mind IS the Creator, but I don't remember me creating the universe or myself, this body I'm in, then the only conclusion is that there is a Creator Mind that I am a part of that did create the universe and me.

[Hatuey]

The Universe is here, I can see this and feel it in many ways.
To have "Chance" as the Creator, or the 'cause' for our existence, there has to be a dice or something that can create chance. Chance alone cannot create chance.
Time before time could not create time, or time couldn't create itself either.
Nothing in this universe, or no single elementary particle could create itself either, so logic dictates that the created creating itself is out of the question.

We need a Creator, and something that is not part of creation.

I noticed that I can think, dream, contemplate, design, ask questions, and none of this is visible to my physical senses other than the effects, impulses created by my mind when it dictates (like when we type on the keyboard programs or commands for the computer) to my brain.

So, by simple deduction my mind must be that 'Creator', and it is intelligent, it knows he exists, it is unbelievably fast, especially when we consider even something as simple as a kid on the streets throwing a basket and making a shot 'nothing but net'. The mind has to figure out every calculation, wind direction, speed, each step, each bend, each arm as to how to move, which muscles and how much energy each one is to exhort and how far to stretch to throw that basketball, each heart beat, each breath, every organ every cell in the body has to be harmonized to be able to throw and make that swoosh sound throw after throw. Given all the distractions, the thoughts like hearing mom telling him not to skip school and go play basketball all day, or his friends yelling to distract him from his throw, all this is without a doubt can only be possible by The Creator, and Is The Creator.

Only if my mind IS the Creator, but I don't remember me creating the universe or myself, this body I'm in, then the only conclusion is that there is a Creator Mind that I am a part of that did create the universe and me.

No, your body and mind do plenty of things every second that you are not aware of nor "remember." Just because you don't know whether or not your mind did something isn't proof of any higher power than your mind.

Philosophy is not science; you have only presented philosophy and facts and ideas that are not connected to any sort of scientific hypothesis that allows for independent testing of a final claim or its constituents.

At every turn where you posit "god," a more honest answer would be "we don't yet know and may never know." Instead of insisting that particles require a creator, we can simply, honestly say that we don't know how the particles came into existence. We can imagine all sorts of possible ideas that are NOT god, but since none of them can be observed and tested just as god cannot be observed and tested, no "answer" can be scientifically more or less valuable than any other possibility.

[Zzyzx]

.

As a scientifically minded person, I can ONLY go by what I can observe, which is the world around me.

Have you observed any supernatural entities in the world around you?

Have you observed any evidence of supernatural entities that can be SHOWN to be directly attributed to an entity and which can be SHOWN to be something that is not produced by human imagination?

A "scientifically minded person" should / would not accept "evidence" that is unverifiable.

One who claims to have scientific evidence but produces only mental / psychological / emotional opinions does not earn respect or credibility (except perhaps among the naive and gullible).

[arian]

The Universe is here, I can see this and feel it in many ways.
To have "Chance" as the Creator, or the 'cause' for our existence, there has to be a dice or something that can create chance. Chance alone cannot create chance.
Time before time could not create time, or time couldn't create itself either.
Nothing in this universe, or no single elementary particle could create itself either, so logic dictates that the created creating itself is out of the question.

We need a Creator, and something that is not part of creation.

I noticed that I can think, dream, contemplate, design, ask questions, and none of this is visible to my physical senses other than the effects, impulses created by my mind when it dictates (like when we type on the keyboard programs or commands for the computer) to my brain.

So, by simple deduction my mind must be that 'Creator', and it is intelligent, it knows he exists, it is unbelievably fast, especially when we consider even something as simple as a kid on the streets throwing a basket and making a shot 'nothing but net'. The mind has to figure out every calculation, wind direction, speed, each step, each bend, each arm as to how to move, which muscles and how much energy each one is to exhort and how far to stretch to throw that basketball, each heart beat, each breath, every organ every cell in the body has to be harmonized to be able to throw and make that swoosh sound throw after throw. Given all the distractions, the thoughts like hearing mom telling him not to skip school and go play basketball all day, or his friends yelling to distract him from his throw, all this is without a doubt can only be possible by The Creator, and Is The Creator.

Only if my mind IS the Creator, but I don't remember me creating the universe or myself, this body I'm in, then the only conclusion is that there is a Creator Mind that I am a part of that did create the universe and me.

No, your body and mind do plenty of things every second that you are not aware of nor "remember." Just because you don't know whether or not your mind did something isn't proof of any higher power than your mind.

I agree, .. there is no 'higher power then our mind' which is a tiny bit of God, only within a body. This 'spirit/mind', with the individual body is a living soul.

Philosophy is not science; you have only presented philosophy and facts and ideas that are not connected to any sort of scientific hypothesis that allows for independent testing of a final claim or its constituents.

So any intellectual and practical study of things like; gravity, black holes, worm holes, the existence of 'nothing', Big-bang theory, Evolution Theory, the Blue Brain Project, multiverses, .. is not science?

noun: science
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

At every turn where you posit "god," a more honest answer would be "we don't yet know and may never know." Instead of insisting that particles require a creator, we can simply, honestly say that we don't know how the particles came into existence. We can imagine all sorts of possible ideas that are NOT god, but since none of them can be observed and tested just as god cannot be observed and tested, no "answer" can be scientifically more or less valuable than any other possibility.

Oh, .. but I did 'observe' everything I tell you, and you could observe it also, and if you really put your mind to it, you would come to the same conclusion as I have.

Ungodly people ask: "What is truth? We are what we are by evolution, a purposeless unplanned chaotic accident." Yet they sure like to keep the police around, right? But for what, .. to force 'their' version of what is good and evil on their fellow animals that act on instinct like they do?

"You robbed me!"
"No I didn't!"
"Your Honor he is lying, .." .. instinct from the brain of an animal, right?

Or is it?

[Zzyzx]

.

Oh, .. but I did 'observe' everything I tell you, and you could observe it also,

Anyone can "observe" anything they wish in their mind as you indicated doing when talking about your "scientific evidence of a creator."

Imagination is boundless. Reality seems to have limits.

and if you really put your mind to it, you would come to the same conclusion as I have.

Of course, anyone can "put their mind to it" and come up with all sorts of imaginary, fanciful, irrational things.

Ungodly people ask: "What is truth?

Non-Religious people often ask "What is truth?"

Religious people often claim "I know TRUTH" (because I worship one of the gods). Thus, they need not search for truth because they already think they have the answer – and it is "God." Therefore, many expend their energy attempting to defend irrational claims, statements and stories of ancient religion promoters -- or make up new ones or new "interpretations" of ancient opinions.

We are what we are by evolution,

Agreed

a purposeless unplanned chaotic accident."

Those who wish to regard themselves as purposeless (or purposeless without their favorite gods) are welcome to do so – for themselves. However, their personal opinion is not binding upon others.

Yet they sure like to keep the police around, right?

Non-Religious people think of police about like Religious people think of police. Any astute person realizes that not all members of society (religious or not) act honorably toward others or abide by the rules of their society.

But for what, .. to force 'their' version of what is good and evil on their fellow animals that act on instinct like they do?

Societies set the standards of behavior for citizens without regard for whether individuals think they came from "gods" or not.

Societies which are dominated by religion are theocracies – exemplified by Middle Eastern countries currently and by European nations during the Dark and Middle Ages.

[arian]

.

As a scientifically minded person, I can ONLY go by what I can observe, which is the world around me.

Have you observed any supernatural entities in the world around you?

You mean demons, .. yes.

Have you observed any evidence of supernatural entities that can be SHOWN to be directly attributed to an entity and which can be SHOWN to be something that is not produced by human imagination?

Other than those supernatural entities, yes; God, our Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind, in whose image we were created, .. the mind/spirit part of us. Our characteristics we got from God, there is no other explanation, and it fits.
Also that our mind controls the body is an undeniable fact, I have shown that the body couldn't create the mind, it wouldn't make sense.

A "scientifically minded person" should / would not accept "evidence" that is unverifiable.

I agree. This is why I show that the mind is undeniable and can verify itself. Can't have anything more verified than that, right?

One who claims to have scientific evidence but produces only mental / psychological / emotional opinions does not earn respect or credibility (except perhaps among the naive and gullible).

I know, .. boy that Stephen Hawking! But look how he gets away with it, and even calls it science and has millions of naive and gullible followers. Of course having the OneWorldGovernment and the controlled media on his side helps a lot too.

Once the human mind is reduced to believe he is an animal, an ape who responds by instinct and not free will, the rest of the convincing is easy. Also, fluoride in the toothpaste, in the water and heavy chem-trailing 24/7, and enough I-Phone apps to keep them busy, they remain obedient animals.

[Hatuey]

I agree, .. there is no 'higher power then our mind' which is a tiny bit of God, only within a body. This 'spirit/mind', with the individual body is a living soul.

So you say. I didn't say. Don't put words in my mouth; it's dishonest both in intellect and within ethics of debate. Please don't imply I've said something that I haven't.

My point is that you are your mind and it's thoughts; you're not going to disagree with your own idea of god even if you have no evidence

So any intellectual and practical study of things like; gravity, black holes, worm holes, the existence of 'nothing', Big-bang theory, Evolution Theory, the Blue Brain Project, multiverses, .. is not science?

Your "hypotheses" that have no method of verification are philosophy. The items you list above are mostly those that were predicted by hard science, put through thousands of criticisms and review, then finally proven by mathematics, observation, and multiple, redundant proofs.

But who cares? You've got weak philosophy. That's the point, not irrelevancies about how many billions of confirmatory data exist for the fact of evolution.

noun: science
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Correct. You haven't any. Yours is weak philosophy.

Oh, .. but I did 'observe' everything I tell you, and you could observe it also, and if you really put your mind to it, you would come to the same conclusion as I have.

Quite a ridiculous claim to make, but please, do put on your best show, and I'll try to keep up.

Ungodly people ask: "What is truth? We are what we are by evolution, a purposeless unplanned chaotic accident." Yet they sure like to keep the police around, right?

I guess I'm not an ungodly atheist, then, cause I don't think such stupid thoughts......ever. It's natural to question truth because its natural to question an idea so prevalent in our psyches and language, but that's not indicative of any evidence for or against god. It's a null observation. As to "purposeless" and "chaotic," you'll have to go ask that to other people who fit your stereotype, or whatever.

But for what, .. to force 'their' version of what is good and evil on their fellow animals that act on instinct like they do?

"You robbed me!"
"No I didn't!"
"Your Honor he is lying, .." .. instinct from the brain of an animal, right?

Or is it?

I honestly have no idea what you're even trying to say, here. Something about how people shouldn't talk about concepts like "right" and "wrong" or "good" or "bad" without god??? Because if you're counting on that sort of arguing as winning a debate on god's existence, then you've got a long painful road ahead of you. Lol.