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?

[pizzanui]

[Replying to post 10 by YahDough]

I agree that a creation implies a creator, similar to the way a watch implies a watchmaker. However, it is completely illogical to look at the earth and assume that it is a creation. Or, as some will put it, technically speaking, everything in existence was created by someTHING, but not necessarily someONE.

But ultimately it breaks down to this; you try to justify your faith with useless speculation and wordplay, whilst ignoring the questions for debate, which demands actual evidence that the earth was created by some sort of deity or intelligent body. The mere fact that something exists implies nothing further than the fact it exists. If something shows evidence of having been created or designed, however, then it is a valid hypothesis that a creator exists. Then that hypothesis must be tested somehow, and evidence must be found to support or debase that hypothesis.

The method by which you form your hypothesis is sketchy at best, but then what of the evidence that the scientific method suggests you must have found by now? We have found plenty of evidence that does NOT confirm the God hypothesis, so back on the topic at hand, show me what evidence you have that DOES confirm the hypothesis, aside from the hypothesis itself.

In short, the fact that the hypothesis exists does not imply that it is correct; that is entirely illogical.

[pizzanui]

[Replying to post 136 by arian]

Wow, what? You say that the Big Bang and Evolution are both falsely called theories? On WHAT, pray tell, do you base this radical claim? I urge you to visit notjustatheory.com as well as please clarify what you mean by this. That is all ^_^

[McCulloch]

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.

The problem with this argument is that the definition of the word animal does not preclude free will. You can say that we are an animal with free will but you cannot validly say that since we have free will we are not animals.

By the way, can you show that the other great apes, chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas do not have free will?

Life on Earth is known to biologists, people who study such things, as:…

They left out humans, as in:

Humans -- humans are also multi-celled organisms, eat food for survival, and have nervous systems, hair under their armpits, facial hair, with a body designed to be more like their Invisible Creator, with hands and fingers that can create and handle delicate tools, unlimited minds that can dream up, IDesign and create their dreams. They have a body that was created from the dust of the earth like any other biological life, but man was special, a little design from many other animals, which may be weaker in some physical aspects, but together with the other 'extras', he dominates all animals, and can tame and domesticate them all.
The human can reason, dream and create, and best of all unlike the animals, he has free will.

Show how humans are not animals.

I did, above.

You did not.

So if the brain creates the mind, and the brain evolved over billions of years without purpose, and the human is just an animal, and that we have no free will, then the only thing you have left is that your human animal acts by instinct.

Saying that humans are animals is not denying free will. Humans could be described as animals with free will.

[Danmark]

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.

The problem with this argument is that the definition of the word animal does not preclude free will. You can say that we are an animal with free will but you cannot validly say that since we have free will we are not animals.

By the way, can you show that the other great apes, chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas do not have free will?
....

This is an excellent point. Forgive me if I pile on.
I'm aware of the reasonable caveat that it is easy to project or anthropomorphize human thoughts onto animals, nevertheless I am convinced cats and dogs make choices. Anyone with a cat for a pet has observed the cat being called and turning to look in his direction without otherwise moving. The cat gives the impression he is is thinking, weighing his options and deciding what to do. After a pause the cat goes back to what he was doing, or goes off in another direction, or comes to the person who called him. During the pause we see his eyes move, his ears twitch and change posture. It is impossible to say he is not thinking and considering.

When I was much younger we had a big, powerful German Shepherd/Collie mix who became a legend in the community. He would catch squirrels not by chasing them directly, but by heading for the tree they were heading for. For each member of the family he had a different distance that seemed to determine whether he would obey a command to 'come' if he was headed somewhere else. It seemed to coincide with how fast he thought we could run. For my father it was about six feet. For my brothers and I it was about 60 yards. I remember one time calling him when he was headed away and was right at his tipping point. He stopped. Looked at me, then looked where he had been headed, frozen. As soon as I took a step toward him, he paused, then trotted to me.

[arian]

Of course not, it was all planned out first, then designed and then created by the hand of our Creator God as in 'I.D.', just like everything that we plan, design and create.

And your proof?

Well, .. I look at the simple things that we man (not animals) plan, design and create, so the more (far, far more) complex and complicated things like biological life, and the fruitful, reasoning man, a Creator must have created it. I know it wasn't man, we can only make simple things like cell phones and such.

Here it is in a nutshell: Looking at ourselves (man) as in a mirror, we see our Creator.

No thanks. The human animal is the human animal, not god.

What you consider the human animal part (the body) is not God. What makes man in the image of God is his spirit, his mind. If you have restricted your mind to using your brain only, then yes, we can say that; "man is just a human-animal!" .. that is true. Oh yea, .. and man can treat his fellow man as animals too, slaughter them like animals, put them down like animals, take their skin off and make lampshades out of them just as they make rugs out of bears and lions, .. so since man has free will to act like an animal, he takes that inherent right and in many cases exercises it.

You can understand this scientifically, philosophically, religiously, optimistically, pessimistically, if you are a theist/atheist, another words "if you believe that you don't believe and worship god/gods" - atheist
.. or "don't believe, that you are actually worshiping other god/gods that are not God" - theist

What? God is exactly like the tooth fairy...invisible, undetectable, and irrelevant. If he were visible, detectable, and relevant, the world would have scientific proof.

Have you seen the movie "The gods must be crazy"? Now what if the little bushman out on a stroll found a car under one of those Australian desert trees, calls his entire village out to see it, and as they scratch their heads in wonder what kind of fruit, or animal it may have been before it died, the little bushman says: "See the pods on the tree it is laying under? It must have fallen out of one of those pods!?"

Now if for many generations no one comes to tell them that a Ford factory Intelligently designed and manufactured that car they seen under the tree, and Ford never shows up to claim he did, you are saying that there would be no way to scientifically prove the car had a creator, a designer, a maker?

You gravely underestimate, or limit science my friend, and I believe I know why? Religion for one, ..

[Bust Nak]

Well, .. I look at the simple things that we man (not animals) plan, design and create, so the more (far, far more) complex and complicated things like biological life, and the fruitful, reasoning man, a Creator must have created it. I know it wasn't man, we can only make simple things like cell phones and such.

Complexity does not imply design. "It is complex therefore someone must have made it," is a non sequitur fallacy.

What you consider the human animal part (the body) is not God. What makes man in the image of God is his spirit, his mind. If you have restricted your mind to using your brain only, then yes, we can say that; "man is just a human-animal!" .. that is true. Oh yea, .. and man can treat his fellow man as animals too, slaughter them like animals, put them down like animals, take their skin off and make lampshades out of them just as they make rugs out of bears and lions, .. so since man has free will to act like an animal, he takes that inherent right and in many cases exercises it.

What made you think treating each other with respect and love, is mutually exclusive with treating them like animals?

Now if for many generations no one comes to tell them that a Ford factory Intelligently designed and manufactured that car they seen under the tree, and Ford never shows up to claim he did, you are saying that there would be no way to scientifically prove the car had a creator, a designer, a maker?

Haven't see the movie, but of course there are ways to scientifically prove the car had a creator. I wouldn't be bragging about how one could prove a car designer, when you can't scientifically prove that life had a creator.

[Clownboat]

.

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.

I believe that this clarification is very important after such a claim:
- Do you take Lithium and suffer from Schizophrenia?

Your answer will not prove your statement one way or the other, but if either are a "yes", it should be known so readers can evaluate your claim.

Thanks for your honesty.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 147:

Do you take Lithium and suffer from Schizophrenia?

Some who suffer from schizophrenia won't take lithium due to miserable, and sometimes debilitating side effects.

As well, my experience has been that at least some professionals are reticent to even offer the diagnosis, preferring to "talk around" it instead.

"Joey, these voices you hear, tell me about 'em."

"I hear voices, but when I look t'wards 'em, ain't nobody there, am I schizophrenic?"

"Now about them voices..."

If only to me, it seems there's more interest in studying the disease / disorder than actual treatment. But I'm also paranoid, so there's that. Took medication off and on for longer'n I'm set to cotton, or proud to admit. I've yet to encounter any "official medicine" that didn't cause more problems than they were worth, but...

Don't it beat all, I can take some vitamin A and enjoy beautiful, awesome visual hallucinations. Afterwards, the voices remain silent for up to weeks. Sometimes ya get flashbacks after a couple days, but still no voices. I like the visuals, just not the voices. The voices don't like me.

I remember watching Casino once, a little drunk maybe, and how the triggers were just too much. Couldn't finish, and hated the movie. Got to tripping one night, and sure enough, the movie came on (hotel with HBO or some movie channel, so little else to do). There I sat on the edge of the couch enthralled. I don't reckon I even blinked. Been a fan of the movie ever since, with no triggers. Never had a bad trip in my life either.

To heck with lithium.


We should also remember that schizophrenia is not always a "full time event". I have periods of, best I can tell, normal thoughts and normal notions.


Data presented anecdotally for folks to ponder. Your mileage may vary.

[Clownboat]

From Post 147:

Do you take Lithium and suffer from Schizophrenia?

Some who suffer from schizophrenia won't take lithium due to miserable, and sometimes debilitating side effects.

As well, my experience has been that at least some professionals are reticent to even offer the diagnosis, preferring to "talk around" it instead.

"Joey, these voices you hear, tell me about 'em."

"I hear voices, but when I look t'wards 'em, ain't nobody there, am I schizophrenic?"

"Now about them voices..."

If only to me, it seems there's more interest in studying the disease / disorder than actual treatment. But I'm also paranoid, so there's that. Took medication off and on for longer'n I'm set to cotton, or proud to admit. I've yet to encounter any "official medicine" that didn't cause more problems than they were worth, but...

Don't it beat all, I can take some vitamin A and enjoy beautiful, awesome visual hallucinations. Afterwards, the voices remain silent for up to weeks. Sometimes ya get flashbacks after a couple days, but still no voices. I like the visuals, just not the voices. The voices don't like me.

I remember watching Casino once, a little drunk maybe, and how the triggers were just too much. Couldn't finish, and hated the movie. Got to tripping one night, and sure enough, the movie came on (hotel with HBO or some movie channel, so little else to do). There I sat on the edge of the couch enthralled. I don't reckon I even blinked. Been a fan of the movie ever since, with no triggers. Never had a bad trip in my life either.

To heck with lithium.


We should also remember that schizophrenia is not always a "full time event". I have periods of, best I can tell, normal thoughts and normal notions.


Data presented anecdotally for folks to ponder. Your mileage may vary.

Thank you for the personal explanation.

You wouldn't be insulted though would you if I found claims of demons being real more believable if they came from someone other than yourself though, right? (Due to your explanation).

Thus why I feel it is important to consider the source over this claim of demons being real.

Who would be surprised to hear a dentist claim that they work on teeth?
Or a lawyer that claims they practice law?
Or a schizophrenic that claims demons are real?

Thus the request for further clarification. Obviously, there are those that seem to understand that the voices/hallucinations are not real. I assume that there are also those that don't understand that the voices/hallucinations are not real. Could this be a valid reason for some to believe in actual demons?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 149:

I'll stop at this response so as not to further clutter the thread. I make my comments to enlighten, and feel they have some bearing on the OP, or other claims and notions presented about it.

You wouldn't be insulted though would you if I found claims of demons being real more believable if they came from someone other than yourself though, right? (Due to your explanation).

It won't bother me if even I'm not believed. I can reckon from the outside my claims and such sound awful goofy.

Where demons are "spirit", then who's to say? My voices are as real as if you yourself were speaking. It ain't that I 'sense' them. I hear them. They're there as sure as I'm a doofus, and I got me a bunch of that. I'm aware of some studies declaring that brain activity can be seen to occur in close association with such events (in support of 'em being 'real').

So then, is someone who hears something hearing from the "spirit world", or is it simply a deal with the brain? While I would agree the most rational conclusion is the brain at work, how proud must I be to say the "spirit world" can't possibly speak to me in the manner "it" deems fit?

Sure, I've concluded abnormal brain activity or structure. That doesn't mean I'm gonna declare another's demons a "figment of their imagination". 'Cause I hear my demons, I don't imagine 'em. They're as real as grits are groceries. Their invisibleness is as real and scary as any notion I can imagine.

Thus why I feel it is important to consider the source over this claim of demons being real.

Who would be surprised to hear a dentist claim that they work on teeth?
Or a lawyer that claims they practice law?
Or a schizophrenic that claims demons are real?

I can dig it. I present my comments so's folks get 'em some good evaluatin'.

Thus the request for further clarification. Obviously, there are those that seem to understand that the voices/hallucinations are not real.

This gets back to the issue of being able to record these events as brain activity.

I hate to offer a piece of an abstract, but here's some bit of evidence of the realness of these events...

Our results provide direct evidence of the involvement of primary auditory areas in auditory verbal hallucinations and establish novel constraints for psychopathological models.

So, we have some data to indicate these are 'real' sounds. They are indeed perceived. They're there in the real sense that we can see 'em "as they occur".

I'm not trying to defend some supernatural hoodoo here. I seek to point out that these voices are perceived in as real a sense as any sounds we hear.

I assume that there are also those that don't understand that the voices/hallucinations are not real.

While I contend they can be observed and measured through brain activity, making 'em up to as real as possible without air being harmed in the process.

Could this be a valid reason for some to believe in actual demons?

I happen to disagree with declarations of "spirit demons" in the religious sense, but don't it beat all, here I sit with 'em.