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?

[Bust Nak]

I shall not respond to anything else you post due to the fact that nothing you said makes any sense here. I appreciate the forum's IGNORE button.

[video cropped]

Moderator Intervention

Neither of these posts add to the debate. Cut down on the amount of banter.
______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[KenRU]

Welcome to the forum, Starman.

However, even trolls and others who post incoherent rants are helpful in demonstrating the irrationality of the causes they purport to champion.

///

Is there anyone here that would like to expand on arians claim? Preferably someone that is not arian?

I prophecy (sic) "crickets".

"Incoherent rants" are obviously quite subjective, as is "irrationality."

I find the self-serving claim of atheist intellectualism to be "incoherent" as well as "irrational."

And yet the data strongly suggests that the opposite is true:

"A recent review of studies found that religious belief is inversely associated with intelligence. That is, more intelligent people are generally less likely to be religious."
...
"To summarise briefly, a recent review of 63 studies showed that there is a moderate negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity (Zuckerman, Silberman, & Hall, 2013). The review found that religious beliefs, such as belief in God, are somewhat more strongly related to lower intelligence than religious behavior, such as church attendance. The authors estimated that the average difference in IQ points between believers and nonbelievers ranged from 6.2 for non-college samples to 7.8 for college samples. This difference is roughly half a standard deviation in size, so this represents a reasonably substantial effect."

Link to the full article article (lest my response be considered an "incoherent rant":
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/un ... n-religion

All the best,

[Starman]

Welcome to the forum, Starman.

The authors estimated that the average difference in IQ points between believers and nonbelievers ranged from 6.2 for non-college samples to 7.8 for college samples. This difference is roughly half a standard deviation in size, so this represents a reasonably substantial effect."[/i]



All the best,

Well said, sir. Yours is one of the finer posts I have read here, and I have read quite a few already.

Point taken. I would contend that neither you nor I could differentiate between individuals with a 7.8 much less a 6.2 point difference.

More to the point is the indisputable fact that intellectualism does not make one right.

Overlooked is the fact that in and of itself, intellect is not a positive attribute, for it can, and is all too often, used for evil, unsavory, or wrong purposes, however you wish to characterize them. The Unabomber is a perfect example.

You and I may disagree honestly on this point or that, but I have yet to see any reasonable explanation by any atheist for an alternative to an Intelligent Creator.
Many information theorists have arrived at this same conclusion after studying DNA. Its stored information is more alien to us than Sanskrit was before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone.

[Zzyzx]

.

Overlooked is the fact that in and of itself, intellect is not a positive attribute, for it can, and is all too often, used for evil, unsavory, or wrong purposes, however you wish to characterize them. The Unabomber is a perfect example.

Yes, high intelligence can be used positively, negatively or not at all. Here is a list of people known for having genius level IQ (usually taken to mean greater than 140 or 145) who made great positive contributions.

Albert Einstein
Sir Issac Newton
Thomas Edison
Copernicus
Charles Darwin
Leonardo Da Vinci
Charles Dickens
Bill Gates

I have yet to see any reasonable explanation by any atheist for an alternative to an Intelligent Creator.

If you did encounter a reasonable alternative, what means would you use to recognize it and understand its significance?


I truly appreciate this opportunity to compare attitudes and ideas presented in favor of Theism with those of Non-Theism.

[Danmark]

So YOU say. Atheists claim a very great deal without "proving" their/your claims.
Christians must "prove," to your exclusive satisfaction, this and that. You have nothing to "prove" but everything to claim.
....
I see no point in continuing to reply to faux Southern twang and giggly condescension you persist in displaying.

Moderator Warning

You have made several blanket statements in several posts. Please qualify your statements, unless you have a foundation for proving ALL members of a group or category fit your assertion.

Also, please refrain from making personal insults; stick to the issues of the debate.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[arian]

.

Overlooked is the fact that in and of itself, intellect is not a positive attribute, for it can, and is all too often, used for evil, unsavory, or wrong purposes, however you wish to characterize them. The Unabomber is a perfect example.

Yes, high intelligence can be used positively, negatively or not at all. Here is a list of people known for having genius level IQ (usually taken to mean greater than 140 or 145) who made great positive contributions.

Albert Einstein

Who gave us relativity where we can pick two objects out of the trillions in space and magical things happen as they separate from each other, like length contraction, weight gain, and time dilation, while no known (or admitted) effect will be experienced by the rest of the trillions of objects while these two objects are moving. Oh yea, and he gave us the Illuminati E=mc2 symbol. Let's not forget his contributions to the A-bomb that destroyed 2 cities with everyone in it!

Sir Isaac Newton

Who changed the words "what goes up, must come down" to "gravity".

Thomas Edison

Who got rich and famous by stealing ideas from real geniuses like Nicola Tesla (It's why he's not on the list)

Copernicus

Who changed the "sunup, sundown" to "earthup and spinning all around!"

Charles Darwin

Who turned man into an ape! "Oo-ooh, aa-ah, ee-eeh!"

Leonardo Da Vinci

Who turned our Jewish Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His Jewish Apostles into blond long haired white hippies. "Peace man!"

Charles Dickens

Now I would have loved to see his version of the "Big-Bang" story!

Bill Gates

Gave the common folk the ability to use the computer, .. then invented viruses for the government so they can better monitor, and 'program' every man, woman and child in their homes. Who also hates the very masses who made him filthy rich cause there is just too many of them. Who also want's to come back as a deadly virus in his next life! Ankh!

I have yet to see any reasonable explanation by any atheist for an alternative to an Intelligent Creator.

If you did encounter a reasonable alternative, what means would you use to recognize it and understand its significance?

For me, .. just a "reasonable alternative" would be satisfying enough.

[Danmark]

.

Overlooked is the fact that in and of itself, intellect is not a positive attribute, for it can, and is all too often, used for evil, unsavory, or wrong purposes, however you wish to characterize them. The Unabomber is a perfect example.

Yes, high intelligence can be used positively, negatively or not at all. Here is a list of people known for having genius level IQ (usually taken to mean greater than 140 or 145) who made great positive contributions.

Albert Einstein

Who gave us relativity where we can pick two objects out of the trillions in space and magical things happen as they separate from each other, like length contraction, weight gain, and time dilation, while no known (or admitted) effect will be experienced by the rest of the trillions of objects while these two objects are moving. Oh yea, and he gave us the Illuminati E=mc2 symbol. Let's not forget his contributions to the A-bomb that destroyed 2 cities with everyone in it!

Einstein did not work on the atomic bomb, but even if he did, he'd be in good company, along with God. BTW God has a much better kill ratio when HE drops the big one on a pair of cities, not to mention wiping out all the animals except one family of each kind.

BTW, Arian, are you going to explain to us your understanding of general and special relativity, or just stick to your claim that it's "magic?"

[KenRU]

Welcome to the forum, Starman.

The authors estimated that the average difference in IQ points between believers and nonbelievers ranged from 6.2 for non-college samples to 7.8 for college samples. This difference is roughly half a standard deviation in size, so this represents a reasonably substantial effect."[/i]



All the best,

Well said, sir. Yours is one of the finer posts I have read here, and I have read quite a few already.

Thank you for the kind words, though having been posting here for a little while now, I find it only fair to say that I consider myself barely able to hold a candle to some of the fine debaters here on this forum (on both sides of the aisle).

Point taken. I would contend that neither you nor I could differentiate between individuals with a 7.8 much less a 6.2 point difference.

Perhaps, but the point I was making doesnt just end with a few IQ points (discernible or not). The correlation also extends to higher education. So, in essence, those that know the most about how the world really works, tend to have less religiosity. To me, that speaks volumes.

More to the point is the indisputable fact that intellectualism does not make one right.

It would make them more than likely to be right (those with a higher IQ and more education). Otherwise, we have radically different opinions on what it means to be intelligent.

Overlooked is the fact that in and of itself, intellect is not a positive attribute, for it can, and is all too often, used for evil, unsavory, or wrong purposes, however you wish to characterize them. The Unabomber is a perfect example.

Sorry, I will respectfully disagree. The character of a person determines their actions (sense of right and wrong, their moral compass, so to speak). If your analogy is that intelligence is like a gun, it can be used for good or evil, I cant disagree.

But not everyone wants to own a gun.

But most everyone would like to be more intelligent.

You and I may disagree honestly on this point or that, but I have yet to see any reasonable explanation by any atheist for an alternative to an Intelligent Creator.

Fair enough, but, on the flip side of that coin, I have yet to hear a reasonable argument for the existence of an intelligent creator. Perhaps, we will be able to see each others point of view, and understand the other argument better?

Many information theorists have arrived at this same conclusion after studying DNA.

And many more determined the opposite conclusion.

Its stored information is more alien to us than Sanskrit was before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone.

Perhaps. But admitting one doesnt know is more intellectually honest than asserting something that cannot be known.

All the best,

[Danmark]

....I have yet to see any reasonable explanation by any atheist for an alternative to an Intelligent Creator.
Many information theorists have arrived at this same conclusion after studying DNA. Its stored information is more alien to us than Sanskrit was before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone.

Your analogy is inapt. Sanskrit has never been a mystery. It is still spoken today as an official language of India. Understanding it had nothing to do with the Rosetta stone. You may be thinking of Egyptian hieroglyphs. Their meaning was unlocked for us because the Rosetta stone had an inscription in both Egyptian and Greek.

In any event your analogy is as faulty as the logic that brings you to say you have no explanation for this existence other than a creating god.

Using some god as the explanation for life or the universe is no explanation at all. In essence, the 'god explanation' says "I give up. I don't have a clue. A god must have done it." You might as well invoke magic as an explanation.

The big bang, or a 14 billion year cycle of singularities, abiogenesis, evolution, and time itself combine to make an excellent explanation, tho' of course there is still room for wonder and contemplation of the awesome mystery of it all. It certainly is more logical and fact based than the simplistic, magical, "God did it."

Even then, which of the thousands of gods man has invented do you want to choose from. The choice is purely arbitrary and generally based upon the tradition one was born into via family and culture.

[Starman]

If you did encounter a reasonable alternative, what means would you use to recognize it and understand its significance?

What kind of question is that? The only alternatives I have seen are:
A. Multiverses
B.

At one time, atheists exclaimed that the universe was much too large for God to have made just for mankind. A wise and all-knowing God would not waste vast amounts of space and matter just for us.

That has since been replaced by the opposite extremist pretense - that ours is one of an infinite number of too-large universes, and all the physical constants of our universe are "just so." This is from the Just So Stories.

I truly appreciate this opportunity to compare attitudes and ideas presented in favor of Theism with those of Non-Theism.

I believe you and I applaud you for it. I take it you do not wear a Flying Spaghetti Monster necklace, and heckle ignorant, redneck Christians...