hakeem4:
Well your hypothesis is quiet funny and it has been refuted since the mid 19th century by Darwin and Wallace.

1) are you saying if Man was created in the image of god then chimps and other apes are created in the image of god because we are closely related. I read one funny quote saying if we were created in the image of god why aren’t we invisible? .

2) so what was the reason why the all intelligent designer created dangerous organisms like viruses and bacteria?

3) so because we do not know how consciousness evolved so it’s god just be intellectually honest for once and say you do not know.

Stop citing books written by “bronze age peasants who didn’t know the earth orbits the sun” - krauss.

budaatum:
Whatdoyouthink?

EmperorHarry:
I've just finished reading it and find that the philosophy of religion is really broad and complicated with so many positions,concepts and arguments held but is there a more specific reason you brought this up? If there is I'd like to know.

EmperorHarry:
Lol..I'll provide answers later today but just so you know it's just an analogy.

hakeem4:
Well your hypothesis is quiet funny and it has been refuted since the mid 19th century by Darwin and Wallace.

you saying if Man was created in the image of god then chimps and other apes are created in the image of god because we are closely related. I read one funny quote saying if we were created in the image of god why aren’t we invisible? .

2) so what was the reason why the all intelligent designer created dangerous organisms like viruses and bacteria?

3) so because we do not know how consciousness evolved so it’s god just be intellectually honest for once and say you do not know.

Stop citing books written by “bronze age peasants who didn’t know the earth orbits the sun” - krauss.

EmperorHarry:


I'm gonna use an device that's relatable to answer this question.This reply is in no way an attestation of my hypothesis.
If we consider the iPhone from the first to the current iPhone you'd realise that as technology advances,the phones evolve with upgrades on functions,capacity and appearance.The similarities between phones within a particular range is easily recognizable but there's a huge gap between the first and the current iPhone in terms of appearance,capacity and functions.Let's say the human race is no longer on earth and some alien life with the idea of evolution(largely similar to ours) arrive and settle on earth as their new home. They begin to study these devices.They find the iPhone 1 and the iPhone 7.The similarities are vague but it's somewhat evident they're related.The iPhone 3 is then discovered and so on.They start creating evolution theories just like we've done.The iPhone 0(hypothetical) would be most similar to one of the more recent models but not too different from the first models.The first models are only foundations for achieving a more perfect model.

The all intelligent designer I'm proposing isn't all knowing if you read my post.It's also not one being and isn't the omnipresent, omniscient,omnipotent and benevolent being you're familiar with.The ID has flaws and limits.The viruses and bacteria could just be flaws that could be created by a different source or a glitch.

Consciousness to me is a gift and a curse(temporarily).The fact that the universe would exist with or without human conscious is interesting.There are innate qualities that are evident in all of nature that separates the conciousness from the physical being.The mind is largely dependent on the body. An ID doesn't have to be the conventional view of god you are familiar with.I also never stated it's a proof,quite frankly it could just be garbage but I feel it would help shape my understanding on certain things.Isn't that what hypotheses are all about?
Now this is one of the saddest things modern day humans including me do.We tend to look at how much we've achieved and condescendingly judge or dismiss much older beliefs cos we feel they were largely limited in knowledge about nature and other phenomenons which is true to an extent but we fail to realise we have no real evidence of what happened or reason why they did what they did.We can only make assumptions which may or may not be true. They were quite advanced than one would assume them to be.They laid the foundation for who we are and what we're achieving today so it would bad judgement to just discard an account about something that has not been proved or disproved currently cos they might just be right.

hakeem4:
you’re indirectly saying complexity requires a designer. First and foremost that’s a false analogy fallacy. Secondly your logic ignores natural selection: your argument ignores the fact that evolution by natural selection has been proven to give rise to complex designs. We know for a fact that nature has given rise to complex design (you and I are good examples). The reason you recognise how an iPhone is designed was because we already know it was designed. We’ve evidence for millions of iPhone created by a designer and no evidence for an iPhone without a designer. Same way we’ve million’s of life created without a designer and we’ve no evidence for life created with a designer.

The iPhone creator acts as if he created the watch from nothing Ex-Nihilo. The iPhone like any other material is just a rearrangement of matter and atoms which already existed.

Then you should not use the term intelligent in that case. If ID has its flaws then This shows the intelligent designer isn’t really intelligent after all.

okay. I was only trying to prove your hypothesis wrong then

EmperorHarry:


I'm gonna use an device that's relatable to answer this question.This reply is in no way an attestation of my hypothesis.
If we consider the iPhone from the first to the current iPhone you'd realise that as technology advances,the phones evolve with upgrades on functions,capacity and appearance.The similarities between phones within a particular range is easily recognizable but there's a huge gap between the first and the current iPhone in terms of appearance,capacity and functions.Let's say the human race is no longer on earth and some alien life with the idea of evolution(largely similar to ours) arrive and settle on earth as their new home. They begin to study these devices.They find the iPhone 1 and the iPhone 7.The similarities are vague but it's somewhat evident they're related.The iPhone 3 is then discovered and so on.They start creating evolution theories just like we've done.The iPhone 0(hypothetical) would be most similar to one of the more recent models but not too different from the first models.The first models are only foundations for achieving a more perfect model.

The all intelligent designer I'm proposing isn't all knowing if you read my post.It's also not one being and isn't the omnipresent, omniscient,omnipotent and benevolent being you're familiar with.The ID has flaws and limits.The viruses and bacteria could just be flaws that could be created by a different source or a glitch.

Consciousness to me is a gift and a curse(temporarily).The fact that the universe would exist with or without human conscious is interesting. There are innate qualities that are evident in all of nature that separates the conciousness from the physical being.The mind is largely dependent on the body. An ID doesn't have to be the conventional view of god you are familiar with.I also never stated it's a proof,quite frankly it could just be garbage but I feel it would help shape my understanding on certain things.Isn't that what hypotheses are all about?
Now this is one of the saddest things modern day humans including me do.We tend to look at how much we've achieved and condescendingly judge or dismiss much older beliefs cos we feel they were largely limited in knowledge about nature and other phenomenons which is true to an extent but we fail to realise we have no real evidence of what happened or reason why they did what they did.We can only make assumptions which may or may not be true. They were quite advanced than one would assume them to be.They laid the foundation for who we are and what we're achieving today so it would bad judgement to just discard an account about something that has not been proved or disproved currently cos they might just be right.

HenryDion:
Your biggest flaw was those lame biblical quotations used to depict the nature of God and man's purpose on earth. Why did you ignore the Quran, Torah, Bayble, Tripitakas or other spiritual books out there?

If you're of the notion that God exists? What proof do you have? For something to be accepted as BEING, it is when it has been proven beyond every reasonable doubt.

If you say particle A exist, the burden of proof lies on you the proposer. We are merely open to analyze your evidence, test it and then conclude.

So far, no substantial evidence whatsoever to support Gods exist and as thus, he remains inexistent.

You keep making mention of intelligent design. Like really?

If we are to go by that logic, then who created God? If God can self exist, why then do you ignore the possibility of man being a self-existing organism?

Mehn, too many inconsistencies

budaatum:
Consciousness

EmperorHarry:
There are major similarities between these books. Buda recently brought my attention to the fact that there could be a legit explanation for this but that was why I chose one account(which I'm most familiar with) as an model for comparison for this post.I'm not trying to prove the Christian god is alive and that the Bible is the correct version(I made my skepticism very clear).In fact a dogmatized Christian believer would consider some sections of the post heretic but this is for the open minded.

I wouldn't deny that my write up reflects a bias in favour of an ID(I tried my best to minimize this) but it's not in support of any religious beliefs Like I said earlier there's seems to be prevalent similarities between the numerous accounts and concepts about God or gods which makes me think that within all those "fairy tales" is a gem we're ignoring.These accounts could just be different twisted,distorted or corrupted versions of events or phenomena that may or not have occurred a long time ago.The earliest humans had knowledge about things we can only assume.They couldn't write this down but could pass information down from generation to generation which is liable to distortion.I don't want to stray too far from the point of this reply by analyzing the extinction of dinosaurs.
By all means scrutinize and analyze it but keep it in mind that it's only for thought provocation to whom it may concern.I'm not stating this is the proof of an ID.I repeat "I'm in no way stating this is a proof of the existence of a God.

I agree.You shouldn't believe can't be verified but endeavour to always keep an open mind.You may just discover something everybody else couldn't.Albert Einstein is famous for his ingenious theory of relativity but he used a thought experiment at the age 16 as a basis for his discovery.

Yup.This is the most basic and largely religion independent perspective of God or gods.

These are question that I've been curious about for some time now.I proposed the same argument to jnr when I came back online after a while.I called it the level 2 questions.I definitely know that it would impossible to answer the level 2 questions without communication with the "proposed level 1 entity". I raised the argument for a reason tho in that it's a defense mechanism against people willing to force their beliefs or ideologies down my throat.The by fire by force style.It is meant to shake the subjectively perceived knowledge of their own beliefs. Why don't you turn the 2nd question around and see how fun and two-sided it is?

Defo..Like I've said it's not proof and has way too many gaps that are obvious even to me. I have my reasons for posting this.

Check this links out:https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/life/faith/2014/08/20/hinduism-many-gods/14247795/
https://www.businessinsider.com/5-of-albert-einsteins-thought-experiments-that-revolutionized-science-2016-7

HenryDion:


Awesome. I love your objective response. I'm open-minded, ready to let go of my atheistic stance the moment I come across a substantial evidence of Gods existence. Till then!

HenryDion:


Awesome. I love your objective response. I'm open-minded, ready to let go of my atheistic stance the moment I come across a substantial evidence of Gods existence. Till then!

budaatum:

Get rid of your "atheistic stance"? Get rid of the stance that makes you depend on reality and the objective?

God, please do not let HenryDion throw the baby away with the bath water!

HenryDion:


Hmmm.. Someone is missing a thing.

What other meaning have thou read to "atheistic"?

budaatum:


"Atheistic stance", that makes one depend on reality and the objective, and enables one to be rational and apply the scientific method of reasoning and learning, and not just 'believing'.

That, Dion, is the meaning I have imputed into the phrase "atheistic stance". It implies broadening the atheist attitude to all things godlike.

HenryDion:


Have I in any way try to believe in ridiculous or irrational things, without it been proven beyond every reasonable doubt?

I said that I'm ready to let go of my 'atheistic stance' if compelling evidence about Gods existence is made known.

HenryDion:


Have I in any way try to believe in ridiculous or irrational things, without it been proven beyond every reasonable doubt?

I said that I'm ready to let go of my 'atheistic stance' if compelling evidence about Gods existence is made known.

'Atheist stance' is simply a lack of belief in the existence of God for lack of evidence.

So, it is very reasonable and rational to believe in God if proven to exist. Not "believing", which centers on 'no proof'.

budaatum:

Buda to Dion
Stupid people 'believe'. And they do so because they lack evidence. Smart and intelligent people would rather know.

HenryDion:


You must be very confused lol..

You know nothing Buda, you are a mere believer. That is the membrane of everything you know and believe in.

It is evident to all that everything you think you know was doctored by a long aged book that has long served its purpose of mass control.

What do you really know? I'm curious here lol..

What you know, how can you prove it to be an objective truth and not from a delusional mind?

How can you even intertwine KNOWING with BELIEVE?

To believe, you don't need to know.

To believe, you don't need any sort of evidence.

Do i need to define BELIEVE in this context?

"Blessed are those who believe without seeing"

And seeing in here refers to evidence or knowing.. In other words, forsake evidence and KNOWING, and follow blindly.

Faith strives on believe, atheism strives on FACT and KNOWING.

I choose fact.

So buda, what do you KNOW?

EmperorHarry:

You prolly don't know buda very well(I mean who does) hence the misconception and misplaced replies.Take your time to process without a theist vs atheist judgement or bias what buda is saying. I'll leave the rest to buda.

HenryDion:


You must be very confused lol..

You know nothing Buda, you are a mere believer. That is the membrane of everything you know and believe in.

It is evident to all that everything you think you know was doctored by a long aged book that has long served its purpose of mass control.

What do you really know? I'm curious here lol..

What you know, how can you prove it to be an objective truth and not from a delusional mind?

How can you even intertwine KNOWING with BELIEVE?

To believe, you don't need to know.

To believe, you don't need any sort of evidence.

Do i need to define BELIEVE in this context?

"Blessed are those who believe without seeing"

And seeing in here refers to evidence or knowing.. In other words, forsake evidence and KNOWING, and follow blindly.

Faith strives on believe, atheism strives on FACT and KNOWING.

I choose fact.

So buda, what do you KNOW?

EmperorHarry:

You prolly don't know buda very well(I mean who does) hence the misconception and misplaced replies.Take your time to process without a theist vs atheist judgement or bias what buda is saying. I'll leave the rest to buda.

HenryDion:


I don't know him, but from our little chitchat, he seems like a confused fella, and delusional as well.. How can believe and knowing appear on same sentence? Who does that?

It's well..