Why not reinterpret Brothers of Grims fairy tales. They have the same relevance

And what do you mean with reinterpret? Ooh, it doesn't read "The earth is made in seven days", it reads "the earth is made how Science tells it even when you can read about seven days? And look, now it fits, Religion is right again, Religion tells truth? CHEATING? You don't bother to use the cheapest tricks, do you?

Obviously we don't see eye to eye. Let's break this down to some more basic ideas, and see where exactly we differ in our understanding.

Here are my logical assumptions.

1. We cannot know with certainty from direct experience that God exists or not.

2. If God does not exist, we will never know if there is a God or not.

3. If God does exist, He can break rule #1, and communicate with us if He wishes.

Let's discuss this. Maybe my logic is off here.

Another big point where we don't agree, is the definition of Intelligent Design. You seem to think it is simply a disguise for creationism. I think it is a conclusion based on actual data. My understanding is that proponents of ID, do not deny scientific findings, and they do not promote the Biblical Genesis story.

I got most of my understanding of ID from that film I mentioned "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" with Ben Stein.

Let me know where you're getting your information about Intelligent Design.

Dooley, as with anyone inclined to believe in a deity behind the "creation", it is virtually impossible to logically discuss this topic with you. The reason being is that you (and others like you) will always run to the tired old belief that just because someone cannot disprove god lends credibility to the idea that a deity of some kind exists. This is simply not the case. I cannot disprove the existence of invisible, pink unicorns either, but that does not mean that they exist.

The position of most rational minds is one of skepticism or disbelief (not just of god, but of just about everything). The concept is to start from position of non-belief, placing the concept in a place of being non-plausible and then seeing if an answer can be derived apart from it. I may not have explained that very well, so let's look at a dumb example.

Let's say I knock on your door, you answer and in a very excited voice I tell you that I just say some man fly across the sky by his own power. I would guess, if you are a rational individual, that you would become instantly skeptical of this claim. You would move the concept into the realm of improbability and then, if you are interested, you would try to gather evidence to see if the claim can be moved from improbability to probability. If, for example, upon investigation you discover that a man did "fly" across the sky, but he was attached to clear wires because they were filming a movie not to far away, then the concept of a man flying "by his own power" remains in the realm of the improbable. What was witnessed was explained without having to resort to some unknown or something supernatural.

Such is the case with science and god and especially with the idea of a creator deity. When someone suggests that everything was created by intelligent design (i.e. some creator deity or deities) then the concept is instantly placed in the realm of skepticism, just as the man flying by his own power was. Then the "creation" is tested to see if we can find answers for how it came about. If natural causes can be found, then the concept of a creator being remains in the realm of being implausible. So far ideas, theories and the like have shown that all that we see around us can be answered by naturalistic causes. As a result, the concept of a "god" or "gods" or some other creative being still remains in the realm of implausibility. As such, there is no need to evoke god and to believe that he/she/it is behind our reality.

"1. We cannot know with certainty from direct experience that God exists or not."
If something can't be proven or disproven, it does not have any influence and thus no relevance and can be ignored. q.e.d.

"If God does not exist, we will never know if there is a God or not."
There are many disproofs. One example is that with God's perfect opinion I posted some weeks ago.
One other that is especially interesting for someone who claims to not reject science: You claim God interferes in the universe. But this would contradict law of conservation of energy if he doesn't take away some energy or mass from place in the universe that is insignificant for us. But that would mean that got moves an information faster than light, which is impossible. So God's influence is impossible. q.e.d.

"3. If God does exist, He can break rule #1, and communicate with us if He wishes." Breaking "rules" condradicts science, as I said.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"I got most of my understanding of ID from that film I mentioned "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" with Ben Stei"
DAMNIT I SAID IT ALREADY: READ THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE! It says that most of the things about "destroyed lifes" are untrue. It is called religious propaganda. It's like you would think that Hitler was good, just because you saw a nazi propaganda film!
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||


Little offtopic, but this interests me now:
Dooley, you have children, haven't you? I want you to answer me one question: What would you do if your children don't want to go to mosque or even reject Islam at all. Would you force them to go to mosque?

I could write books on why I disagree on this. When there's an uncertainty this huge, why go with the by far most unlikely option with a lot of gaps, twists and what not anyways instead of going with what we do know?



And why would that be? If we are, very much like we already have, going to continue to figure out more and more of this world, why wouldn't that change the status of God as something beyond improbable? You know, when you think about it, nothing is certain anyway. Not in an absolute manner.



But at the same time the total lack of proof for divine intervention and so on in my opinion are evidence on how God isn't more real than the invisible pink unicorn God. Meaning, what's the relevance of the argument, when it doesn't change anything? The one thing that doesn't change is the lack of evidence.



No, they don't deny most of science, but they still for some reason assume complexity and rarity is somehow a direct clue of how an intelligent designer is behind everything. Truth is, ID-believers can't really cope with the fact that they can't see past our current horizon of knowledge so to speak. They can't really deal with the immense amounts of cause/reaction/etc. data that lead to where we are now.

Why ow why, should a "God" have caused some kind of Butterfly-effect billions of years ago that eventually caused where and what we are today? What's even weirder is that certain people for some reason believe it somehow must have been an 'intelligent' act.



Great analogy.. same weird stuff is going on when it comes to opponents of stem cell research and what not.

Cheers

To me, the idea that this intelligible universe exists, and that we have intelligence, is evidence of intelligent design. It is a conclusion I've drawn from all the things I've experienced. I cannot prove it, nor can you disprove it. This fact does not prove my point, but it doesn't prove yours either.

For all this universe to have arrived by non-intelligent means seems far more unlikely to me than even the flying guy. The idea that my soap, if I leave it alone for long enough, will some-day in the distant future develop a mind of it's own is simply preposterous.

The problem with evolution without design is that the most complex attribute of life had to come first. That of reproduction. Today, scientists are working hard on making robots and artificial intelligence. There's a lot of hard work, and design which go into such projects. Ask these scientists if they shouldn't start by making the robots reproduce, then the better robots will simply evolve by themselves.

I understand your arguments, I cannot force you or prove to you that I am right. However, I reject the idea that God is unlikely or impossible. Maybe we have two different definitions of God. Are you imagining that I'm talking about a great big bearded man in the sky? This is not my conception of God.

For Lukas, I believe the Quran when it says "Let there be no compulsion in religion". Forcing someone will never make them believe, it will probably turn them against the Quran, so I would not force them.

Your soap, if left alone, will never experience any chemical reactions and thus will never be the right mix of chemicals to become anything alive.

The primordial soup did not involve soap. Nor did it involve any chemical that was just sitting around doing nothing. It was a mix of potent chemicals that reacted with each other and created some basic molecules that could replicate.

As the theory goes, these structures got more and more complex over time.



Intelligence is evidence for evolution as you can see a marked increase of intelligence in primates as you go from monkeys, to apes, to humans and as you go back in time to species such as homo erectus (who used tools) and before that.

This is brainless propaganda. Again you totally ignore 60 pages of previous discussion.

Okay, I think I see your point. When it comes to science class, I think you're right. Religious ideas, unless they can be proven, which I've already stated that they can't, should not be taught.

I would disagree, however, that religion is propaganda. Yes there is religious propaganda, but the religion itself is something more.

You guys win. I can't speak on behalf of all religious people, but I guess I'm in your camp on this particular issue.

At the same time, I think I think you take too many liberties with what you proclaim as 'lies' and 'fairy tales'. If you mean to teach that all religion is just lies and fairy tales, in science class, I would not agree with this. If you want the religious ideas out of the science room, you should leave opinions about religion out too.

Fair?

I'd like to thank everyone for taking the time to explain this all to me. I did not really see the difference between a 'theory' which is testable, and a 'conclusion' which is not testable, and how important this is for the scientific method.

My arguments about the historical connection between science and religion, is more suited to a history, or even religious studies class, not science class. I must say that I agree with the idea of teaching a lot of the different religions and world views, in an objective way, as some of you mentioned.

By the way, could someone please take the time to mention some of the facts about the theory of evolution. What are the testable evidences employed in proving this theory. I'm reading 'The Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin, but this very long book was not written for laymen such as myself. Perhaps there's a better book, or website for the novice, which you could direct me to.

Thanks.