EVIDENCE FOR GOD

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 without some master designer.  It's just vastly too complex and incredible.

Yes it is complex and incredible. A master designer however would be even more complex and incredible. Dr. Dino likes to say if it is too complex for us to understand then God, but when asked about God he says too complex for us to understand. His failure to admit the ill logic that dilemma poses is just one part of what makes him a scam artist.

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

For more than 2 decades, the majority of microprocessor design and layout has been highly computerized, and beyond handling the raw chemicals a modern microprocessor has never been touched by human hands.

Yep,  completed an NRI correspondence course on microprocessor and microcomputers 25 years ago.  I believe in the manufacturing process they use incredible technology because they are manufacturing microscopic computer circuitry that you probably couldn't see with the bare eye. 

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes it is complex and incredible. A master designer however would be even more complex and incredible. Dr. Dino likes to say if it is too complex for us to understand then God, but when asked about God he says too complex for us to understand. His failure to admit the ill logic that dilemma poses is just one part of what makes him a scam artist.

No , that's nothing to with a scam artist.  There are many, maybe millions of people in the world who would tell you the same thing.  You just have the notion that God would have to be created or that there is no God.   God always existed.  He is above the material universe and outside it.  He designed it and created it because he has infinite power to do whatever he wishes.  Hard to understand.  There are some things we are not meant to understand.  The basic premise that God is and that's how he describes himself when he said "I am" must be accepted by faith.  There is no other way to explain it as far as I know.  He is infinite in power, wisdom, knowledge and created the vast complex universe of which we are a tiny speck in it and only here for a little more than the blink of an eye.

[?Impact]

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Yep,  completed an NRI correspondence course on microprocessor and microcomputers 25 years ago.

25 years is a long time in the microprocessor field. At the time microprocessors contained a few million transistors, now they contain a few billion or 1000 times more. That is the real Moore's Law still at work, something that is often poorly described in general literature. As for seeing with the bare eye, that is what we call feature size. In the mid 90's it was about 150-200nm (less than 1/1000 the width of a human hair), and today they are less than 1/10 that size (note that microprocessors are 3 dimensional structures so 1/10 feature size allows you to pack a few hundred to 1000 features in the same volume, I won't bore you with why the range).

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There are some things we are not meant to understand.

Yes, the Church has a long history of telling us that.

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

25 years is a long time in the microprocessor field. At the time microprocessors contained a few million transistors, now they contain a few billion or 1000 times more. That is the real Moore's Law still at work, something that is often poorly described in general literature. As for seeing with the bare eye, that is what we call feature size. In the mid 90's it was about 150-200nm (less than 1/1000 the width of a human hair), and today they are less than 1/10 that size (note that microprocessors are 3 dimensional structures so 1/10 feature size allows you to pack a few hundred to 1000 features in the same volume, I won't bore you with why the range).

Yes, the Church has a long history of telling us that.

Yes, I see you know something about micro computer technology.  I guess they use some kind of microscopic photography and chemicals to manufacture the microscopic electronic computer circuitry.  I don't know.  But it would have to be all done by robotic controls and somebody sitting at a screen controlling it I would imagine.

[blackbird]

13 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, the Church has a long history of telling us that.

I don't know about the "church".  The church never gave us the Bible and never wrote it.  It was written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  In the beginning the first five books were written by Moses.  The story of the people of Israel being led out of Egypt by Moses and with the miraculous power of God is another evidence of the power of God.  It happened over three thousand years ago I believe.

I am not a fan of the RC church.  I read a lot of history about it the past.  The history of the Popes is quite an eye opener.  Before 313AD , believers met secretly in small groups and if caught, some were put in the lion's den in the collesium in Rome.  After Constantine, the Roman Emperor, was supposedly converted in 313AD, christianity was legalized and became the state religion of the Roman Empire.  That is when the Roman church began I believe.  Constantine wanted to keep the peace in the Roman Empire so developed the new religion to placate everyone.  It was kind of an amalgamation of christianity and false religion.

Edited January 23, 2018 by blackbird

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

For more than 2 decades, the majority of microprocessor design and layout has been highly computerized, and beyond handling the raw chemicals a modern microprocessor has never been touched by human hands.

Don't get me wrong here, I cannot accept that the world is a few thousand years old because that would require a totally fundamentalist interpretation of the bible. I too work in a high tech field, and have a great passion for science. Interestingly, many of the physicists I have worked with believe in god, and are devout christians, a fact they do not hide. That doesn't make them bad scientists, not at all. They're just kinda weird... but weirdness is what it takes sometimes, to go beyond the obvious and to "transcend" standard modes of thought. Sometimes great progress originates from the weird, or more precisely, the irrational. Einstein is reported to have said intelligence is not as important as imagination. He probably meant that it is important to have an open mind and to recognize that there can be other possibilities than what we know and are comfortable with.

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Don't get me wrong here, I cannot accept that the world is a few thousand years old because that would require a totally fundamentalist interpretation of the bible. I too work in a high tech field, and have a great passion for science. Interestingly, many of the physicists I have worked with believe in god, and are devout christians, a fact they do not hide. That doesn't make them bad scientists, not at all. They're just kinda weird... but weirdness is what it takes sometimes, to go beyond the obvious and to "transcend" standard modes of thought. Sometimes great progress originates from the weird, or more precisely, the irrational. Einstein is reported to have said intelligence is not as important as imagination. He probably meant that it is important to have an open mind and to recognize that there can be other possibilities than what we know and are comfortable with.

Interesting.  I had an uncle who is gone now.  He was electrical engineer and an inventor.  I can't remember the things he told me he invented.  But he was definitely a very eccentric person.  I heard that he had wires all over inside his house.   I think he actually might have invented one the early bar code readers for the postal code system for the post office, but I'm not sure.  I only met him a couple times and he told me a few things.  He said the government got the Japanese to manufacture the computer equipment to read the postal codes and when the government met with the Japanese, nobody could understand them because they didn't speak English.  I guess they must have had a translator.

Edited January 23, 2018 by blackbird

[?Impact]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I guess they use some kind of microscopic photography and chemicals to manufacture the microscopic electronic computer circuitry.

It is called lithography (there are other methods but they are not in volume production). There used to be a lot of companies doing it, but now we are down to basically 3 (Intel, Samsung, and IBM). While I have been involved in other parts of the computer field, I have worked closely with those involved in microprocessor design and have had some exposure to the manufacturing side. One company I worked for in the 80's built 90% of the photo lithography in use at the time, they are now long out of business. While you might be familiar with companies other than the 3 I listed above, if you delve under the hood you will see that they license other technology for manufacturing (e.g. AMD uses GlobalFoundaries which is based on the Samsung process). The reason for this is investment in new generations of this technology is extremely expensive. In the 90's it was about a billion dollars, and today a new generation is well over $10 billion investment.

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The story of the people of Israel being led out of Egypt by Moses and with the miraculous power of God is another evidence of the power of God.

Likewise the story of Harry Potter defeating Voldemort is evidence of the power of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Interestingly, many of the physicists I have worked with believe in god, and are devout christians, a fact they do not hide. ...

Yes, there are a lot of people of faith in the sciences. There is also a great diversity of views among them around things like literal interpretation of the Bible.

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Einstein is reported to have said intelligence is not as important as imagination.

Close: The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.

I would interpret that established facts or theories are not as important as thinking outside the box. We progress through new ideas, not rote learning. I wouldn't say that speaks too well of the bible thumpers.

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

It is called lithography (there are other methods but they are not in volume production). There used to be a lot of companies doing it, but now we are down to basically 3 (Intel, Samsung, and IBM). While I have been involved in other parts of the computer field, I have worked closely with those involved in microprocessor design and have had some exposure to the manufacturing side. One company I worked for in the 80's built 90% of the photo lithography in use at the time, they are now long out of business. While you might be familiar with companies other than the 3 I listed above, if you delve under the hood you will see that they license other technology for manufacturing (e.g. AMD uses GlobalFoundaries which is based on the Samsung process). The reason for this is investment in new generations of this technology is extremely expensive. In the 90's it was about a billion dollars, and today a new generation is well over $10 billion investment.

Likewise the story of Harry Potter defeating Voldemort is evidence of the power of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

Yes, there are a lot of people of faith in the sciences. There is also a great diversity of views among them around things like literal interpretation of the Bible.

Close: The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.

I would interpret that established facts or theories are not as important as thinking outside the box. We progress through new ideas, not rote learning. I wouldn't say that speaks too well of the bible thumpers.

Interesting about the computer field.  yes there are some interesting stories about how some young guys started Apple and became wealthy and successful..

Unfortunately you haven't studied the Bible so don't know as much about it as you think to be able to dismiss it out of hand.  Unfortunately I am not that knowledgeable on it or would be able to address it better.  The Bible history of Israel is not fiction and I think archeology may support a lot of things recorded in the Bible.

[?Impact]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 I think archeology may support a lot of things recorded in the Bible.

Nobody is saying that all figures in the Bible are completely fictional, they are often based on the telling and retelling and embellishment of bedtime stories for children with some historical places/events/people. The point is the embellishment moves them from history to fairy tale. We see the same thing in modern time, where accounts are embellished to promote some cause; that happens continually. The big difference is today we have many people recording the events, and technology that enables that. Whenever creationists claim archeology evidence, it is never for the stories of the bible just places/people and maybe a very loose association with an event. There has been plenty of time and incentive for the creationists to show real evidence, but they have failed to deliver.

Edited January 23, 2018 by ?Impact

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

Nobody is saying that all figures in the Bible are completely fictional, they are often based on the telling and retelling and embellishment of bedtime stories for children with some historical places/events/people. The point is the embellishment moves them from history to fairy tale. We see the same thing in modern time, where accounts are embellished to promote some cause; that happens continually. The big difference is today we have many people recording the events, and technology that enables that. Whenever creationists claim archeology evidence, it is never for the stories of the bible just places/people and maybe a very loose association with an event. There has been plenty of time and incentive for the creationists to show real evidence, but they have failed to deliver.

I think you are mistaken in your idea.  The Old Testament had nothing to do with bedtime stories for children.  The Old Testament was written by prophets who were chosen men of God and who had experiences with God.  They were inspired to write what they wrote and their experiences.  These writing were Holy Scripture and ancient scribes had to copy each letter by hand on animal skins or such, letter by painstaking letter.  No mistakes were allowed or the whole thing had to be done again.  So it is an accurate record of what the prophet wrote.  These are not stories handed down by mouth.  The Jews handled the Holy Scripture with the utmost care.  They were God's chosen people and that was their job.  

I have a large King James Bible with an archaeological supplement in the back, which I have not read yet.  But there is a vast amount of information from finds in the Holy land and various places mentioned in the Old Testament.  I must start reading some of this.

[blackbird]

10 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Nobody is saying that all figures in the Bible are completely fictional, they are often based on the telling and retelling and embellishment of bedtime stories for children with some historical places/events/people. The point is the embellishment moves them from history to fairy tale. We see the same thing in modern time, where accounts are embellished to promote some cause; that happens continually. The big difference is today we have many people recording the events, and technology that enables that. Whenever creationists claim archeology evidence, it is never for the stories of the bible just places/people and maybe a very loose association with an event. There has been plenty of time and incentive for the creationists to show real evidence, but they have failed to deliver.

There is even archeological information about the famous place called Bethel (house of God) mentioned in Genesis, the first book of the Bible.  They discovered a settlement established there around 2000 B.C. and destroyed by a very fierce fire during the thirteenth century B.C.   There is also archeological information about the city of Jericho, another famous city in the Bible.

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The Old Testament had nothing to do with bedtime stories for children.  The Old Testament was written by prophets who were chosen men of God and who had experiences with God.

Yet there are similarities between stories told through oral tradition like Huveane. Sometimes he is referred to as the first man, and other times as the creator. About the time that man learned about the birds and the bees, he got upset with all the noise from the copulating and decided to ascend into heaven (built a large ladder, and removed the rungs after he climbed it) - Genesis. The story of the hippopotamus Tawaret has a lot of similarities with the early life of Moses. The people of Mpumalanga have a story about a rain queen with some similarities to the story of Noah. The queen of Sheba story (1 Kings 10) is told by the people of Ethiopia as the Kerba Nagast. Of course these stories carried by oral tradition have changed (telephone tag) from how they are told in the Bible but they are unmistakable the same stories.

 

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

There is even archeological information about the famous place called Bethel (house of God) mentioned in Genesis, the first book of the Bible.

Are you talking about Beitin (Baytin), because others believe that may actually be Zemaraim or Ophrah. That is based on old Roman mile markers (their mile was shorter than today's mile). Again however evidence of a man made settlement is not evidence of God.

And Jordan was the border of it on the east side. This was the inheritance of the children of Benjamin, by the coasts thereof round about, according to their families.Now the cities of the tribe of the children of Benjamin according to their families were Jericho, and Bethhoglah, and the valley of Keziz,And Betharabah, and Zemaraim, and Bethel, And Avim, and Pharah, and Ophrah,And Chepharhaammonai, and Ophni, and Gaba; twelve cities with their villages: ... - Joshua 18:20-23

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

 There is also archeological information about the city of Jericho, another famous city in the Bible.

Yes, absolutely there is evidence. There is also evidence of the "walls come a tumbling down", most likely by an earthquake. The big problem is dating, with a 150-200 year discrepancy between the archeological and biblical account.

Edited January 23, 2018 by ?Impact

[John Prewett]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Yes it is complex and incredible. A master designer however would be even more complex and incredible......

 

 

Nope.   God, the 'master designer' does not have to be "complex"  like a physical being.   Incredible,  ... yes.  Not not necessarily complex. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[John Prewett]

6 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Yet you and Dr. Dino have failed to produce any.

I proffered some evidence.  On page 22.   Atheist are in denial of evidence for God due to their pathological fear that God exist.    Evidence is oft presented by believers.  

[Omni]

18 minutes ago, John Prewett said:

I proffered some evidence.  On page 22.   Atheist are in denial of evidence for God due to their pathological fear that God exist.    Evidence is oft presented by believers.  

Evidence that is accepted only by those who have been led by the nose into believing it.

[Omni]

Why waste so much time fretting over the God issue while you're in this world. I'll happily wait until I kick the bucket and head to the next world where I'll meet up with the boy then, when it's appropriate.  Too many people have been murdered by these religious freaks in this world.

[?Impact]

9 hours ago, John Prewett said:

I proffered some evidence.  On page 22. 

The evidence you offered on page 22 was like the evidence the end of the world fools offered in the late 1800's that the world would end in the early 1900's. We also has such similar fools in the 1980's and 90's, but it is already 2018 and the world has not ended. No what you call evidence is bullcrap.

[Scott Mayers]

On 01/04/2017 at 11:32 AM, betsy said:

The CREATOR has intimate knowledge of His Creation. How can He not?
If He was the One who designed and created....of course, He knows everything about it!
 

The heading of the beginning of the Bible, is about........ the beginning. It simply states: The Beginning
The very first statement of the Old Testament - Genesis 1 - is an official declaration by the Creator.

Genesis 1

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


That first statement informs us that:
1. the universe had a beginning
2. it was Created
3. the Creator is God. God of Abraham. The Biblical God.

 

Well... thanks to science, we do know now that the universe had indeed a beginning!  The Big Bang.   

I'm atheist. The 'Big Bang' is NOT actually appropriately 'scientific' in my opinion precisely because it does support at minimal a Deistic interpretation with political intent, not sincere logical sincerity to intellectual integrity. But this is an argument that I'd have to defer to a scientific and logic thread on Big Bang versus Steady-State theories derived in the atmosphere of changes in the early part of last century.

In this point, I agree that it supports a 'creation' type of theory because it proposes an origin that derives with a whole state of matter existing in a specific quantity that is indifferent to just saying "Abracadabra, and then there was X quantity of matter and energy uniquely fixed for all time from nothing." If 'nothing' is allowed to BANG into everything without requiring explanation, this is logically equivalent to "God works in Mysterious ways", ....it just replaces the word, "God" to an implied, "Nature".

But without concerning science and institutional politics involved, you can equally replace your interpreted words, "Created" with "Cause", "Creator" with "that which causes". Religious origins are as much about early humans trying to interpret rationally what reality was. The words for gods derived from words that were identical with secular meanings of nature. "God" is actually a form of word derived equally from the word "good" because the view of one class of philosophical origins places the duality of nature to FAVOR "good" versus "bad" (or evil).

Most ancient religions simply interpreted reality as "dualistic" and why the word "Deist" was a common word originally. the "Dei" was a reference to "two". "Dia" and "Diva" are related. (Diva- is where we get "divide" as in to break into two kinds) 

Some believe that if WE are special beings, why would nature allow us to supersede all other creatures in nature. If WE believe that we and our lives are "good", how can nature derive what we are without some origin that favored it by default? Most ancients actually more logically argued that IF we are derived of ANY value, it has more rational reasons to begin in "evil" given we are an IMPROVEMENT upon those origins. This became blasphemous to some to think because it makes them feel nihilistic. But even Judaism derived this way from the Egyptians as such. The reason "YHWY" was treated as taboo to name was an accidental evolution of the misinterpretation of the philosophical interpretation of nature to derive of NOTHING. The original meaning of the ineffability of god (or the gods) was because they treated nothingness as something that we cannot mentally interpret as a cause and so is "unspeakable". This turned into the now false interpretation by some that this meant that it is was a crime to speak of, not simply something that could not be understood using words.

"In the beginning, some source (Je ovah == the egg or 'source') derived everything from nothing but it was a 'good' thing." This particular view was to contrast with most who interpreted reality as deriving either from evil OR to nothing evil nor good. The logic to the indifferent origin is: IF NOTHINGNESS is the origin, it does not even have LAWS that it requires obeying by nature because it IS 'nature'. As such, what is "good" CAN derive from an origin with NO morality; But you CANNOT have an origin of some source that began 'GOOD' because if it was also a compassionate being, it is the equivalent cause of 'BAD'. How or why some being should contain and cause all which includes the evil could only come about if 'evil' was separate from a being which was ONLY 'good'. As such, this being either had to be a part of a bigger totality which makes it subject to OR it had to originate as 'evil'. 

You can rationally argue from our perspective as humans with morals that we begin ABSENT of either 'good' or 'evil' (NOT MERE 'innocent') and then evolve to BECOME better by making that distinction between "good" or "bad". 

Science either way does NOT support ANY origin UNIQUELY. There  will always be some religious interpretation that will FIT with the reality in some scientific or philosophic view. Your interpretation is a perversion of ancient views that more likely derived with non-religious (secular) rationale that only BECAME religious in time. 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Scott Mayers
missing words.

[John Prewett]

19 hours ago, Omni said:

Evidence that is accepted only by those who have been led by the nose into believing it.

Ever occur to you that just maybe you have been led by the nose

(say by Government youth indoctrination center called 'public school') into not believing it ? 

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, John Prewett said:

Ever occur to you that just maybe you have been led by the nose

(say by Government youth indoctrination center called 'public school') into not believing it ? 

Nope. We read the Lord's Prayer every day in school. It was my nose that led me out of it. Thank you nose.

[Scott Mayers]

4 minutes ago, John Prewett said:

Ever occur to you that just maybe you have been led by the nose

(say by Government youth indoctrination center called 'public school') into not believing it ? 

Canada's "public school" includes the Catholic religious school that is Constituted by law to function as a kind of 'voucher' for taxpayers of the religious to take money away from the non-religious public variety. Also, in Canada, unlike the U.S., teachers are here permitted to teach religious beliefs if it reflects who they are. Our country is a constituted 'religious' type of system that is only relatively diminished in that the privileged particular religions constituted are Catholic liberal ones. This makes them 'benevolent' dictators of religious laws. But it is STILL religious...just as we still have a benevolent monarchy (== benevolent dictatorship).

So any resistance to the religious views are actually relatively disempowered here by accident of the fortune of the establishment only.

[betsy]

14 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

I'm atheist. The 'Big Bang' is NOT actually appropriately 'scientific' in my opinion....

 

How can something that the science community deem valid, not "scientific?"

 

Quote

 

The Big Bang theory is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science. It explains the observed facts; it has made successful predictions; it has stood the test of time; and there is no alternate theory that the professional scientific community deems valid.

 

New observations could always cause the Big Bang theory to be abandoned, but that is not likely. Scientists have a theory of why the sky is blue. One day you could wake up to find the sky is green and the "blue-sky theory" was wrong, but that's not likely to happen either.

It is likely that the Big Bang theory will take on additional add-on ideas, or models, to explain more than it currently explains.

 

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

 

 

Quote

....precisely because it does support at minimal a Deistic interpretation with political intent, not sincere logical sincerity to intellectual integrity.

 

Your opinion as an atheist, is without any basis.  You're in denial.

 

And yes, it does support Creation -  I'm glad you at least, acknowledge that.  That's the thing I've been saying all along about the National Academy of Sciences' view on "THEISTIC evolution."

 

Quote

..... many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

 

No matter how you look at it.....it boils down to creation.  If an atheist cannot accept the authority of science.....

........on what authority do you base your claims?

 

 

I've stopped reading the rest of your opinion  after that.  Your very first few statements say enough.

Edited January 24, 2018 by betsy

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

And yes, it [big bang theory] does support Creation -

Support is not the correct term here. Yes, some creationists have retold their fairy tales in a manner that adopts them to the big bang theory, but science does not support creation nonsense because there is zero evidence.