Physics professor endorces Intelligent Design

[seer]

That's a revelation. After years of threads and many arguments on your behalf that the evidence indicates a finite temporal universe, you suddenly don't care. Why all the blue smoke and mirrors for many years, selectively citing scientists and the Baha'i Faith to justify this view when you don't even believe in any of it.

No Shuny, I'm not arguing about that now. I'm pointing to your hypocrisy, so again: Your faith Shuny teaches that Creation IS evidence for God (it has nothing to do with a metaphysical perspective or not). So do you agree that Creation is evidence for God - yes or no?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No, in the OP Shuny jumped on a Christian for claiming that the universe points to a Designer. Well Shuny's religion teaches the exact same thing. It is hypocritical at best.

No, he didn't. Shuny didn't mention a designer at all in his OP. Why are you trying to invent controversies and to derail this thread?

[seer]

No, he didn't. Shuny didn't mention a designer at all in his OP. Why are you trying to invent controversies and to derail this thread?

It was in his quote from the article. And good grief man the title of the thread is "Physics professor endorses Intelligent Design."

[Boxing Pythagoras]

It was in his quote from the article. And good grief man the title of the thread is "Physics professor endorses Intelligent Design."

And Shuny clearly laid out his actual objection in the OP, which had nothing to do with the physicist in question thinking that the universe is evidence for a Designer. So, again, why are you attempting to manufacture controversies where none exist?

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, I'm not arguing about that now. I'm pointing to your hypocrisy, so again: Your faith Shuny teaches that Creation IS evidence for God (it has nothing to do with a metaphysical perspective or not). So do you agree that Creation is evidence for God - yes or no?

Stated my case in a clear and concise way. Done. There is no scientific evidence for a creator, or designer, alien nor Divine. Your selective use of Baha'i writings is a farce, since you do not believe it anyway. The scientific evidence is the issue.

[seer]

And Shuny clearly laid out his actual objection in the OP, which had nothing to do with the physicist in question thinking that the universe is evidence for a Designer. So, again, why are you attempting to manufacture controversies where none exist?

Then why the title?

[shunyadragon]

Then why the title?

We are referring to scientific evidence from the perspective of contemporary science, and no there is no scientific evidence that would distinguish a world without God and one with a designer, alien nor Divine.

[seer]

Stated my case in a clear and concise way. Done. There is no scientific evidence for a creator, or designer, alien nor Divine. Your selective use of Baha'i writings is a farce, since you do not believe it anyway. The scientific evidence is the issue.

Do you agree that the universe is the way it is because God created it that way, and not because nature just happened to come out this way?

[shunyadragon]

Do you agree that the universe is the way it is because God created it that way, and not because nature just happened to come out this way?

Yes, but the methods of Creation are natural methods.

[seer]

Yes, but the methods of Creation are natural methods.

I have no idea what "natural methods" could be since God is the one creating - and that is decidedly not natural.

[robrecht]

No, The above reference refers to the evidence for Creation from the metaphysical perspective, and NOT to the scientific evidence for whether our physical evidence. ...

What exactly is the metaphysical evidence for creation?

[shunyadragon]

What exactly is the metaphysical evidence for creation?

The cyclic nature of revelation, reflected in the natural evolution of humanity, and the parallel Revelation of scientific knowledge of Creation. I also believe there is a spiritual nature of humanity that cannot be completely explained by science, though I believe science will eventually explain aspects of consciousness and other attributes of God shared by the soul and our consciousness,

[Kelp(p)]

Seer, what Shunya is saying is that God is the "why" of the universe. He is the reason that the laws of physics and the forces that drive the formation of the universe and the origin and evolution of life exist as they do. God willed that the universe should expand in such a way, the gas cloud that formed our sun should collapse in such a way, etc, etc. to lead to things as they are. God did not have to hold the universe's hand with constant tweaking via miracles. He just wound it up and watched it go.

Under such a conception, it makes sense that there would be no independent natural evidence for God. His system doesn't have any cracks in it. But if one already believes in God, then every appreciation of nature is a joyous declaration of the Creator's power and care.

[seer]

Seer, what Shunya is saying is that God is the "why" of the universe. He is the reason that the laws of physics and the forces that drive the formation of the universe and the origin and evolution of life exist as they do. God willed that the universe should expand in such a way, the gas cloud that formed our sun should collapse in such a way, etc, etc. to lead to things as they are. God did not have to hold the universe's hand with constant tweaking via miracles. He just wound it up and watched it go.

Under such a conception, it makes sense that there would be no independent natural evidence for God. His system doesn't have any cracks in it. But if one already believes in God, then every appreciation of nature is a joyous declaration of the Creator's power and care.

No, I was speaking of what both our religions teach - that the universe is "evidence" for God. For a creator. It isn't evidence for natural processes, even though these processes exist.

[Kelp(p)]

No, I was speaking of what both our religions teach - that the universe is "evidence" for God. For a creator. It isn't evidence for natural processes, even though these processes exist.

Well, yes, if one begins with the assumption that there is a Creator, then the universe is a great reinforcement of that assumption. I don't think there is enough evidence to convince a skeptic, though, unless maybe if you appeal to the metaphysical aspects that Shunya sites. I don't think "The Heavens declare the glory of God," need mean that we can use nature as clear, courtroom-style evidence for theism. That strikes me as wishful thinking born from the anxiety of the Thirty Years War.