What do you Believe??? (Religion)

[Riggo-toni]

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Wait, so is it okay to in one breath say science can't be used to disprove God then use non-scientific evidence to support the claim that he does exist?  That feels ***-backwards to me for some reason, even if I get where you're coming from towards certain laws of physics. 

 

I posted a video about gravity possibly being an illusion, we don't even know all the rules yet to be saying which ones are or aren't set in stone.  I don't feel like you're doing this but I hope people aren't using this as a means to discredit the ones that we do know, especially since we depend on them being constant and knowing what they are.  Saying I could wake up tomorrow and my car floating or having to at least investigate claims of that by others feels like Fake News to me.  We should take laws of physics seriously until we can confirm they are wrong, especially since there's no way to compensate for the nearly unlimited possibilities any rule could land on at any given moment if that's the way you want to look at it. 

 

I'd say don't be surprised a rule has exceptions or is wrong, but don't expect it to happen at some point in the future.

 

1.  It is impossible to disprove that God exist.  There is not a test that you can do that a being of infinite power couldn't cause to come up as a negative unless you have infinite power.   Attempts to disprove God are a waste of time.

 

2.  There's plenty of reason to believe that God would leave us evidence that he does exist (essentially every religion on Earth believes in a God that gives of evidence of existence, but not proof in that you have to have faith).

 

3.  It is impossible for us to know that there are "laws of physics" in that they cannot change.  We do not predict the future independent of the assumption that the future can be predicted because there are laws of physics that cannot change.  Any attempt to predict the future is based on there being something(s) that can't change.

 

4.  Why should people assume that something is true if there is not good evidence that it is true?  Wouldn't it make much more sense to plan for the worse?  If I believe that the fact is that gravity has been similar through the time of the known universe is due to random chance (which there is no evidence it isn't), then doesn't it make sense to plan for the worse and gravity changing?

[drtdrums]

I’m probably making points that have already been made but I have a limited time, so less reading and more posting for now.

 

There is no way to invalidate the existence or character of a supernatural entity using methodologically natural claims.

 

Put another way, Science only deals with the material realm and is incapable of climbing the ladder past that point into the metaphysical. It’s not as if any “normal” Christian argues that God is a sky-fairy who exists in this sphere of time/space.

 

Some people decide materialism is all there is, and if that’s you, it’s a logically tenable position AS LONG AS you know what you are FORCED to give up (objective morality, free will, etc) and do so.

 

There’s always an answer for Theists (particularly of the Christian stripe) for any and all criticisms that come from the critical camp. Generally speaking, those answers are useful for theists and not very useful for non/a/anti theists.

 

I find non-theists to generally fall into two camps:

 

1) You don’t care. 

2) You care, but object due to emotional or psychological traumas. 

 

It has never been my experience that militant atheists are militant because of intellectual objections. The worst intellectual atheists think of theists is, “You poor fools.” I think this is probably because anyone who understands these issues at all and concludes there is no God must end up like Nietzsche, mourning the loss for the sake of our civilization.

 

The militant atheists are the ones (in my experience) harmed by theists, or by God not showing up when they lost a sick mother or child. They don’t give a damn what intellectual answers are given. None will ever suffice because it wasn’t their intellect that was wounded.

 

It’s been helpful to me to remember this, and to do all I can in my foolishness to help salve the emotional wound; whether they wind up believing in God is a matter between them and God. My occupation in this spiritual warfare is to help, to heal, and to listen where I can. Because of this, my zeal for arguing to convert has been quenched. We’re all walking wounded; some of us are just bleeding out faster than the rest.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

26 minutes ago, drtdrums said:

 

I’m probably making points that have already been made but I have a limited time, so less reading and more posting for now...

Pardon me for saying, but this post smacks of arrogance.

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[drtdrums]

Thanks for letting me know. It isn’t there, but if that’s what you read, all I can do is apologize.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

19 minutes ago, drtdrums said:

Thanks for letting me know. It isn’t there, but if that’s what you read, all I can do is apologize.

Accepted. Here, let me buy you a beer.

[Renegade7]

17 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  It is impossible to disprove that God exist.  There is not a test that you can do that a being of infinite power couldn't cause to come up as a negative unless you have infinite power.   Attempts to disprove God are a waste of time.

 

2.  There's plenty of reason to believe that God would leave us evidence that he does exist (essentially every religion on Earth believes in a God that gives of evidence of existence, but not proof in that you have to have faith).

 

3.  It is impossible for us to know that there are "laws of physics" in that they cannot change.  We do not predict the future independent of the assumption that the future can be predicted because there are laws of physics that cannot change.  Any attempt to predict the future is based on there being something(s) that can't change.

 

4.  Why should people assume that something is true if there is not good evidence that it is true?  Wouldn't it make much more sense to plan for the worse?  If I believe that the fact is that gravity has been similar through the time of the known universe is due to random chance (which there is no evidence it isn't), then doesn't it make sense to plan for the worse and gravity changing?

1.  That is unacceptable to me, and we both believe in God.  That's like saying you're right and there's no point in trying to make sure of it.

 

2. I'm not disputing this, I believe He does this all the time.  Despite my faith on this, I'm not going to stop someone from trying to confirm it, I encourage it.

 

3 and 4:  Gravity may be a bad example because people are making arguments on whether or not it even exists. I'm fine with confirming that any of the laws of physics we depend on at some point violently wildly swung in any direction in the universe's history, but I'm also fine with crossing that bridge of one doing that when we get there as opposed to building a bridge and waiting for water to show up (too many possibilities, not enough resources for bridges).  Magnetism is an interesting example where on Earth we know the poles have moved or flipped, but if the fundamental rules of the elecrtomagentism that helps keeps atoms from flying apart violently shifted, we'd all likely be dead anyway. We may both be looking at this wrong comparing inconsistencies in the Laws of Physics to sudden shifts that would be impossible not to notice and likely destroy us (should we "trust" what we know, or expect it to be wrong?).

 

 

 

Again, if some of ya'll insist we can't use or find scientific evidence to prove God exists but its fine to admit non-scientific evidence to make the case that he does, I'm bowing out on that discussion.  I don't agree that we should be doing that, and that discussion could remain permanently unresolved despite what's true or not.  I have a feeling that he's not going to like us trying, but that is an assumption based on what we think we know (or that he actually is out there to stop us).  If somehow we do find Him, we need to risk getting to Him instead of being scared, imo.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Renegade7

[TheGreatBuzz]

I've been a devote atheist for a while.  Even when it didn't go well for me.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1995/10/15/out-of-scouts-in-a-clash-of-beliefs/5f2bb7b1-ebbe-47f3-98aa-1955dbdfc1b8/?utm_term=.7eb3ec7ccb7b

[Renegade7]

13 hours ago, drtdrums said:

Thanks for letting me know. It isn’t there, but if that’s what you read, all I can do is apologize.

I highly recommend reading the rest of the thread when you get a chance.  I learned a lot, you might, too.

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

1.  That is unacceptable to me, and we both believe in God.  That's like saying you're right and there's no point in trying to make sure of it.

 

2. I'm not disputing this, I believe He does this all the time.  Despite my faith on this, I'm not going to stop someone from trying to confirm it, I encourage it.

 

3 and 4:  Gravity may be a bad example because people are making arguments on whether or not it even exists. I'm fine with confirming that any of the laws of physics we depend on at some point violently wildly swung in any direction in the universe's history, but I'm also fine with crossing that bridge of one doing that when we get there as opposed to building a bridge and waiting for water to show up (too many possibilities, not enough resources for bridges).  Magnetism is an interesting example where on Earth we know the poles have moved or flipped, but if the fundamental rules of the elecrtomagentism that helps keeps atoms from flying apart violently shifted, we'd all likely be dead anyway. We may both be looking at this wrong comparing inconsistencies in the Laws of Physics to sudden shifts that would be impossible not to notice and likely destroy us (should we "trust" what we know, or expect it to be wrong?).

 

 

 

Again, if some of ya'll insist we can't use or find scientific evidence to prove God exists but its fine to admit non-scientific evidence to make the case that he does, I'm bowing out on that discussion.  I don't agree that we should be doing that, and that discussion could remain permanently unresolved despite what's true or not.  I have a feeling that he's not going to like us trying, but that is an assumption based on what we think we know (or that he actually is out there to stop us).  If somehow we do find Him, we need to risk getting to Him instead of being scared, imo.

 

1.  It is just the reality of the situation.  There's no scientific test that could be done that God couldn't skew one way or the other.   As a result, no result would have any meaning.  Pick a hypothesis related to God.  Describe the test you are going to do that will yield a negative result if God does not exist.  Now, explain how God could not make the system return a negative result even though God does exist.  It can't be done.  You can't say, well if I do X and God doesn't exist, then Y will happen.  Because if God does exist and you do X, then God can make Y happen even though he does exist because he's all poweful.

 

2.  The fundamental point though is that if you don't believe those things are laws of nature and believe they can change, then you should live your life that way.  If you believe that gravity could massively change and be something different tomorrow (including leading to your instantaneous death), then that should reflect in the way you live.  I don't believe that and while I acknowledge that there is some chance I could die tomorrow (car accident, etc), it also isn't something that I would worry about.  Somebody that honestly believes their life might end or become much more difficult because of changes in "natural laws" should live a very different life than the rest of us.

 

3.  Realistically, I'm not arguing about proving anything.  I'm of the mind it is impossible to prove ANYTHING.  (When the discussion started, I said I could provide a philosophical framework where it would be reasonable, but I suspect that the non-theist would reject it.  I didn't say that I could prove God existed.  I can provide a logical frame work where it makes sense to believe in God (unless you are willing to say you believe that tomorrow that you could wake up and things like gravity could be very different).).

 

4.  If God wants to reveal himself to us, he will.  I see no way that scientific studies designed to find him will render meaningful results.  Science is designed to study natural and reproducible process.  Any such process, will not be God because what would make God would be his all powerfullness, which would his ability to do any thing at any time.  I doubt God will care one way or another if we look for him because there is no way that we can find him if he doesn't want to be found. 

[thinwhiteduke]

Quote

1.  It is impossible to disprove that God exist.  There is not a test that you can do that a being of infinite power couldn't cause to come up as a negative unless you have infinite power.   Attempts to disprove God are a waste of time.

 

 

common sense, once you start using it, tells you he doesnt exist.

an all knowing, supreme being who lives outside time and space decided to to put people in a crappy world and threatens eternal damnation if you act on natural urges or dont do things his way? thats not a god, thats a bad boss/govt leader lol

all you have is a bunch of rhetorical beliefs.. no facts, no proof..nothing. youve been trained since birth to believe something you cant prove.

faith, belief, are things that do not exist. They are merely invented words.

 

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, thinwhiteduke said:

 

common sense, once you start using it, tells you he doesnt exist.

an all knowing, supreme being who lives outside time and space decided to to put people in a crappy world and threatens eternal damnation if you act on natural urges or dont do things his way? thats not a god, thats a bad boss/govt leader lol

all you have is a bunch of rhetorical beliefs.. no facts, no proof..nothing. youve been trained since birth to believe something you cant prove.

faith, belief, are things that do not exist. They are merely invented words.

 

Do you believe that gravity will be the same tomorrow as it is today?

 

Can you prove it?

 

What can you prove?

 

(As I've already stated, the non-theist over estimates the evidence to support their beliefs and under estimated the evidence supporting that a god exist.  You're  perfect evidence of that.)

Edited April 8, 2018 by PeterMP

[thinwhiteduke]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Do you believe that gravity will be the same tomorrow as it is today?

 

Can you prove it?

 

What can you prove?

 

(As I've already stated, the non-theist over estimates the evidence to support their beliefs and under estimated the evidence supporting that a god exist.  You're  perfect evidence of that.)

 

What does gravity  have to do with it? 

Lol you're spinning in circles now. I just gave you ultimate  common sense truth and you cant grasp it. You used the word believe  again...there are no beliefs in existence. Either something is, or it isnt. I don't have a belief. Beliefs are useless. 

There is no evidence  of  any kind supporting any god. The only way to prove it is blatant  manifestation of himself, by himself/it.  

Edited April 8, 2018 by thinwhiteduke

[PeterMP]

8 hours ago, thinwhiteduke said:

 

What does gravity  have to do with it? 

Lol you're spinning in circles now. I just gave you ultimate  common sense truth and you cant grasp it. You used the word believe  again...there are no beliefs in existence. Either something is, or it isnt. I don't have a belief. Beliefs are useless. 

There is no evidence  of  any kind supporting any god. The only way to prove it is blatant  manifestation of himself, by himself/it.  

 

I'm making a point with respect to your more general idea related to beliefs not existing.  Can you answer the questions?  Do you think that gravity is going to be the same today as it is tomorrow?  Why?  What proof do you have?

 

There are many cases in history where people's "common sense" turned out to be wrong.  People's "common sense" used to tell them the Earth was flat, and the sun was the center of the universe (and no those ideas did not come from the Bible or Christianity originally, they at least started with Aristotle and not based on his belief in a god).

 

(You also have a warped sense of God so your argument based on common sense is warped by your sense of God, but that's a more complex issue.)

[techboy]

8 hours ago, thinwhiteduke said:

Either something is, or it isnt. I don't have a belief. Beliefs are useless. 

 

Peter is making a subtle point based on science. Let me make it more direct.

 

How do you know you can trust your own senses?

 

Can you prove I exist? How do you know you're not in a coma experiencing vivid hallucinations? Or a brain in a jar somewhere being stimulated by electrodes? Or just a program in a simulation?

 

Can you prove your experiences are real? That your senses are telling you the truth?

 

Before you answer, think carefully. I can point you to lots of small examples where your senses can definitively be shown to fool you.

 

How do you KNOW?

[dfitzo53]

Lol at you guy's with you're public educations and. proper spelling and grammer hereing just what the government and media wants you too.   such sheep wake up and think for yourself

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

On 4/6/2018 at 8:00 PM, PeterMP said:

4.  Why should people assume that something is true if there is not good evidence that it is true?

Like a God?

[Renegade7]

2 hours ago, dfitzo53 said:

Lol at you guy's with you're public educations and. proper spelling and grammer hereing just what the government and media wants you too.   such sheep wake up and think for yourself

Both sides are trying to make their point without scientific facts saying we can't prove them as scientific facts anyway so they don't need them.  That is dangerous regardless of the messenger.

 

@PeterMP  Please stop using gravity as an example in your point if you insist that science can't be used for a counter-point.  You're trying too hard to keep this simple, and its not.  And no, we don't have any proof that God exists, just evidence of what we believe he did or did not do.  We don't have proof that it was Him, aliens, or none of the above.  Are you really with a straight face going to claim that with 4,200 different interpretations of those events that your's somehow right without needing any proof for it and the other 4,299 being wrong?  That sounds more like faith then proof (which is fine as long as you're willing to admit that).

 

I'm fine with taking science off the table for now even if I don't like it (it will be after we confirm dark matter and dark energy exists before I think we can seriously try, for sure), given we could possibly use observation and mathematics to find him instead (while acknowledging that won't be easy if He doesn't want to be found).  We did the same thing with the supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy where we used math to "find it" first before we could gather any scientific evidence to "prove" it was there.  Does that mean the people who first theorized this were wrong until they were proven right, or were they right all along in hindsight?  Should the default position on this issue be that God exists until there's proof he doesn't, or God doesn't exist until proof he does?  If you have faith that he exists, that question shouldn't matter, but not everyone does so that needs to be a factor in this discussion.

 

One insane but not so insane idea may be trying a method of observation that would result in something like a double-positive or double-negative if He does try to skew the results.  Sort of like a trick or trap question (I know, that sounds crazy trying to trick or trap God into something, but I can't find a more appropriate term to get my point across) that we see in software and human language, but with laws of physics instead, where the dead give away wouldn't be some slight variation but a total shift that would not be normal unless some pointed external force was acting on it.  Do we have evidence of matter existing on a different plane then spacetime at the same time?  Otherwise, He does have to interact with something in our plane of existence from a different one, like the metaphysical, we should in theory be able to measure it (even if its something like spooky action at a distance).  If that's the case, in order to talk to each other they need to talk to each other and we need to somehow catch them doing that (again just an idea that I'm open to ideas on).

 

Again, you keep talking like you're sure he doesn't want us to find him, and though there is evidence to suggest that, we don't have proof of that (especially since you said that we technically can't prove anything).  I say if we do get all the way to His doorstep, we won't need to (same way flying into the middle of Sagittarius A would likely kill whoever tried regardless of if they could "prove" it was real or not before or after doing it):

 

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Renegade7

[Renegade7]

4 hours ago, techboy said:

How do you KNOW?

 

Tough angle to take when trying to consider that God could be a construct in our fake reality to accomplish the means for several things to exist in it and His creator in the real one (but since you asked):

 

 

I want to add that repeatedly using the "you can't prove anything" response into everyday life is a terrible idea that we are starting to see the beginnings of play itself out in our countriy's politics and the results speak for themselves.  You can technically use that argument to sneak Intelligent Design or Creationism into your curriculum, and I'm sure you don't want that to happen either, so please keep that in mind while being careful using that point to make your point. That's probably has a bellcurve as well where leaning on it can backfire, too (I don't think we should be doing that, even if I understand where you and Peter are coming from in that regard).

Edited April 8, 2018 by Renegade7

[techboy]

15 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Tough angle to take when trying to consider that God could be a construct in our fake reality to accomplish the means for several things to exist in it and His creator in the real one (but since you asked):

 

You're clearly missing the point.

 

The claim has been made that faith and belief are meaningless (I'm going with the charitable interpretation of the argument here, since the actual claim that faith and belief don't exist is incoherent), and that we should only accept what we can prove.

 

The philosophical approach this represents is called logical empricism. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-empiricism/#Imp

 

The thing is, logical empiricism has been dead since the 1960s because philosophers have come to recognize that it is literally self-refuting.

 

You cannot, for example, prove that logic works, because doing so would require logic, and that would be circular.

 

We are therefore left with what philosophers call "properly basic beliefs"... Things that we cannot prove but nonetheless form the basis of our reasoning. Properly basic beliefs include things like: I can trust my senses, logic works, the universe is orderly and operates under set natural laws, science works, etc.

 

In math, we would call these axioms... the things we have to assume to make the rest of the proofs work.

 

PeterMP is taking the tack of philosophers like Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame, and arguing that belief in God is also a properly basic belief... even if it can't be proven it provides a foundation from which our other beliefs make sense.

 

In point of fact, there are a number of philosophical/logical arguments that establish that the existence of God is more probable than not (philosophers call these proofs), but at the core, I agree that belief in God is a properly basic belief that helps the rest of the universe, including the aforementioned natural laws we have no right to expect from a random naturalistic explanation, make sense.

[Renegade7]

27 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

You're clearly missing the point.

 

 

PeterMP is taking the tack of philosophers like Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame, and arguing that belief in God is also a properly basic belief... even if it can't be proven it provides a foundation from which our other beliefs make sense.

 

In point of fact, there are a number of philosophical/logical arguments that establish that the existence of God is more probable than not (philosophers call these proofs), but at the core, I agree that belief in God is a properly basic belief that helps the rest of the universe, including the aforementioned natural laws we have no right to expect from a random naturalistic explanation, make sense.

 

So are you saying we can't use proof to prove anything, but our understanding of the proof we have can be used to say that it makes enough sense and can thus count as the closest thing to proof we have that something is "true", or at least the basis for why one would believe that it is in the meantime or period?  I get that (if that's what you're saying, think I'm close, but open to correction so I do understand), but most people won't (or at least won't accept that), which is why I hope you don't miss my point on that take, either.

 

You're last sentence reminds me of why I'm so curious about Intelligent Design.  The laws that we do know are so precise in many cases, that its hard to say everything was random chance.  Problem is, we don't know them all well enough to say the variations in our observations of these laws are chance or literal exceptions built into each rule (given they are the actual rule to begin with, which is why I want us to stop using gravity as an example in this discussion). I totally believe the creation story took longer then seven days, and at some point God realized that if he made anything in his image on Earth with dinosaurs around that they would get eaten, so he flicked his fingers to cause the Chicxulub impact (but I have no proof of that, it just makes sense to me if I want to acknowledge he helped create man but somehow responsible for dinosaurs first).

Edited April 8, 2018 by Renegade7

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

I want to add that repeatedly using the "you can't prove anything" response into everyday life is a terrible idea that we are starting to see the beginnings of play itself out in our countriy's politics and the results speak for themselves.  You can technically use that argument to sneak Intelligent Design or Creationism into your curriculum, and I'm sure you don't want that to happen either, so please keep that in mind while being careful using that point to make your point. That's probably has a bellcurve as well where leaning on it can backfire, too (I don't think we should be doing that, even if I understand where you and Peter are coming from in that regard).

 

I think techboy has handled this pretty well, but I would add that Intelligent Design and Creationism shouldn't be allowed in schools (at least not science class rooms) because they aren't science.  People that study intelligent design or creationism don't use the scientific method.  Their fundamental underlying belief (God did it) can't be disproven.  There is no test that can be done to disprove that hypothesis.

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Like a God?

 

Yes fundamentally.  When it comes to things like natural laws, you really have one of 3 choices:

 

1.  They are the result of random chance and so could randomly change at any time, which means were are always on the verge of disaster and potentially any instantaneously extinction level disaster.  If that's the case, I don't see how posting on a football message board about much of anything makes any sense.

 

2.  That you believe in something that you have no good reason to believe in which case, why do you believe in it?

(and then, I'd ask what things are reasonable to resolve your ignorance).

 

3.  That natural laws exist because there is a law giver (i.e. God).

Edited April 8, 2018 by PeterMP

[techboy]

15 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

So are you saying we can't use proof to prove anything, but our understanding of the proof we have can be used to say that it makes enough sense and can thus count as the closest thing to proof we have that something is "true", or at least the basis for why one would believe that it is in the meantime or period? 

 

I'm not suggesting that at all. We can prove lots of things, within certain frameworks. Take, for example, this classic:

 

1. Socrates is a man

2. All men are mortal

3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal

 

This proves that Socrates is mortal. If you accept premise 1 and 2, and there is sufficient evidence for both, then you must accept the conclusion.

 

There are, however, other things that we must accept, that cannot be proven. One of those directly related to this proof is that logic works.

 

We cannot prove that logic works, because that would require logic, and would thus be circular.

 

We therefore rely on certain properly basic beliefs to provide a framework for all of the other proofs we can use to establish facts in the world around us.

 

The point, then, is that everyone believes things that cannot be proven... we have to, or we would not be able to function.

 

This serves as a refutation of the criticism that belief in God is not warranted because the existence of God cannot be proven... even if you ignore all arguments in favor of the existence of God, which I personally find persuasive, Peter less so I think.

Edited April 8, 2018 by techboy

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

I think techboy has handled this pretty well, but I would add that Intelligent Design and Creationism shouldn't be allowed in schools (at least not science class rooms) because they aren't science.  People that study intelligent design or creationism don't use the scientific method.  Their fundamental underlying belief (God did it) can't be disproven.  There is no test that can be done to disprove that hypothesis.

I agree with both of you in that regard, but concerned that going after science the way ya'll to are opens the door for that (which we all agree should not happen).  To confirm, have we proven the Big Bang Theory to be fact via scientific method?  Inflation and String Theory I'm not sure have either, so if Creationism and Intelligent Design are just theories themselves, can we really block that being taught in school other then saying they don't make as much sense and hurt students ability to apply science in any field they choose should they choose so?  

[techboy]

35 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I agree with both of you in that regard, but concerned that going after science the way ya'll to are opens the door for that (which we all agree should not happen).  

 

No one's going after science. We're just insisting on using it in the correct manner.

 

Your fixation with using science to prove or disprove the existence of God is similar to attempting to use an electron microscope to measure the acceleration of gravity. It's the wrong tool. It doesn't matter how advanced your electron microscope becomes, it's still the wrong tool.

 

Science is a tool as well. We use it to test falsifiable predictions about the natural world. We can't use it to test for God, one way or the other, because God is by definition not bound by natural laws.

 

I personally find the teleological argument (the philosophical title for Intelligent Design) to be a very strong case for the existence of God, but even though it uses scientific findings to support its premises, it is not science for that reason. It is not falsifiable through experimentation. It does not belong in the science classroom. It belongs in the philosophy classroom.

 

Since you seem interested, though, I'd commend to you the philosopher Robin Collins, who has done some excellent work advancing the teleological argument for the existence of God: http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/

 

I would not commend to you his website, which looks like it was designed in 1993. It is apparent that his talents (or at least his interests) lie elsewhere.

Edited April 8, 2018 by techboy