Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

[color=darkblue][b]ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:[/b]

For the average person, precision indicates that an intelligent person guided the outcome. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, the word "precision" is defined as follows:[/COLOR]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy"[/COLOR]


[color=darkblue]The reverse of precision is imprecision/inaccuracy/inexactnesswhich is always the result of an accident aka a spontaneous event that happen by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Websters New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:[/COLOR]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"a [b]nonessential[/b] event that [b]happens by chance[/b] and has [b]undesirable[/b] or [b]unfortunate results[/b]"[/COLOR]



[color=darkblue][b]ARGUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:[/b]

Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. This precision renders the evolution theory and Big Bang theory mere fiction, for [b]precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events.[/b] Take, for example, the first discovered 60 elements on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of these 60 elements are gases and are therefore invisible to the human eye. The atoms--from which the Earth's elements are made--are [b]specifically related to one another.[/b] In turn, the elements--e.g. arsenic, bismuth, chromium, gold, krypton--reflect a [b]distinct[/b], natural [b]numeral order[/b] based upon the structure of their atoms. This is a proven [b]LAW[/b].

The precision in the order of the elements made it possible for scientists such as Mendeleyev, Ramsey, Moseley, and Bohr to theorize the existence of unknown elements and their characteristics. These elements were later discovered, just as predicted. Because of the distinct numerical order of the elements, the word [b]LAW[/b] is applied to the Periodic Table of the Elements. (Sources: [b](1)[/b] The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, [b](2)[/b] "Periodic Law," from Encyclopdia Britannica, Vol. VII, p. 878, copyright 1978, [b](3)[/b] The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography


[b]SIDE NOTE:[/b] Laws found in nature, as defined by Webster's New World Dictionary, are:[/COLOR]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"a sequence of events that have been observed to occur with [b]UNVARYING UNIFORMITY[/b] under the same conditions."[/COLOR]


[color=darkblue][b]QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1.[/b] Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?

[b]2.[/b] Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

[b]3.[/b] Evolution and Big Bang theories both rely upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution or Big Bang were credible explanations for the existence of life on earth or the existence of millions of planets in the heavens, how do either theory account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that the Periodic Table has been assigned the word [b]"LAW"[/b]?[/COLOR]

haha op you funny guy

i kill you last

If god is so perfect why dont my wisdom teeth fit on my jawline





Also, why did my appendix rupture



Also, wtf is an appendix

none of those discredit the atheist worldview.

The characteristics of the periodic table and universe can be explained by just being perfectly tuned. This doesn't mean a creator. Out of 10000000000 trillion tries and one makes it, then does that mean a creator?

Why do we waste our time in this gift of life that we were all given trying to search for proof that there is a higher power? And if there was a higher power, why spend so much time worshiping such a being?

There is so much to do, so much to see. Instead you are trapped inside your own personal hell trying to get everyone to believe the same thing that you do just for the justification that you are right.

[img]http://iam.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ain-nobody-got-time-for-that.jpg[/img]

YOU WROTE: "Evolution and Big Bang theories both rely upon things happening by chance aka at random."

Ok, let me start here, with evolution. If we take chance to mean "A possibility of something happening" then it is also 'chance' that a god would exist.

Now, I think you might not understand what evolution actually is. It is split in to two categories, so let's just look at micro-evolution. That is a change of the frequencies of alleles within a given population over time. Evolution is a THEORY that we humans use to understand this process. So if there is genetic information that is passed when something reproduces or produces clones (remember, we can have mutations here), and our populations are not at hardy-weinberg equilibrium, there will be evolution. That isn't really 'chance', it WILL occur under these conditions.

If you find yourself impressed with how events unfolded - well, that's fine. It isn't evidence of anything, it is just that your brain - naturally a pattern-seeking device - will be impressed with any sequence of events that seems to fit together or happen on a grand-scale.

And please bear in mind how many planets there are with NO life on them. Please bear in mind mass extinctions on THIS planet, and how human beings have a limited time here: mega-tsunamis, asteroids, super-volcanoes, etc. These things are all a result of that "precision" you seem so fond of.

[QUOTE=thnikkaman;1027646943]Why do we waste our time in this gift of life that we were all given trying to search for proof that there is a higher power? And if there was a higher power, why spend so much time worshiping such a being?

There is so much to do, so much to see. Instead you are trapped inside your own personal hell trying to get everyone to believe the same thing that you do just for the justification that you are right.

[img]http://iam.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ain-nobody-got-time-for-that.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]

Remember that before you attach emotion to it, this is only a conversation about observations. This doesn't have to be in a negative light. No one yet has taken this talk into a personal hell. Besides, you're trying to convert everyone to your belief that these things shouldn't be spoken about. These are fun topics much better IMO than talking about MTV and zombie apocalypse stuff.


OP my prediction is two things..

First, ten page sshhht storm atheist vs theist.


Second, and more important to you. In the following discussions you will have the opportunity to observe one fantastic sight:

Atheist and theist alike will use "facts" to prop up their beliefs. After a certain point, here's where the fun comes in..

[b]
From both sides, There will be a blurred line where "fact" and "logic" stop and personal belief, faith, etc continues the rest of the argument. The fun part is that you have to look carefully to see the switch happen. Because likely, their opinions and perspectives are still touted as universal law.
[/b]


Here's a cool quote that would relate my view of the matter. To each their own :-)



“It's like you took a bottle of ink and you threw it at a wall. Smash! And all that ink spread. And in the middle, it's dense, isn't it? And as it gets out on the edge, the little droplets get finer and finer and make more complicated patterns, see?

So in the same way, there was a big bang at the beginning of things and it spread. And you and I, sitting here in this room, as complicated human beings, are way, way out on the fringe of that bang. We are the complicated little patterns on the end of it. Very interesting. But so we define ourselves as being only that. If you think that you are only inside your skin, you define yourself as one very complicated little curlique, way out on the edge of that explosion. Way out in space, and way out in time.

Billions of years ago, you were a big bang, but now you're a complicated human being. And then we cut ourselves off, and don't feel that we're still the big bang. But you are. Depends how you define yourself. You are actually--if this is the way things started, if there was a big bang in the beginning-- you're not something that's a result of the big bang. You're not something that is a sort of puppet on the end of the process. You are still the process. You are the big bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you are.

When I meet you, I see not just what you define yourself as--Mr so-and- so, Ms so-and-so, Mrs so-and-so--I see every one of you as the primordial energy of the universe coming on at me in this particular way. I know I'm that, too. But we've learned to define ourselves as separate from it. ” ― Alan Wilson Watts

[QUOTE=Tamorlane;1027645463]none of those discredit the atheist worldview.

The characteristics of the periodic table and universe can be explained by just being perfectly tuned. This doesn't mean a creator. Out of 10000000000 trillion tries and one makes it, then does that mean a creator?[/QUOTE]

You're assuming there were 10000000000 trillion tries. An unprovable world ensemble hypothesis.

[QUOTE=hassel35;1027653063]Remember that before you attach emotion to it, this is only a conversation about observations. This doesn't have to be in a negative light. No one yet has taken this talk into a personal hell. Besides, you're trying to convert everyone to your belief that these things shouldn't be spoken about. These are fun topics much better IMO than talking about MTV and zombie apocalypse stuff.


[/QUOTE]

I can dig that. Plato/Socrates did say that the ultimate form of play is Philosophy. I commented what I did due to OP's join date and post count.

Randomness rules the universe. Guided precision is an illusion.

Hilariously ironic since it's coming from a being with mostly junk and useless DNA living on a planet where 99.9% of every known species that has ever lived is extinct.

Oh the guided order of it all!

[QUOTE=basement iron;1027760003]Randomness rules the universe. Guided precision is an illusion.

Hilariously ironic since it's coming from a being with mostly junk and useless DNA living on a planet where 99.9% of every known species that has ever lived is extinct.

Oh the guided order of it all![/QUOTE]

Seriously. What a brilliant plan to have us all exist and squabble about how we got here until a meteor rocks the phuck out of the planet killing us all as the earth heals itself for new species to have a chance. Not to mention on a planet full of volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, sink holes, mudslides, earthquakes, lighting strikes, tsunamis... we live on a planet not meant for us despite the hazards, not alongside these natural [i]disasters[/i], because what a bumbling clusterphuck of a plan that would have to be.

2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

What precise law are you talking about - they fact that each specific element has a different number of protons?

I have a degree in theology but I've never seen the point in debating over the whole "Is there Really A God and Who is Mom" issue.

You can't empirically prove there is or isn’t a God. You’ll never have a clearly defined “winner”. But people keep pointing to microscopes or shaking their Bibles.

I think some people on both sides of this question like to argue just because that's what they like to do; argue.

I believe there is a God/Jesus. I’m intellectually convinced of it; emotionally convicted of it. But I can’t prove it to you. I don’t have any emails I can show you or any voice mails I can play back. Spiritual beliefs are in large experiential.

But I can understand the whole “not believing in God” thing. I don’t always like Him myself.

Yeshua will prove himself to you if you give him the opportunity to do so; no theology degrees required.

[QUOTE=LifeofRiley;1027844183]I have a degree in theology but I've never seen the point in debating over the whole "Is there Really A God and Who is Mom" issue.

You can't empirically prove there is or isn’t a God. You’ll never have a clearly defined “winner”. But people keep pointing to microscopes or shaking their Bibles.

I think some people on both sides of this question like to argue just because that's what they like to do; argue.

I believe there is a God/Jesus.[B] I’m intellectually convinced of it[/B]; emotionally convicted of it. [B]But I can’t prove it to you[/B]. I don’t have any emails I can show you or any voice mails I can play back. Spiritual beliefs are in large experiential.

But I can understand the whole “not believing in God” thing. I don’t always like Him myself.[/QUOTE]

That's a bit weird. You're intellectually convinced that Christianity is correct but its not something that's provable to anyone else.. that sounds odd. Had you just just said the second part and that you were emotionally convinced then I would understand your statement. Intellectually convinced is another story completely though.

You are correct that god cannot be proven in any way though. Arguments can be made for/against but the very idea of god is unprovable in any objective way.

As for the OP, how does any of that prove god in any way? And it is very disingenuous to say that the big bang/evolution require things to happen at random. No one knows how or why the big bang occurred. The big bang just explains what happened after that initial expansion. So there is no randomness there. Evolution does have some randomness sure. Its unknown what mutations occur and will occur as a species evolves. But they do occur. The only real quibble over evolution is the imagined split between micro evolution and macro.

Strong first post.

[QUOTE=Tamorlane;1027645463]none of those discredit the atheist worldview.

[b]The characteristics of the periodic table[/b][/COLOR] and universe can be explained by just being [b]perfectly tuned.[/b][/COLOR] This doesn't mean a creator. [b]Out of 10000000000 trillion tries[/b][/COLOR] and one makes it, then does that mean a creator?[/QUOTE]
[color=darkblue][b]ALTER2EGO -to- TAMORLANE: [/b]

Next you will be arguing that the computer you're using created itself at random. To hear you tell it, the computer that frequently breaks down and is in need of repairs--get this-- by an intelligent being (a human) must have had a creator (a human). But the far more complex universe, against which the computer looks like child's play, became "perfectly tuned" by itself, and this happened "out of 10000000000 trillion tries."

Brilliant deduction![/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Alter2Ego;1028017823][color=darkblue][b]ALTER2EGO -to- TAMORLANE: [/b]

Next you will be arguing that the computer you're using created itself at random. To hear you tell it, the computer that frequently breaks down and is in need of repairs--get this-- by an intelligent being (a human) must have had a creator (a human). But the far more complex universe, against which the computer looks like child's play, became "perfectly tuned" by itself, and this happened "out of 10000000000 trillion tries."

Brilliant deduction![/COLOR][/QUOTE]

We know computers have creators because we have evidence of humans designing and creating them. Just because something exists doesn't mean a being designed it, and we don't have any sufficient or demonstrable proof that anything was created by a god, more specifically any one particular god. It is foolish to assume we've been designed until we have proof, the default is disbelief until proven otherwise, not belief in something with no evidence until someone can disprove what is more or less your own opinion and not facts or truth.

You're committing a very common fallacious mistake, this is why the watch, or computer, found in the sand needing a creator doesn't make sense.

[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI100.html[/url]

[quote]For the average person, precision indicates that an intelligent person guided the outcome.[/quote]

Nope. Your argument falls apart here.
Precision is ability to repeat the same measurement over and over again.

For example,
2 + 2 = 4. That's an infinitely precise measurement since we can repeat "2 + 2" over and over and over again and always get "4". There was no person guiding this, either.

[QUOTE=Rune;1027807463][QUOTE=Alter2Ego;1027562483][color=darkblue]2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

What precise law are you talking about - they fact that each specific element has a different number of protons?[/QUOTE]
[SIZE=3][color=darkblue][b]ALTER2EGO -to- RUNE: [/b]
I was quite specific in my OP. I suggest you go back and read the first two paragraphs that are directly under the heading [b]"ARGUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR."[/b] Read it slowly, and then perhaps you will see what's involved is not just different numbers of protons.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[QUOTE=chimburgandy;1028022283]
[QUOTE=Alter2Ego;1028017823] [color=darkblue][b]ALTER2EGO -to- TAMORLANE: [/b]

Next you will be arguing that the computer you're using created itself at random. To hear you tell it, the computer that frequently breaks down and is in need of repairs--get this-- by an intelligent being (a human) must have had a creator (a human). But the far more complex universe, against which the computer looks like child's play, became "perfectly tuned" by itself, and this happened "out of 10000000000 trillion tries."

Brilliant deduction![/COLOR][/QUOTE]

We know computers have creators because we have evidence of humans designing and creating them. Just because something exists doesn't mean a being designed it, and we don't have any sufficient or demonstrable proof that anything was created by a god, more specifically any one particular god. It is foolish to assume we've been designed until we have proof, the default is disbelief until proven otherwise, not belief in something with no evidence until someone can disprove what is more or less your own opinion and not facts or truth.

You're committing a very common fallacious mistake, [b]this is why the watch, or computer, found in the sand needing a creator doesn't make sense.[/b] [/QUOTE]
[SIZE=3][color=darkblue]I understand your point completely. A mere stick of crayon required a creator. But the complex and precise universe happened by itself. Nuff said. [/COLOR][/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Alter2Ego;1028026633][SIZE=3][color=darkblue]I understand your point completely. A mere stick of crayon required a creator. But the complex and precise universe happened by itself. Nuff said. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

Let's pretend you didn't completely ignore and disregard the counterpoint to your argument, that you are obviously emotionally invested in and won't let go easily, and we'll say that it is in fact possible that that the universe was designed. Congratulations, I'm convinced.

Now, show the connection between a designed universe and the proof you have of god designing it. Your specific god mind you, and why it wouldn't be any of the other countless gods known to man. A god that, given how complex he must be, had to have also had a creator which surely you must be able to explain. And also how you explain what created the creator of god, and so on. Keeping in mind that god being "eternal" or "the first mover" or "having always existed" aren't explanations because they are made up concepts that also can't be proven.

Even if the universe was designed, and even if evolution was disproved (which it never will be as the process which has guided life from the beginning) you are still left having to explain even more than you did before. No one ever has presented empirical or substantial evidence for a specific designer, but people love saying that [i]god[/i] had to have done it because they just can't imagine or bear the alternative... that we just might never know.

[QUOTE=Lastman13;1028023023]Nope. Your argument falls apart here.
Precision is ability to repeat the same measurement over and over again.

For example,
2 + 2 = 4. That's an infinitely precise measurement since we can repeat "2 + 2" over and over and over again and always get "4". There was no person guiding this, either.[/QUOTE]

Not to mention that even if we didn't know the answer to 2+2, given what we know about small numbers we can rule out the outcome of the equation being 400 digits long. There are things we don't need to know for sure in order to rule it out. Such as a creator of a world, a universe in fact, of random, chaotic, practically lifeless existence who for some reason saw fit to only have life on one of the countless floating rocks in all the galaxies and then condemn us for living our lives that he created using the minds he gave us.

Such a far-fetched notion is the same as postulating that without knowing the answer to 2+2, it's possible that the answer is 400 digits long.

[QUOTE=hassel35;1027653063]
OP my prediction is two things..
...
Second, and more important to you. In the following discussions you will have the opportunity to observe one fantastic sight:

Atheist and theist alike will use "facts" to prop up their beliefs. After a certain point, here's where the fun comes in..

[b]
From both sides, There will be a blurred line where "fact" and "logic" stop and personal belief, faith, etc continues the rest of the argument. The fun part is that you have to look carefully to see the switch happen. Because likely, their opinions and perspectives are still touted as universal law.
[/b]
[/quote]


Watch closely OP, chimburgandy is making the switch as we speak. Even the atheist resorts to faith to promote their beliefs...


It's an interesting thing to use the scientific model as the basis for your beliefs. Sure, it makes sense rationally. Why wouldn't you base your beliefs on the scientific model, right? Especially if you're real smart!

First, are your beliefs based on the scientific model.. Or are they limited by it?

Remember, the scientific model is just that.. A model. It's not the universe, but a model of it. This model is based on tools of measure, or rulers to keep it simple. The better the ruler, the better the model can be kept updated. Ideally it will be matched to the universe, as best possible.

Understanding this.. Is becomes clear there is a separation between the scientific model and the actual universe. What is inside that separation?

Well without getting religious, lets just consider it to be untold truths, or unlearned experiences, etc. These are the mysteries of life that drive people to search for information, to go on quests for knowledge.

This is most definitely not only about spiritual matters. Breakthroughs in physics or anything else... Someone dove into the unknown, mysteries of a matter, figured out how to architect or document it, explaining to others.

But see how they can play together, mysteries and science. The scientific model was applied to the universe, or better said universal matters explained by science.

IMO the most important part of this is when you allow yourself to only believe that model. Rather than observe the universe itself. Do you value critical thinking and independent thought? Without bringing religion into it.... As soon as you cut off the open ended nature of things, you are shutting yourself off to the discovery of new things. You are denying the existence of mystery, rather than pioneering and exploring new truths and discoveries.

In this, to only believe what science tells is very similar to only believing what your pastor tells you.

Both are models of the universe, not the universe itself. Which is why varying experiences and observations occur , that are outside of those models.

Neither is better or worse they are only observations.

Because of this, the atheist that hides behind science isn't any more or less delusional than the theist who hides behind the church. Nor is he any more credible to anyone but himself, since he is arguing faith.

[QUOTE=Tamorlane;1027645463]none of those discredit the atheist worldview.

The characteristics of the periodic table and universe can be explained by just being perfectly tuned. This doesn't mean a creator. Out of 10000000000 trillion tries and one makes it, then does that mean a creator?[/QUOTE]

Not only that but we only care about 1 of those trillions of outcomes because that result is us. Had it been the 2nd or 3rd or 4th roll of the dice instead of the 10 trillionth a whole other universe with entirely different life forms would be here postulating it's existence instead of us.

[QUOTE=Alter2Ego;1028017823][color=darkblue][b]ALTER2EGO -to- TAMORLANE: [/b]

Next you will be arguing that the computer you're using created itself at random. To hear you tell it, the computer that frequently breaks down and is in need of repairs--get this-- by an intelligent being (a human) must have had a creator (a human). But the far more complex universe, against which the computer looks like child's play, became "perfectly tuned" by itself, and this happened "out of 10000000000 trillion tries."

Brilliant deduction![/COLOR][/QUOTE]

The suggestion that intelligence is needed to create/build intelligence is inane. That would lead to the need for an infinite number of intelligences, one coming before and creating the other. Is that what you believe?

[QUOTE=Alter2Ego;1028017823][color=darkblue][b]ALTER2EGO -to- TAMORLANE: [/b]

Next you will be arguing that the computer you're using created itself at random. To hear you tell it, the computer that frequently breaks down and is in need of repairs--get this-- by an intelligent being (a human) must have had a creator (a human). But the far more complex universe, against which the computer looks like child's play, became "perfectly tuned" by itself, and this happened "out of 10000000000 trillion tries."

Brilliant deduction![/COLOR][/QUOTE]

What about fractals? These start out very basic and evolve into complex designs. Considering this is seen everywhere in the universe from leaves to snowflakes I could see it being connected to the evolution of the universe.

[QUOTE=lasher;1027655733]You're assuming there were 10000000000 trillion tries. An unprovable world ensemble hypothesis.[/QUOTE]

What about abiogenesis? Does this not indicate potential lifeforms in attempt to emerge to a higher state of being (the natural process by which life arises from inorganic matter) that do not succeed? I see there is no [I]direct[/I] connection between abiogenesis and creation of the universe.

[QUOTE=Tamorlane;1028154373]

What about abiogenesis? Does this not indicate potential lifeforms in attempt to emerge to a higher state of being (the natural process by which life arises from inorganic matter) that do not succeed? I see there is no [I]direct[/I] connection between abiogenesis and creation of the universe.[/QUOTE]

I'd be fascinated to see a study or experiment that actually verified abiogenesis. The best we've done so far is produce a few organic compounds, some amino acids, etc.

I hate the fine-tune argument.

"If this was 1% off we wouldn't exist, if this and this was a fractal off, it would create chaos, etc."

Using common sense the Earth was obviously here before human's existence and we just evolved with acceptance to physics and nature, and everything in hindsight is relative.

Brb not understanding why water breathing mammals aren't walking around on land needing a core temperature of 250c to survive.

[QUOTE=lasher;1028157273]I'd be fascinated to see a study or experiment that actually verified abiogenesis. The best we've done so far is produce a few organic compounds, some amino acids, etc.[/QUOTE]

Wait so you believe in creation theory over abiogenesis? Does this mean that you believe we did not evolve from a common ancestor with other primates?

And isn't abiogenesis the best theory/model that exists to explain our creation, other than the creation theory?

bbl