Evidence Of God???

[onion jonny 526]

..

Edited November 17, 2016 by onion jonny

[air gun ant 1,666]

I'll get started on that bunker!

[Paulnix 426]

I'll get started on that bunker!

No need, God will provide.........

[shepp 2,285]

Apparently when anything good happens to you, it's a blessing from God. But when something bad happens, God has no control over stuff happening?

[Born Hunter 17,622]

 

 

Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is Highly Probable World News Daily Report

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/stephen-hawkins-admits-intelligent-design-is-highly-probable/

Intelligent design doesn't mean God. And the anthropic principle doesn't only have the conclusions of divine creation or single random act of nature.

God is just a term for the creator is it not?

 

 

Depends who you talk to but that's not really what I was getting at. I'll cut to the chase... Hawking's answer to the improbability of a universe forming life (the anthropic principle) is that the universe was created intelligently, not through the random process originally assumed. That doesn't mean God, as in a sentient intelligent being, simply an intelligent mechanism/process. One that can discriminate between life producing universe designs and non-life producing ones during the process of creation. A computer program would be an example, it's intelligent, not random but still not sentient as we would generally define a God to be. The concept is totally speculative and of courses raises plenty more questions!

 

It also doesn't even mean that there's no other natural options, or should that be non-divine options. For instance a very common theory is the concept of many worlds, multiverse type stuff. Assuming the process behind creation is not divine but natural and also random not intelligent then it's possible that through some mechanism there are many many acts of universe creation and that statistically the vast majority of them are lifeless or fail with only the ones that are just right (like ours) that produce life. To the self aware lifeforms of those few it would appear like winning the lottery and totally improbable. But then they have no knowledge of the countless others than are essentially dead.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Born Hunter

[weebster 17]

Well there goes 25 minutes of my life!...still the popcorn was good,as for all that nonsense.........I blame brexit

[walshie 2,804]

 

 

 

Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is Highly Probable World News Daily Report

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/stephen-hawkins-admits-intelligent-design-is-highly-probable/

Intelligent design doesn't mean God. And the anthropic principle doesn't only have the conclusions of divine creation or single random act of nature.

God is just a term for the creator is it not?

 

 

Depends who you talk to but that's not really what I was getting at. I'll cut to the chase... Hawking's answer to the improbability of a universe forming life (the anthropic principle) is that the universe was created intelligently, not through the random process originally assumed. That doesn't mean God, as in a sentient intelligent being, simply an intelligent mechanism/process. One that can discriminate between life producing universe designs and non-life producing ones during the process of creation. A computer program would be an example, it's intelligent, not random but still not sentient as we would generally define a God to be. The concept is totally speculative and of courses raises plenty more questions!

 

It also doesn't even mean that there's no other natural options, or should that be non-divine options. For instance a very common theory is the concept of many worlds, multiverse type stuff. Assuming the process behind creation is not divine but natural and also random not intelligent then it's possible that through some mechanism there are many many acts of universe creation and that statistically the vast majority of them are lifeless or fail with only the ones that are just right (like ours) that produce life. To the self aware lifeforms of those few it would appear like winning the lottery and totally improbable. But then they have no knowledge of the countless others than are essentially dead.

 

 

Eh? Can you just go over that again from the word "depends"?

[DogFox123 1,379]

 

 

 

 

Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is Highly Probable World News Daily Report

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/stephen-hawkins-admits-intelligent-design-is-highly-probable/

Intelligent design doesn't mean God. And the anthropic principle doesn't only have the conclusions of divine creation or single random act of nature.

God is just a term for the creator is it not?

Depends who you talk to but that's not really what I was getting at. I'll cut to the chase... Hawking's answer to the improbability of a universe forming life (the anthropic principle) is that the universe was created intelligently, not through the random process originally assumed. That doesn't mean God, as in a sentient intelligent being, simply an intelligent mechanism/process. One that can discriminate between life producing universe designs and non-life producing ones during the process of creation. A computer program would be an example, it's intelligent, not random but still not sentient as we would generally define a God to be. The concept is totally speculative and of courses raises plenty more questions!

 

It also doesn't even mean that there's no other natural options, or should that be non-divine options. For instance a very common theory is the concept of many worlds, multiverse type stuff. Assuming the process behind creation is not divine but natural and also random not intelligent then it's possible that through some mechanism there are many many acts of universe creation and that statistically the vast majority of them are lifeless or fail with only the ones that are just right (like ours) that produce life. To the self aware lifeforms of those few it would appear like winning the lottery and totally improbable. But then they have no knowledge of the countless others than are essentially dead.

But surely us being sentient is strong evidence that the creator would be. Why would a creator give us joy, guilt, envy, pride, love, hate if it didn't feel and undertand those feelings too?

[king 11,664]

 

 

 

 

Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is Highly Probable World News Daily Reporthttp://worldnewsdailyreport.com/stephen-hawkins-admits-intelligent-design-is-highly-probable/

 

Intelligent design doesn't mean God. And the anthropic principle doesn't only have the conclusions of divine creation or single random act of nature.

God is just a term for the creator is it not?

Depends who you talk to but that's not really what I was getting at. I'll cut to the chase... Hawking's answer to the improbability of a universe forming life (the anthropic principle) is that the universe was created intelligently, not through the random process originally assumed. That doesn't mean God, as in a sentient intelligent being, simply an intelligent mechanism/process. One that can discriminate between life producing universe designs and non-life producing ones during the process of creation. A computer program would be an example, it's intelligent, not random but still not sentient as we would generally define a God to be. The concept is totally speculative and of courses raises plenty more questions!

 

It also doesn't even mean that there's no other natural options, or should that be non-divine options. For instance a very common theory is the concept of many worlds, multiverse type stuff. Assuming the process behind creation is not divine but natural and also random not intelligent then it's possible that through some mechanism there are many many acts of universe creation and that statistically the vast majority of them are lifeless or fail with only the ones that are just right (like ours) that produce life. To the self aware lifeforms of those few it would appear like winning the lottery and totally improbable. But then they have no knowledge of the countless others than are essentially dead.

Eh? Can you just go over that again from the word "depends"?

I know how you feel.

I was half way through reading that and couldnt take it in at all.

Just reading the words.

Way to much thinking for my head.

[kanny 19,341]

If the infinite multiverse is true then is there a universe where no other universes exist? Is there a universe where a creator exists? So many paradoxes ...I liked the multiverse theory at first but the more I've thought about it the more I think it reeks of scientific desperation and just grasping at straws to try and answer the fine tuning problem ...it's not complicated at all its the most basic attempt at a answer with zero science behind it.... in infinite universes anything is possible there you go a answer to everything.

Edited November 17, 2016 by kanny

[dytkos 17,534]

 

 

 

Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is Highly Probable World News Daily Reporthttp://worldnewsdailyreport.com/stephen-hawkins-admits-intelligent-design-is-highly-probable/

 

Intelligent design doesn't mean God. And the anthropic principle doesn't only have the conclusions of divine creation or single random act of nature.

God is just a term for the creator is it not?

Depends who you talk to but that's not really what I was getting at. I'll cut to the chase... Hawking's answer to the improbability of a universe forming life (the anthropic principle) is that the universe was created intelligently, not through the random process originally assumed. That doesn't mean God, as in a sentient intelligent being, simply an intelligent mechanism/process. One that can discriminate between life producing universe designs and non-life producing ones during the process of creation. A computer program would be an example, it's intelligent, not random but still not sentient as we would generally define a God to be. The concept is totally speculative and of courses raises plenty more questions!

 

It also doesn't even mean that there's no other natural options, or should that be non-divine options. For instance a very common theory is the concept of many worlds, multiverse type stuff. Assuming the process behind creation is not divine but natural and also random not intelligent then it's possible that through some mechanism there are many many acts of universe creation and that statistically the vast majority of them are lifeless or fail with only the ones that are just right (like ours) that produce life. To the self aware lifeforms of those few it would appear like winning the lottery and totally improbable. But then they have no knowledge of the countless others than are essentially dead.

Think I like that?

 

Cheers, D.

[Born Hunter 17,622]

If the infinite multiverse is true then is there a universe where no other universes exist? Is there a universe where a creator exists? So many paradoxes ...I liked the multiverse theory at first but the more I've thought about it the more I think it reeks of scientific desperation and just grasping at straws to try and answer the fine tuning problem ...it's not complicated at all its the most basic attempt at a answer with zero science behind it.... in infinite universes anything is possible there you go a answer to everything.

 

There's a few things to respond to there. For starters let me say that I didn't suggest there was infinite universes, just a creation process that produces/produced enough to make the creation of a life harboring one probable. I find the concept of infinity pretty unhelpful myself and tend to avoid it.

 

So, if there's multiple universes then no there can't be one where no others exist, by definition. Also i can't really see how there could be one where a God like creator exists either. Whatever mechanism creates these hypothetical universes, it's common to them all and beyond them not created with them. Besides God is supposed to transcend nature and science so I'm not sure how that's compatible. Now I'm not saying that God isn't this creator just that he isn't created with the universe. But then him creating all these universes just to make one that works seems a bit redundant when he could just use a bit of his omniscience and omnipotence and make a single one correctly! lol

 

It's worth mentioning again that I use the term multiverse very loosely. It doesn't have to mean there are a number of universes in existences simultaneously. Another solution using the same statistical line of thought would be a single universe (ours) that goes through a continuous process of creation and destruction (big bang big crunch?), each iteration being different with the vast majority lifeless.

 

It's not desperation, it's basic everyday logical thinking as part of the scientific process of fitting a theory to the observed evidence. The theory that the creation of this universe was random and a single act of creation does not fit in with the calculated/observed improbability of actually getting it right for life. So back to the drawing board and come up with a new theory, God is one, an intelligent natural creator (like a computer program) is another and multiverse theories are another yet. None of them can be considered very scientific yet because of the present impossibility of testing them, this is all speculative thinking and I try to make that very clear to people.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Born Hunter

[Born Hunter 17,622]

 

 

 

 

Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is Highly Probable World News Daily Report

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/stephen-hawkins-admits-intelligent-design-is-highly-probable/

Intelligent design doesn't mean God. And the anthropic principle doesn't only have the conclusions of divine creation or single random act of nature.

God is just a term for the creator is it not?

Depends who you talk to but that's not really what I was getting at. I'll cut to the chase... Hawking's answer to the improbability of a universe forming life (the anthropic principle) is that the universe was created intelligently, not through the random process originally assumed. That doesn't mean God, as in a sentient intelligent being, simply an intelligent mechanism/process. One that can discriminate between life producing universe designs and non-life producing ones during the process of creation. A computer program would be an example, it's intelligent, not random but still not sentient as we would generally define a God to be. The concept is totally speculative and of courses raises plenty more questions!

 

It also doesn't even mean that there's no other natural options, or should that be non-divine options. For instance a very common theory is the concept of many worlds, multiverse type stuff. Assuming the process behind creation is not divine but natural and also random not intelligent then it's possible that through some mechanism there are many many acts of universe creation and that statistically the vast majority of them are lifeless or fail with only the ones that are just right (like ours) that produce life. To the self aware lifeforms of those few it would appear like winning the lottery and totally improbable. But then they have no knowledge of the countless others than are essentially dead.

But surely us being sentient is strong evidence that the creator would be. Why would a creator give us joy, guilt, envy, pride, love, hate if it didn't feel and undertand those feelings too?

 

 

I'm not sure I follow. I thought we were talking about the creation of the universe not of Man. As far as I'm concerned our emotions are evolved in nature not created by God, essentially the question of this topic being "was nature created by God?".

[stealthy1 3,964]

God is just the forefather of Big Brother. And Jesus was just a clever magician.

[king 11,664]

 

 

If the infinite multiverse is true then is there a universe where no other universes exist? Is there a universe where a creator exists? So many paradoxes ...I liked the multiverse theory at first but the more I've thought about it the more I think it reeks of scientific desperation and just grasping at straws to try and answer the fine tuning problem ...it's not complicated at all its the most basic attempt at a answer with zero science behind it.... in infinite universes anything is possible there you go a answer to everything.

 

There's a few things to respond to there. For starters let me say that I didn't suggest there was infinite universes, just a creation process that produces/produced enough to make the creation of a life harboring one probable. I find the concept of infinity pretty unhelpful myself and tend to avoid it.

 

So, if there's multiple universes then no there can't be one where no others exist, by definition. Also i can't really see how there could be one where a God like creator exists either. Whatever mechanism creates these hypothetical universes, it's common to them all and beyond them not created with them. Besides God is supposed to transcend nature and science so I'm not sure how that's compatible. Now I'm not saying that God isn't this creator just that he isn't created with the universe. But then him creating all these universes just to make one that works seems a bit redundant when he could just use a bit of his omniscience and omnipotence and make a single one correctly! lol

 

It's worth mentioning again that I use the term multiverse very loosely. It doesn't have to mean there are a number of universes in existences simultaneously. Another solution using the same statistical line of thought would be a single universe (ours) that goes through a continuous process of creation and destruction (big bang big crunch?), each iteration being different with the vast majority lifeless.

 

It's not desperation, it's basic everyday logical thinking as part of the scientific process of fitting a theory to the observed evidence. The theory that the creation of this universe was random and a single act of creation does not fit in with the calculated/observed improbability of actually getting it right for life. So back to the drawing board and come up with a new theory, God is one, an intelligent natural creator (like a computer program) is another and multiverse theories are another yet. None of them can be considered very scientific yet because of the present impossibility of testing them, this is all speculative thinking and I try to make that very clear to people.