NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sorry, I don't know what a designer would or would not be able to do. I have said, time and time again, I'm not calling for the Judeo-Christain omni-omnii-God. This creator could create the universe and not understand the totality of what it has done.
Can you create something while inside it?

Can you create something while inside it?

No. So what?
Yes. So what?

So what you're basically advocating is that we use public money to fund the search for something that may be as small as an atom or as large as the universe, or have no size at all, which may, or may not, be bound by the physical laws of science and might, but not necessarily so, be concious of its actions.

And you don't find this a tad....stupid?

If you can't even define what you'll look for, how in hell do you expect to define how to look for it?

You just proved my point.

This can be applied to any scientific concept, since at some point definitions aren't created, yet researchers, so they think,are looking at something.

This can be applied to any scientific concept, since at some point definitions aren't created.

If I want to test if something falls down when I drop it, the first thing I do is....drop it. I dont need to konow the word "gravity" to test if things fall when I drop them.

If I want to see if wood catches on fire, the first thing I do is....light it on fire. I dont need the term "combustability" to see if things burn when I set them on fire.

If you can not describe what it is you're looking for, you can not conceive of any way to search for it, can you?

So what you're basically advocating is that we use public money to fund the search for something that may be as small as an atom or as large as the universe, or have no size at all, which may, or may not, be bound by the physical laws of science and might, but not necessarily so, be concious of its actions.

And you don't find this a tad....stupid?

Stupidity has nothing to do with this. It doesn't take much imagination to think of an "the earth is flat" anti-argument to what you've just said.

There's only so many objections I can take right now. I'll continue later.

Stupidity has nothing to do with this. It doesn't take much imagination to think of an "the earth is flat" anti-argument to what you've just said.

NOt in the slightest. "the earth is flat" defines a certain shape of the world. That shape can be tested, and if found valid, accepted, and if found invalid, refuted.

How do I test for a flat earth? I move in one direction. If I fall off it's flat. If I get back to where I started it's not. There's a test.

Explain how you search for something when you don't know what it looks like?

There's only so many objections I can take right now. I'll continue later.

The reasons there are "so many" objections is that you have failed to refute a single one.

Maybe that should tell you something.

No. So what?
Then a creator MUST be outside the universe. Since we can't out of out the universe (it kinda holds everything), we can never really find out. Nor can it be stated clearly that said creator is bound by the same laws we are.

Yes. So what?
Then the creator somehow managed to be inside something before it actually exisited in order to create it, but must have also been bound by the laws of the universe which doesn't normally allow that. You run headlong into a paradox and the universe collaspes.

What you're basically saying is this.

"I believe blargs to exist within the universe. I want the government to fund my search for these blargs."

"well, what's a blarg?"

"I have absolutly no idea."

"then how do you expect to find it?"

"I have absolutly no idea. Give me money.

Then a creator MUST be outside the universe. Since we can't out of out the universe (it kinda holds everything), we can never really find out. Nor can it be stated clearly that said creator is bound by the same laws we are.


Then the creator somehow managed to be inside something before it actually exisited in order to create it, but must have also been bound by the laws of the universe which doesn't normally allow that. You run headlong into a paradox and the universe collaspes.

Paradox, how? Since I've not stated what the properties the creator possess. Actually, look, I don't know shit, in, out, whatever, these are empirical questions. I'm NOT arguing full-blown Philosophy (if at all -- I want avoid it as much as possible) in this thread. If I wanted to, there are way more interesting topics. That is, I don't care about paradoxes here.

What you're basically saying is this.

"I believe blargs to exist within the universe. I want the government to fund my search for these blargs."

"well, what's a blarg?"

"I have absolutly no idea."

"then how do you expect to find it?"

"I have absolutly no idea. Give me money.

'Creator' is a concept. 'Blarg' isn't.

Paradox, how? Since I've not stated what the properties the creator possess. Actually, look, I don't know shit, in, out, whatever, these are empirical questions. I'm NOT arguing full-blown Philosophy (if at all -- I want avoid it as much as possible) in this thread. If I wanted to, there are way more interesting topics. That is, I don't care about paradoxes here.

So you concede then that you have no ideas of the properties of the creator, and thus have no idea how to look for it?

Thus then you concede that funding such a search would be a futile waste of money, since not only don't you know how to find it, you don't even know what you're looking for?

'Creator' is a concept. 'Blarg' isn't.

Sure it is. A creator creates.

A blarg blargs.

You have no idea what a creator looks like.

I have no idea what a blarg looks like

You have no idea how to find a creator

I have no idea how to find a blarg

I'd say there would be no differences what so ever in our search.

Paradox, how? Since I've not stated what the properties the creator possess. Actually, look, I don't know shit, in, out, whatever, these are empirical questions. I'm NOT arguing full-blown Philosophy (if at all -- I want avoid it as much as possible) in this thread. If I wanted to, there are way more interesting topics. That is, I don't care about paradoxes here.
*sighs* If the creator is INSIDE the universe, how did he/she/it/FSM manage to create it if they didn't have a place to stand on before it was created?

See? Paradox.

NOt in the slightest. "the earth is flat" defines a certain shape of the world. That shape can be tested, and if found valid, accepted, and if found invalid, refuted.

How do I test for a flat earth? I move in one direction. If I fall off it's flat. If I get back to where I started it's not. There's a test.

Explain how you search for something when you don't know what it looks like?

Yes, at some point it wasn't testable was it? Come on. Science does not know everything that is in its future. Really, please don't annoy me with something simple like this.

Read Plato. This Problem has been around since the Greeks -- Socrates, as Plato's chracter, came up with this problem, ok. Don't think I don't know it and don't try to trick me with it. Science is a process that ignores this question, it just happens. In fact, if I take this question you havce put forward to an extreme, then you get full blown scientific sckeptism. So be careful -- the political I.D.ers would like this.

*sighs* If the creator is INSIDE the universe, how did he/she/it/FSM manage to create it if they didn't have a place to stand on before it was created?

See? Paradox.

You want to work out the logic of this within a philosophic framework. Mate, you're in the wrong thread. Unless you want to claim that science and philosophy are the same, I don't care for paradoxes. Go to a Philosophy of Religion class.

I'm sorry, I don't know what a designer would or would not be able to do. I have said, time and time again, I'm not calling for the Judeo-Christain omni-omnii-God. This creator could create the universe and not understand the totality of what it has done.Science operates under the assumption that existence is governed by consistent & immutable laws. You can contest that assumption all you like, but it is none the less the cornerstone of science, and the scientific method would be nonsense without it. Whether or not the assumption is entirely, partially or not at all correct, is a debate that falls outside the realms of science.

A universe creator of any kind, whether it's a non-intelligent ball of snot or a Christian fundy deity, would necessitate that the assumption I've just described got tossed out the window. It would, because the act of creating existence would defy the laws that science assumes exist.

This limitation of science doesn't just prevent us from using science to learn about deities, it prevents us from trying to examine scientifically how existence came to be. The most we can ever hope to learn using science, is the exact moment existence became existence & everything that's happened since then. What lead to that first moment is forever beyond the grasp of science.

Tell me why "design liklihood" as a probalility is flawed. You know it is not just flawed for I.D.ers it is flawed no matter what you input. It is a form of statistics that is flawed.On my desktop (the virtual one), 5 coins lie tails up. I can, because I can directly observe (and intervene), say something about how probable it is this came to be. You, on the other hand, can't. For all you know, I have 999,999,999,999,999,999,999 coins lying on my desktop. I might actually have trillions upon trillions of times that number. I might also just have 5 coins. You can't even make an educated guess about whether or not I intervened with the way the coins face or it's down to chance. You can't, because you lack information & you cannot obtain it. Hell, even if I told you how & why the 5 coins came to lie tails up, I might easily be lying to you (intentionally or unintentionally).

And yet, design assumptions are even more baseless than the situation I've just outlined. You have every reason to believe a sentient being put those coins where they are & easily could arrange them. We know of no such entity or entities outside existence.

In the end, it doesn't matter if there's creator gods, monsters or drunken santas somewhere in the supernatural realms. Not to science anyway. If they're there, the scientific method will never ever pick up the slightest indication of them. If they're not there, the scientific method will never ever pick up the slightest indication of them.

It may be easier to think of it this way: we can't percieve anything but that which exists. If something created that which exists, then to us, it would have done it by an act of magic. Science cannot cope with magic.

Yes, at some point it wasn't testable was it? Come on. Science does not know everything that is in its future. Really, please don't annoy me with something simple like this.



And when science can test for a creator than science would best be served by being given the funding to search for a creator.

Now tell me what good funding a test to prove a round earth would have done before it could be tested and you will understand what good funding a search for a creator would do now.

You want to work out the logic of this within a philosophic framework. Mate, you're in the wrong thread. Unless you want to claim that science and philosophy are the same, I don't care for paradoxes. Go to a Philosophy of Religion class.
NERVUN's point, since it seems to have gone whizzing over your head at a high rate of speed, is that this question is, by definition, a philosophical one. It is not an empirical or a scientific question, no matter how you try to argue otherwise. Get over it, and accept it. You'll live longer without the stress.

You want to work out the logic of this within a philosophic framework. Mate, you're in the wrong thread. Unless you want to claim that science and philosophy are the same, I don't care for paradoxes. Go to a Philosophy of Religion class.
*sighs* The point being, that this is where ID belongs, philosopy of religion because ID brings these sorts of questions up.

NERVUN's point, since it seems to have gone whizzing over your head at a high rate of speed, is that this question is, by definition, a philosophical one. It is not an empirical or a scientific question, no matter how you try to argue otherwise. Get over it, and accept it. You'll live longer without the stress.

Hell, I'm even willing to concede, for the purposes of this thread (if not in a practical matter) that it IS an empircal question.

now I await your explination on how to logically search for something the properties of which are unknown, and a description of which is unavailable.

When you manage to do so I will fully, and without any irony, advocate that you be hailed as the greatest scientific mind in the history of humanity.

You want to work out the logic of this within a philosophic framework. Mate, you're in the wrong thread. Unless you want to claim that science and philosophy are the same, I don't care for paradoxes. Go to a Philosophy of Religion class.


Did....did I just see you admit that the proper place to work out the problems and concerns that get raised by this question is in a philosophy class?

Then isn't this whole thread...sorta pointless?

NERVUN's point, since it seems to have gone whizzing over your head at a high rate of speed, is that this question is, by definition, a philosophical one. It is not an empirical or a scientific question, no matter how you try to argue otherwise. Get over it, and accept it. You'll live longer without the stress.

I can't be bothered to go back into the argument that I have put forward pages back as to why this can be treated as an empirical question. It's there, go and look. Don't waste your time with replies like this, go and look. Be careful using words like, "no matter how you try to argue otherwise" as it shows your innocence in terms of Philosophy.

I can't be bothered to go back into the argument that I have put forward pages back as to why this can be treadted as an empirical question.

Even if I concede that it is an empirical question, which I will not do in reality, you still have failed to tell me what we do with that question once we've agreed it's an empirical one.

Did....did I just see you admit that the proper place to work out the problems and concerns that get raised by this question is in a philosophy class?

Then isn't this whole thread...sorta pointless?

No you didn't. I said if you want to treat this in an non-empirical way, go to a Phil. of Rel. class.

No you didn't.

Either the proper place to debate the problems raised by this issue is a "philosophies of religion class" or it is not.

Which is it?

Either the proper place to debate the problems raised by this issue is a "philosophies of religion class" or it is not.

Which is it?

What problems. How do you understand them?

Even if I concede that it is an empirical question, which I will not do in reality, you still have failed to tell me what we do with that question once we've agreed it's an empirical one.

Sighs loudly and longly and again and again. Go back and read the threads. This question has been answered.

What problems. How do you understand them?

Well the problem of "either the creator is outside of the universe, in which case you can't see it, or it created within the universe, and this existed in something that hadn't been created yet" paradox which, as you so said, would best be discussed in a philosophy class, yes?

This question has been answered.

Oh, so you proposed a method for which we can test the existance of a creator?

Must have missed it.

Hell, I'm even willing to concede, for the purposes of this thread (if not in a practical matter) that it IS an empircal question.

now I await your explination on how to logically search for something the properties of which are unknown, and a description of which is unavailable.

When you manage to do so I will fully, and without any irony, advocate that you be hailed as the greatest scientific mind in the history of humanity.

What does the search have to do with the price of bacon? I've asked, that once we have admited that this is an empirical question and that, consequently, science has the best methods to deal with empirical questions, HOW SHOULD WE PROCEED?

Oh, so you proposed a method for which we can test the existance of a creator?

Must have missed it.

No I didn't. I want to swear. There are certain nuances that you seem to not understand and they are very important.

Well the problem of "either the creator is outside of the universe, in which case you can't see it, or it created within the universe, and this existed in something that hadn't been created yet" paradox which, as you so said, would best be discussed in a philosophy class, yes?

Thank you, I appreciate that admission. Oh, this isn't an admission. Why the question mark at the end? What do you want? Does it have anything to do with empiricism?

I can't be bothered to go back into the argument that I have put forward pages back as to why this can be treated as an empirical question. It's there, go and look. Don't waste your time with replies like this, go and look. Be careful using words like, "no matter how you try to argue otherwise" as it shows your innocence in terms of Philosophy.
Sorry, bub, but I'm no innocent in the ways of philosophy. It's not like I'm some twelve-year old typing away in the basement here.

Besides, I'd think it was pretty clear at this point that I'm only mocking your continued insistence that you'e somehow taken an intrinsically philosophical question and tried to make an empirical and scientific question out of it. Your argument to do so, no matter how artfully contrived, is at its essence, crap.

What does the search have to do with the price of bacon? I've asked, that once we have admited that this is an empirical question and that, consequently, science has the best methods to deal with empirical questions, HOW SHOULD WE PROCEED?I think my head would explode if I were you.

How do you conclude that something is an empirical question if you cannot even begin to define it?

What does the search have to do with the price of bacon? I've asked, that once we have admited that this is an empirical question and that, consequently, science has the best methods to deal with empirical questions, HOW SHOULD WE PROCEED?

The way science always proceeds. Designs an experiment to test your hypothesis is the first step.

If you can not do so, then you are beyond the realm of scientific capabilities for the moment.

Since nobody has been able to conceive of a method to test for a creator, such a hypothesis is, at this time, untestable. And untestable hypotheses should receive neither public money, nor a place in the classroom.

So as to how we proceed, we wait for one smarter than you or I to develop a way to test for the creator.

I suspect we shall wait a long time.

I don't see anything wrong with a science teacher telling students that some things are beyond the realm of science, like creation, and that even though it is beyond science, 90% of people believe in God as a creator. How is that so crazy? For centuries it was the law, now it is criticized by many on the left and illegal in public schools. I see it as part of a larger conspiracy to remove the anchor of God from society so that moral relativism will become the new social order.

Sorry, bub, but I'm no innocent in the ways of philosophy. It's not like I'm some twelve-year old typing away in the basement here.

Besides, I'd think it was pretty clear at this point that I'm only mocking your continued insistence that you'e somehow taken an intrinsically philosophical question and tried to make an empirical and scientific question out of it. Your argument to do so, no matter how artfully contrived, is at its essence, crap.

Go use your mocking abilities somewhere else. If you are are so schooled in Philosophy, then you would know that many an empirical subject was born from Philosophy, BUB.

I suspect we shall wait a long time.5€ says the universe stops being able to sustain life before any sentient lifeform comes up with a solution.

I don't see anything wrong with a science teacher telling students that some things are beyond the realm of science, like creation, and that even though it is beyond science, 90% of people believe in God as a creator.

Because talking about what people believe, without experimental data, is not science, duh?

5€ says the universe stops being able to sustain life before any sentient lifeform comes up with a solution.

I thought I just did..heh:D

The way science always proceeds. Designs an experiment to test your hypothesis is the first step.

If you can not do so, then you are beyond the realm of scientific capabilities for the moment.

Since nobody has been able to conceive of a method to test for a creator, such a hypothesis is, at this time, untestable. And untestable hypotheses should receive neither public money, nor a place in the classroom.

So as to how we proceed, we wait for one smarter than you or I to develop a way to test for the creator.

I suspect we shall wait a long time.

Where does science first begin? That is, its very first step? Is it not a question, a question that has the POTENTIAL to be empirically tested?

Because talking about what people believe, without experimental data, is not science, duh?

Well, when a student brings up the topic (an inevitable) I see nothing wrong with a teacher giving an extra-scientific explanation for somthing that is extra-scientific. duh?

Where does science first begin? That is, its very first step? Is it not a question, a question that has the POTENTIAL to be empirically tested?

Science begins at the moment the first intelligent being thought "what happens if I do this". We don't even have a "this" to test.

At this time, the potential for that question to be tested is 0.

Come back to me when that changes, provided we both still live.

Because talking about what people believe, without experimental data, is not science, duh?

He's right here, what I'm arguing for is far away from this stage -- i.e. teaching in grade 12. At best, in uni, in a theoretical setting.

Where does science first begin? That is, its very first step? Is it not a question, a question that has the POTENTIAL to be empirically tested?

Science began when science was created by God. How ironic.

I thought I just did..heh:DSorry, but no. You provided no way to employ science to verify the existence of an extra-reality based entity or entities.

All you did was provide a way to sneak in religious indoctrination into public science education.

Well, when a student brings up the topic (an inevitable) I see nothing wrong with a teacher giving an extra-scientific explanation for somthing that is extra-scientific. duh?

Considering the class is dedicated to the discussion of SCIENCE, that which is "extra-scientific" should be afforded no time in the discussion, other than the statement that that question does not belong within the discussion.

The topic is outside the normal realm of science. I see nothing with a science teacher explaining where it all came from by using explanations that 90% of people agree on which fall outside the normal realm of science.

Go use your mocking abilities somewhere else. If you are are so schooled in Philosophy, then you would know that many an empirical subject was born from Philosophy, BUB.
But it's so much fun sittting here watching you not answer anyone's objections, and yet act as though you have. I think I'll stay.

He's right here, what I'm arguing for is far away from this stage -- i.e. teaching in grade 12. At best, in uni, in a theoretical setting.

A private university can do whatever the hell it wants. I may find it unscientific, but it's a private entity and I have no control in their activities.

A public one however draws funds from a public trust, and the public trust should not fund one cent into the scientific exploration of that which science can not possibly answer.

Sorry, but no. You provided no way to employ science to verify the existence of an extra-reality based entity or entities.

All you did was provide a way to sneak in religious indoctrination into public science education.

Exactly.

Science begins at the moment the first intelligent being thought "what happens if I do this". We don't even have a "this" to test.

At this time, the potential for that question to be tested is 0.

Come back to me when that changes, provided we both still live.

What are you talking about here? Fuck, the first time I picked up a violin I touched a string. Is that science. What are you talking about?

The topic is outside the normal realm of science. I see nothing with a science teacher explaining where it all came from by using explanations that 90% of people agree on which fall outside the normal realm of science.

If the explination falls outside the normal realm of science then why should it have any place in a class dedicated to what DOES fall within the realm of science?

If, as you just admitted, it is not science, then why should a class devoted to science waste any time on non scientific inquiry?

Science began when science was created by God. How ironic.Bloody heretic! Science began when science was created by the Supreme Sweaty Buttocks. Grrrr! I think it's about time we return to the old ways, where subersive heretics like you were burned at the stake.

Exactly.

So...you admit to wanting public schools to devote school discusion in promoting a specific religious viewpoint?

*points to the first amendment* see that?

A private university can do whatever the hell it wants. I may find it unscientific, but it's a private entity and I have no control in their activities.

A public one however draws funds from a public trust, and the public trust should not fund one cent into the scientific exploration of that which science can not possibly answer.

Buy the way, a public university is funded to study certain things and not other things -- read previous posts, read previous posts.

Considering the class is dedicated to the discussion of SCIENCE, that which is "extra-scientific" should be afforded no time in the discussion, other than the statement that that question does not belong within the discussion.

The origin of humanity is a topic that has to do with science that science cannot explain fully. Putting all viewpoints in is very valuable, especially the ones that most people agree on. Using your logic global warming is not science because it is political. Global warming belongs in a poli-sci class. I don't agree. Abortion, creation, global warming, are all part of a more full science education. I happen to believe that the more people explore the more they will come over to my side.

No, seriously. Stop, and go through the posts. Spend some time to frormulate arguments. Go through the all the posts and understand what the main problems are. Go. No...don't post anymore. Think.

What are you talking about here? Fuck, the first time I picked up a violin I touched a string. Is that science. What are you talking about?

Science is wondering what happens when you touch the string and realizing you make a note and wondering why.

If the question is "what happens when I touch this string" then the first step is touching the string.

The first step in answering the question "what happens when I touch this string" is touching the damned string.

You have proposed no first step in in how to answer the question "is there a creator". Nobody has since nobody can, and UNTIL they can, it deserves not one cent of public money.

If the explination falls outside the normal realm of science then why should it have any place in a class dedicated to what DOES fall within the realm of science?

If, as you just admitted, it is not science, then why should a class devoted to science waste any time on non scientific inquiry?

a student asks how people came to be on planet earth. Is a teacher to be silenced on the explanation that 90% of people believe? Censorship? And what if the teacher ignores the censorship? Can a teacher be fired for giving an explanation to a question merely because the answer involves God?

The secular grip on our schools tightens as the left gets a strangle hold on the young.....a captive audience.

Buy the way, a public university is funded to study certain things and not other things -- read previous posts, read previous posts.

And yet all that they are funded to study, CAN be studied.

The existance of a creator can not.

So...you admit to wanting public schools to devote school discusion in promoting a specific religious viewpoint?

*points to the first amendment* see that?

The one that starts with "congress shall pass no law"? Yeah.....um, I don't see what that has to do with the New York state or Alabama state board of education...:D

And yet all that they are funded to study, CAN be studied.

The existance of a creator can not.

They are also funded to come up with new hypothesis, which suits business needs. The existence of a creator has been negelcted. A pure or ideal scientist would be able to test the claim I've put forward.

a student asks how people came to be on planet earth. Is a teacher to be silenced on the explanation that 90% of people believe? [QUOTE]

The answer is "evolution is the best explination we have available, and better explains the existance of people on the planet than any other theory.


[QUOTE]Can a teacher be fired for giving an explanation to a question merely because the answer involves God?

If a teacher goes beyond his or her job description and decides to teach things that he is not supposed to teach (such as, non scientific topics in a science class) then damned right he deserves to be fired. Just as an art teacher should be fired if he decides he'd rather not teach art today, and leads the class in a lesson on calculus.

The secular grip on our schools tightens as the left gets a strangle hold on the young.....a captive audience.

Those fucking leftist bastards, how dare they want public schools to be free of religion just because the supreme law of the land says that public funds can not be used to promote religion?

Science is wondering what happens when you touch the string and realizing you make a note and wondering why.

If the question is "what happens when I touch this string" then the first step is touching the string.

The first step in answering the question "what happens when I touch this string" is touching the damned string.

You have proposed no first step in in how to answer the question "is there a creator". Nobody has since nobody can, and UNTIL they can, it deserves not one cent of public money.


your version of reality:
Student: Who made the string?
Teacher: a person made the string and I can't discuss where people come from, that is outside the realm of science.

heheh

a student asks how people came to be on planet earth. Is a teacher to be silenced on the explanation that 90% of people believe? Censorship? And what if the teacher ignores the censorship? Can a teacher be fired for giving an explanation to a question merely because the answer involves God?
In a word, yes.

The secular grip on our schools tightens as the left gets a strangle hold on the young.....a captive audience.
Secular or not, the fact is that we live in a world now dominated by science and technology, and we do our children no favors by acting as though we don't. And on a side note, were your namesake alive today, I suspect he'd bitchslap you upside the head for defaming his memory in such a lucidrous way.

They are also funded to come up with new hypothesis, which suits business needs.

hypotheses....which can be tested.

I promise you no scientist in the country is employed to come up with hypotheses that can not be observationally or mathematically tested.

your version of reality:
Student: Who made the string?
Teacher: a person made the string and I can't discuss where people come from, that is outside the realm of science.

heheh

yes, that is exactly my vision of things.

And if a teacher deviates from his job then that teacher should be fired.

They are also funded to come up with new hypothesis, which suits business needs. The existence of a creator has been negelcted. A pure or ideal scientist would be able to test the claim I've put forward.

Test it...how?

Have you come up with a method while I was in the bathroom?

hypotheses....which can be tested.

I promise you no scientist in the country is employed to come up with hypotheses that can not be observationally or mathematically tested.

You promise? So you know them all? Anyway, that no one is employed is beside the point, which you would understand if you had payed close attention to this thread and the more serious discussions herein.

[QUOTE=Barrygoldwater]

Those fucking leftist bastards, how dare they want public schools to be free of religion just because the supreme law of the land says that public funds can not be used to promote religion?

ah, sarcasm. "Congress shall pass no law" that's how the first Amendment starts, it has nothing to do with that states at all. What state has a Congress?

the concept of a wall of seperation between "church" and "state" came from Hugo Black, a member of the KKK who invented it while on the court in 1962. Middle of the civil rights movement, all those black churches and nothern Jews causing trouble for his fellow klansmen....what a coincidence....talk about bad precedent......

The one that starts with "congress shall pass no law"? Yeah.....um, I don't see what that has to do with the New York state or Alabama state board of education...:D

Well...fair enough.

*points to the 14th amendment* there, that one should do nicely.

Test it...how?

Have you come up with a method while I was in the bathroom?

If you had played closer attention to this thread and the discussions herein you would not ask this question. This question was answered yesterday. Please go back and read the threads instead of wasting time responding to me. Thank you.

Well...fair enough.

*points to the 14th amendment* there, that one should do nicely.


I am fully aware of the 14th Amendment. No state has a Congress. A group of activist judges and a Klansmen fail to change my mind.

[QUOTE=Arthais101]
the concept of a wall of seperation between "church" and "state" came from Hugo Black, a member of the KKK who invented it while on the court in 1962. Middle of the civil rights movement, all those black churches and nothern Jews causing trouble for his fellow klansmen....what a coincidence....talk about bad precedent......

Historically incorrect. Jefferson coined the phrase long before 1962.

You fail at history.

If you had played closer attention to this thread and the discussions herein you would not ask this question. This question was answered yesterday. Please go back and read the threads instead of wasting time responding to me. Thank you.


so...that's a no then?

Let me explain it so you can understand. You advocate giving funds to scientists to test the existance of a creator, yet you yourself admit that no such test currently exists.

So what, exactly, would those funds go for?

[QUOTE=Barrygoldwater]

Historically incorrect. Jefferson coined the phrase long before 1962.

You fail at history.

Now you're quoting youself? Are you a troll? It seems like it in some ways.

[QUOTE=Barrygoldwater]

Historically incorrect. Jefferson coined the phrase long before 1962.

You fail at history.

Jefferson coined it in a letter to the danbury Babtists. Jefferson has nothing to do with the Constitution. Blacks majority in opinion in Engle v. Vitale ( 1962), was where it was introduced to Constitutional law. I am a history major with a 4.0 GPA. And I rememered the things I just wrote off the top of my head. You fail at trying to insult me or make me look dumb.:sniper:

so...that's a no then?

Let me explain it so you can understand. You advocate giving funds to scientists to test the existance of a creator, yet you yourself admit that no such test currently exists.

So what, exactly, would those funds go for?


You're ignored until you make an effort to go back and read what has already been argued.

Now you're quoting youself? Are you a troll? It seems like it in some ways.


That's because he broke the damned quote syntax and I couldn't be bothered to fix it.

Or are you directing that at barry since that's who it seems YOU are quoting...

[QUOTE=Arthais101]

Now you're quoting youself? Are you a troll? It seems like it in some ways.

wait what? I did not quote myself! (?).....

You're ignored until you make an effort to go back and read what has already been argued.

In other words...you can't answer my question.

Fair enough, you have no argument. Noted.

so...that's a no then?

Let me explain it so you can understand. You advocate giving funds to scientists to test the existance of a creator, yet you yourself admit that no such test currently exists.

So what, exactly, would those funds go for?

Developing methods I suppose. All methods that have been developed within science needed someone to pay for them. I know, it's complicated.

Jefferson coined it in a letter to the danbury Babtists. Jefferson has nothing to do with the Constitution. Blacks majority in opinion in Engle v. Vitale ( 1962), was where it was introduced to Constitutional law. I am a history major with a 4.0 GPA. And I rememered the things I just wrote off the top of my head. You fail at trying to insult me or make me look dumb.:sniper:

And yet you still feel like you know better than 43 years of supreme court precidence.

In which case, you just fail at life.

Developing methods I suppose. All methods that have been developed within science needed someone to pay for them. I know, it's complicated.

Ah, ok, and where should we begin developing those methods? What you fail to see is if you don't know where to start you can NOT develop methods.

If you can't define creator you can not begin to search for it, or even develop methods for searching for what you don't know.

And yet you still feel like you know better than 43 years of supreme court precidence.

In which case, you just fail at life.

What's this got to do with the thread?

[QUOTE=Barrygoldwater]

And yet you still feel like you know better than 43 years of supreme court precidence.

In which case, you just fail at life.

I do not claim to "know better", I disagree with the precedent and hope it is abandoned as countless other bad precedents have been in the past ( look up Plessy v. Ferguson). I fail at few things.:cool:

Developing methods I suppose. All methods that have been developed within science needed someone to pay for them. I know, it's complicated.

Newton needed someone to pay him to watch apples fall?

Einstein was paid to discover the formula e=mc^2?

Krunk the caveman needed money to see what happened when someone rubbed two sticks together?

What's this got to do with the thread?


My attempt to explain my Constitutional view on the subject was met with scoffing and underhanded backslaps. It was petty and pointless...I guess I won't bring up that facet again.

What's this got to do with the thread?

I do not believe I directed that comment to you. Go back and read and find out.

Ah, ok, and where should we begin developing those methods? What you fail to see is if you don't know where to start you can NOT develop methods.

If you can't define creator you can not begin to search for it, or even develop methods for searching for what you don't know.

Listen, no one knows where to start. if they did there wouldn't be much point in starting since they would already know. One more of these stupid tricks and will not respond to you.

Newton needed someone to pay him to watch apples fall?

Einstein was paid to discover the formula e=mc^2?

Krunk the caveman needed money to see what happened when someone rubbed two sticks together?


Indeed! The modern left does not understand that science and scientific research can and usualy is done without government funding. In fact, it is often done better in the private sector.

My attempt to explain my Constitutional view on the subject was met with scoffing and underhanded backslaps. It was petty and pointless...I guess I won't bring up that facet again.

That MAY have something to do with the fact that your constitutional view is wrong.

But how could it be, you're after all...in COLLEGE.

I do not believe I directed that comment to you. Go back and read and find out.

You're right, I will actually go back and spend some time to understand your discussion properly. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Otherwise, I might of started going about things that had been previously discussed and worked out. Thanks.

That MAY have something to do with the fact that your constitutional view is wrong.

.

It is wrong in your opinion and right in other people's opinions. The court often changes its mind on such matters. No need to keep on talking down like that.

Listen, no one knows where to start. if they did there wouldn't be much point in starting since they would already know. One more of these stupid tricks and will not respond to you.

I believe as I said, the question of "what happens when I drop this rock" has a pretty logical starting point of dropping the rock and watching.

To assume that no question has a logical starting point is both a fallacy, and a great musinderstanding of science.

It is wrong in your opinion and right in other people's opinions. The court often changes its mind on such matters. No need to keep on talking down like that.

There's a perfectly good reason to talk down like that. I find your opinion to be stupid and idiotic, and thus I will address it as such

I believe as I said, the question of "what happens when I drop this rock" has a pretty logical starting point of dropping the rock and watching.

To assume that no question has a logical starting point is both a fallacy, and a great musinderstanding of science.

I agree, the consequence to me is....

"A logical starting point". What is that?

The existence of a creator has been negelcted. A pure or ideal scientist would be able to test the claim I've put forward.No. If you invested 5 bloody minutes of your life into reading what science actually is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) you'd know why what you're saying is pure nonsense. It just doesn't work that way.

The only way to allow the assumption that existence was/is designed, is to verify the existence of a capable designer. So far, the only way I've seen any IDists propose verifying the existence of a capable designer, is by assuming that existence was/is designed.

Circular reasoning & arguments from awe simply don't cut it in when working with a tool that operates on logic. Magic & science aren't compatible. You need to use a different tool. Theology, for example. Unlike science, theology is meant to handle magic.

research can and usualy is done without government funding. In fact, it is often done better in the private sector.

Thank you, you've just argued in favor of my point for the last 5ish pages.

I believe as I said, the question of "what happens when I drop this rock" has a pretty logical starting point of dropping the rock and watching.

To assume that no question has a logical starting point is both a fallacy, and a great musinderstanding of science.

how about this for a starting point: Every culture in history believes in one or multiple higher powers. Billions of people believe that the origin of their creation is a diety (God). How could the brilliantly organized chaos of the universe hae started without an intelligent designer? How could it have? Bingo. Start the research.

I agree, the consequence to me is....

"A logical starting point". What is that?

A logical starting point would seem to be a place to start that would logically bring about the results you wish to have.

if I want to see what happens when I drop the rock, the place to start that would logically bring about the result I seek is to...drop the rock.

If I want to see if there is a creator, the place to start that would logicially bring about the result i seek is......what?

Nobody knows, and until we DO know, we have NO place to start with the inquiry, and NO amount of money will EVER change that.

There's a perfectly good reason to talk down like that. I find your opinion to be stupid and idiotic, and thus I will address it as such

I don't do name calling. You do. The difference is not the strength of difference of opinion, it is the civility which I practice. Please change your ways, they undermine your credibility and the overall quality of the forum.

how about this for a starting point: Every culture in history believes in one or multiple higher powers. Billions of people believe that the origin of their creation is a diety (God). How could the brilliantly organized chaos of the universe hae started without an intelligent designer? How could it have? Bingo. Start the research.

I have no idea how to begin that research. I have absolutly no idea how to test for what exists beyond our observable universe. NObody does. That is outside of science. Therefore it should neither be funded as science, nor discussed in science class.

Thank you, you've just argued in favor of my point for the last 5ish pages.

Your welcome. I like how you have kept your composure while others have resorted to nasty wording and even petty name calling. I am glad to see that our side is the side of civility.;)

No. If you invested 5 bloody minutes of your life into reading what science actually is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) you'd know why what you're saying is pure nonsense. It just doesn't work that way.

The only way to allow the assumption that existence was/is designed, is to verify the existence of a capable designer. So far, the only way I've seen any IDists propose verifying the existence of a capable designer, is by assuming that existence was/is designed.

Circular reasoning & arguments from awe simply don't cut it in when working with a tool that operates on logic. Magic & science aren't compatible. You need to use a different tool. Theology, for example. Unlike science, theology is meant to handle magic.

Oh you. Listen, many a scientist has a concept in her head -- even evolution, would you believe it? -- before they have even begun investigating. Oh, you didn't know? Really? The theory of evolution is question begging. Everyone admits, but no one cares. This ain't fallacy theory --FYI what you're talking about isn't logic either, I'm sorry.

I don't do name calling. You do. The difference is not the strength of difference of opinion, it is the civility which I practice. Please change your ways, they undermine your credibility and the overall quality of the forum.

OK I will admit calling it stupid went beyond the realm of civility.

it is however irrelevant as, regardless of your opinion, under law it does. And SINCE it does, and since it IS the law, religion should stay the hell out of public education, since that is, after all, the law. Savy?

A logical starting point would seem to be a place to start that would logically bring about the results you wish to have.

You don't know what logic is. Why are you talking about it? Think of some other word and start again.

I have no idea how to begin that research. I have absolutly no idea how to test for what exists beyond our observable universe. NObody does. That is outside of science. Therefore it should neither be funded as science, nor discussed in science class.

Indeed it cannot be funded, but not even mentioned in passing in class? I don't know...

OK I will admit calling it stupid went beyond the realm of civility.

it is however irrelevant as, regardless of your opinion, under law it does. And SINCE it does, and since it IS the law, religion should stay the hell out of public education, since that is, after all, the law. Savy?

What I am for is changing the interpretation of the law. That is what I support. Until then, of course, we must abide by the letter of it.

Indeed it cannot be funded, but not even mentioned in passing in class? I don't know...

It can not be mentioned not because it is religion, but because simply it's not science.

I dont know how more to explain it than that. It's not science. It does not meet the requirements of scientific principles. Thus it does not belong in a science class.

You don't know what logic is. Why are you talking about it? Think of some other word and start again.


Adapted From: WordNet 2.0 Copyright 2003 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

logic
1 reasoned and reasonable judgment; "it made a certain kind of logic"

A "reasoned and reasonable" starting point would be to begin with a place that would "under reasoned and reasonable judgment" be likely to cause the results you wish to have.

My use of the word is entirely proper unless you wish to explain to me why the above sentence is nonsensical.

What I am for is changing the interpretation of the law.

I suspect that like the OP, you will be waiting for a very long time.

It can not be mentioned not because it is religion, but because simply it's not science.

I dont know how more to explain it than that. It's not science. It does not meet the requirements of scientific principles. Thus it does not belong in a science class.

Nothing that is not a scientific fact belongs in a science class? If a student asks about UFO's a teacher cannot respond? If a students asks about what lies beyond black holes a teacher cannot answer? I love how more Americans believe in the virgin birth of Christ then believe in evolution yet guess which one is dangerous for a teacher to bring up? Good grief, until 1925 it was illegal to teach anything but creationism and we still had the same first Amendment in 1924 as we do now.

Indeed it cannot be funded, but not even mentioned in passing in class? I don't know...


Science deals in facts, religions do not.
Therefore, in a science class....we do not allow the teaching of anything that isnt fact.

If you chose to go to a Catholic school, and they teach creationism in the classroom, and you have no problem with that, theres nothing wrong with that, so long as they dont attempt to discredit legitimate science.

In a public school, where many different cultures and many different religions attend, theres no place for one single religion, so to be fair to all...we dismiss them all.
More importantly, I feel, religion has no place in any science class.

I suspect that like the OP, you will be waiting for a very long time.


4 words: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito.

one fact: Liberal Justice John Paul Stevens is 86.
Another fact: George W. Bush is the President.

I wonder how long it will be......

Nothing that is not a scientific fact belongs in a science class? If a student asks about UFO's a teacher cannot respond? If a students asks about what lies beyond black holes a teacher cannot answer? I love how more Americans believe in the virgin birth of Christ then believe in evolution yet guess which one is dangerous for a teacher to bring up? Good grief, until 1925 it was illegal to teach anything but creationism and we still had the same first Amendment in 1924 as we do now.

Well as you said the 1st doesn't actually apply, the 14th does.

If a student asks about UFOs the teacher can explain what evidence we may have for them, and what physics would be behind them.

If a student asks about what lies beyond black holes a teacher can explain what evidence we have for that.

If a student asks about what created creation a teacher can explain what evidence we have for that. In which case, 0.

4 words: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito.

one fact: Liberal Justice John Paul Stevens is 86.
Another fact: George W. Bush is the President.

I wonder how long it will be......


You think that Roberts doesn't believe in incorporation? Even Scalia wouldn't go that far.

In a public school, where many different cultures and many different religions attend, theres no place for one single religion, so to be fair to all...we dismiss them all.
.

There is a place. The pledge of alliegience, and the many classes within. 70% of America is Christian and 90% believes in God. You either have tyranny of the majority ot tyranny of the minority. I choose the majority because that makes more people happy. You choose the minority because you agree with them on principal.

Time for bed. God bless.

how about this for a starting point: Every culture in history believes in one or multiple higher powers. Billions of people believe that the origin of their creation is a diety (God). How could the brilliantly organized chaos of the universe hae started without an intelligent designer? How could it have? Bingo. Start the research.Please review the link I posted & read up on modern astrophysics. Do it, because then you won't have to take my word for anything.

We know now, due to physical evidence, that the universe isn't static. It had a beginning & it is changing. The beginning is usually refered to as the Big Bang. Whether this beginning was exactly as we think it was or slightly different, makes no difference for the purposes of this debate. It's enough that we have evidence showing the universe had a beginning.

As the universe is now, it seems to operate on rules. Science makes this assumption as part of the methodology, and the assumption cannot be discarded without undoing the method altogether.

The lack of the universe suspends all those rules. This is why science cannot be used to examine anything before the moment of the inception of the universe. Whether or not a bunch of drunken gods thought the big bang would be a fun pasttime on a boring Sunday afternoon, or the birth of our universe was created by the collapse of another, is irrelevant. Science can't examine that to which no known rules applies. The only thing we can use science to ascertain, is that the rules that govern the universe are byproducts of the universe.

Nothing that is not a scientific fact belongs in a science class? If a student asks about UFO's a teacher cannot respond? If a students asks about what lies beyond black holes a teacher cannot answer? I love how more Americans believe in the virgin birth of Christ then believe in evolution yet guess which one is dangerous for a teacher to bring up? Good grief, until 1925 it was illegal to teach anything but creationism and we still had the same first Amendment in 1924 as we do now.


Would you prefer some teacher instructing her class on how UFO's are actually inhabitants of the planet Xulton, and that armed with thier cottage-cheese guns, they will soon attempt global domination?

Either way, such a teacher cant teach, what she doesnt know.

As far as black holes, go...perhaps the teacher might recommend her students read a Stephen Hawkings book.

There is a place. The pledge of alliegience, and the many classes within. 70% of America is Christian and 90% believes in God. You either have tyranny of the majority ot tyranny of the minority. I choose the majority because that makes more people happy. You choose the minority because you agree with them on principal.


The pledge of allegiance isnt mandatory, and more than one lawsuit has been won by an angry parent whos child was punished for not complying with the demands of a teacher who insisted every child performed it.

You side with the majority becuase you have no capacity to think outside the norm.
Going with the flow seems safe to you doesnt it?

Theres no shame in it, but do not assume you do not base your own actions on your own principles.
In fact, you base them on others.

Adapted From: WordNet 2.0 Copyright 2003 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

logic
1 reasoned and reasonable judgment; "it made a certain kind of logic"

A "reasoned and reasonable" starting point would be to begin with a place that would "under reasoned and reasonable judgment" be likely to cause the results you wish to have.

My use of the word is entirely proper unless you wish to explain to me why the above sentence is nonsensical.

I'm not sure what is going on with 1, since you seem to use the word "logic" as part if your defenition. I don't know, do the quotation marks constitue an example?

I have exstensive experience with logic. It is a formal system in which every part of it is defined and it is deductive. For the simplest kind of logic, google search sentential logic.

Barrygoldwater :A creator for the universe is science

Others: If it is science it is testable and falsifiable. How is a creator for the universe testable and falsifiable?

Barrygoldwater : Well if there was a creator for the universe people should be given money to study it and it should be taught in science class because 90% of people believe in a creator for the universe.

Others: If it is science it is testable and falsifiable. How is a creator for the universe testable and falsifiable? And where did you get your statistics from?

Barrygoldwater : Well if there was a creator for the universe people should be given money to study it and it should be taught in science class because 90% of people believe in a creator for the universe.

Others: If it is science it is testable and falsifiable. How is a creator for the universe testable and falsifiable? And where did you get your statistics from?

Ad nauseum………………..


To Barrygoldwater a challenge: Just answer the damn question. How is a creator for the universe testable and falsifiable? If you cannot ,and no one else appears able to either, then how is it science and why should it be in science classes?

Creation isnt science. ID is creation disguised as science.

I'm not sure what is going on with 1, since you seem to use the word "logic" as part if your defenition. I don't know, do the quotation marks constitue an example?

......my god you're thick


I have exstensive experience with logic. It is a formal system in which every part of it is defined and it is deductive. For the simplest kind of logic, google search sentential logic.

How can you be experienced with logic when you do not recognize the common definition of the word?

Seems very illogical.

I'm sorry, I don't know what a designer would or would not be able to do. I have said, time and time again, I'm not calling for the Judeo-Christain omni-omnii-God. This creator could create the universe and not understand the totality of what it has done.

But that it was able to put the laws in place *suggests* it was able to exist without them.

Tell me why "design liklihood" as a probalility is flawed.

I am not certain it is actually. My flawed comment referred to the concepts of irreducible complexity and design inference.

The only place for ID in science would be with Lysenkoism. They are both attempts to subvert science by people who disagree with science because of their beliefs.

I.D. has it's place in science alright: Alongside other valuable theories like a flat Earth, the sun revolving around the Earth, the four humors, hollow earth theory and moon cheese.

......my god you're thick




How can you be experienced with logic when you do not recognize the common definition of the word?

Seems very illogical.

I'm done with you, thanks for coming out.

I don't particularly care what created us, as long as it is intenional. The properties of the creator are irrelvant at this point. All I want is the non-I.D.ers to admit that a God hypothesis within theoretical physics is possible.
It's not. It can't be, and if you think it is, you're wrong.

I'm done with you, thanks for coming out.

By failing to challenge my definition you concede it. Thus you admit I'm right. Thanks.

And round and round we go..

ID'ers: We should look for a designer that ,by definition, is beyond science.

Science supporters: Only if you recognize a "designer" could then be disproven.

ID'ers: but it "might" be possible even if there is no evidence whatsoever so we should look for it.

Science supporters: Go ahead, but don't teach it in science as a legitimate theory until you have something to support it.

ID'ers: But we should teach it in science because lots of people believe it even if there is no evidence.

Science supporters: Just because people believe it doesn't make it science. There is no evidence whatsoever.

Ider's: So we should look for a designer that ,by definition, is beyond science.

And round and round we go..

ID'ers: We should look for a designer that ,by definition, is beyond science.

Science supporters: Only if you recognize a "designer" could then be disproven.

ID'ers: but it "might" be possible even if there is no evidence whatsoever so we should look for it.

Science supporters: Go ahead, but don't teach it in science as a legitimate theory until you have something to support it.

ID'ers: But we should teach it in science because lots of people believe it even if there is no evidence.


Science supporters: Just because people believe it doesn't make it science. There is no evidence whatsoever.

Ider's: So we should look for a designer that ,by definition, is beyond science.

First, we did not find it necessary to cliaim that I.D. should be taught in the classroom, except to keep the discussion going. Anyway, this is a different problem than working out whether science could investigate evidence of a creator.

How, by definition as you claim, is looking for a creator beyond science. That is, how does the definition of science preclude this endeavour?

Here goes. We have agreed that the question, "did a creator create the universe?" is an empirical question. Since the best way to deal with empirical questions is the scientific method and as this question is empirical, then science should confront and deal with this question. In order for science to proceed, it needs funding -- either governmentally or privately. Whether a creator created the universe is one of the most important questions since understanding how the universe was created can have far reaching consequences throughout all science. Therefore, science should heavily fund I.D. orientated scientists in order to answer the question, "did a creator create the universe?" Furthermore, we would want the younger generations to begin thinking about this question so that they could either solve the question or, at least, contrubite to the methods that might be used to find the answer. Hence, I.D. ought to be taught in schools.

Bring it on Humeans.
Fund WHAT? What is actually going to be funded? I thought we agreed that we have no way to forge ahead to answer the question. At least not now. Who will be funded? Where will that money go? How do you even begin?

how does the definition of science preclude this endeavour?

Because it can not be tested or experimented by any method known.

First, we did not find it necessary to cliaim that I.D. should be taught in the classroom, except to keep the discussion going. Anyway, this is a different problem than working out whether science could investigate evidence of a creator.

How, by definition as you claim, is looking for a creator beyond science. That is, how does the definition of science preclude this endeavour?

Since you were the one that kept making the arguements to "read the thread", perhaps you should "read the thread" on how a "creator" would have to be outside the universe to create it, therefore it would be outside empirical analysis, which is why science does not deny it, but cannot take it into account.

How many more times does this have to be stated?

You keep making the implication that a "creator" can be found by empirical evidence but cannot offer in any way, shape, or form, a suggestion on what to look for or how to go about it.

Once again, until that happens, there is no place for ID w/i science.

Because it can not be tested or experimented by any method known.


............and round and round and round..............

............and round and round and round..............

I keep hoping that somehow in some way THIS time it'll click....

Since you were the one that kept making the arguements to "read the thread", perhaps you should "read the thread" on how a "creator" would have to be outside the universe to create it, therefore it would be outside empirical analysis, which is why science does not deny it, but cannot take it into account.

How many more times does this have to be stated?

You keep making the implication that a "creator" can be found by empirical evidence but cannot offer in any way, shape, or form, a suggestion on what to look for or how to go about it.

Once again, until that happens, there is no place for ID w/i science.

So what, I can't give you a suggestion as to what to look for. I mean, you are setting a trap. If I give something to look for, then you will just argue against that. Instead, I've merely claimed that the claim that a creator created the universe is an empirical question.

OK, for your logical problem. Here's a solution, a creator created the universe and then decided to live inside the universe affecting events. That was easy.

OK, for your logical problem. Here's a solution, a creator created the universe and then decided to live inside the universe affecting events. That was easy.What happens when you find no trace of your deity?

What happens when you find no trace of your deity?

For me: See ya deity. If Science decides to investigate this question and the claim that, "a creator does not exist" is verified, then there will be those that will still believe becuae it is a inductive claim and could be wrong.

For me: See ya deity.

You mean: "see ya deity that exists in this universe and conforms to this universes rules". Because that would be all you'd be allowed to conclude.

I think very few believers would be convinced by that.

You mean: "see ya deity that exists in this universe and conforms to this universes rules". Because that would be all you'd be allowed to conclude.

I think very few believers would be convinced by that.


So what? Believers wouldn't like it. Hence, I said that a true believer wouldn't care what Science claims, since Science is inductive.

So what, I can't give you a suggestion as to what to look for. I mean, you are setting a trap. If I give something to look for, then you will just argue against that. Instead, I've merely claimed that the claim that a creator created the universe is an empirical question.

Until you have something to test for and/or and empirical evidence to provide, it is a philisophical question, not an empirical one.

OK, for your logical problem. Here's a solution, a creator created the universe and then decided to live inside the universe affecting events. That was easy.

Now you get to provide evidence of this.


......round and round and round and round.....