Creationism--Proof ?

[C1ay]

the real questions are: who/what created the universe? and who/what created life ? everything else flows from this.

Don't those questions assume that there was a creation. I think those questions should actually be proceeded by, "Was the universe created?" and "Was life created?". What good does it do to search for who shot J.R. if J.R. wasn't shot in the first place?

[TRoutMac]

Word games are nice. Scholasts and lawyers play them well.

 

You forgot naturalists, Darwinists.

 

And that is nonsense as we observe.

 

Damocles, you don't have to explain to me the difference between an explanation and a phenomenon. All you have to do is provide me with a natural explanation that cannot itself be referred to as a natural phenomenon. If you can do that, then you're out of the box. But you can't, which is why you spent so much energy drawing a distinction between the two words, a distinction I never even disputed. The distinction in definition is not the point. The definition and usage of the word "phenomenon" is sufficiently broad to encompass the subject of any natural explanation you can devise.

 

If a god exists, who created him?

 

What's the matter? Got a problem with the concept of eternality?

 

You believe in the eternality of matter and energy, so why can't I believe in the eternality of God? Attributing eternality to a supernatural being is not against the rules of science, (because science can have no knowledge of the supernatural) but attributing eternality to tangible, natural matter and energy is against the rules because in the natural realm, every effect must have a cause and we know that the universe is not eternal… it had a beginning. C1ay referred numerous times in a recent post to "T=0" meaning the beginning of time. Well, if the universe is eternal, then there's no such thing as T=0.

 

On a scientific basis, you cannot say that "first there was nothing, and then it exploded". You cannot say that life began in some prehistoric goo, because you have to explain where the goo came from. You also cannot refer to a "big crunch" that may have preceeded the "big bang" and then say that you've answered the question, because you then have to explain where the "big crunch" came from. And on it goes, ad infinitum. If you limit yourself to natural explanations, then that's what you get… a literally infinite string of natural explanations, none of which will ever be able to actually answer the question that's driving the research, which is, "How did we get here?" Methodological naturalism can never provide us with an exhaustive answer to the question… it's an albatross around your neck.

 

On the other hand, since we cannot know anything about the supernatural realm, about its function, its limitations, etc., we can't say something that's supernatural can't be infinite or eternal. Therefore, my answer to your question (if you didn't figure it out already) is that God is eternal. He had no creator, He needs no creator. Is that testable? Absolutely not. But it makes more sense in that it is an exhaustive answer. It's not just pushing the question back another step.

[questor]

here may be some better questions :

how did the universe occur?

how did order occur in the universe?

how did information ( such as that in DNA ) occur?

without order there is chaos. the universe is ordered from the smallest particle to the largest event. events tend to be chaotic and random unless controlled by some force.

what could that force be?

DNA produces the order of reproduction. it contains information and is present in all living things.

chaos would mean that there are no curbs or predictability in evolution.

all of this occurred before man invented God. it has nothing to do with man's concept of God.

[C1ay]

...every effect must have a cause and we know that the universe is not eternal… it had a beginning.

No, we do not know if the universe is eternal or not and we do not know that it had a beginning. If you have proof to the contrary please present it.

[TRoutMac]

No, we do not know if the universe is eternal or not and we do not know that it had a beginning. If you have proof to the contrary please present it.

 

If you don't recognise that the universe had a beginning (is finite) then why did you use the term "T=0" in your earlier post? Isn't true that if the universe had no beginning that there's no such point in time to which we can refer?

[C1ay]

If you don't recognise that the universe had a beginning (is finite) then why did you use the term "T=0" in your earlier post? Isn't true that if the universe had no beginning that there's no such point in time to which we can refer?

I only used it because it is the standard reference for the beginning of the universe we see, not because I think it really was the beginning of time. We have no way to know if time had any beginning and likely never will. We also have zero evidence that there was ever a point in time when there was nothing, no energy, no matter such that they could be created. If they were created though, what could they have been forged from if there truly was nothing? What could have been used for building blocks and what evidence to we have to form a valid hypothesis that this was the case?

[damocles]

The Question is not WHAT.

The Question is not WHO.

The Question is HOW?

 

Again the word games.

 

T=0?

Has no-one learned this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number

Plug those numbers into some equations and look at some of the results.

 

I don't have to provide an exclusion set of phenomena to anyone, especially when such an exclusion set apriori would impose a field boundary of non-information distribution.

 

That would defeat the purpose of the ID argument and if the ID proponents cannot see that, then they don't understand this statement.

 

For a god to create a universe, it becomes part of it.

 

That anyone would try this: to pull the wool over the eyes of people by trying to use the tree in the forest argument is unworthy and demonstrates the most superficial and SLOPPY thinking as to phenomena and information.

 

Visualize this to this extent.(Boolean logic here, folks.)

 

http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/venn1.gif

 

A, the red field, is the god. B, the blue field, is the object it created. This is A and B not merged. There is no information transfer across the boundary. BUT THERE IS THE BOUNDARY(actually two boundaries) AND THAT IS INFORMATION.

 

http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/venn2.gif

 

A, the red field, is the god. B, the blue field, is the object it created. This is A and B in an overlap merge. Notice that it is not congruent(A=A). This is to satisfy the nonequivalence requirement that A must be greater than B in order to create B.(Tenet of ID design.)

Now the merge contains information common to both, phenomena to both, observable to both.

 

One more time, If it, a god, created nature, it becomes part of it, nature. It cannot help that outcome; simply due to the fact that it exists and created investigators that are hunting for it. It can be investigated by its effects, whether boundary separated or merged.

 

The Id advocates refuse to understand that ANY distribution of information between A and B results in this outcome. Instead the ID crowd play word games, sophistry.

 

The mathematics and the logic as stated sixteen times and counting show otherwise.

 

Now I've simplified this down to bedrock with pretty Venn diagrams so that words won't be the only way to illustrate the principles discussed.

 

When lawyers and sophists try to argue with words to squirm around the premise break out the logic.

 

Suppose some god did create the universe and then separated itrself from it by a field boundary.

 

Here's the clue phone. Do you hear it ringing?

 

There is a boundary. Something that you can see and test. Trace evidence.

 

A god is part of the nature, it creates. Or it did not create it.

That is why; if there is a god, it will leave footie prints.

 

Now as to eternality? First the word, the last time I checked was eternity.

 

Second if the ID crowd actually sat down and thought about time as a function of entropic space, they would realize that time itself is as changable and conserved as any other function of "reality".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_function

 

In mathematics, a continuous function is a function in which arbitrarily small changes in the input produce arbitrarily small changes in the output. If small changes in the input can produce a broken jump in the changes of the output (or the value of the output is not defined), the function is said to be discontinuous (or to have a discontinuity). The context in this entry is real-valued functions on the real domain or on topological or metric spaces other than the complex numbers; for complex-valued functions see complex analysis. The notable difference in approach is that in the present context, the points in the domain that would be regarded as singularities (points of discontinuity) in the complex domain are usually assumed to be absent, or they are explicitly excluded, so as to leave a function that is continuous on a disconnected real domain.

 

As an example, consider the function h(t) which describes the height of a growing flower at time t. This function is continuous (unless the flower is cut). As another example, if T(x) denotes the air temperature at height x, then this function is also continuous. In fact, there is a dictum of classical physics which states that in nature everything is continuous. By contrast, if M(t) denotes the amount of money in a bank account at time t, then the function jumps whenever money is deposited or withdrawn, so the function M(t) is discontinuous.

 

There are also some more special usages of continuity in some mathematical disciplines. Probably the most common one, found in topology, is described in the article on continuity (topology). In order theory, especially in domain theory, one considers a notion derived from this basic definition, which is known as Scott continuity.

 

You can think of time as a continuous function smeared across space.(Even if it is quantized time.)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

 

In mathematics, a function is a relation, such that each element of a set (the domain) is associated with a unique element of another (possibly the same) set (the codomain, not to be confused with the range). The concept of a function is fundamental to virtually every branch of mathematics and every quantitative science.

 

The terms function, mapping, map and transformation are usually used synonymously. The term operation is frequently used for binary functions; functions whose domain is a set of functions, or a vector space, are often called operators (see also operator (programming)).

 

That implies that there is another condition outside the universe called notime-a property of NOTHING.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

 

Nothing is the lack or absence of anything. "Nothing" and "zero" are closely related but not identical concepts. The term "nothing" is rarely used mathematically, though it could be said that a set contains nothing if (and only if) it is the empty set, in which case its cardinality (or size) is zero. Nothing differs from zero in the way that zero is something, a finite amount which is defined. While nothing overlaps the quantity zero, in the way that it also is, when finitely defined, zero, it differs in the way that it has no specific basis like zero does in numbers.

 

From a philosophical point of view, the concept of "nothing" can have many interpretations. In fact, people can even state that nothing does not exist. You cannot sense, see, feel, or think nothing. There is no contact with nothing. Nothing is where everything isn't. Visualizing "nothing" would make "something". It could be seen as a physical void or as just a word which only has meaning when used to describe a relationship between different "somethings". A single "correct" definition of nothing could be considered impossible, since "right" and "wrong" do not fit within the confines of nothing.

 

The concept of "nothing" has been studied throughout history by philosophers and theologians; many have found that careful consideration of the notion can easily lead to the logical fallacy of reification. The understanding of "nothing" varies widely between cultures, especially between Western and Eastern cultures and philosophical traditions, though existentialism, and in particular Heidegger have brought the understandings closer together.

 

Informally, a person, event or object might be said to be nothing if particularly unimpressive.

 

Nothing is a state of being, in a sense, not being. Ceasing to exist.

 

That terrifies some people. Not me. Is just is. And I want to KNOW.

 

Now if the ID crowd want answers to how everything works(including what started it, if anything) which they demand as part of the refutation of the "god exists" hypothesis by scientists?

 

1. Lead

2. Follow

3. Get out of our way.

 

For this will be tested in negation as part of the routine investigative process.

 

For you see, even if the ID crowd is terrified of the answers and the investigations underway and want to halt the work in progress so that they can hide behind ignorance and mystery, that is not going to happen.

 

If you WANT your computers and your fuel cells and your nanotechnology and your fusion power, then the fundamentals of how nature works will be probed to the limit of the macro and the micro. I confidently expect that in the mundane hunting along the way that how will become much clearer in explanation.

 

I will not live to see this.

 

It will take as many as three to five geniuses(and I mean genius in the vein of someone so smart and clear in his thinking that he makes me embarassed to be so stupid; as he clearly and simply explains the new OBVIOUS to schmucks like me.) to bend the kinks out of the mathematics. Unfortiunatelely such clear thinkers are rare. Maybe we get one to three of them every hundred years to do this work. They do the mathematics that the rest of the scientists use to explain how; as those workers investigate away in obscurity, One of those toilers may be the investigator that answers the ID questions with a single discovery.(LIGO and its successors?)

 

That work is not something that computers can do well. It takes MEN/WOMEN of clear mind and self-assured courage and a certain humility in the face of the unknown.

 

Which is exactly the opposite of the arrogance associated with smug self-satisfied ignorance.

 

Best wishes;

[TRoutMac]

A god is part of the nature, it creates. Or it did not create it. That is why; if there is a god, it will leave footie prints.

 

First: A creator does not BECOME part of his creation, although He can enter it. If I create a painting, I don't become part of it, do I? No. I remain distinct from the painting. God is distinct from His creation, although He interacts with it. Also, when I paint, I leave behind evidence that the painting was not an accident. This leads to your "footie prints"…

 

Second: That God has left "footie prints" should be obvious to anyone who will open their eyes. On that we agree. There is indirect evidence of God (or, at the very least, an intelligent designer) everywhere. If you don't see this evidence, it's simply because you're eyes are shut. Short of God actually appearing in person, it could not possibly be more obvious.

 

Now as to eternality? First the word, the last time I checked was eternity.

 

Look it up. They're synonyms.

[damocles]

http://www.answers.com/topic/eternity

 

Dictionary

e·ter·ni·ty (ĭ-tûr'nĭ-tē)

n., pl. -ties.

Time without beginning or end; infinite time.

The state or quality of being eternal.

 

The timeless state following death.

The afterlife; immortality.

A very long or seemingly endless time: waited in the dentist's office for an eternity.

[Middle English eternite, from Old French, from Latin aeternitās, from aeternus, eternal. See eternal.]

 

Thesaurus

eternity

 

noun

 

The totality of time without beginning or end: eternality, eternalness, infinity, perpetuity, sempiternity. See limited/unlimited.

The quality or state of having no end: ceaselessness, endlessness, eternality, eternalness, everlastingness, perpetuity, world without end. See continue/stop/pause.

Endless life after death: afterlife, deathlessness, everlasting life, everlastingness, immortality. See continue/stop/pause, live/die.

A long time: eon, long1, year (used in plural). Informal age (used in plural), blue moon. Idioms: forever and a day, forever and ever, month of Sundays. See time.

 

WordNet

 

The noun eternity has 3 meanings:

 

Meaning #1: time without end

Synonyms: infinity, forever

 

Meaning #2: a state of eternal existence believed in some religions to characterize the afterlife

Synonyms: timelessness, timeless existence

 

Meaning #3: a seemingly endless time interval (waiting)

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Wikipedia

eternity

While in the popular mind, eternity often simply means existing for an infinite, i.e., limitless, amount of time, many have used it to refer to a timeless existence altogether outside of time. There are a number of arguments for eternity, by which proponents of the concept, principally, Aristotle, purported to prove that matter, motion, and time must have existed eternally.

 

Eternity as a timeless existence

Augustine of Hippo wrote that time exists only within the created universe, so that God exists outside of time; for God there is no past or future, but only an eternal present. That position is accepted by many believers. And one need not believe in God in order to hold this concept of eternity: an atheist mathematician can maintain the philosophical tenet that numbers and the relationships among them exist outside of time, and so are in that sense eternal.

 

Near-death experience testimonies typically speak of eternity as a timeless existence by stating that portions of experiences in the eternal world lasted, say, "an hour or a month, I don't know. There was no time."

 

God and eternity

Theists say that God is eternally existent. How this is understood depends on which definition of eternity is used. On the one hand, God may exist in eternity, a timeless existence where categories of past, present, and future just do not apply. On the other hand, God may exist for or through eternity, or at all times, having already existed for an infinite amount of time and being expected to continue to exist for an infinite amount of time.

 

Whichever definition of eternity is understood, it is common to observe that finite human beings cannot fully understand eternity, since it is either an infinite amount of the time we know or something other than the time and space we know. But for the infinite definition, there are parallels that give some notion of an infinity--of at least a potential infinity, or a series that begins and has not ended. A series of moments that has begun and not ended is potentially eternal by that definition.

 

Related to the notion of eternal existence is the concept of God as Creator, as a being completely independent of "everything else" that exists because he created everything else. (Contrast this with panentheism.) If this premise is true, than it follows that God is independent of both space and time, since these are properties of the universe. So according to this notion, God exists before time began, exists during all moments in time, and would continue to exist if somehow the universe and time itself were to cease to exist.

 

Related to mankind, the biblical revelation first indicated that Man as a special created being is able to grasp the abstract form in contrast with the lower animal world which did not have the ability to understand the concept of "eternity". See book of Ecclesiastes 3::11 "He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men ..". from Bible translation in the N.I.V.

 

See also the nature of God in monotheistic religions.

 

Afterlife is often believed to be eternal.

 

Science and eternity

The modern theory of relativity provides a physical description of the universe in which the past and future may exist alongside the present. Some scientific theories of consciousness such as space-time theories of consciousness propose that the space-time continuum permits consciousness.

 

The physics taught in most schools describes the universe in terms of Galilean relativity in which only the durationless present exists. This concept is known as presentism and is widely believed although questionable.

 

Symbolism and eternity

Eternity is often symbolized by the image of a snake swallowing its own tail, known as Ouroboros (or Uroboros), though the symbol can also carry a number of other connotations.

 

The circle is also commonly used as a symbol for eternity. The related concept, infinity, is symbolized by ∞.

 

See also

steady-state universe, presentism, eternal return, pantheism

 

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

 

http://www.souldevice.org/christian_godsattributes.html

G. Eternality

 

1. Definition / Explanation: God is completely outside time. He is not bound by it nor effected by it. He has no past present or future. God’s “present” is non-temporal.

 

2. Philosophical Evidence: Time began with space, at creation. If time was created by God then God cannot be subject to it. Additionally, if God were in time he would have to had passed through an infinite series of moments which is impossible. As well, time is a measurement of change - which God does not do. Finally, to be in time is to be material and in space - neither of which is true of God.

 

3. Biblical Evidence: God existed before all things, including time (Jn. 1:3, 17:5; Eph. 1:4; Col. 1:16; 2 Tim. 1:9). God chose from outside time actions to take place in time (Isa. 46:9).

 

4. Objection: God acts in time and therefore must have before’s and afters - which is to be in time.

 

- Answer: God’s actions are in time but from eternity. God willed all action in one non-temporal instant, but He willed that the actions take place in time. This confuses God’s being with the effects of His action.

 

Now about the use of words?

 

The use of words betrays bias. When I discuss time I know exactly in what context I use the word "eternity". When someone uses a term "eternality" which is synomonous with "immortal" and dares say that it is synomous with "eternal"?

 

Well then..............

 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

About blindness.

 

None is as blind, as he who refuses to see.

 

Take for example; a painting,

 

http://sts.nthu.edu.tw/twmed/Subjects_and_Issues/Madness/Paintings/Van_Gogh/

 

The artist gathers the pigments and mixes the colors to match the hues he wants,

 

He finds a canvas.

 

He choses a subject and imagines it.

 

He paints the image using what skill he has.

 

That image he paints is the information he leaves behind.

 

It is a part of himself that an art critic who follows afterwards uses to adjudge the work, the technique of the brushstroke, the method of composition the perspective and so forth.

 

If the critic is any good he can even diagnose the artist's psychosis from the painting.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_van_Gogh

 

Now then.......

[questor]

For those of you who can't seem to separate man's conception of God from the possibility of a creator of the universe... maybe a little Einstein will help:

 

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einsteins-third-paradise.htm

 

''Starting in the late 1920s, Einstein became more and more serious about clarifying the relationship between his transcendental and his scientific impulses. He wrote several essays on religiosity; five of them, composed between 1930 and the early 1950s, are reproduced in his book Ideas and Opinions. In those chapters we can watch the result of a struggle that had its origins in his school years, as he developed, or rather invented, a religion that offered a union with science.

 

In the evolution of religion, he remarked, there were three developmental stages. At the first, "with primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions. This 'religion of fear' . . . is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste" that colludes with secular authority to take advantage of it for its own interest. The next step – "admirably illustrated in the Jewish scriptures" – was a moral religion embodying the ethical imperative, "a development [that] continued in the New Testament." Yet it had a fatal flaw: "the anthropomorphic character of the concept of God," easy to grasp by "underdeveloped minds" of the masses while freeing them of responsibility. This flaw disappears at Einstein's third, mature stage of religion, to which he believed mankind is now reaching and which the great spirits (he names Democritus, St. Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza) had already attained – namely, the "cosmic religious feeling" that sheds all anthropomorphic elements. In describing the driving motivation toward that final, highest stage, Einstein uses the same ideas, even some of the same phrases, with which he had celebrated first his religious and then his scientific paradise: "The individual feels the futility of human desires, and aims at the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought." "Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison, and he wants to experience the universe as a single, significant whole." Of course! Here as always, there has to be the intoxicating experience of unification. And so Einstein goes on, "I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research . . . . A contemporary has said not unjustly that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."

[damocles]

For those of you who can't seem to separate man's conception of God from the possibility of a creator of the universe... maybe a little Einstein will help:

 

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einsteins-third-paradise.htm

 

''Starting in the late 1920s, Einstein became more and more serious about clarifying the relationship between his transcendental and his scientific impulses. He wrote several essays on religiosity; five of them, composed between 1930 and the early 1950s, are reproduced in his book Ideas and Opinions. In those chapters we can watch the result of a struggle that had its origins in his school years, as he developed, or rather invented, a religion that offered a union with science.

 

In the evolution of religion, he remarked, there were three developmental stages. At the first, "with primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions. This 'religion of fear' . . . is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste" that colludes with secular authority to take advantage of it for its own interest. The next step – "admirably illustrated in the Jewish scriptures" – was a moral religion embodying the ethical imperative, "a development [that] continued in the New Testament." Yet it had a fatal flaw: "the anthropomorphic character of the concept of God," easy to grasp by "underdeveloped minds" of the masses while freeing them of responsibility. This flaw disappears at Einstein's third, mature stage of religion, to which he believed mankind is now reaching and which the great spirits (he names Democritus, St. Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza) had already attained – namely, the "cosmic religious feeling" that sheds all anthropomorphic elements. In describing the driving motivation toward that final, highest stage, Einstein uses the same ideas, even some of the same phrases, with which he had celebrated first his religious and then his scientific paradise: "The individual feels the futility of human desires, and aims at the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought." "Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison, and he wants to experience the universe as a single, significant whole." Of course! Here as always, there has to be the intoxicating experience of unification. And so Einstein goes on, "I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research . . . . A contemporary has said not unjustly that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."

 

For simplification.

 

The creator of the universe(if it exists) for all practical purposes is a god.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:god

 

Definitions of god:

 

the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions

deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force

a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men"

idol: a material effigy that is worshipped; "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "money was his god"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

Gathering of Developers (aka God Games and Gathering) is an American videogame publisher based on Dallas, TX, established to serve as a "friendly" publisher for independent development companies.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOD

 

The term God is used to designate a Supreme Being; however, there are other definitions of God. For example: *Many religious and philosophic systems consider a God to be the creator of the universe. *Some traditions hold that the creator of the universe is also the sustainer of the universe (as in theism), while others argue that their God is no longer involved in the world after creation (as in deism).*The common definition of a God assumes omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

 

Gates of Discord (GoD, GOD, Gates, or simply the Gates expansion) is the seventh expansion released for EverQuest — a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG). The expansion focused on high-level content, providing a number of zones meant to be used by large groups of players, and many extremely powerful monsters to fight.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoD

 

The Plastic Ono Band is the band John Lennon formed after he left the Beatles.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_(song)

 

God, as a male deity, contrasts with female deities, or "goddesses". While the term 'goddess' specifically refers to a female deity, words like 'gods' and 'deities' can be applied to all gods collectively, regardless of gender. They don't necesarily refer to male gods in specific. This article focuses on the last category.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_(male_deity)

 

The Bible contains no definition of God, but contains many allusions to His being and attributes. God is Spirit (John 4:24), infinite in power (Dan 4:35), complete in wisdom, absolutely truthful (Heb 6:18), perfectly holy (Lev 11:44). He has revealed Himself through nature (Rom 1:20) and through His Son (Heb 1:1-2). There is only one true God (Deut 6:4), eternal transcendent apart from anything made. ...

http://www.calvarychapel.com/redbarn/terms.htm

 

The aspect of a masculine deity..

http://www.moonbeamgarden.com/witchscottage/wiccan_pagan_glossary.htm

 

Definition: A hypothetical entity that can violate the laws of nature, eg, by making something from nothing. Know: Definition: To know means that statements made in the codomain can be verified against a set of events or deductions applicable to the object domain. The statements are then said to be true, otherwise they are either false or indeterminate, as in the Godel incompleteness theorem, which sets a limit on what can be known.

http://www.corebooksweb.com/definitions.htm

 

the All-One, unknown and unknowable, undifferentiated First Cause, all that was, and is, and is to come.

magdalene.wise1.com/terms.html

 

The supreme ruling spirit-like being that many refer to as the "good force" in nature. First recorded in print by Moses in his Pentateuch scriptures, GOD is the almighty lord who directs his destiny by speaking to him from the BURNING BUSH. According to Plato, a regional kingdom within the Pillars of Hercules was once named Gadira and was once one of the original ten maritime kingdoms from the Atlantean age. See BURNING BUSH.

ourworld.cs.com/_ht_a/duanekmccullough/glossary.htm

 

or Iod, or Joss. An angel, in rank next above Lord, and next below Orian Chief. One who is sufficiently wise and powerful to take charge of a planet and its atmospherean heavens. His assistant on the throne is called vice-God.

http://www.angelfire.com/in2/oahspe3/glossary.html

 

is the creator and sustainer of the universe and all the creatures in it (see Gen. 1-3, Psalms, et passim in the OT). The Sh'ma declares God's unity; the Ten Commandments, His sole and sovereign rule as creator, sustainer, and savior. He requires moral behavior of His creatures, and particularly of man. He is long suffering, merciful, loving, and just (Exod. 34:6, 7). He is omnipotent, omniscient (Job 28:23, 42:2), and eternal. ...

hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/judaism.htm

 

That all-pervading universal force in and of all things which coordinates evolution. The universal Will behind all manifestation, natural laws and phenomena, composed of Energy, Awareness and Intent. The collective group mind intelligence of the manifest and unmanifest cosmos, composed of consciousness.

http://www.eoni.com/~visionquest/library/glossary.html

 

A wight of exeptional ability or power, which is divine. Intimately connected with the land, or a people, or some archetypal ability or practice. In Asatru, every thing, every person, every concept even has a god.

http://www.winterscapes.com/uppsala/glossary.htm

 

A divine or reverand being, believed by many to be the creator and ruler of the Universe. Some believe there is only one God, whilst others believe that there are many.

http://www.bodyandmind.co.za/info_glossary.html

 

The word which is used to describe the supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe and all there is.

http://www.fitzwimarc.org.uk/glossary/g.htm

 

which is immutable timeless, spaceless,, beyond our conception, through a process of self-conception, self-limitation and self-absorption, for the purpose of Delight of being, extended Itself from its status of the One to a status of the Many; from Spirit/Being to a created universe/manifestation.

http://www.gurusoftware.com/GuruNet/AurobindoMother/AurobindIdeas/Terminology.htm

 

Box Set (2000)

http://www.music.us/education/J/Johnny-Cash.htm

 

Supreme and/or all-powerful being(s) of a particular religion. Can be male or female or neither or both.

http://www.geocities.com/cheshirekatz/gazebo/mythoterms.html

 

The male deity. Some of his names include Pan, Herne, Zeus, Mithras, Osirus, Cernunos, Narada, Apollo, Hanuman, Wotan, Shango. Known as Brother, Lover, and Son. Sometimes known as the Horned God, not in reference to Satan (which does not have a place in the Wiccan lexicon) but with deer antlers as the Lord of the Hunt.

http://www.exploremaine.com/~lorelei/pi_glossary.htm

 

Now compare;

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:Intelligent+designer

 

Definitions of Intelligent designer:

 

An intelligent designer is the entity that the intelligent design movement argue had some role in the origin and/or development of life and who has left scientific evidence of this design, which is an idea not recognised by scientists. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_designer

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_designer

 

An intelligent designer is the entity or entities that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the origin and/or development of life and who supposedly has left scientific evidence of this intelligent design (ID) — an assertion which critics say is pseudoscientific. Given the links of the intelligent design movement to Christian fundamentalism and evangelism, and their own expressed views, this is usually taken to mean the Abrahamic God through the teleological argument. However proponents of what they call "intelligent design" recognise that their ideas cannot infer the identity of the designer.

 

[edit]

Whom does the ID movement think the designer is?

William Dembski states in his book Design Inference that the nature of the intelligent designer cannot be inferred from "intelligent design theory". This assertion avoids invoking creation by a specific supernatural entity, (such as that employed by creation science), which would make ID sound unscientific and would violate the establishment clause of the US constitution.^1 That violation would prevent ID from being taught in the secular public schools after the 1987 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Edwards vs Aguillard.^2

 

 

^1 Implication is that IDers are lying about themselves with false labelling to delude the average schmuck(me) by claiming that they are a science(What they see as the new "religion".).

^2 Motive is to avoid the religion label which the movement would otherwise have to accept as they would be priomulgating a "god"-even if not identified as one by them by name. No wonder the IDers dodge the question so strenuously and argue like lawyers to avoid the true foundational belief of their movement.

 

Best wishes.

[questor]

Damocles, your argument continues to demonstrate your inability to separate the concept of God from the concept of a creator. the argument concerning the existence and cause of life contains different elements from the basic posit of intelligent design. you are accepting the argument as posed by people who believe that life was created by God against those who believe in evolution. if evolutionary theory is correct, how does that prove there was no creator of the universe? that has nothing to do with my position. read Einstein again. he says there is a creator, but the creator is not anthropromorphic, and does not spend its time taking care of mankind. what could be plainer than that? if the earth was suddenly destroyed, what would happen to the creator?

[damocles]

Damocles, your argument continues to demonstrate your inability to separate the concept of God from the concept of a creator. the argument concerning the existence and cause of life contains different elements from the basic posit of intelligent design. you are accepting the argument as posed by people who believe that life was created by God against those who believe in evolution. if evolutionary theory is correct, how does that prove there was no creator of the universe? that has nothing to do with my position. read Einstein again. he says there is a creator, but the creator is not anthropromorphic, and does not spend its time taking care of mankind. what could be plainer than that? if the earth was suddenly destroyed, what would happen to the creator?

 

I am a human being. I use language as well as mathematics and I use it clearly. If someone tells me that there is a creator who created the universe; then that creator is;

 

-an unintelligent process but living-origin unknown.

-an intelligent process-origin unknown.

-a machine-then who created it?

 

In any event the act of creating a universe is a "godlike process" so be clear on that point.

 

To refuse the clarity of statement; "God does not play dice with the Universe." is to refuse the clarity of thought for which Einstein was famous.

 

Best wishes:

[questor]

Damocles, i am not sure how the universe occurred. i would conjecture one of three ways:

1. it was always here-- if this is true, why the Big Bang? if it was always here, why aren't there celestial objects of infinite age? what existed before the big bang?

2. it was created by random events. this ususally creates chaos, and the universe is not chaotic.

3. it was created by intelligent design. look around you and try to pick out things that exhibit randomness. you will find few. design creates order and predictability, the very bedrock of science.

you may think of other ways the universe came to be. it would be interesting to hear them.

you will notice i did not mention God or Man. man came late to the party and created his own conception of God. the universal creation process happened long before man, and will continue long after man disappears.

[questor]

Damocles, ''God does not play dice with the universe'' means exactly what i said, the universe is not random. everything has meaning and order. if this were not true, science and math would not exist. suppose every time you added 1+1, a random answer would occur?

[TRoutMac]

Damocles, ''God does not play dice with the universe'' means exactly what i said, the universe is not random. everything has meaning and order. if this were not true, science and math would not exist. suppose every time you added 1+1, a random answer would occur?

 

This is such an excellent point, questor. How do you get constants without an intelligence to set and govern them? Constants are diametrically opposed to chaos and randomness. You cannot attribute the existence of constants to chaos and randomness. How can this possibly be a controversial statement? It's self-evident. Water flows downhill, too; it's the same thing… the proof of it is everywhere.

[Dreamchaser]

As in science alot of religion is guess work and total belief in the word of a group of people who could altogether be presenting false evidence. There is no concrete evidence that totally supports one side of this argument but there are hundreds upon hundreds of theories and explanations based purely on guess work and religious beliefs.