The Return of the God Hypothesis

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
An interview with Dr Stephen Meyer. This is a very good interview going over the science of the origin of the universe and why the implications of science point toward an intelligent designer.
Murray, this is a good listen. Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant, but it's worth listening to the science being discussed.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,322
Reaction score
2,780
Points
113
Uh huh. I'll bet it is.

'Intelligent designer', indeed.

Tell me:

Does the concept of an 'intelligent designer' explain the 'morality' of compulsory love and worship for this unseen 'intelligent designer'?

Would the existence of an 'intelligent designer' justify the notion that one person's supposed 'sins' could or should be passed down through generations to all of their descendants, at the whim of this so-called 'intelligent designer'?

Does this clip go into detail regarding the Christian notion of eternal hellfire and damnation for unrepentant 'sinners' and heretics, and anyone who fails to worship this 'intelligent designer'?

Does it somehow justify the idea of scapegoating and vicarious 'redemption'— i.e. one person voluntarily 'paying' for the 'sins' of another person by nobly subjecting himself to a torture/death, in order to atone for those 'sins' committed by others?

Does it justify genocide? How about slavery... is this 'intelligent designer' okay with those?

Does it touch on why this supposed 'intelligent designer' is so inordinately obsessed with anything and everything that consenting adults might choose to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?

Because, if this supposed 'intelligent designer' doesn't care about all of this... then... why should I concern myself with your 'intelligent designer'? In this scenario, 'intelligent designer' = 'cosmic muffin'. Blah, blah, blah. More hocus-pocus.

I can live with the idea of an intelligent designer who is benign and doesn't require constant praise, adulation and worship from me and everyone else. But how on earth does that concept apply to insisting that one specific and particular religious system of beliefs has the right to dictate societal norms and standards for everyone?
 
Last edited:

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
Uh huh. I'll bet it is.

'Intelligent designer', indeed.

Tell me:

Does the concept of an 'intelligent designer' explain the 'morality' of compulsory love and worship for this unseen 'intelligent designer'?

Would the existence of an 'intelligent designer' justify the notion that one person's supposed 'sins' could or should be passed down through generations to all of their descendants, at the whim of this so-called 'intelligent designer'?

Does this clip go into detail regarding the Christian notion of eternal hellfire and damnation for unrepentant 'sinners' and heretics, and anyone who fails to worship this 'intelligent designer'?

Does it somehow justify the idea of scapegoating and vicarious 'redemption'— i.e. one person voluntarily 'paying' for the 'sins' of another person by nobly subjecting himself to a torture/death, in order to atone for those 'sins' committed by others?

Does it justify genocide? How about slavery... is this 'intelligent designer' okay with those?

Does it touch on why this supposed 'intelligent designer' is so inordinately obsessed with anything and everything that consenting adults might choose to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?

Because, if this supposed 'intelligent designer' doesn't care about all of this... then... why should I concern myself with your 'intelligent designer'? In this scenario, 'intelligent designer' = 'cosmic muffin'. Blah, blah, blah. More hocus-pocus.

I can live with the idea of an intelligent designer who is benign and doesn't require constant praise, adulation and worship from me and everyone else. But how on earth does that concept apply to insisting that one specific and particular religious system of beliefs has the right to dictate societal norms and standards for everyone?
Listen to the interview. It is entirely a look at physics and cosmology. Dr Meyer is a physicist and is not a young earth creationist. In fact, there is nothing about the Bible in the interview. It is purely science.

Put away your disdain for Christianity and embrace science.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,322
Reaction score
2,780
Points
113
Listen to the interview. It is entirely a look at physics and cosmology. Dr Meyer is a physicist and is not a young earth creationist. In fact, there is nothing about the Bible in the interview. It is purely science.

Put away your disdain for Christianity and embrace science.

So... Christianity = science?
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,322
Reaction score
2,780
Points
113
Menno; are you as big a phony as Spoof?

Spoof pretends to be 'neutral', but he's obviously a righty.

Are you a right-wing fundamentalist Christian pretending to be a follower of the scientific method?
 

Donovan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
577
Points
113
Stephen Meyer is fantastic. I’ve listened to him several times and read one of his books. His latest is on my upcoming list of books to read. Don’t expect the committed secularists to take you upon your challenge. It’s not going to happen. For everyone else, check him out.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
Menno; are you as big a phony as Spoof?

Spoof pretends to be 'neutral', but he's obviously a righty.

Are you a right-wing fundamentalist Christian pretending to be a follower of the scientific method?
You show your prejudice. You won't even listen to an interview with a well respected physicist, simply because the word God is in the title. It seems you don't care about actual science. What you care about is holding your prejudice against theism. I thought you cared about science, but clearly you don't. It's just a front for your personal prejudice against Christianity.

Good luck with that.

Perhaps others here will listen to the interview and enjoy how science and theism are entirely compatible and how science provides inference for intelligent design. Murray, you are free to ignore this thread as you clearly care nothing about science.

I am a Christian and I believe human reason allows us to see intelligent design in nature. Every traditional Christian denomination believes this. In fact, scientific method would not have started without this Christian tradition driving the inquiry.

But, your prejudice won't allow you to actually study history and realize how indebted you are to Christian tradition for making science possible. All Christianity says "you're welcome, Murray." 🤜🤛
 
Last edited:

Blizzard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,996
Reaction score
311
Points
83
Uh huh. I'll bet it is.

'Intelligent designer', indeed.

Tell me:

Does the concept of an 'intelligent designer' explain the 'morality' of compulsory love and worship for this unseen 'intelligent designer'?

Would the existence of an 'intelligent designer' justify the notion that one person's supposed 'sins' could or should be passed down through generations to all of their descendants, at the whim of this so-called 'intelligent designer'?

Does this clip go into detail regarding the Christian notion of eternal hellfire and damnation for unrepentant 'sinners' and heretics, and anyone who fails to worship this 'intelligent designer'?

Does it somehow justify the idea of scapegoating and vicarious 'redemption'— i.e. one person voluntarily 'paying' for the 'sins' of another person by nobly subjecting himself to a torture/death, in order to atone for those 'sins' committed by others?

Does it justify genocide? How about slavery... is this 'intelligent designer' okay with those?

Does it touch on why this supposed 'intelligent designer' is so inordinately obsessed with anything and everything that consenting adults might choose to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?

Because, if this supposed 'intelligent designer' doesn't care about all of this... then... why should I concern myself with your 'intelligent designer'? In this scenario, 'intelligent designer' = 'cosmic muffin'. Blah, blah, blah. More hocus-pocus.

I can live with the idea of an intelligent designer who is benign and doesn't require constant praise, adulation and worship from me and everyone else. But how on earth does that concept apply to insisting that one specific and particular religious system of beliefs has the right to dictate societal norms and standards for everyone?
Nothing but moral arguments against God. As John Lennox would say: "That's a schoolboys argument." :)
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,322
Reaction score
2,780
Points
113
"In fact, scientific method would not have started without this Christian tradition driving the inquiry."

Really?
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,959
Reaction score
3,226
Points
113
This is an entertaining thread. Fun watching Murray squirm.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
"In fact, scientific method would not have started without this Christian tradition driving the inquiry."

Really?
Study the history of science.

It seems you are a fraud. You just invoke intellectualism and use science as a crutch for a personal prejudice against theism and Christianity in particular. Be honest, you have no real interest in science or how science actually works.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
Nothing but moral arguments against God. As John Lennox would say: "That's a schoolboys argument." :)
The irony is that morality is meaningless if there is no intelligent designer who provided us with an intuitive moral code and conscience.

But, this is not what the interview is about. It is only addressing the science and math of the cosmos and what science can infer from this data.
 

Donovan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
577
Points
113
The irony is that morality is meaningless if there is no intelligent designer who provided us with an intuitive moral code and conscience.
For those curious about this statement, a great book is the classic "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis.
7195F161-0CBB-4B48-BC2C-1613D9C6AA10.jpeg
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
2,494
Reaction score
1,341
Points
113
I have a family member who got a disease and we were told she wasnt going to survive the night. A lot of prayer for her was going on in our church and that night at 2 am she suddenly took a turn for the better. She survived the night and upon doing more testing no trace of the disease could be found.

There is another lady in rochester, named Ema McKinley, who had a healing experience as well. Her story is linked below. I have read her book and she also includes mayo documentation so no one can say she didnt have this incurable disease.
I have heard far too many stories, not only healing, that can only be explained by the supernatural.

Intelligent design is irrefutable in my opinion. Will also admit there are parts of the Bible that i dont understand. However maybe it is to be expected that i dont totally understand an omnipotent, omniscient God.

 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
I have a family member who got a disease and we were told she wasnt going to survive the night. A lot of prayer for her was going on in our church and that night at 2 am she suddenly took a turn for the better. She survived the night and upon doing more testing no trace of the disease could be found.

There is another lady in rochester, named Ema McKinley, who had a healing experience as well. Her story is linked below. I have read her book and she also includes mayo documentation so no one can say she didnt have this incurable disease.
I have heard far too many stories, not only healing, that can only be explained by the supernatural.

Intelligent design is irrefutable in my opinion. Will also admit there are parts of the Bible that i dont understand. However maybe it is to be expected that i dont totally understand an omnipotent, omniscient God.

These are all anecdotal stories. They have nothing to do with the interview or with the hypothesis of an intelligent designer. Dr Meyer leaves that to religion. He is strictly addressing the science.
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
2,494
Reaction score
1,341
Points
113
These are all anecdotal stories. They have nothing to do with the interview or with the hypothesis of an intelligent designer. Dr Meyer leaves that to religion. He is strictly addressing the science.

Yeah, I get that. For my personal faith these stories are just as important as the science so thought i would add to the conversation.
 

Blizzard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,996
Reaction score
311
Points
83
Yeah, I get that. For my personal faith these stories are just as important as the science so thought i would add to the conversation.

Sorry Mennosota to let this get off topic. My mother-in-law passed away about six weeks ago. It was expected, she was 96 and in hospice. Anyway, the hospice folks say that almost universally those in hospice will have 'one foot in the grave and the other on earth'. They talk about loved ones coming to the them and trying to have them let go of their bodies and enter into the afterlife with them. It's really fascinating stuff.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
Sorry Mennosota to let this get off topic. My mother-in-law passed away about six weeks ago. It was expected, she was 96 and in hospice. Anyway, the hospice folks say that almost universally those in hospice will have 'one foot in the grave and the other on earth'. They talk about loved ones coming to the them and trying to have them let go of their bodies and enter into the afterlife with them. It's really fascinating stuff.
I cared for my mom from September 6th when she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer while she also struggled with dementia. She died on January 15th. No supernatural events (even with severe dementia at the end) or any external "signs." Just a family living with faith in the resurrection of the dead. I don't argue with others regarding their shared experiences. That's for them.

Here, I share an interview regarding science inferring the math points toward a highly intelligent creator of the natural realm.

Dr Meyer has 3 very good books. "Darwin's Doubt", "Signature in the Cell" and "The Return of the God Hypothesis." All three are about science pointing to an intelligent designer.
 

Spaulding!No!

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
2,314
Reaction score
797
Points
113
Uh huh. I'll bet it is.

'Intelligent designer', indeed.

Tell me:

Does the concept of an 'intelligent designer' explain the 'morality' of compulsory love and worship for this unseen 'intelligent designer'?

Would the existence of an 'intelligent designer' justify the notion that one person's supposed 'sins' could or should be passed down through generations to all of their descendants, at the whim of this so-called 'intelligent designer'?

Does this clip go into detail regarding the Christian notion of eternal hellfire and damnation for unrepentant 'sinners' and heretics, and anyone who fails to worship this 'intelligent designer'?

Does it somehow justify the idea of scapegoating and vicarious 'redemption'— i.e. one person voluntarily 'paying' for the 'sins' of another person by nobly subjecting himself to a torture/death, in order to atone for those 'sins' committed by others?

Does it justify genocide? How about slavery... is this 'intelligent designer' okay with those?

Does it touch on why this supposed 'intelligent designer' is so inordinately obsessed with anything and everything that consenting adults might choose to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?

Because, if this supposed 'intelligent designer' doesn't care about all of this... then... why should I concern myself with your 'intelligent designer'? In this scenario, 'intelligent designer' = 'cosmic muffin'. Blah, blah, blah. More hocus-pocus.

I can live with the idea of an intelligent designer who is benign and doesn't require constant praise, adulation and worship from me and everyone else. But how on earth does that concept apply to insisting that one specific and particular religious system of beliefs has the right to dictate societal norms and standards for everyone?
Oh you have a bedroom? Look at mr fancy pants throwing around that he has a bedroom.
 

TheRealMcCoy

Active member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
130
Reaction score
57
Points
28
Menno; are you as big a phony as Spoof?

Spoof pretends to be 'neutral', but he's obviously a righty.

Are you a right-wing fundamentalist Christian pretending to be a follower of the scientific method?
Why does being Christian mean someone is a righty? Are you admitting there are no Christian liberals anymore? Because to be liberal you basically have to deny anything morally correct as far as the Bible goes
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
5,255
Reaction score
819
Points
113
You guys! Menno is trying SO hard to get you to stay on topic. Menno, just stop trying so hard, your intellectual guise still comes across as proselytizing.

I agree with you that religion, including Christianity, and science can coexist and compliment each other. Why are you trying so hard to convince others that have come to a different conclusion? As far as I can tell, Stephen Meyer is not a physicist (doesn't have a degree in physics). He's a philosopher with a working knowledge of physics and uses that to advance his thoughts on creationism, which is fine. The problem I have is that both you and Meyer are so absolute in you reasoning. Meyer mentions how Einstein & Hawking both recanted earlier theories. By defaulting to God, you don't have that same sense of "theory" that other scientists do.

Have you read A Brief History of Time? I highly recommend it if you haven't. I disagree with Meyer on two big points. Meyer states that Hawking viewed the Big Bang as a singularity. IIRC, Hawking walks back his own theory in the book. The Big Bang was not a singularity but rather an inflection point on a continuum, like an accordion. Basically there have been lots of big bangs. Second, Meyer says that physicists get so complicated in their calculations and explanations, that the average person can't follow along so then just accept it as truth. Hawking wrote ABHOT specifically for that reason, to make theoretical physics consumable to the average person.

Again, I'm totally on board with science & religion complimenting each other. But if science & religion truly do compliment each other, why does it matter whether someone believes in God? Aren't you basically saying they're different routes to the same destination?
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
You guys! Menno is trying SO hard to get you to stay on topic. Menno, just stop trying so hard, your intellectual guise still comes across as proselytizing.

I agree with you that religion, including Christianity, and science can coexist and compliment each other. Why are you trying so hard to convince others that have come to a different conclusion? As far as I can tell, Stephen Meyer is not a physicist (doesn't have a degree in physics). He's a philosopher with a working knowledge of physics and uses that to advance his thoughts on creationism, which is fine. The problem I have is that both you and Meyer are so absolute in you reasoning. Meyer mentions how Einstein & Hawking both recanted earlier theories. By defaulting to God, you don't have that same sense of "theory" that other scientists do.

Have you read A Brief History of Time? I highly recommend it if you haven't. I disagree with Meyer on two big points. Meyer states that Hawking viewed the Big Bang as a singularity. IIRC, Hawking walks back his own theory in the book. The Big Bang was not a singularity but rather an inflection point on a continuum, like an accordion. Basically there have been lots of big bangs. Second, Meyer says that physicists get so complicated in their calculations and explanations, that the average person can't follow along so then just accept it as truth. Hawking wrote ABHOT specifically for that reason, to make theoretical physics consumable to the average person.

Again, I'm totally on board with science & religion complimenting each other. But if science & religion truly do compliment each other, why does it matter whether someone believes in God? Aren't you basically saying they're different routes to the same destination?
I am saying science is science. The religious beliefs of an individual scientist do not change the science in the least. Therefore, an attempt to claim religious person's cannot produce great science is a strawman. An attempt to marginalize religious person's to pseudoscience is a strawman.
Neither the atheist, nor the theist can disprove or prove the existence of God and ultimately that issue does not effect the science. But, the existence of an intelligent designer does effect the assumptions we use to understand science. This, to me, is the essence of the interview and I think it is worthy of consideration.
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
5,255
Reaction score
819
Points
113
I am saying science is science. The religious beliefs of an individual scientist do not change the science in the least. Therefore, an attempt to claim religious person's cannot produce great science is a strawman. An attempt to marginalize religious person's to pseudoscience is a strawman.
Neither the atheist, nor the theist can disprove or prove the existence of God and ultimately that issue does not effect the science. But, the existence of an intelligent designer does effect the assumptions we use to understand science. This, to me, is the essence of the interview and I think it is worthy of consideration.
Who said a religious person cannot produce great science? Murray? I don't see that in this thread. Who marginalized a religious person to pseudoscience? Do you mean me? Yeah, sure, ok. I'll take that. Defaulting to God when a theory is disproved isn't science to me. The exact opposite in fact. Seems to me you're the one strawmanning those that choose science over religion.

Why does the existence of an intelligent designer affect the assumptions we use to understand science? Didn't you just say science is science? If the goal of science is to better understand the physical world, why does it matter if it came from an intelligent designer or not?
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
Who said a religious person cannot produce great science? Murray? I don't see that in this thread. Who marginalized a religious person to pseudoscience? Do you mean me? Yeah, sure, ok. I'll take that. Defaulting to God when a theory is disproved isn't science to me. The exact opposite in fact. Seems to me you're the one strawmanning those that choose science over religion.

Why does the existence of an intelligent designer affect the assumptions we use to understand science? Didn't you just say science is science? If the goal of science is to better understand the physical world, why does it matter if it came from an intelligent designer or not?
Yes, Murray. He has often claimed Christians are incapable of holding up science while holding up religious belief at the same time. He erroneously thinks only atheists can produce and accept scientific conclusions.

To your last question. Assumptions drive the conclusions we derive from scientific data. The science and data are neutral, but the interpretation of that data is determined by the assumptions the scientist makes regarding that data. If one assumes complete random building of matter, then the interpretation of the data will be different than if one assumes a designer provided a mathematical code to produce a result.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,322
Reaction score
2,780
Points
113
Yes, Murray. He has often claimed Christians are incapable of holding up science while holding up religious belief at the same time. He erroneously thinks only atheists can produce and accept scientific conclusions.

To your last question. Assumptions drive the conclusions we derive from scientific data. The science and data are neutral, but the interpretation of that data is determined by the assumptions the scientist makes regarding that data. If one assumes complete random building of matter, then the interpretation of the data will be different than if one assumes a designer provided a mathematical code to produce a result.

Menno: please link one quote from me where I state that "only atheists can produce and accept scientific conclusions".

Thanks.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,950
Reaction score
5,320
Points
113
Menno; are you as big a phony as Spoof?

Spoof pretends to be 'neutral', but he's obviously a righty.

Are you a right-wing fundamentalist Christian pretending to be a follower of the scientific method?

Menno is tiny. Put away the hard Christian bent after getting banned and being resurrected as menno. Guess according to your join date....you were never around for tiny condemning people to hell on a regular basis.

and lol at this thread. Science and christianity are incompatible.
 
Top Bottom