Quote from: BADecker on December 25, 2017, 01:40:53 PM

Quote from: Astargath on December 25, 2017, 12:41:51 PM

Quote from: BADecker on December 25, 2017, 11:26:09 AM

Quote from: Astargath on December 25, 2017, 10:58:09 AM

Quote from: BADecker on December 25, 2017, 10:52:46 AM

Quote from: Astargath on December 25, 2017, 10:05:09 AM

Quote from: BADecker on December 25, 2017, 01:47:44 AM

Something did it. The laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us that whatever the "He" is, it fits the greatness of the definition of God.

Cool

Yeah something did it but how do you know it was god?

Thank you for asking this question again. People forget answers, and this prompts me to answer again.

It was God, because it fits our definition of God.

When you look at a car and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a toy manufacturer. It is a car maker.

When you look at a computer and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a burlap bag maker, it is a computer manufacturer.

Notice how the definition of a car manufacturer is "a business engaged in the manufacture of automobiles." Notice how a computer maker is a company that makes computers.

Because of the complexity and greatness of the universe (far beyond the complexity and greatness of a car or computer), Whatever the Maker of the Universe was, It/He was God, by definition. That's how we know that It/He was God. It's by the definition.

If you suggest that it was NOT God Who made the universe, the definition of whatever made the universe still is God, because it still fits the definition of "God."

If you say that a Klindgab made the universe, then you simply have designed a new word that means "God." If the Klindgab happens to be a corporation of multitudes of entities, then the Klindgab Corporation is God, by definition.

If you want to change the definition of "God," you certainly have that right. But in the same way that you have that right, others have the right to keep the definition. However, even if there is a new word that defines the universe, that new word means what the old word "God" meant when it was common.

You are playing with semantics. You are like the joker in that other thread who thinks that gravity isn't gravity, but rather is density. Gravity is gravity because it defines something that exists. The theory of why gravity exists, or what it is made up of, or the reasons why it works in the universe like it does... this theory does not change the fact that gravity is what it is, by definition.

Go ahead and put together a theory of all kinds of things about God. But "God" fits the Maker of the universe by definition.

It's as simple as that!

Cool

To illustrate: when you walk through the woods and see a watch, you recognize it as designed not because of its complexity or by contrasting it with the surrounding nature, but because you have seen other watches and all of those watches have, to your knowledge, been engineered by people. It is also clearly not safe to judge whether or not an object is designed purely by its complexity. A perfectly smooth perfect sphere is an extremely simple shape. However, if you found a perfectly smooth perfectly spherical wooden ball in the woods, you would recognize it as most likely not having arisen naturally, but rather having been carved and sanded into that shape.

Again you are wrong, there is no way of knowing if the other things in nature are also designed. You lost, again.

When you examine the watch in the woods, and compare it with a rock, the complexity of both on the micro scale is beyond any simple understanding.

The difference is that the watch has a designer that includes mankind, while the rock doesn't... necessarily.

Cool

However, if you found a perfectly smooth perfectly spherical wooden ball in the woods, you would recognize it as most likely not having arisen naturally, but rather having been carved and sanded into that shape. The perfect spherical wooden ball is designed, however it is not more complex than a rock or a tree, yet we still know it's designed, not because of it's complexity. You are wrong, again.

So, the question has to do with the designer of the internal complexity, right?

The shape of the ball shows that the designer of the ball was probably man.

The question revolves around whether or not the things of nature that appear to not be designed by man were designed or not, right?

This is where cause and effect comes in. After all, it is far more difficult to make a perfectly round ball than it is to simply hew out a chunk of wood. The difficulty of even making the wood is so extreme that mankind cannot do it. This shows that the complexity in nature has been made by something that is far greater at making things than mankind. If this were not enough, you can find all kinds of things in nature that one might think were constructed by mankind.

A simple construction is a balancing rock. It looks like it would have had to have been set in place by mankind. And while we don't have enough of a view into the past to determine 100% that it was not, there are many such rocks, suggesting strongly that mankind did not see them up. But they look like it.

Also, you can find round rocks in nature that look like they have been rounded by a person. It is only by guessing that no person was ever present to round these rocks out that we can determine that people didn't do it.

In other words, we have things built by man. We have things that look like they were built by man, but we aren't sure. And we have some things that were not built by man, but they look like they were.

The difference is that everything was built. Why? Because all things are machines; they have motion; Newton's 3rd Law. Machines have makers.

Cool

Unfortunately newtons 3rd law never states that everything has causes. I explained that in the other thread:

'It is sufficient to show that all the motions have causes, which is something that Newton proved with his 3rd law.'' No it's not. Where does newton 3rd law say that all motions have causes? You don't even know what the law says, do you? For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. (FOR EVERY ACTION) meaning that IF there is an action or cause then there is a reaction or effect. Thats only IF not that everything has a cause, nowhere in the law it says that everything has a cause. You are a dishonest liar.

Still wrong.