Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Originally posted by humy
“...I do not regard the existence of evolution as proof of no intelligent design. ...”

what make you think that I would think that the mere fact of evolution proves that there is no intelligent supernatural designer?
Without logical contradiction, you could still claim the absurdity of intelligent supernatural designer designing something other than Earth' ...[text shortened]... Why would a mindless natural process need “ intelligence underlining its existence somewhere”?

“...A program like that has to have intelligence underlining its existence somewhere. ...”

no, it is not a “program” but just a mindless natural process. Why would a mindless natural process need “ intelligence underlining its existence somewhere”?

Your post is sensless to me.

But to answer specifically the last quoted post, the reason would be the outcome.

Everything I know about the way things work tell me that from mud to a thinking human mind is no accident. Doesn't matter how much time you add.

Of course there is a intelligent mind responsible for the workings of the universe and its existence.

It is a rather sad and frightening thing to see a man use his will power to suppress what his conscience knows is true.

Originally posted by jaywill

“designer” in “evolution is a designer” ( mindless designer )
“Bang” in “Big Bang” ( there was no meaningful 'noise' )
"take" in "take a seat" ( as in sit down )
...need I go on?

I have problems with a "mindless" designer. Perhaps you could give me an example of a chess opponent who continually checkmates me. Yet that opposing ...[text shortened]... REALLY mean a "bang".

Just don't forget your own rule at opportune times.

“... How could I be continually checkmated by some process at the other end of a chess game, which is without mind ? ...”

the running of a program in a good chess computer is a process without mind and could continually checkmate you.
That would make an extremely pure analogy to evolution for several reasons including the fact that evolution is not a program and doesn't need a machine to run nor does evolution itself need a designer but, still, point proven.

Originally posted by humy
“... How could I be continually checkmated by some process at the other end of a chess game, which is without mind ? ...”

the running of a program in a good chess computer is a process without mind and could continually checkmate you.
That would make an extremely pure analogy to evolution for several reasons including the fact that evolution is not a progra ...[text shortened]... esn't need a machine to run nor does evolution itself need a designer but, still, point proven.

the running of a program in a good chess computer is a process without mind and could continually checkmate you.

Hmmm. A chess computer which was designed and programmed by programmers.

That would make an extremely pure analogy to evolution for several reasons including the fact that evolution is not a program and doesn't need a machine to run nor does evolution itself need a designer but, still, point proven.

It makes a extremely poor example for other reasons.

The point is not proven by a long shot. And I will have to chat latter.
Work on your example. I am. I think it is a challenge.

The chess game ...

Originally posted by jaywill

“...A program like that has to have intelligence underlining its existence somewhere. ...”

no, it is not a “program” but just a mindless natural process. Why would a mindless natural process need “ intelligence underlining its existence somewhere”?

Your post is sensless to me.

But to answer specifically the last quoted post, the rightening thing to see a man use his will power to suppress what his conscience knows is true.

"...Your post is sensless to me. ..."

No surprises there; you lack the intelligence to comprehend.


“...
But to answer specifically the last quoted post, the reason would be the outcome.

Everything I know about the way things work tell me that from mud to a thinking human mind is no accident. ...”

of course it was no accident. Under the right conditions, abiogenesis would presumably be inevitable and then evolution will be inevitable!

The evolution of humans is just one outcome out of zillions of possible outcomes.
A human may ask the stupid question “isn't a coincidence that specifically OUR species evolved and not some other species!?” and if non-human intelligent life had evolved instead of human intelligent life then that life might ask the stupid question, “isn't a coincidence that specifically OUR species evolved and not some other species!?” 😛

Originally posted by jaywill

the running of a program in a good chess computer is a process without mind and could continually checkmate you.

Hmmm. A chess computer which was designed and programmed by programmers.

[quote]
That would make an extremely pure analogy to evolution for several reasons including the fact that evolution is not a program and doesn't n ...[text shortened]... chat latter.
Work on your example. I am. I think it is a challenge.

The chess game ...

“...Hmmm. A chess computer which was designed and programmed by programmers. ...”

-and the run of its prgram is nevertheless a mindless process thus point proved: Remember, you asked “.. How could I be continually checkmated by some process at the other end of a chess game, which is without mind ? ...” and a program in a chess computer IS without mind thus I have answered your question to the full. And, this is not even to mention the fact the analogy you are trying to use here is flawed because we KNOW that the process of playing a game of chess is not one of natures processes.

Originally posted by humy
“...Hmmm. A chess computer which was designed and programmed by programmers. ...”

-and the run of its prgram is nevertheless a mindless process thus point proved: Remember, you asked “.. How could I be continually checkmated by some process at the other end of a chess game, which is without mind ? ...” and a program in a chess computer IS without mind thus ...[text shortened]... wed because we KNOW that the process of playing a game of chess is not one of natures processes.

You probably don't realize that God put a program in the DNA/RNA of creatures
so that they would reproduce after their own kind and allow for adaptations
needed for continual survival. This program is from the mind of God just as
the computer chess program is from the mind of a man whose original
ancestors were created in the image of God with similar abilities. What other
creature can you name that can create programs to operate it's creation?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You probably don't realize that God put a program in the DNA/RNA of creatures
so that they would reproduce after their own kind and allow for adaptations
needed for continual survival. This program is from the mind of God just as
the computer chess program is from the mind of a man whose original
ancestors were created in the image of God with similar a ...[text shortened]... ilities. What other
creature can you name that can create programs to operate it's creation?

“...You probably don't realize that God put a program in the DNA/RNA of creatures ...”

are you merely talking about the genetic code here? The genetic code is nothing more than the particular sequence of bases that were put there by evolution -so no need for stupid superstition.
What you refer to a “program” here is not quite like a 'program' as a form of pure software in a computer because the particular sequence of bases is a sequence of physical bases put there by blind evolution while we KNOW that a computer program is a sequence of deliberate instructions ( each one NOT represented by specific physical solid object ) put there by an intelligent being. Evolution is not a “program” but a “natural process” just like crystal growth.

Originally posted by humy
“...Hmmm. A chess computer which was designed and programmed by programmers. ...”

-and the run of its prgram is nevertheless a mindless process thus point proved: Remember, you asked “.. How could I be continually checkmated by some process at the other end of a chess game, which is without mind ? ...” and a program in a chess computer IS without mind thus ...[text shortened]... wed because we KNOW that the process of playing a game of chess is not one of natures processes.

-and the run of its prgram is nevertheless a mindless process thus point proved:

This will never do humy. Of course the programmers intelligently analize thousands of positions. The the engineering, the circuitry, the computer language, the algorithims, and the programs all speak of intelligent planning.

Remember, you asked “.. How could I be continually checkmated by some process at the other end of a chess game, which is without mind ?

Yes. And the engineering, circuitry, language, algorithims, instructions, and programming, tables, decision forks, search mechanisms, sorting mechanisms are all the productss of intelligent planning of minds.

I don't think there is much you can salvage here. Maybe the example I used could be replaced by another one.

Humy, you can believe what you wish. And you can see how clever you can be for the rest of your life.

I think the technology man reads OUT of the laws of nature reflect the intelligents put IN to nature. Mind reads out what mind has placed in.

Perhaps my chess example is hard to work with. But the rules of the game of chess were developed by MINDS. And any arrangement so that repeatedly some process could defeat me with those rules surely has to be the product of a mind.

I am not sure it is possible to use the example because any process we may imagine that results in chess moves, is pretty much designed by intelligence in the first place.

I am going to give it some more thought. But the purpose of this thread has run its course. Of course there are scientists who believe in God. End of story. Obvious FACT. And they could be listed and enumerated.

Comments by anti-theists to somehow relegate "God believing" scientists to some inferior status are mostly ridiculous. Comments by anti-theists to show those "God believing" scientists had usually negative impact on human progress are also biased, selective, and rather irrelevant.

Some scientists also believe in God. Just get use to it.

...” and a program in a chess computer IS without mind thus I have answered your question to the full.

No, your cleverness it doesn't answer my issue there. But let's humor you a bit.

Then if you say the chess playing computer has no mind in it, though it surely has intelligent planning behind it, then you can also believe that the universe has no mind in it but can have intelligent planning behind it.

And it you say it could not, I would respond that that is your arbitrary a prior commitment the disqualify that such minds or mind could exist. That is not sound rational thinking no matter how much you tout your rationality.

And you would not be going where I think the evidence points. You have a prior determined NOT to go where the evidence points. The rest is the trypical atheist response an exercise to show people how clever you can be.

You want a chess playing computer with no mind. Fine. take it. Don't waste your breath trying to deny that MIND was not behind its engineering, programming, and operation.

And by the same token the parallel is a universe with its systems, including biological, which have no mind (as in Panantheism or Pantheism) but indicate a planning intelligent mind or minds behind its operation.

Your defense of Atheistic non- intelligently designed world is clever. It doesn't impress this poster. And it would not even impress a world class former Atheist of the caliber of Anthony Flew.

Flew, an atheist of world renown reputation, finally decided, after years of writing on philosophical Atheism, decided the universe reveals intelligenc behind it.

YouTube

Go see if you can change Dr. Anthony Flew to go back to Atheism.

And, this is not even to mention the fact the analogy you are trying to use here is flawed because we KNOW that the process of playing a game of chess is not one of natures processes.

I already said that perhaps a better example could be designed. Oh dear, there's that pesky word again.

However, many, many of nature's processes make grand master chess playing look like child's play.

Circulatory system, Respitory system, Reproductive system. etc.


PS And PLEASE .... don't come back with Flew is an old man. We do not tell you at what AGE you can stop thinking and evaluating. So please don't disqualify him because in older age he changed his mind.

Lood instead at the REASONS for the change. And we will also allow you the curtesy to possibly change your mind in the future as well. Same for me.

Originally posted by jaywill

-and the run of its prgram is nevertheless a mindless process thus point proved:

This will never do humy. Of course the programmers intelligently analize thousands of positions. The the engineering, the circuitry, the computer language, the algorithims, and the programs all speak of intelligent planning.

[quote]
Remember, you as w you the curtesy to possibly change your mind in the future as well. Same for me.

“...Then if you say the chess playing computer has no mind in it, though it surely has intelligent planning behind it, then you can also believe that the universe has no mind in it but can have intelligent planning behind it. ...”

it does have mind in it: our minds. But that is not what you are talking about here and you are wrong yet again as usual: We KNOW that a chess program was made by an intelligence because we have evidence for this. We have NO evidence that the universe was intelligently designed or even could have been ( to demonstrate that it could have been requires showing evidence that there exists an intelligence capable of physically making the entire universe! And to make matters worse, incredible claims demand incredible evidence ) -that's why I and any rational person in this age of reason do not believe that the universe is intellectually designed.

If you can show actual verifiable physical evidence that the universe is intellectually designed ( sorry, simply showing the complexity of life is not evidence since evolution explains that just fine and, unlike intelligent design, evolution explains the many flaws in the anatomy/biology of many living things ) then I would reconsider. Pity you don't reconsider despite the overwhelming verifiable physical evidence for such things as evolution -this makes it an asymmetrical dispute.

Originally posted by humy
“...Then if you say the chess playing computer has no mind in it, though it surely has intelligent planning behind it, then you can also believe that the universe has no mind in it but can have intelligent planning behind it. ...”

it does have mind in it: our minds. But that is not what you are talking about here and you are wrong yet again as usual: We KNOW ...[text shortened]... ifiable physical evidence for such things as evolution -this makes it an asymmetrical dispute.

It seems that you may not be intelligent enough to understand that the operation
of the universe along with the operation of life on the Earth requires much greater
intelligent planning behind it than a computer chess program.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It seems that you may not be intelligent enough to understand that the operation
of the universe along with the operation of life on the Earth requires much greater
intelligent planning behind it than a computer chess program.

This is the GREAT MISTAKE.

Why?

Just because something is incredibly complex, beautiful and seemingly perfect it does not logically follow that God must have created it.

It might mean God could have created it, but also it might mean that our small minds are not intelligent enough to work out the rational scientific explanation.

Just because an ant cannot understand humans talking does not make us gods.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
This is the [b] GREAT MISTAKE.

Why?

Just because something is incredibly complex, beautiful and seemingly perfect it does not logically follow that God must have created it.

It might mean God could have created it, but also it might mean that our small minds are not intelligent enough to work out the rational scientific explanation.

Just because an ant cannot understand humans talking does not make us gods.[/b]

We did not create the ants, now, did we?

Originally posted by RJHinds
We did not create the ants, now, did we?

No, but neither did anyone (or anything) else.


Complexity often can and indeed does arise from simple rules.

We have entire disciplines of science dedicating to studying such things.

Fractals, Chaos Theory, and Emergence, are all examples of great and incomprehensible
complexity and variety stemming from very simple rules and equations.

The mistake is to see complexity and to assume a designer.

Even if we didn't know that complexity can arise from simplicity that would be the logical
fallacy of the argument from ignorance.

However we do know that complexity can arise from simplicity via natural and dumb processes
with no intelligent oversight or design.


The evolutionary process is one of many examples.

A pictoral example would be the infinite complexity of the Mandelbrot set...

http://www.h-schmidt.net/MandelApplet/mandelapplet.html

Which arises from a ridiculously simple equation.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, but neither did anyone (or anything) else.


Complexity often can and indeed does arise from simple rules.

We have entire disciplines of science dedicating to studying such things.

Fractals, Chaos Theory, and Emergence, are all examples of great and incomprehensible
complexity and variety stemming from very simple rules and equations.

T ...[text shortened]... schmidt.net/MandelApplet/mandelapplet.html

Which arises from a ridiculously simple equation.

How did we get the rules? Where did they come from?

Originally posted by RJHinds
How did we get the rules? Where did they come from?

Well the 'rules' here are 'the laws of physics/nature' and the present answer is 'I/we don't know.'

That is a deep fundamental question that cosmologists would love to be able to answer one
day but can't yet (and may never be able to).



However to go from 'I don't know' to saying 'because we don't know it must be god' is a
logical fallacy (the argument from ignorance).

It's a 'god of the gaps' argument.


However that is irrelevant to any argument about whether or not complexity can arise from
the laws that we evidently have.

The laws of nature allow for the creation of everything around us and we can explain almost
the entire story from the big bang to us.

The creation of the stars, galaxies, planets, moons, life, and us.

While there are gaps in the details we have not yet worked out we can certainly see the broad
overview and our knowledge allows the creation of all this technology that drives our modern world
and the advanced medicine that keeps us healthy (or at least a lot healthier than we used to be).

You don't get to throw out all that knowledge and disregard it because we have not yet worked out
where these laws come from.