Fine tuning Intelligent Design Religion

Philippines president claims he’ll resign if anyone can prove God exists

Spread the love

President Rodrigo Roa Duterte 2017.jpg But leaves himself a fine-tuning loophole. From Sacramento Bee via AP:

The 73-year-old leader said that if there’s “one single witness” who can prove, perhaps with a picture or a selfie that a human was “able to talk and to see God,” he will immediately resign.

Duterte, however, suggested that there must be a God or a supreme being that prevents billions of stars and celestial bodies from colliding in a frequency that could have long threatened the human race. More.

A selfie with God will not help Dutarte think more clearly.

See also: What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

6 Replies to “Philippines president claims he’ll resign if anyone can prove God exists

  1. 1
    Nonlin.org says:

    Hey News,

    See, this is what I’m talking about. Who the heck is this Duterte guy to be worth citing? Just another retard politician… add him to the never ending pile.

    Don’t you want to have an intelligent conversation instead? Something that gets people excited about exchanging ideas?

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Exodus 33:20
    But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”

    Revelation 1:17
    When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead.

    Ask the Experts: What Is a Near-Death Experience (NDE)? – article with video
    Excerpt: “Very often as they’re moving through the tunnel, there’s a very bright mystical light … not like a light we’re used to in our earthly lives. People call this mystical light, brilliant like a million times a million suns…”
    – Jeffery Long M.D. – has studied NDE’s extensively
    http://abcnews.go.com/Nightlin....._gydvW8jbI

    Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
    Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
    ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    https://www.ewtn.co.uk/news/latest/astonishing-discovery-at-christ-s-tomb-supports-turin-shroud

  3. 3
    News says:

    Nonlin at 1 – It was a worldwide story that raises interesting questions – what would prove the existence of God? By what standard?

  4. 4
    Nonlin.org says:

    News@3,

    If you see design in the universe, you see God – see Dembski’s filter, although it needs improvement…

    …also gpuccio’s piece which also needs improvement – https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/defending-intelligent-design-theory-why-targets-are-real-targets-propabilities-real-probabilities-and-the-texas-sharp-shooter-fallacy-does-not-apply-at-all/#comments

  5. 5
    Nonlin.org says:

    Hey News,

    Here is something newsworthy:
    https://www.infowars.com/mass-exodus-from-the-church-the-percentage-of-young-adults-with-no-religious-affiliation-has-nearly-quadrupled-since-1986/

    Could this be due to the fact that 200 yrs later Darwinism is still spreading despite having been destroyed by Mendel’s genetics and having failed all possible tests?

    Could this be due to the fact that both ID proponents & theistic evolutionists still accept (in this day and age):
    – that “natural selection” is a thing?
    – that “microevolution”, “speciation”, and “gradualism” are real?
    – that “random variation” does stuff?
    – that DNA is “essence of life”?

    Actually, Darwinism and its neo is very much testable and it fails all tests:
    Gradualism fails – http://nonlin.org/gradualism/
    Natural selection fails – http://nonlin.org/natural-selection/
    Divergence of character fails – http://nonlin.org/evotest/
    Speciation fails – http://nonlin.org/speciation-problems/
    DNA “essence of life” fails – http://nonlin.org/dna-not-essence-of-life/
    Randomness fails – http://nonlin.org/random-abuse/
    Abiogenesis fails – http://nonlin.org/warmpond/
    etc., etc.
    And let’s test it again and make sure it fails again and again: http://nonlin.org/evotest/

  6. 6
    Fasteddious says:

    In discussions of this sort, I have heard statements like, “there is zero evidence for God’s existence”, which, of course is not true at all. There is lots of evidence, if you are willing to consider it. What such people mean is either, “I have not seen any evidence”, or else, “I don’t accept your evidence”. These reveal either ignorance or bias.
    Also, when discussing “proving” God’s existence, the question arises, what level of “proof” is needed? The materialist demands absolute proof as for a proven mathematical theorem, but that is unfair in that he cannot even prove his own existence at that level. Then there is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is probably what he really wants. Next would be “a balance of probabilities”, which is where most of the evidence points. Law courts usually accept one or other of those two as “proof”. I note that science is never able to “prove” any of its laws or theories; which are just accepted as the best we have for now until something better comes along. One could argue the same for God, that he is the best explanation for the world as we find and experience it. Thus, demanding “proof” of God’s existence goes beyond what science would ask of any other proposition or hypothesis.
    Finally, there is the question, “what counts as evidence?”. And that has to be decided by each person looking at the question for himself, bearing in mind his own preconceptions and biases.

Leave a Reply