Creating a universe in a particle accelerator (if it even possible) is not by design. It is the byproduct of the fundamental properties of this universe. You are just smashing two relativistic objects together. You are not writing into existence a universe that you control the amount and type of mass, energy, entropy, or fundamental properties like gravity, etc..

Also, there are "cosmic ray's" with far higher energies than we can create on earth zipping around space naturally. These have to collide once in a while spontaneously, so we are really not designing anything, nature already does it for us.

Why do you limit this to verses about whether man has seen god or not? It seems to me that whenever you find two verses that are in conflict, you just declare that one of them must have an alternative meaning. The next step is just a matter of changing the meaning of one or the other so that they are no longer in conflict.

A good example is day, as Shaun mentioned. In genesis, day doesn’t mean a 24 hour day, but in exodus, apparently it does. You just change the meaning of one or the other so that they are no longer in conflict.

If you predict that you can do it, then intentionally do it, it is by design.

Besides, for all we know, our universe was someone else's accident. M theory predicts that there are infinite universes, therefore all possibilities are not only probable, but actual. Any crazy idea you can come up with, IS reality, in some universe, somewhere.

So according to M theory, there are universes that have started out as accidental or unintentional creations of mankind in labs. Billions of them. Are we in one of them?

We don't know.

Time is relative, so for all we know, that universe that we create in a particle accelerator that collapses almost instantly, may, in actuality, exist for what -to an object inside the universe- could seem like billions of years.
Our universe may actually exist in someone else's particle accelerator, and blink out of existence- from their perspective- in a billionth of a second. But to us, that billionth of a second spans billions and billions of years, because, again, time is relative.

According to M theories predictions, that is exactly what happened in some universes. Of course M theory also predicts that in some universes, M theory is completely wrong. :-P

M theory is so crazy sounding, that it is hard not to call it a religion or a faith all unto itself. What makes it different is that it is mathematically supported by numerous, previously competing theories. In fact, it appears to unify them all.

The action may be by intent (design) but the outcome is natural and without stigma of design. That is like saying the avalanche you started by yelling at a vulnerable snow-pack is evidence of design. Besides, M-theory is a unique tool to help conceptualize alternative models of the universe but it has a long way to go to achieve acceptance as an over-reaching "TOE".

It is evidence that an intelligent being can deliberately cause an avalanche.

Just as creating a universe in a particle accelerator would be evidence that an intelligent being can cause the creation of a universe...deliberately and intentionally. In such a case, the intelligent being in question would be the de facto creator for all who dwell inside said universe's confines.

So far no one has been able to riddle the theory with holes. So far, M theory is the most promising theory of everything we've ever come accross. It's the first one where the math all (or mostly all) works too. M theory is more than just a 'tool to help conceptualize alternative models of the universe', it is a theory that attempts to explain why what is, is.

Oh?

Mathematics aren't absolute?

How about measurements? Is "absolute zero" an absolute measurement of temperature, or isn't it?

Not according to quantum theory.

This is hilarious. On one hand you punch holes in scientific theories that don't match your idea and say that science isn't absolute and on the other you say you absolutely know that science is right and there cannot be a creator...

You are both men of faith.

Sjf has faith in science, whereas you have faith in religion.

I absolutely know that some evidence is much better than no evidence. :p

Who says I don't like M-theory? I actually like it but I doubt it is the final TOE. It still has not passed the test of real physics (no empirical data).
You are the only one claiming to know absolutely. I happen to think that the probability of a "personal god" to be so low as to be inconsequential. That does not make it zero as we can never prove a negative. There are only fairy-tales and myths to support the belief in a supernatural. Show me some data to confirm M-theory and I will give it greater credence. Show me even a single verifiable piece of evidence to support the belief in the supernatural and I will give it greater credence. I am not opposed to either. I only request a rational basis and empirical evidence to support it.

LOL, I think you need to review the definition of faith as it applies to religion. Faith in science is based on observation, reproducible data, and predictability. It is not "blind faith" (belief in the setting of no supporting logic or evidence).

All you’ve done is provide some reasons that there COULD be a creator, but there is still no evidence OF a creator. See the difference?

Let’s take some of the other examples above:

“It is evidence that an intelligent being can deliberately cause an avalanche.”

Yes, there is evidence that an intelligent being could cause an avalanche, but if you come across a random avalanche in the mountains, there is no evidence that an intelligent being actually did cause it.

“Just as creating a universe in a particle accelerator would be evidence that an intelligent being can cause the creation of a universe...deliberately and intentionally.”

Yes, creating a universe in a lab would be evidence that a universe (including our own) could be created by an intelligent being, but it is not evidence that our particular universe was created by an intelligent designer.

So what is this obvious reality around us that you speak of? You don’t believe in the mainstream Christian god, right? The god you believed in pressed the start button and then sat back and watched.

The only reason people think our universe, and life in particular, was created by an intelligent designer is this feeling they have that their god did it. Yes, it is possible that their god did it, but just because it is possible is not evidence that it actually happened.

It is the "appearance of design" where none actually exists. This is why evolution is such a "dangerous idea". It shows that the "design" of life is an illusion. Life is an emergent process of the universe and not divine. Humans are animals, not divine creations with a special place in the universe. Some people just can't deal with that despite the overwhelming evidence for common descent and the complete lack of evidence to the contrary.

The end result of the avalanche or particle accelerator example is a product that is indistinguishable from natural occurrences. There is no "test" to discriminate. There is no definable "irreducible complexity" that is the mainstay of the modern ID theory. It is the same as the argument of "special creation" versus the modern evolutionary theory of the universe (Big Bang to stellar evolution to abiogenesis to evolutionary common descent). In fact, since life is an emergent process of this universe, "creating" an avalanche is , in itself, a natural evolutionary byproduct as would be AI, universe in an accelerator, etc.. Technology, after all, is an evolutionary process itself that has co-evolved with humans and is therefore a natural emergent phenomena of this universe.

Why do you have so much difficulty distinguishing between two discrete systems, one based on experimentation and observation using long established and agreed upon methods of scientific investigation and description, the other/s based on belief, intuition, subjective evaluation, faith as structured by a particular religious doctrine or whatever?

Scientiststs do NOT tell anyone what to BELIEVE. They record what they observe, devise replicable experiments, based on the known principles and laws of chemistry, physics and math, to try to understand what they observe and record the results for other scientists to see, use for further experimentation or to DISPROVE.

Yes! DISDPROVE! Scientific data is NOT sacrosanct. It is ALWAYS open to further investigation and experimentation. Scientists relish any opportunity to discover and present to their peers an anomaly which destroys a theory which has been used as a scientific tool for understanding - when they do so, they become FAMOUS! And the scientific community is thrown into a revolution as the anomaly and the information comprising the standing theory are evaluated and ultimately that theory is discarded when a new theory is wrought within which the new information, which was anomalous as pertaing to the old theory, fits. It happens again and again. You might be shocked to learn that no legitimate scientist will say that an anomaly will never be discovered which would shoot down the theory of relativity. Any true scientist would just LOVE to discover such an anomaly!

SCIENTIFIC THEORIES AIN'T SACRED WRITINGS TO BE ACCEPTED ON FAITH OR BELIEF AND THEY ARE NOT WORSHIPPED OR CONSIDERED PROOF OF THE EXISTANCE OR NONEXISTANCE OF "GOD"!

To believe in a god, creator or supreme being has NOTHING to do with science and any scientist will tell you that. Scientists are ONLY interested in that which is, again, by using the methods and procedures that are accepted by the scientific community, observable and proveable.

Mathematics proves that 1 + 2 = 3. If you believe and have rock solid faith that 1 + 2 = some other number on the birthday of the 7th concubine of the deity you may choose to worship, a mathematician could care less, doesn't begrudge you your belief and would't spend a nanosecond arguing with you. HE DOESN'T CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE!

If you'd just take the time to think about it, you'd discover that science offers nothing to threaten one's religious beliefs or upset rational minds.

I agree, science doesn't know it all.

Actually, I would say that evidence that points you to the wrong conclusion because you can't see it in the context of other evidence (that you don't know yet) could be considered worse than no evidence. I don't know is a more correct answer than being completely wrong...isn't it?

Of course i do. The chances of us ever determining if WE have a creator are next to less than zero. But i have never argued that. I have merely argued that a form of creationalism is possible, as there is evidence of it all around us.

I am in 100% agreement with this statement.

What creating a universe does, is prove that it is possible that a form of "intelligent design" is responsible for our origins.

It DOES NOT prove we were created in such a fashion- only that it is possible, and demonstrable. Therefore, it is a valid competing theory wrt our own origins IMO. Nothing more.

A creator may have done it..it's been predicted to be possible by science even when using our own dark ages near-term technology.
Our 'god' may be some guy with a particle accelerator creating universes in a laboratory in some alternate universe. It appears at this time that this is an absolutely viable possibility, and...assuming the predictions about forming universes in particle accelerators holds true, it is a demonstrable means of creation.

That would prove that the concept of creationalism exists, even if it is not the mechanism by which we came to be. That's all i've been trying to say. At no time have i meant to imply this to mean that because intelligent design(a better term would be deliberate formation) of a universe is POSSIBLE that we were created in the same manner. Just that it can't be eliminated as a distinct possibility.

Really, when you think about it, what other means of universe creation can we predict, then verify? Doesn't that make the notion of "deliberate formation" the most likely candidate for our own existance? Maybe we're all in an infinite time loop, and mankind is mankind's creator. No one knows.

The reality is it doesn't matter, but it's fun to debate on the internet.

As in many theories throughout history, the technology to prove it does not exist yet. M theory is so out in left field nuts that it wouldn't surprise me if it was, well, out in left field nuts. Some scientists do say the "M" stands for "Magic." hehe.

But at the same time, the eggheads- the few hundred(or whatever number) or so on earth that are smart enough to truly mathematically understand this schitt, say that not only does it work, but it makes all the previously competing sub-theories work too.

But you are correct, as of yet, it's 'just a theory'. The craziest one yet.