proving evolution as just a "theory"

[AV1611VET]

Exactly! : )

Welcome to CF, brother!

Glad to have you aboard!

Prepare to have your faith tested!

 

[sfs]

How do I know that everything in existence requires defining?

Yes, that's my question.

What exists .. but doesn't exist in our physical world? There's nothing "sweeping" about that.. Everything requires a definition..

That's not an answer. That's an apparently unrelated question and a restatement of what you already said.

Physical phenomena clearly behave in regular ways. You are asserting that such regularities require that they be intentionally defined. You have offered no argument to support that assertion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Physical phenomena clearly behave in regular ways. You are asserting that such regularities require that they be intentionally defined. You have offered no argument to support that assertion.

I can't speak for him, but I think he's making the point that, as implied in this passage:

Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

... God set up the universe in such a way that its physical laws "dovetail" into each other and all fit together like a hand in a glove.

I think you guys call that "corroboration" or "synergy" or something like that.

Thus the universe, with all its laws working in harmony, acts like a "gestalt:" meaning the universe is greater than the sum of its parts.

With respect to biological evolution, I think he believes that God created all the proteins to dovetail into each other and form a chain that formed the amino acids (I may have this backwards) that then simply needed something ... or Someone ... to "kick start" it and bring it to life.

At that point, God supplied a bolt of lightning, a submarine volcanic eruption, or some other phenomenon to perform the act known as abiogenesis.

 

[Ophiolite]

Your inability to understand doesn't mean my logic fails .. just means you're not capable of understanding at this level.

It's just a thought, but many readers are more readily persuaded by an argument when the argument is not presented in a patronising tone. Thus, I'm talking down to you now. (I mention that in case it was beyond your level of understanding.) Do you like it? Does it encourage you to pay attention to anything else I might say? /demonstration.

The developer made a mistake.. but the mistake doesn't change absolute logic. It only changes the outcome the developer was looking for... we are humans.. we don't technically "create" .. we manipulate/discover things that God has already pre defined.

If God has pre-defined these things then they are predestined and our actions are predestined and so free will is lacking. That means those who "choose" not to accept Jesus were presdestined to do so because God had predefined it. Comments?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Your inability to understand doesn't mean my logic fails .. just means you're not capable of understanding at this level.

The problem is your inability to construct a logical argument. If all interactions are predefined by the developer there is no room for bugs or unexpected behavior. If all interactions are predefined then bugs are not mistakes or accidents. If they are mistakes they are not predefined by the developer.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Yes, that's my question.

That's not an answer. That's an apparently unrelated question and a restatement of what you already said.

Physical phenomena clearly behave in regular ways. You are asserting that such regularities require that they be intentionally defined. You have offered no argument to support that assertion.

Ok, maybe you can understand if I ask you a question that will lead you to the proper answer..

We all know what gravity is right? But why does gravity behave the way it does? Why isn't gravity and electricity the same thing?

 

[MrAnderson9]

I can't speak for him, but I think he's making the point that, as implied in this passage:

Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

... God set up the universe in such a way that its physical laws "dovetail" into each other and all fit together like a hand in a glove.

I think you guys call that "corroboration" or "synergy" or something like that.

Thus the universe, with all its laws working in harmony, acts like a "gestalt:" meaning the universe is greater than the sum of its parts.

With respect to biological evolution, I think he believes that God created all the proteins to dovetail into each other and form a chain that formed the amino acids (I may have this backwards) that then simply needed something ... or Someone ... to "kick start" it and bring it to life.

At that point, God supplied a bolt of lightning, a submarine volcanic eruption, or some other phenomenon to perform the act known as abiogenesis.

Yes, this is correct. The disbelief in God is a direct reflection of an inability to think beyond surface level. I could go on and on and provide example after example about the structure that has to exist beneath the surface level of existence but unfortunately like any other subject some people aren't equipped with the understanding to grasp it.

 

[MrAnderson9]

It's just a thought, but many readers are more readily persuaded by an argument when the argument is not presented in a patronising tone. Thus, I'm talking down to you now. (I mention that in case it was beyond your level of understanding.) Do you like it? Does it encourage you to pay attention to anything else I might say? /demonstration.

If God has pre-defined these things then they are predestined and our actions are predestined and so free will is lacking. That means those who "choose" not to accept Jesus were presdestined to do so because God had predefined it. Comments?

Logic is logic regardless of how it is packaged.. I'm not here to convince anyone.. I'm simply here to point out the most logical answers to our existence.. If you have the capacity to understand .. then good .. if not.. then.. so be it.

It's a matter of depth and critical thinking.. some people look at a wall.. and see a wall.. some look at the same wall and see the drywall.. studs.. structure.. the architecture behind it .. the necessity etc.

 

[MrAnderson9]

If God has pre-defined these things then they are predestined and our actions are predestined and so free will is lacking. That means those who "choose" not to accept Jesus were presdestined to do so because God had predefined it. Comments?

If you don't have freewill .. then YOU simply don't exist. And if you don't exist.. then you're not responsible for any of your actions... you're just an effect of the initial action, you're just a program running it course. Laws aren't "living beings".. laws are rules.. laws are definition.. laws don't have a "will" per se. We like to think we do.. that we have a will.. that we are living .. intelligent beings. Now.. I'm not saying what you just stated is absolutely incorrect.. it's incorrect for what you stated it for.. but it's correct in that there is probability that we are just an effect to an initial predestined action. Based on everything we know.. it's about a 50/50 percent chance that who we are .. is based solely on the effects that made us and the interaction with an environment that is the reflection of other interactions that all resulted from the initial "cause".

 

[Ophiolite]

Logic is logic regardless of how it is packaged.. I'm not here to convince anyone.. I'm simply here to point out the most logical answers to our existence.. If you have the capacity to understand .. then good .. if not.. then.. so be it.

It's a matter of depth and critical thinking.. some people look at a wall.. and see a wall.. some look at the same wall and see the drywall.. studs.. structure.. the architecture behind it .. the necessity etc.

Logic can be misapplied. You have not demonstrated, so far, that you are competent to apply logic. Indeed, I have not actually seen any formal logic in your arguments. Of course, I have not yet read each of your posts. I shall comment further when I have done so.

Now I asked you a question. This is a discussion forum. It would be nice if you would be kind enough to respond to that question. It was the implicit one in my second paragraph relating to free will.

Edit: you can obviously ignore this request as you posted a second or two before I did, with the response. thank you.

 

[MrAnderson9]

The problem is your inability to construct a logical argument. If all interactions are predefined by the developer there is no room for bugs or unexpected behavior. If all interactions are predefined then bugs are not mistakes or accidents. If they are mistakes they are not predefined by the developer.

They are.. but unintentionally. I intended on throwing a football 100 yards... but it only went 15. We are still subject to THE CREATOR'S LAWS. This is very basic stuff guys.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Logic is logic regardless of how it is packaged.. I'm not here to convince anyone.. I'm simply here to point out the most logical answers to our existence.. If you have the capacity to understand .. then good .. if not.. then.. so be it.

It's a matter of depth and critical thinking.. some people look at a wall.. and see a wall.. some look at the same wall and see the drywall.. studs.. structure.. the architecture behind it .. the necessity etc.

The most logical answers are not necessarily the correct answers.

 

[Ophiolite]

If you don't have freewill .. then YOU simply don't exist. And if you don't exist.. then you're not responsible for any of your actions... you're just an effect of the initial action, you're just a program running it course. Laws aren't "living beings".. laws are rules.. laws are definition.. laws don't have a "will" per se. We like to think we do.. that we have a will.. that we are living .. intelligent beings. Now.. I'm not saying what you just stated is absolutely incorrect.. it's incorrect for what you stated it for.. but it's correct in that there is probability that we are just an effect to an initial predestined action. Based on everything we know.. it's about a 50/50 percent chance that who we are .. is based solely on the effects that made us and the interaction with an environment that is the reflection of other interactions that all resulted from the initial "cause".

If we take the second of your two proposed options, that who we are is based solely on the effects, etc. then clearly we do not have free will. Yet you claim that we do. Please apply the critical thinking you noted earlier as being important and recognise that is illogical.

Rocks do not have free will. A rock rolling down a hillside under the influence of gravity has no free will. According to you it simply does not exist. Aha! I've wasted a significant part of my life studying things that do not exit. Alas!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

They are.. but unintentionally. I intended on throwing a football 100 yards... but it only went 15. We are still subject to THE CREATOR'S LAWS. This is very basic stuff guys.

It is basic, and you aren't getting it. If I predefine all interactions then when I intend to throw a football 100 yards it must go 100 yards. If it only goes 15 yards then I didn't predefine all interactions.

 

[Ophiolite]

They are.. but unintentionally. I intended on throwing a football 100 yards... but it only went 15. We are still subject to THE CREATOR'S LAWS. This is very basic stuff guys.

This does not appear in anyway relevant to anything I have said (and not much of qht you have said). Were you responding to another member whom I have on Ignore? If not, what are you havering about?

 

[MrAnderson9]

Logic can be misapplied. You have not demonstrated, so far, that you are competent to apply logic. Indeed, I have not actually seen any formal logic in your arguments. Of course, I have not yet read each of your posts. I shall comment further when I have done so.

Now I asked you a question. This is a discussion forum. It would be nice if you would be kind enough to respond to that question. It was the implicit one in my second paragraph relating to free will.

Edit: you can obviously ignore this request as you posted a second or two before I did, with the response. thank you.

Logic can be misapplied. You have not demonstrated, so far, that you are competent to apply logic. Indeed, I have not actually seen any formal logic in your arguments. Of course, I have not yet read each of your posts. I shall comment further when I have done so.

Now I asked you a question. This is a discussion forum. It would be nice if you would be kind enough to respond to that question. It was the implicit one in my second paragraph relating to free will.

Edit: you can obviously ignore this request as you posted a second or two before I did, with the response. thank you.

What is it that you believe? and what belief of mine do you have an issue with? I believe in universal logic. meaning that everything combined together has to make sense and support everything else.

I believe that objects placed in the physical realm have to come with a set of instructions defining their interaction with all other objects.

I believe God made things this way to allow us to interact TOGETHER. If my actions.. didn't affect your reality then we would be living on two different plains of existence and not able to interact with one another.

Now in order for this interaction to be possible.. there are laws in place.. laws made by the Creator.

 

[MrAnderson9]

It is basic, and you aren't getting it. If I predefine all interactions then when I intend to throw a football 100 yards it must go 100 yards. If it only goes 15 yards then I didn't predefine all interactions.

Ok well you're not God so your intentions are still subject to the reality God lays out for you. We're still subject to mental capacity. The Bug in the programming isn't intentional it's accidental due to the developer making a flaw.

 

[MrAnderson9]

It's just a thought, but many readers are more readily persuaded by an argument when the argument is not presented in a patronising tone.

Then you say.....

This does not appear in anyway relevant to anything I have said (and not much of qht you have said). Were you responding to another member whom I have on Ignore? If not, what are you havering about?

Seems like a lot of your argument and confusion is internal in nature.

 

[Ophiolite]

What is it that you believe? and what belief of mine do you have an issue with? I believe in universal logic. meaning that everything combined together has to make sense and support everything else.

I follow the principle that logic
is generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of arguments. A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion.*

In serious discussions it is normal to use the accepted meaning of words. My starting issue is that you do not appear to be using the accepted meaning of logic. This will make further discussion at best, difficult, and at worst, impossible.
That said, I can just about twist your words around to get a fit between your definition and the accepted one. Unfortunately, I then find - so far - no instances where you have made an ordered argument.

The beliefs in the balance of your post do seem consistent, yet contradict your earlier assertions. Frankly, your posts seem all over the place. That might be me. I'm signing off from further conversation with you today, but shall read all of your post tomorrow and see if I can detect a sensible pattern.

 

[Ophiolite]

Then you say.....


Seems like a lot of your argument and confusion is internal in nature.

How so?