Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Most people consider it silly that you consider it not having been clearly demonstrated in nature yet.
I also consider it silly that you choose to believe in something that hasn't been demonstrated ion nature at all yet.
So I guess the perception of silliness is mutual.
I assumed you meant an atheist professor because you have irrational expectations of the kind that only an atheist professor is likely to fulfill. Non atheists professor would calmly weigh the proposition instead of assuming that I mean some entity that will spy on them while they are naked.
True, I have not provide evidence which supports your interpretations.
Besides, even if I did you would immediately pull out the inability to see card.
The truth behind your vehement objections finally comes out! It isn't really the dimensions you object to-it is the being or deity that you imagine I am suggesting might dwell in such hypothetical dimension that irks you.
Wrong! Unceremonious dismissals don't constitute a rebuttal.
That is an extremely basic argumentation principle with which anyone who is attempting to engage in an argument should be aware.
Otherwise he shouldn't be attempting to argue in the first place..
BTW
Below you claim that they aren't concepts! Above you admit that they are.
Hypotheticals are now not concepts? Now you are writing your own dictionary.
The only reason offered so far for the rejection of the proposed dimension is that the being who might reside there might be interested on what the atheist is doing while the atheist happens to be but naked. With all due respect but I am not proposing that the being in such a dimension is interested in what atheists are doing while they are but naked. I am merely proposing that a being who fits the description of creator might reside there. Hope that clears it up and assuages atheist fears.
But you do claim the existence of a creator... and you admit that this creator cannot be directly observed in nature.Well, since I never claimed that we can observe a creator directly creating in nature that is unfortunately a straw-man argument. What i did say, and which you totally ignore, is that the only pattern we are able to observe in nature is life coming from previous life. Any other idea has absolutely no basis in observation and therefore lacks observational support...
Why "theophobia"? You were talking about "life", weren't you? Now where do gods come into that?...which should make far less viable than the life is derived only from life conclusion. The fact that it is avoided like the Bubonic plague seems to or might indicate a bias which might be traceable in some instances to the psychological phenomenon referred to as theophobia.
You don't need to play dumb. You know quite well what I was aiming at. But your evasion plays very well into my next point. Let's go on!Life doesn't arise from life in church?
Sorry but life coming from life can certainly be made to happen in church. The problem is that allowing congress in church in order to provide a demonstration is rather inappropriate. Mendel used animals in his initial genetic research and was told to stop because it appeared unseemly to his religious supervisors so he switched to vegetation. But rest assured that despite the religious ambience in which he was working life was certainly coming via life. The good thing about it was that he needed no forcing of the type attempted in abiogenesis to have it happen.
What does this "life" that you are talking about encompass? What is this "life" that is the origin... what is this "life" that is the product?Aware of what the principle encompasses? The principles involved in reaching a conclusion based on that observation? Oh! You must mean the inductive leap based on observation of pattern. Yes, we are aware that in order to make the inductive leap an observable pattern must exist. Otherwise an inductive leap would be impossible. That's basic to the scientific method and if we unceremoniously discard it when we deem it convenient-then we can be accused of being unscientific ad we certainly don't want that-right?
Really? You might have said that... asserted it... but if you did indeed present a logical conclusion to this point, I must have missed it.BTW
I have also said that the manner in which such life is organized meets the requirements for logically concluding the activity a creative mind.
I'd like to see you respond to the conclusion that logically follows from your approach, necessitating a material / physical existence of "the creator", but I fear you will just ignore it.To which atheists always respond with:
"We can't see!"
Umm, the "I just can't see it!" response isn't a rebuttal. It is a declaration of an inability to comprehend or to see or a refusal; to do so.
Now you are writing your own book on the rules of argumentation. A rebuttal via counter-evidence or logic isn't required in your system?
Really? Make a statement like that to a professor of logic and see what he tells you.
Better yet, go to a court of law and present your case and tell that to the judge.
Unfortunately you are describing exactly what atheists do when they propose abiogenesis, they offer no support for the justification.
Constantly repeating myself becomes tiresome. Especially when I have been perfectly clear. Don't understand plain English? Take an English reading comprehension remedial class.
That is an unwarranted suspicion stated without providing any logical reason for it.
I am not under any rhetorical obligation to respond to unwarranted suspicions.
Why would you consider something that doesn't occur in nature and can't be forced to happen in a lab more feasible than something based on what is repeatedly observable in nature and which justifies the inductive leap that life comes only from previous life? I mean-you are entitled to your belief. However, I just can't understand your logic.
<...bluster...>
Most people consider it silly that you consider it not having been clearly demonstrated in nature yet.
The only reason offered for proposing this dimension is that you believe it.
I don't need to refute that which isn't even supported in the first place.
Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.
Your "what-if's" and question begging only deserves pointing out.
What I believe isn't what you are claiming that I believe.
So the burden of proving that I believe what you are claiming that I believe isn't on me.
The burden of proving that I believe what you are claiming that I believe is on you.
As for what ifs, those what ifs are from your physicists.
String Theory has been mentioned in relation to those idea. I provided video and links. If those aren't suffice then you need to personally contact your atheist scientists and personally inquire.
Show me where I concluded something instead of qualifying it with "perhaps" "possibly" "it is thought" and other expressions of that kind. That is a strawman accusation.
BTW
Ignoring the links and video showing your scientists proposing what I have just said they are proposing doesn't constitute a rebuttal. It's called the Mr Magoo strategy.
And if you get any random three people from around the world who do see it clearly demonstrated in nature, chances are very good that you'll get three different explanations of what the being demonstrated is. But by all means, if you see a clear demonstration of you poorly-defined hypothesis in nature, let's hear it! Maybe you, after thousands of years of religious bickering, can finally provide conclusive evidence of your particular god belief, and we can tell all the other religions to pack it in! I won't hold my breath, personally.
I already provided links and a video.
As expected, no links or names to substantiate his assertions, and no links or quotes to substantiate any allegations about my posts.
The characterization of God as a peeping tom wasn't one I was expecting to see on a Christian forum though...
p.s. what's with this obsession with the idea of spying on people naked? I see I'm not the only one Radrook has responded to with this - and here too.
I haven't proposed anything that isn't justified by what your physicists suggest and acknowledge.
If indeed what they have suggested and what they acknowledge concerning their own limited understanding of reality warrants criticism, then criticize their declarations and not the conclusions which are justifiably based on those declarations simply because you feel that those conclusions threaten your atheistic preferences.
The exact nature of the ID and religious bickering over its identity are totally irrelevant because the only thing I am pointing out is that they conclude an ID.
Scientists who disagree over the nature of gravity aren't denying the existence of gravity-are they? Or those who might bicker concerning the nature of dark energy or dark matter aren't placing their existence in any doubt0-are they?
So why is it that whenever the subject is about an reasoning is suddenly suspended and irrationality kicks in?
BTW
I haven't proposed anything that isn't justified by what your physicists suggest and acknowledge.
It was your post.... are you saying that you were sharing "concepts" of "dimensions" that you don't even believe yourself?
If you don't actually believe the things you said in your post about "dimensions", then why did you write it?
No, they aren't.
You are free to cite papers to support this assertion of yours.
Personally, I have never seen any physics papers talking about dimensions where god lives or where "souls" go after their bodies die.
And they do so without any evidence to support such a conclusion.
Scientists have evidence for gravity, dark matter, and dark energy. Big difference.
The only lack of reasoning is those who conclude there is an ID without any evidence to support it.
How is the creation of life on Earth by an ID justified by anything that physicists have proposed?
The exact process that scientists used to proclaim their belief in the existence of dark matter is the exact process that theists use to proclaim the existence of an ID-observation of patterns followed by a justified inductive leap.
That you claim evidence for atheists and non-evidence for theists even though they reached he same conclusion based on the same process can only sugnify the following things:
We know for a fact that complex organic molecules can form naturally.
Also, please point me to where we can "repeatedly observe" godlike entities creating life.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?