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.
I find it rather informative that the only input from you is either making general hobby psycho-babble, mocking, or cheer leading for materialists. You are consistent.You wouldn't believe how real. Trust me, my experience was real.
Again an illusion is something we are conscious of because of strong evidence of one of our senses is being fooled. Dawkins only bases of believing design in living systems are an illusion is his faith in evolution. He assumes his brain is a product of evolution and not intelligent design so is not able to know "truth". He agrees his sense detects design but his senses in lying to him. He agree he is more complex than a computer or even his book which he agrees is intelligent design. This is against sound reasoning since if his mind is greater than his book which is intelligent design then logic concludes that his mind is greater than ID of his book. Thus evolution becomes Dawkin's idol as it greater than his creations yet evolution itself is man's creation.
No one can prove the universe is not an illusion. By default we don't assume our senses are lying to us (illusion) unless there's good evidence to prove otherwise. If someone want to believe something is an illusion it's impossible to prove to that person it's not.
Actually, you can't show it was illusion/delusion which is the problem when you have a materialistic worldview that says evolution explains it but doesn't provide any evidence to show it is an illusion.It does, you can't show it was an illusion and or delusion.
Again, and I know that you would like to ignore the fact that the claim lies with Dawkins, but design is the evidence and anyone (Dawkins specifically) must show why that evidence is as it is but that it is an illusion.It is a yes or no question. Yes: you can show that it is actual, intended design, or no, it remains an illusion, your protestations notwithstanding.
Can you show that it is actual, intended design? Yes or no?
You can take the road of denial but design in nature is apparent to materialist and theist alike.What design? Where? If I do not fall for this illusion, is the appearance of design not there?
Say you have no evidence then or concede. Saying you don't know is fine but don't continue to claim that the design in nature that all agree upon is an illusion if you can't show it is.Yours is a god-of-the-gaps type of god? If science can't explain it, goddidit.
Why do you not just say so?
No, just shifting the burden and denial.Still no support for the illusion position, is there?
Is that an accusation of lying? Can you read minds?You can take the road of denial but design in nature is apparent to materialist and theist alike.
My position needs no evidence. My position is that you cannot show actual, intended design.Say you have no evidence then or concede.
It is your/his burden Davian. HIS BURDEN for HIS POSITIVE CLAIM. He must provide evidence that show the design is an illusion. The design is there, everyone admits it is there and it is up to him to show it is an illusion if you all want people to believe that it is an illusion. This isn't rocket science.Can you show that it is actual, intended design? Yes or no?
Is that an accusation of lying? Can you read minds?
My position needs no evidence. My position is that you cannot show actual, intended design.
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?