- Feb 25, 2016
- 11,539
- 2,725
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Attribution of mind to mindless chemicals as you are doing us nonsensical.
Upvote
0
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.
Attribution of mind to mindless chemicals as you are doing us nonsensical."I've never heard of a term therefore you are wrong"? Uh, OK
Good, you're starting to understand.
The problem is that I don't detect intellectual honesty from those who refuse to see any significance in fine tuning.
Errrr..... when you make claims about probabilities, then you imply probability calculations. Where are they?
You don't feel like you need probability calculations in order to make claims about probability?
Okay. In that case, I'll just go ahead and say that the probability of the universe existing in its present form is 1 in 1. I don't need to support that assertion, because why would I need to show what is plainly there to see?
I assert it, that settles it.
Yep, makes perfect sense!
It is, when you start making claims about probabilities, without the math to back it up.
I have no reason to acknowledge bare assertions.
And there we go again, with the "atheistic" nonsense.
Ken Miller. Francis Collins. The pope.
Armoured. Speedwell.
All theists that disagree with your nonsense.
You really need to start being a bit more honest.
Attribution of mind to mindless chemicals as you are doing us nonsensical.
The ones making assertions of fine tuning are your own scientists. So your beef is with them not me. I am merely drawing a conclusion based on their opinion. If indeed you don't accept any one of their fine tuning claims then which one is it? Describe it so it can be researched.There is a difference between seeing "significance" and plainly asserting all kinds of things in an attempt to "explain away" the significance.
You are here, making all kinds of assertions and you offer NOTHING to back it up. And then accuse us of all kinds of things because we refuse to take your nonsense claims at face-value, or because we aren't convinced by a bunch of PRATTs.
Of course you are because mind is essential for the things you claim that your chemicals are doing mindlessly. Or are you claiming not to know the difference between the activity of a planning mind and mindlessness? Thee is the problem. You are smart enough to tell the difference as long as telling the difference doesn't involve recognition of mind in nature because evidence of mind in nature goes contrary to atheist preferences. Such a biased modus operandi isn't science.Nobody here does that. Stop lying.
Claiming not to see the obvious comes across as peevish hypocrisy.
Do you need calculations to know that bow and arrow are the product of a mind? Of course not.
If I demanded calculations from you in reference to a bow and arrow you would consider me as making a joke or else to be extremely feeble minded.
The ones making assertions of fine tuning are your own scientists.
So your beef is with them not me. I am merely drawing a conclusion based on their which is readily available to you.
Of course you are
because mind is essential for the things you claim that your chemicals are doing mindlessly.
You are smart enough to tell the difference as long as telling the difference doesn't involve recognition of mind in nature because evidence of mind in nature goes contrary to atheist preferences. Such a biased modus operandi isn't science.
The product of those laws indicate mind. That you dismiss the result of those interactions as traceable only to mindless laws does not in any way obliterate the evidence of a planning conscious mind who fixed things to work toward a purpose. Your claim that mindless chemicals assemble a brain is ludicrous.No. Again: stop lying.
It is not.
Chemical reactions are subject to the laws of physics. No "mind" is making chemicals do what they do.
When 2 H atoms bind with an O atom to form H2O, it's just physics/chemistry. There is no "mind" piecing them together like a puzzle.
More lies, more accusations proven false multiple times over.
You're hitting a new low.
The product of those laws indicate mind.
That you dismiss the result of those interactions as traceable only to mindless laws does not in any way obliterate the evidence of a planning conscious mind who fixed things to work toward a purpose.
Your claim that mindless chemicals assemble a brain is ludicrous.
BTW
Your monotonous, dishonest accusation that we are ignorant of, or denying the laws that cause chemical reactions is called strawman. You stop lying.
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?