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.
So is posit a. I don't pretend to go through my reasons why I believe both a and b to be true. The whole thing is an if, including its components. In b, I assert an implication.Posit b is an unsupported assertion, not an implication.
Semantic arguments in a scientific discussion mean you've already lost.
Again, evolution is a scientific theory, not a "worldview". I realize YECs are desperately trying to find a way to attack evolution since you can't address the science, but no. Magic words like "worldview" don't address the science.
The dictionary refers to USE of a word. Not fact of what the word represents.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming (oops!) that you were trying to echo the options A. First Cause has a mind B. First Cause does not have a mindSo is posit a.
If you are just making assertions then why pretend to have a logical argument?I don't pretend to go through my reasons why I believe both a and b to be true. The whole thing is an if, including its components. In b, I assert an implication.
First, if you are going to insert your comments into a quote, please use brackets instead of parenthesis.At the end of your OP, you said:
"None of that (your descriptions of natural events and progressions) requires direct intervention of God. It is simply the working of nature, driving one evolutionary line in a unique direction after a number of prior adaptions had given that genus a unique survival strategy. No miracle was required." My remark, "Where did nature come from?" was in direct answer to your claim that no direct intervention of God was required. It was not a change of subject. I did not "ignore the OP", and the question was not "out of the blue". And so far, you have not answered that question.
If you read what I wrote at Is There a God? - The Mind Set Free, how is it you appear to completely misunderstand what I wrote there? Read it.I read what the link took me to, and it was not particularly enlightening —basically more of the same as the OP.
Understood. But at first I thought by "nature" you were talking about physics. Later, it appeared you were changing the topic to the origin of logic and math.You say, "Your response indicated you weren't really interested in the cause of nature."
Perhaps I didn't agree with your thesis. But my whole reason for asking the question, "where did nature come from" obviously shows I'm interested in the cause of nature, or I wouldn't have asked it.
Clearly you did not read what is in the link. There I mention first cause multiple times. (Note: I do not capitalize "first cause". When I speak of first cause, I am speaking of the ultimate explanation for reality.) As I mention there, this first cause likely does not have a mind, and if not, it would not be proper to call it God. You could read what I said if you are interested. Instead, you argue about what I said, with no apparent understanding of what is there.Yours was no doubt logical enough, if one can ignore the logical necessity of first cause.
Once again, I am stating that 2 + 2 = 10 is logically self-contradictory regardless of whether a God exists. It is inherently contradictory.You say, "In your last response, you complain endlessly that I am discussing mathematics and logic. Darn right! Who hijacked this thread anyway? You did. Who insisted that we had to talk about the origin of mathematics and logic? You did. Fine. I obliged you. Now you complain endlessly that I am discussing the origin of mathematics and logic." In my last response I complain endlessly that you attribute actual status or value to a logically self-contradictory notion —and not only that, but that you give it governing powers over self-existent first cause!
Good grief. Get over it. This thread was supposed to be about human evolution. Read the title of the thread and the OP. You however, insisted we need to talk about the origin of math. You changed the topic. Fine. Its done. I'll go along with the new topic. Let's move on, please.In my first paragraph in this current post, I show that I did NOT change the subject of the OP, thus I did NOT hijack your thread. Do you misrepresent all your opponents this way?
Nobody remotely claims that science has all the answers.a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint.
One specific standpoint is science .... another is creation (and there are other worldviews). ie coming from a specific standpoint.
Science don't have all the answers ...
There is information collected and that information is interpreted and/or theorized as to what is could mean. There are many different interpretations and theories about a lot of things.
Through science we have learned that life is VERY complex, the universe is extremely vast and that it is amazingly fine tuned.
We debate the various details (information collected) but real basically it ends up being happen chance or design ... or the mingling of the two. All are theories, all are plausible and debatable. Why? Because none of them can be indisputably proven.
The only indisputable fact there is .... is .... life on planet earth exists, beyond that it's debatable on how that could have happened and will continue to be that way.
and ... the beat goes on ;o)
QV please:Please give us some examples of "a lot" of different theories ...
Funny how Romans 1 agrees —people don't want to be creationists."But Daddy, why is there a universe?"
"Because there was a Big Bang."
"But Daddy, why was there a Big Bang?"
"We think it was because of cosmic inflation and quantum effects."
"But why was there cosmic inflation and quantum effects?"
"We don't know. Maybe they always existed. Or maybe there was something else that caused them."
"But Daddy, what caused the cause of the inflation that caused the Big Bang?"
"Ultimately we don't know. Eventually we must come down to something that somehow causes it all. Let's call that the first cause."
"But why did the first cause decide to create the cause of the universe?"
"The first cause might not have even had a mind. After all, it is difficult to even conceive of a mind when there is no substance around to store memories. How can a mind function without substances to make a memory? If the first cause didn't have a mind, maybe it just randomly made multiverses that occasionally made universes."
"But Daddy, why don't we just ignore a first cause without a mind and pretend there are only two options: God, or a strawman alternative?"
"You don't want to ignore arguments, son. Else, you might grow up to be a Creationist."
"I don't want to be a Creationist."
"Smart kid."
Some end up becoming atheists.Funny how Romans 1 agrees —people don't want to be creationists.
If creationism had convincing evidence, I would want to be a creationist.Funny how Romans 1 agrees —people don't want to be creationists.
What an odd statement.If creationism had convincing evidence, I would want to be a creationist.
At my website I show evidence that the earth is billions of years old. If you want me to believe it is only a few thousand of years old, you would need convincing evidence that the argument I make there is wrong. See How Old is the Earth? - The Mind Set Free.What an odd statement.
What kind of evidence are you expecting to see?
Ion trail? time crystals? vapor clouds? microwave background? spare parts lying around?
What exactly?
At my website I show evidence that the earth is billions of years old. If you want me to believe it is only a few thousand of years old, you would need convincing evidence that the argument I make there is wrong. See How Old is the Earth? - The Mind Set Free.
I also show evidence that life evolved at Did We Evolve? - The Mind Set Free . If you want me to believe we did not evolve, you would need convincing evidence that the argument I make there is wrong.
If you think you have good evidence that shows either of those pages is wrong, I would be willing to start a thread and give you the opportunity to make your case.
Ignoring evidence is intellectual dishonesty, a total failureIf creationism had convincing evidence, I would want to be a creationist.
But if I had to ignore evidence to stay a Creationist, then no, that wouldn't be my thing.
Nice dodge.If you think you have good evidence that shows either of those pages is wrong, I would be willing to start a thread and give you the opportunity to make your case.
You'd have to recognize it first, before you get goosebumps.I would literally be the intellectual thrill of a lifetime to see even one fact to contradict evolution or deep time.
So is expecting evidence of something that didn't generate any.Ignoring evidence is intellectual dishonesty, a total failure of integrity.
Nice dodge.
I'll give you another chance.
What SPECIFIC evidence are you expecting to see, that would lead you to believe that God created this Earth by speaking it into existence from absolutely nothing?
Ion trail? vapor cloud? microwave background? spare parts lying around?
What exactly.
If I built a doghouse, I'd have bits of wood lying around that I had sawed off of boards.
But if I spoke that doghouse into existence from nothing, there would be no bits of wood lying around.
So what is it you're expecting to see that should be lying around?
I tried.The problem is the things that are lying around: fossils, rocks, DNA evidence, distant starlight, etc. All indicate the earth is millions of years old and life evolved. If I were to become a young earth Creationist, I would need to ignore this evidence, yes?
Nah. Just use SEDIThe problem is the things that are lying around: fossils, rocks, DNA evidence, distant starlight, etc. All indicate the earth is millions of years old and life evolved. If I were to become a young earth Creationist, I would need to ignore this evidence, yes?
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?