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.
And that He (God) can be clearly seen in what is made, or things that were made and/or exist, etc, (Romans 1:20)
I do apologize, I just get frustrated sometimes, sorry, but as I said, it is the stupidity/insanity all around me, even with, and even most especially with my supposed, supposedly "fellow Christians" also, etc... I do apologize though, I'll do my best to try not to insult anymore, K...Hand on heart, I can honestly say that I don’t see God in what is made, just wonderful nature at work. I appreciate that you do, which is cool and all, but to insult people who think differently is very unbecoming and narrow minded.
I do apologize, I just get frustrated sometimes, sorry, but as I said, it is the stupidity/insanity all around me, even with, and even most especially with my supposed, supposedly "fellow Christians" also, etc... I do apologize though, I'll do my best to try not to insult anymore, K...
But, you don't see intelligence or intelligent design, or at the very least "intelligence" maybe, in perhaps the "program" or evolution and/or life or life itself and life all around you, and in the "entire creation itself" at all, etc...?
Not "at all", in "any of it", etc...?
You don't see any kind of "design" in any of it at all, etc...? "At all", etc...?
God Bless!
IMO, something had to set it all off or start it all (off), etc, and IMO it shows great signs of intelligence or intelligent design behind it (all), or a "mind" behind it all, etc...nope, no magic needed.
@AllIMO, something had to set it all off or start it all (off), etc, and IMO it shows great signs of intelligence or intelligent design behind it (all), or a "mind" behind it all, etc...
It's not magic, it's logic...
And I would like you guys to approach this from a completely objective point of view, as I realize many of your perceptions and your ideas, thoughts, etc, or ideas on the concept of a God, or the idea of a God, etc, have been drastically (and negatively) "affected" by "people only claiming to know and represent God", or have been affected (negatively affected) by those who have tried to present God to you, etc, (and who have failed very miserably, etc), and I'm asking you to "eliminate" all of that/those and not have any bias, or any biases at all based on that, etc, OK...?
Did something or someone have to start and/or initiate it, or set it all off, in motion, etc...? And does "any of it at all" seem to have "any kind of intelligence behind it at all", etc...?
What do you think...? Yes or No...?
Or does all of this, not seem to have any kind of intelligence at all, behind it or in or to it at all, etc...?
In your "completely objective and totally unbiased opinion", what do you think...? Yes or No...?
God Bless!
Your arguments are not based on logic, so it's odd that you think we should just accept this claim.IMO, something had to set it all off or start it all (off), etc, and IMO it shows great signs of intelligence or intelligent design behind it (all), or a "mind" behind it all, etc...
It's not magic, it's logic...
No intelligence or agency required.Did something or someone have to start and/or initiate it, or set it all off, in motion, etc...? And does "any of it at all" seem to have "any kind of intelligence behind it at all", etc...?
No intelligence or agency required.Or does all of this, not seem to have any kind of intelligence at all, behind it or in or to it at all, etc...?
No intelligence or agency required.
No intelligence or agency required.
You just present a list of arguments from incredulity, then accuse others of stupidity. That's extremely weak and offensive sauce.
IMO, something had to set it all off or start it all (off), etc, and IMO it shows great signs of intelligence or intelligent design behind it (all), or a "mind" behind it all, etc...
It's not magic, it's logic...
And I would like you guys to approach this from a completely objective point of view, as I realize many of your perceptions and your ideas, thoughts, etc, or ideas on the concept of a God, or the idea of a God, etc, have been drastically (and negatively) "affected" by "people only claiming to know and represent God", or have been affected (negatively affected) by those who have tried to present God to you, etc, (and who have failed very miserably, etc), and I'm asking you to "eliminate" all of that/those and not have any bias, or any biases at all based on that, etc, OK...?
Did something or someone have to start and/or initiate it, or set it all off, in motion, etc...? And does "any of it at all" seem to have "any kind of intelligence behind it at all", etc...?
What do you think...? Yes or No...?
Or does all of this, not seem to have any kind of intelligence at all, behind it or in or to it at all, etc...?
In your "completely objective and totally unbiased opinion", what do you think...? Yes or No...?
God Bless!
If I say that no intelligence or agency is required it's because the evidence does not indicate that any intelligence or agent was involved. You may chose to believe there was an intelligent agent involved, but the evidence we have does not indicate such involvement. And before you go there, the evidence does not indicate that there wasn't any involvement, just that such involvement was not necessary and is not apparent.I'm not asking you what is or is not required, I'm asking you "what do you see", etc...?
Is it, or "any of it at all", in "any way shape or form", does it indicate, or is "any of it indicative of any kind of "intelligence" of any kind at all" or not, etc...? In any way, shape, or form, or even in the slightest, etc...? Yes or No, etc...?
And let's just forget about trying to prove or disprove it with the facts right now, K... But, in your "opinion", what do you "see", etc...?
Intelligence of any kind at all...? Or no intelligence of any kind at all, etc...?
Yes or No, etc...?
I do and did apologize, and did my best to try and explain (post #42), but/and, if that's not good enough for you, then I do not know what else to say...?
I'm sorry again maybe...?
Anyway,
God Bless!
Thank you for offering me your "opinion", especially since that is what I did ask for, but mine is otherwise though...?If I say that no intelligence or agency is required it's because the evidence does not indicate that any intelligence or agent was involved. You may chose to believe there was an intelligent agent involved, but the evidence we have does not indicate such involvement. And before you go there, the evidence does not indicate that there wasn't any involvement, just that such involvement was not necessary and is not apparent.
Are you able to provide anything other than wishful thinking or incredulity to support the claim that the evidence indicates intelligence? No creationist has ever provided anything more than that, so I won't be holding my breath. And there's an important difference between my opinion and yours - you are making a positive claim with no support, I am not.Thank you for offering me your "opinion", especially since that is what I did ask for, but mine is otherwise though...?
I think the "evidence", or all that is, that we can see and/or observe/measure/gauge, or "whatever", does show or indicate some kind of intelligence behind it, or some such intelligence being involved with it or behind it, etc...
The simple fact that it has "order", I think indicates that it has "design", etc... It's all ordered in manners that we can predict with things like math and mathematics, that doesn't indicate some sort of "design" or intelligence behind it to you...? Cause it does to me, etc...? Anyway, but, I did ask for your guys opinions, and I guess that's all were really discussing here, so...
Anyway, thanks very much again,
God Bless!
Are you able to provide anything other than wishful thinking or incredulity to support the claim that the evidence indicates intelligence? No creationist has ever provided anything more than that, so I won't be holding my breath.
And there's an important difference between my opinion and yours - you are making a positive claim with no support, I am not.
No "offense", but the fact that you call it "magic"...? Anyway, enough said I think...Magic is never based on logic.
There is no "need" for god(s). Its only belief.
And I deny the existance of magic.
I pointed out a very obvious difference between our positions (you are making a positive claim, I am not) and you dismiss it as no difference at all? Lol, that's hilarious from somebody who claims to be objective.I'm not a creationist "per-say", not in the sense that you mean it anyway, or obviously have some kind of bias or prejudice against anyway (which I can understand BTW) but it still means you have some kind of bias or prejudice blocking your view from viewing this 100% completely objectively though IMO...
No, there is no difference in my opinion from yours, mine is just as equally valid as yours, and your claim, or your opinion, has no less or more support than mine, I'm viewing this objectively, but you are not, etc...
And that's just the "truth", etc...
My claim is that the order in all things indicates design, supported by the fact that it can all be predicted mathematically and by mathematics, or it all will be able to be "in time" anyway, which in my opinion and my view indicates intelligence behind it all and therefore intelligent design, etc...
And I also think that there are "other things" to support my view and/or opinion as well, but I'm not going to get into those right now, etc...
Anyway, How is that view (or opinion) any more or less valid, or more or less supported or unsupported than yours...?
God Bless!
I see this all, "all of it", as one big "program", designed by a master programmer or intelligent designer, life itself, us, even the entire universe itself, "all of it", from it largest to it's smallest detail and "everything in-between", just all one big program were all running, etc...I'm not a creationist "per-say", not in the sense that you mean it anyway, or obviously have some kind of bias or prejudice against anyway (which I can understand BTW) but it still means you have some kind of bias or prejudice blocking your view from viewing this 100% completely objectively though IMO...
No, there is no difference in my opinion from yours, mine is just as equally valid as yours, and your claim, or your opinion, has no less or more support than mine, I'm viewing this objectively, but you are not, etc...
And that's just the "truth", etc...
My claim is that the order in all things indicates design, supported by the fact that it can all be predicted mathematically and by mathematics, or it all will be able to be "in time" anyway, which in my opinion and my view indicates intelligence behind it all and therefore intelligent design, etc...
And I also think that there are "other things" to support my view and/or opinion as well, but I'm not going to get into those right now, etc...
Anyway, How is that view (or opinion) any more or less valid, or more or less supported or unsupported than yours...?
God Bless!
And yours is "what", a "negative claim"...? Anyway... I believe there is a whole slew of "evidence of intelligence", and I ask you how to say or prove that "that view is any more or less valid than yours", etc...I pointed out a very obvious difference between our positions (you are making a positive claim, I am not) and you dismiss it as no difference at all? Lol, that's hilarious from somebody who claims to be objective.
You then proceeded to offer wishful thinking and incredulity as support for your positive claim, but nothing else. And that was despite the fact that I asked if you had anything other than wishful thinking and incredulity to offer.
The honest, objective view is the one which says "there is no evidence of intelligence, but that does not preclude the possibility of intelligence". One of us holds that view, and is, therefore, demonstrably more objective than the other. I shall leave you to work out which of us that is.
If your in any way saying that there is a "possibility of intelligence", then you are automatically saying that "there is not absolutely not any evidence whatsoever of intelligence", or that lends credence to the possibility of intelligence, etc...I pointed out a very obvious difference between our positions (you are making a positive claim, I am not) and you dismiss it as no difference at all? Lol, that's hilarious from somebody who claims to be objective.
You then proceeded to offer wishful thinking and incredulity as support for your positive claim, but nothing else. And that was despite the fact that I asked if you had anything other than wishful thinking and incredulity to offer.
The honest, objective view is the one which says "there is no evidence of intelligence, but that does not preclude the possibility of intelligence". One of us holds that view, and is, therefore, demonstrably more objective than the other. I shall leave you to work out which of us that is.
Your stated view up to this point has been certainty of intelligence. Why are you now claiming only possibility of intelligence?My "opinion" (or theory) is just like yours, that there is a "possibility of intelligence", my "claim" is that there is a "very strong possibility of intelligence", etc...
But by even by saying there is a "possibility", then you are automatically saying that there has to something to (that), or that lends credence to that theory or possibility, etc...
Or, in some small way, some kind of, at least, possible "evidence" (of that), etc...
God Bless!
Your stated view up to this point has been certainty of intelligence. Why are you now claiming only possibility of intelligence?
Your posts demonstrate a very imprecise, changeable and wishy-washy attitude towards evidence, arguments, opinions and beliefs. You appear not to understand the difference between a positive claim, a negative claim and a neutral claim. You appear not to understand the difference between certainty and possibility. You appear not to understand the difference between validity of an argument and strength of an argument. After this latest post you also appear not to know what your own opinion actually is!
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?