If I have the Respect of every Creature, I have the respect of Evolution?

[Jimmy D]

And that He (God) can be clearly seen in what is made, or things that were made and/or exist, etc, (Romans 1:20)

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.

 

[Neogaia777]

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!

 

[VirOptimus]

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!

nope, no magic needed.

 

[Neogaia777]

nope, no magic needed.

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!

 

[Neogaia777]

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!

@All

And, yes, yes, I know many of you are going to say that "we have no absolutely for sure clear direct solid evidence or proof of that", etc, etc, etc, (which I think is debatable, etc) (anyway), I know many of you are going to say that we have no absolutely for sure clear direct solid evidence or proof of that directly, etc, but I'm not asking you what you think we can prove or not prove with absolute certainty right now, I'm asking for your opinion, and what you think you "see" when you look at "it all" with your eyes, or learn about otherwise, with your ears or your eyes, etc...?

Intelligence behind it at all, in any way, shape, or form whatsoever...? Or not...? Or not at all, ever at all, etc...? Yes or No, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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...

Your arguments are not based on logic, so it's odd that you think we should just accept this claim.

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.

You just present a list of arguments from incredulity, then accuse others of stupidity. That's extremely weak and offensive sauce.

 

[Neogaia777]

No intelligence or agency required.

No intelligence or agency required.

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...?

You just present a list of arguments from incredulity, then accuse others of stupidity. That's extremely weak and offensive sauce.

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!

 

[VirOptimus]

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!

Magic is never based on logic.

There is no "need" for god(s). Its only belief.

And I deny the existance of magic.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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!

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.

 

[Neogaia777]

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.

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!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

 

[Neogaia777]

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.

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...

And there's an important difference between my opinion and yours - you are making a positive claim with no support, I am not.

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!

 

[Neogaia777]

Magic is never based on logic.

There is no "need" for god(s). Its only belief.

And I deny the existance of magic.

No "offense", but the fact that you call it "magic"...? Anyway, enough said I think...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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 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.

 

[Neogaia777]

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...

And I call the one who programmed or made it "God", etc...

And, just for the record, and in case you didn't know, I think it is all "very, very old", etc, that one of God "days" is "long, long ages", etc, in case you didn't know that already, seeing as your calling me a "creationist", etc, which I am, but not in the way that you think, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

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.

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...

You say there is absolutely no evidence of intelligence, I say there is, and is a lot of it, etc...

Now, how is my view or opinion any less or more valid than yours or your opinion, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

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...

By saying that there is a possibility, you are claiming that there is something that lends credence to that possibility (of intelligence), etc...

It's a "contradiction", etc...

Do you disagree...? Or not...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

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!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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!

 

[Neogaia777]

Your stated view up to this point has been certainty of intelligence. Why are you now claiming only possibility of intelligence?

I think it's almost 99.9% certain, but that is only my opinion... and I was talking about what you were claiming when talking about the "possibility", etc, and I was only trying to "meet you half-way", etc...

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!

I believe my claim is neutral, and much more neutral or much more objective than yours is, etc...

And I do know the differences in those terms, and I said, was only trying to meet you half-way, etc...

But you seem to have no interest in that, so...?

But if you decide that you do...?

You said there was a "possibility of intelligence", etc, if so, what do you mean by that, or what do you base that one, etc...? Cause your now seeming to claim that there is "absolutely no possibility of intelligence", etc, so, I ask again, what do you mean, etc...?

I'm only trying to see and know where your coming from, etc, but your not making that "easy" by any means, etc...

You seem to be contradicting yourself a lot, etc...

If there is a possibility, how much of a possibility do you think, or don't you think...? And if there is "any possibility at all", what do you base that on, etc...?

Or if you think there is "no possibility at all" then please be clear about what you mean or are saying or else not saying please, OK...? (and try not be so "wishy-washy" about it, K)...?

Anyway, much thanks,

God Bless!