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.
Are honey-combs, termite mounds, and beaver dams natural? Are computers, cars, building, et cetera, supernatural? Technology is a result of natural laws.If we saw a Stargate or spaceship buried on Mars would we say those objects are natural?
The fact you are posting in this thread debating is evidence of something beyond nature. Naturalist has to believe computers ,cars, building, etc. are just the results of natural laws.
We don't call computers, cars, buildings supernatural but artificial. The evidence that there is something beyond nature is from within.Are honey-combs, termite mounds, and beaver dams natural? Are computers, cars, building, et cetera, supernatural? Technology is a result of natural laws.
If the universe was designed, then everything is part of that design.
I am not understanding the logic behind that conclusion, I don't recall ever stating your personal ideal of god was impossible, am I missing something here?
The question under discussion is: "Is there evidence of something beyond nature?"
I believe there are other sub-forums for preaching and proselytizing.
If the only response that Christians can make to the question is ridiculously unsupported and impertinent statement of dogma, I think we can deduce that the answer to the question is "no"!
Who were these "eye-witnesses"? We are told that some saw certain events, but we are also told that thousands saw Superman flying over Metropolis."Is there evidence of something beyond nature?"
Of course there is. There are numerous eyewitness accounts which all compliment each other, ....
That is an unsupported claim.... there is the manifestation of God in the flesh, ...
Truly, the number and nature of miracles increase in proportion to the distance from the reports in time and space. Were I more powerful than a locomotive, could I move faster than a speeding bullet, and leap tall buildings in a single bound, that would not prove me to be God.... who also did many miraculous things to prove he was God ...
A tree: Therefore, God. A madman or an imbecile might accept such an argument. How is nature evidence of God?... and then there is nature itself.
Your argument is that if there were no unreality, there would be no reality. Do you know how that sounds to a sane person?If there was no evidence of anything beyond nature, we wouldn't have nature.
Another hairless assertion!Or at the least we would have no life to wonder about it.
Would this then mean that the creation of the universe wasn't a supernatural event? If so, what was the source for the natural laws which created the universe and how did they create?
I do say that appearance is supportive of actual design. Yet, you continually say that I am claiming that appearance of design is actual design, which I have never claimed.
You would think so. You would think that anyone that is reading this and can comprehend the English language that you are twisting my claims toward your own agenda.
No one claimed that it was specifically for life. There you go again...twist away. Specifically is added so that it fits better with your agenda.
Like I've said and they have written, the universe is fine tuned for intelligent life. They never claimed that the fine tuning was specific for intelligent life. You twist their words as well.
No, my claim is that the appearance of design supports design.
My subjective position is that God fine tuned the universe. They are two separate things.
I will let others be the judge.
That means the same thing. When you claim that actual design is supported by observations, you are claiming that there is actual design. That's what those words mean.
I will let others be the judge.
And there you go with the twisting of words. Here is our previous discussion.
LM: Then the universe is as fine tuned for geology as it is biology. That makes it impossible to say that the universe is fine tuned specifically for life.I said that the universe is NOT fine tuned SPECIFICALLY for life. You turn around and claim that scientists claim it is specifically fine tuned for life. There is no other way to read that. Perhaps you mispoke and want to withdraw that claim?
OD: Really, perhaps you would like to debate Davies and others on their take that it is.
Which is the same as claiming that the appearance of design is evidence for actual design.
They are both subjective, it would appear.
I have no empirical evidence for actual design.
What I have is supportive evidence that shows it is possible and a reasonable hypothesis that the appearance of design could be actual.
That is two separate things.
My personal opinion is that the appearance of design in the universe is supportive of my position as a Christian theist that God created the universe and the life on earth.
No I do not wish to withdraw the claim. The scientists claim that the universe is fine tuned for life specifically but not that it is fine tuned just for life.
There are many geological and environmental fine tuned attributes to the universe. The universe is fine tuned for the intelligent life we find on earth and earth is fine tuned for life as well.
Then you have no support. That's how the english language works.
No, you don't.
"I have no empirical evidence for actual design."--Oncedeceived
No, they aren't.
Opinions are not support for claims. Evidence is support for claims, and you don't have any.
Is English not your first language?
If the universe is fine tuned for life specifically then it is fine tuned just for life. That's what specifically means.
Why isn't it equally fine tuned for massive blue giant stars that harbor no life?
Then you have no support. That's how the english language works.
No, you don't.
"I have no empirical evidence for actual design."--Oncedeceived
No, they aren't.
Opinions are not support for claims. Evidence is support for claims, and you don't have any.
Is English not your first language?
If the universe is fine tuned for life specifically then it is fine tuned just for life. That's what specifically means.
Why isn't it equally fine tuned for massive blue giant stars that harbor no life?
You just want to play games of semantics. What is the issue that you are having with the fact that our universe is fine tuned for life. Can you elaborate your position. I am lost as to what you are arguing about.
I think his position is quite simple.
If you have empirical evidence, a position is supported. If you have zero empirical evidence, a position is not supported and is only an opinion and or speculation, which are a dime a dozen.
You just want to play games of semantics.
What is the issue that you are having with the fact that our universe is fine tuned for life.
Well thank you for your input but I would like to have Loudmouth tell me himself what his problem is with the scientists claim that the universe seems it was fine tuned to allow life to evolve on earth.
You are the one playing semantics, not I.
The fact that it is as fine tuned for lifeless stars and planets as it is for life. I have explained this multiple times now. You are using bias to pick life as the focus of fine tuning when fine tuning for Pluto, the Crab Nebula, or the Face on the Moon is equally supported.
The so called lifeless stars and planets (if all planets are indeed lifeless which is not in evidence) is required for life on earth to exist. [/quote
No, they aren't. A planet in a galaxy 10 billion light years away is not needed for life on Earth.
Paul Davies again: Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal.
"The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself."--Paul Davies, again.
Paul Davies: Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it | Comment is free | The Guardian
He however does believe that the universe if fine tuned for life.
Where does he say that life is tuned specifically for life?
The so called lifeless stars and planets (if all planets are indeed lifeless which is not in evidence) is required for life on earth to exist. [/quote
No, they aren't. A planet in a galaxy 10 billion light years away is not needed for life on Earth.
"The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself."--Paul Davies, again.
Paul Davies: Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it | Comment is free | The Guardian
Where does he say that life is tuned specifically for life?
Tell me if you are not trying to be dishonest, that you left out the part of my post about Davies? It clearly is dishonest and quote mining of my post, which said:
Paul Davies again: Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Emphasis mine.
I want to clarify once again that Davies does not support ID or is he a proponent of it and he doesn't believe the universe was fixed by God. He however does believe that the universe if fine tuned for life.
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?