No, it is easy to show that those steps are beneficial. Also you fulfilled my prophecy, you do not know what an assumption is. He drew a conclusion from evidence. That is not an assumption.he assume that those steps were actuallt beneficial and indeed existed. he cant prove it.
he assume that those steps were actually beneficial and indeed existed in the past. he cant prove it at all.
I get what you're saying, I suppose. But I wouldn't put it quite the same way.
To me, the existence of God is evident in the fact that everything in life is so complex. The human brain for example is still being studied due to its complexity. Much if life is codependent on other forms of life also. For instance if you take away spiders the whole Earth would be overrun with insects. To me, all of nature, including human beings, is so complex, so intricate, that it points to having a designer. That designer is God.
Ok. To boil it down in your view point; complex, must equal God.
Would that be correct?
I don't believe my response was geared towards "water tight proof". She appeared to be claiming, things are complex, so it must be God. How did you interpret what she claimed?
I interpreted to mean that, for her, the world she saw around her pointed to God. That is hardly, nor is it meant to be, proof, but what is true for her is true for her.
Do atheists respond to everything as if it was supposed to be watertight proof?Why do atheists have to respond to everything as if it was supposed to be a watertight proof?
Do atheists respond to everything as if it was supposed to be watertight proof?
Thanks for sizing down your original statement.In my experience, somebody only have to give their reasons for believing in God, and there will be a chorus of, "that's not evidence," "that doesn't mean there's a god," "You don't need a god to account for that."
In a science forum one should expect the reasons one gives as explanations to be questioned and challenged, and alternatives suggested.In my experience, somebody only have to give their reasons for believing in God, and there will be a chorus of, "that's not evidence," "that doesn't mean there's a god," "You don't need a god to account for that."
All of that may be justified if the reason(s) given are supposed to automatically convince everybody else, but otherwise.
Problem: complexity isn't an indication of design. For example, a hammer is just as much designed as a computer, despite being rather simple.I get what you're saying, I suppose. But I wouldn't put it quite the same way.
To me, the existence of God is evident in the fact that everything in life is so complex. The human brain for example is still being studied due to its complexity. Much if life is codependent on other forms of life also. For instance if you take away spiders the whole Earth would be overrun with insects. To me, all of nature, including human beings, is so complex, so intricate, that it points to having a designer. That designer is God.
In a science forum one should expect the reasons one gives as explanations to be questioned and challenged, and alternatives suggested.
If people don't want to hear alternative views and opinions about the views they express, why post them in a public discussion forum?Not if the sentence starts with "To me," science forum or not. There is no "objective" refutation of somebody's subjective interpretation of the world they see around them.
It's a possible pathway. When you have evidence that it can't evolve you might have a point
first assumption- the first step is simple. can you show that is true, or you just believe that is true?No, it is easy to show that those steps are beneficial. Also you fulfilled my prophecy, you do not know what an assumption is. He drew a conclusion from evidence. That is not an assumption.
So try again. What were the supposed assumptions?
I get what you're saying, I suppose. But I wouldn't put it quite the same way.
To me, the existence of God is evident in the fact that everything in life is so complex.
The human brain for example is still being studied due to its complexity. Much if life is codependent on other forms of life also. .
first assumption- the first step is simple. can you show that is true, or you just believe that is true?
but both of them cant evolve naturally. so they both complex objects. complexity means something that cant evolve naturally.Problem: complexity isn't an indication of design. For example, a hammer is just as much designed as a computer, despite being rather simple.
but both of them cant evolve naturally. so they both complex objects. complexity means something that cant evolve naturally.
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?