My Superiority Challenge

[Bungle_Bear]

Do you allow God as a secondary cause?

No.

Since you do, please answer my question - who/what is primary cause?

 

[o_mlly]

Who knows or cares since this is a malformed question. First, RMNS is far from the totality or even a reasonably defineable portion of the current ToE, Second, this is an abuse of probability in that basically any answer could be correct. No theory is ever 100% correct in that theories are only the best explanation at present of the data at hand so the answer is 0% that the theory is totally correct. on the other hand, since there is no other competing scientific theory, the Toe is 100% the most likely theory out there.
You are not going anywhere with this argument, it is just a basic recapitulation or the argument from ignorance, I don't know, we don't know therefor God.

So you posted the article only as a deflection as I suspected.

If any answer could be correct then no answer is correct. Evolution theory as a full explanation of man is 0%.

We limit science to only natural causes. What else would one expect except a strained and faulty explanation from science when their honest and correct response should be, "We just don't know yet".

Put some engineers in a room and task them to explain the motion of the planets but tell them they may not appeal to calculus.

 

[o_mlly]

Why are you assigning God the position of secondary cause?

I did not assign God as a secondary cause, He cannot be so. Secondary causes are always contingent beings. Aquinas would reject the philosophy of material reductionism.

 

[o_mlly]

Since you do, please answer my question - who/what is primary cause?

I do not. I asked if others did. God is the primary and necessary cause of all contingent creatures.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I do not. I asked if others did. God is the primary and necessary cause of all contingent creatures.

Nice assertion. Do you have anything worth posting, or is this just another silly word game you'd like to play?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

So you posted the article only as a deflection as I suspected.

No, you asked a question, I googled and showed you a good answer that I understood and met your criteria, this is in contradiction to your google and post of a sports trainer's flash cards that were just laughable.

If any answer could be correct then no answer is correct. Evolution theory as a full explanation of man is 0%.

No that has to do with your malformed question. Nobody in science claims that the ToE is complete, but that is far from a 0 probability of any accuracy. Absolute correctness is not in question here.

We limit science to only natural causes. What else would one expect except strained and faulty explanations from science when their honest and correct response should be, "We just don't know yet".

Well at least the first sentence is correct though you obviously wish it were not. The rest is just an ignorance of and an insult to the many scientists in the world including all those who do believe in a god.

Put some engineers in a room and task them to explain the motion of the planets but tell them they may not appeal to calculus.

And you repeat this most laughable demonstration of your ignorance. Basic orbital mechanics were known and calculated long before Leibniz and Newton.

ETA, are you an Engineer? That would make a lot of sense in terms of your actual understanding of science. Engineers are very fond of absolute mechanistic understandings, but often lose sight of the edges of the theories that support those understandings. This seems quite consistent (less than 100% correlation with) the Salem Hypothesis which while not quite as well referenced as Dunning Kreuger, seems quite appropriate in this case.

 

[o_mlly]

Basically what you are trying to do is use an argument from ignorance: We don't know every detail about evolution, so I can still argue the necessity of the Hand of God. However, since science does not deal with undemonstrable causes, the burden of proof falls to you to demonstrate this Hand of God to fill in the gaps.

Nope. I'm calling out the deficiencies of the ToE. No need to call on God to do that.

 

[o_mlly]

No, you asked a question, I googled and showed you a good answer that I understood and met your criteria, this is in contradiction to your google and post of a sports trainer's flash cards that were just laughable.

Nope.

 

[o_mlly]

No that has to do with your malformed question. Nobody in science claims that the ToE is complete, but that is far from a 0 probability of any accuracy. Absolute correctness is not in question here.

Then why don't you simply answer the question? OK, it's not 100% but how far from 0% is it?

 

[o_mlly]

Well at least the first sentence is correct though you obviously wish it were not. The rest is just an ignorance of and an insult to the many scientists in the world including all those who do believe in a god.

I didn't know you had mind-reading capabilities. Only proud and arrogant scientists will not admit of ignorance. If you're insulted then read my mind.

 

[Ophiolite]

Put some engineers in a room and task them to explain the motion of the planets but tell them they may not appeal to calculus.

So, if someone, not even an engineer, were to do this, would you retract this statement? If not, why not?

 

[Hans Blaster]

So you've never heard of theistic evolution then?

It's that thing the Catholic Church used to convince us that they weren't in opposition to the obvious results of evolution without giving up "God created the Universe" and "Adam was the 'first' man" Biblical claims, without looking like backward rubes. I admit, it sort of worked.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What is interesting about my post ( i believe) is that not a single person questioned or did not believe that Rembrandt painted the painting.

That is interesting, because not a single person alive today witnessed Rembrandt paint this painting. But seems like, by no post of anyone, not believing Rembrandt was the creator of the painting.

This painting was openly accepted as created by Rembrandt but when it comes to another creation, this one by God. People are quick to dismiss God as existing and being the creator of of the seen creation in existence.

When there is no more evidence that Rembrandt created the painting i posted than God created creation, but one is accepted and the other rejected

People accept such paintings as authentic because of the weight of evidence, known as provenance, and the judgement of experts regarding that evidence.

 

[Phred]

I do not. I asked if others did. God is the primary and necessary cause of all contingent creatures.

So when we study the earth and all its creatures we find... why, not god. No god. No evidence of god. Why is that?

You must be wrong. Again. Still. Constantly.

 

[d taylor]

Lol. Put your money where your mouth is - but don't forget to leave room for your feet.

While you're at it, you may want to research this punctuation mark ?

I have decided to let you believe and stay in your theory error, which is common for people who trust in science concerning God's creation

 

[Kylie]

Which is superior: Creation or Evolution?

I'm gonna go for the one that is based on testable and verifiable methods, and the one that gives us useful information that we can use to figure out what will happen in the future.

 

[Gottservant]

There is more that can be obfuscated (without faith), than can be made improbable (with bad science) (selah)