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.
I don't expect to get any traction for that idea with the creationist crowd. The problem is, the existence of such a God is unfalsifiable. Creationists need to find God's greasy fingermarks on the machinery of life so they can "prove" His existence.Well, He might have got it wrong.
Oh, wait...
Common decent is not a fact, it is a theory that uses facts. As a matter of fact all of the facts used in my Highschool text book for evolution were later found to be false, deliberate forgeries, or hoaxes.Creationists have been claiming that "Darwinism" has been sinking every since he came up with his theory. Now it has been changed, almost every theory goes through revisions. But these tend to be improvements and clarifications. Like it or not common descent is a fact. And there is no evidence for the hand of a god in evolution.
How do you devise a specific outcome through randomness? God's reliance on randomness to create mankind logically entails that man could not have occurred. If his randomness does not entail the possibility that man doesn't occur then it isn't random. I'm a believer in God's omniscience but He can't do the logically impossible.That He devised it does not mean it is "guided." It is "random" in the sense that heritable variation is random, though subject to non-random natural selection.
Common decent is not a fact, it is a theory that uses facts.
As a matter of fact all of the facts used in my Highschool text book for evolution were later found to be false, deliberate forgeries, or hoaxes.
Yeah, Christians have been claiming that natural selection and random mutation can't account for what we have for over 200 years. And guess what? We we were right. If science had listened to the counter facts rather than rejecting them primae facie we might not have wasted the last 200 years and we would be on the 5th way by now.
A multiverse would do it. Just eliminate all those that don't work out - God seems OK with that sort of approach in the OTHow do you devise a specific outcome through randomness?
I'll take hypothesis. I don't see an overwhelming amount of evidence though. That is more of an opinionated term.Common descent is neither, it's a hypothesis - but one that is support by an overwhelming amount of evidence. Several formal tests for a universal common ancestor have been proposed, although there have been issues with all of them. Until then, science just has to deal with common ancestry being confirmed every time comparative genetics and morphological hierarchies are examined.
It's a prediction (in one form or another) of many (most?) mainstream theories, but we may never know if it's 'real', or even if that's a meaningful question to ask.That is all the multiverse is. It's thrown into a situation ad hoc to do a job, not to actually be something that exists.
It is not my experience that it's mainstream. It's highly publicized by Atheistic apologists due to it's semi relevance to the fine tuning but I think thats where it sits in reality. It is a product of the flaw of naturalism. If all we accept are natural theories then all we can ever believe are natural theories. All you need is a gap of robust naturalistic explanation and any naturalistic hypothesis will do the job, no matter how ridiculous, extravagant, or unnecessary it is nothing else could explain it because only naturalism is allowed to explain it. Naturalism is an epistemic mechanism designed for this very process. The good news is it's voluntary, not required.It's a prediction (in one form or another) of many (most?) mainstream theories, but we may never know if it's 'real', or even if that's a meaningful question to ask.
Nope, it is only evidence that the universe exists. This just goes to show that creationists do not understand the nature of evidence. The universe is also "evidence" that it arose naturally without any supernatural help. A datum that can be used to support any argument is not evidence.Hello Subduction Zone.
You made the statement.
The universe and everything within is the real evidence that not only, that God exists but also that God created the universe.
Wrong, it is a fact that is supported by mountains of evidence and opposed by none.Common decent is not a fact, it is a theory that uses facts. As a matter of fact all of the facts used in my Highschool text book for evolution were later found to be false, deliberate forgeries, or hoaxes.
Yeah, Christians have been claiming that natural selection and random mutation can't account for what we have for over 200 years. And guess what? We we were right. If science had listened to the counter facts rather than rejecting them primae facie we might not have wasted the last 200 years and we would be on the 5th way by now.
Ah, there's your problem.It is not my experience that it's mainstream.
If you want to oppose "naturalism" you have to do only one thing. Find some reasonable evidence that supports your beliefs.It is not my experience that it's mainstream. It's highly publicized by Atheistic apologists due to it's semi relevance to the fine tuning but I think thats where it sits in reality. It is a product of the flaw of naturalism. If all we accept are natural theories then all we can ever believe are natural theories. All you need is a gap of robust naturalistic explanation and any naturalistic hypothesis will do the job, no matter how ridiculous, extravagant, or unnecessary it is nothing else could explain it because only naturalism is allowed to explain it. Naturalism is an epistemic mechanism designed for this very process. The good news is it's voluntary, not required.
Not necessarily. Evolution shows a tendency to converge in certain instances. Look how many evolutionary lines have converged on flight, for instance. It is entirely possible that evolution will show the same convergence on intelligence. All that God requires is a creature with sufficient intelligence to reflect on the consequences of his acts. He does not require an erect bipedal mammal specifically.How do you devise a specific outcome through randomness? God's reliance on randomness to create mankind logically entails that man could not have occurred. If his randomness does not entail the possibility that man doesn't occur then it isn't random. I'm a believer in God's omniscience but He can't do the logically impossible.
Don't hold your breath waiting for all of those scientists to become Bible-believing creationists.The sinking ship is random mutation and natural selection. The dog doesn't hunt. That is what the whole biologist convention at the royal society in London was all about. Biologist have been saying it's not enough for a long time now. As Perry Marshall says in the video, Science changes one funeral at a time. It takes people dying to actually get past a half century of rhetoric and assurances of the truth and media propaganda.
Oh, I believe that God's constant causal support is required. However, I also believe 1. That identifying an evidently complete natural cause for any material phenomenon does not rule out simultaneous divine causality, and 2. That the natural causes (which is the only kind science studies) of phenomena in the universe will thus appear to us to comprise a complete closed system of material causality. This is not a new notion. The metaphysical considerations involved go all the way back to Aristotle and have formed the basis of formal theology for many centuries. Protestants tend to have rejected the idea for some reason and it is notable that it is primarily the Protestant denominations which have trouble with evolution. The Roman church accommodated to it without much difficulty and the Orthodox and Oriental churches mostly ignore it, whether they agree with it or not.Random mutation and natural selection have some serious problems that would be alleviated with guided evolution. I don't know why you have retreated so far back that you have made God's magnificent work nothing more than a wind up toy. The Non theists are even giving the cells a form of consciousness to guide the process of evolution past the Darwinian boundaries and here you won't even give God the consciousness effort to do it Himself. (part of the video)
I would agree to an extent. Scientists have always had doubts about evolution. It is whether they want to accept or state those doubts as there is too much at stake for voicing their concerns. Many professors lose their jobs just for stating doubts & criticism towards evolution.
As a matter of fact all of the facts used in my Highschool text book for evolution were later found to be false, deliberate forgeries, or hoaxes.
As is your existence.The problem is, the existence of such a God is unfalsifiable.
When a person is offered help and runs away no one takes his demands seriously.
I'll take hypothesis. I don't see an overwhelming amount of evidence though. That is more of an opinionated term.
the 2 I remember most were the peppered moths and the stages of birth. The updating of those texts books is a well known issue that schools and texts books were not concerned with.
Yeah we have had to develop new mechanisms because Darwins theory doesn't have what it takes. When it one naturalistic theory fails, we hypothesize other naturalistic theories, like punctuated equilibrium. That is the process of methodological naturalism.
By legitimate theory you mean a naturalistic theory. God is not natural but supernatural. I don't share your assumption of metaphysical naturalism.
TLDR: don't disagree with the group think otherwise they will label you as incompetent and loony.
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?