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.
Also, tagging things as natural doesn't nullify the evidence of a planning mind.
Ultimately the senses MUST be employed in order to gain knowledge.
Again!
I am not arguing against the concept of an intelligent designer employing whatever method he chooses to organize a process leading to the creation of living things. What I do not accept is that the whole process created itself mindlessly and mindlessly led to the production of such a thing as the human brain among other such things.
Please don't ask me the same question again on another thread.
Presumably the same way that "dark energy" and "dark matter" miraculously appear in the sky yet cannot be detected directly by the senses, or in labs here on Earth?
As I said, I am not challenging theistic evolution nor arguing against it. I am merely proposing that the inference of intelligent design ion nature is a totally justifiable one. No, I am not attempting to convince theistic evolutionists to abandon their particular views. To me it's sufficient that their views include an intelligent designer.
Again!
I am not arguing against the concept of an intelligent designer employing whatever method he chooses to organize a process leading to the creation of living things.
Funny how it's only miraculous when they say it's miraculous. The Big Bang which meets all the prerequisites for the miraculous isn't even called miraculous.
Yes, you are. This is from an intelligent design article that you have cited on multiple occasions.
Consider the argument that Michael Behe makes in his book Darwin’s Black Box. There he proposes that design is detectable in many “molecular machines,” including the bacterial flagellum. Behe argues that this tiny motor needs all its parts to function—it is “irreducibly complex.” Such systems in our experience are a hallmark of designed systems, because they require the foresight that is the exclusive jurisdiction of intelligent agents. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection and random variations, in contrast, requires a functional system at each transition along the way. Natural selection can select for present but not for future function. Notice that Behe’s argument rests not on ignorance, but on what we know about designed systems, the causal powers of intelligent agents, and on our growing knowledge of the cellular world and its many mechanisms. How does one test and discredit Behe’s argument? Describe a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor.
http://www.discovery.org/f/494
You have been arguing this entire time that life is intelligently design which, BY DEFINITION, means that it didn't evolve, theistically or atheistically.
Even the ID articles you cite say otherwise.
Even you argue against naturally occurring abiogenesis at every turn.
What is unacceptable is faith based claims backed by zero evidence.
Yes, I don't accept faith based beliefs and empty assertions as evidence. Why is that a problem?
1. Evidence can easily be tagged as non-evidence in order to avoid the distastefully obvious. Atheists are notorious in that way.
2. My view is the view thsat I explain it is-not the view that you wish or imagine it to be.
3. I never proposed that my belief is based on mere faith. Tagging it that way doesn't MAGICALLY transform it as if it were your abiogenesis miracle.
4. No problem whatsoever. You are free to believe whatever you wish regardless of how unfeasible or ridiculous it might be. It's called freedom of choice.
Yawwwwwn! You already deployed all those before. Please try something more innovative.
Yawwwwwn! You already deployed all those before. Please try something more innovative.
When you are provided with evidence you unceremoniously tag it as non-evidence. So let's just agree to disagree.
When you are provided with evidence you unceremoniously tag it as non-evidence.
In that case, concepts like Pantheism/Panentheism enjoy at least as much empirical laboratory support as any current cosmology theory.
I don't know what they are so cant comment.
Pretty much all cosmology theories have that same problem by the way.
I accept that we don't know many things, and that cosmologists can only theorise. Given that modern cosmology has only been around for hundreds of years, if we measure the invention of the telescope as the start of modern cosmology, and the universe is around 9 billion years old, we have doen pretty well to get as far as we have.
Philosophically we don't really seem that far apart to be honest. I fully realize that we haven't figured *everything* out. Newton's formulas for gravity were eventually shown to be flawed in some instances, and we can't even be sure our current mathematical models of gravity are the "right" ones and will never be replaced with another mathematical model. That doesn't mean that I do not experience gravity on a daily basis.
Likewise, I don't think anyone has to "figure out" God simply to experience God in their lives.
My partner is adamant she feels God in her life every day, she finds it comforting. I find it bizarre, but thankfully it is not a problem for us. She is of course "sinning" in the eyes of some in the Church and that'll end up with her in eternal damnation, in the opinion of some Christians.
And yet when Newton's formulas were replaced with Einstein's formulas, nobody claimed that 'gravity' actually changed or that theories about gravity couldn't be trusted.
Indeed, Einsteins theories described the working of the universe better than Newtons. A yet undiscovered theory may improve on Einsteins, that's how science works.
FYI, you might want to checkout the definition of "hell" as described by early Christian theologians like Origen. I'm personally a "universal salvation" kinda guy.
I started reading it and gave up, sorry! I have said to my girlfriend that a loving God (if he exists) would not consign 80%+ of the worlds population to eternal damnation just because they didn't worship him correctly. Her church teaches hell and eternal damnation for all unsaved, they put - literally - the fear of God into their congregation and I think it is a terrible thing to do. To scare the wits out of everyone with "YOU will go to eternal fire and HELL IF you don't obey OUR INTERPRETATION of the Gospels" is a shameful thing in my opinion.
I'd be happy to debate that point with you anytime you wish.
I always love a debate, but debating God is pointless, you either believe or you don't believe.
An Empirical Theory Of God
An Empirical Theory Of God (2)
I don't know what they are so cant comment.
I accept that we don't know many things, and that cosmologists can only theorise. Given that modern cosmology has only been around for hundreds of years, if we measure the invention of the telescope as the start of modern cosmology, and the universe is around 9 billion years old, we have doen pretty well to get as far as we have.
My partner is adamant she feels God in her life every day, she finds it comforting.
I find it bizarre, but thankfully it is not a problem for us. She is of course "sinning" in the eyes of some in the Church and that'll end up with her in eternal damnation, in the opinion of some Christians.
Indeed, Einsteins theories described the working of the universe better than Newtons. A yet undiscovered theory may improve on Einsteins, that's how science works.
I started reading it and gave up, sorry! I have said to my girlfriend that a loving God (if he exists) would not consign 80%+ of the worlds population to eternal damnation just because they didn't worship him correctly. Her church teaches hell and eternal damnation for all unsaved, they put - literally - the fear of God into their congregation and I think it is a terrible thing to do. To scare the wits out of everyone with "YOU will go to eternal fire and HELL IF you don't obey OUR INTERPRETATION of the Gospels" is a shameful thing in my opinion.
I always love a debate, but debating God is pointless, you either believe or you don't believe.
Can you point to a single post where this occured?
A link is fine.
I'm not sure it's happened yet in this thread, but I'll bet I can demonstrate it for you.
Since the dawn of recorded civilization, humans have reported having a relationship with something greater than themselves which they associated with 'God'. Why isn't that a type of 'evidence' of God's "effect" on humans in your opinion?
The fact that a specific observation might have multiple potential explanations has never prevented such observations as counting as "evidence" of something.
Radrook is accusing atheists on this forum of responding to him in such a way when he posted evidence.
It seems only fair to ask him to support that claim.
Because we understand how prone the human mind is to hallucination, to being mistaken, to magical thinking, to false positives, to creating imaginary friends, to have a need for father figures (imaginary if need be), ...
Humans will believe (and invent) just about anything, given the correct circumstances and the right amount of ignorance.
You could make the exact same argument concerning alien abductees. I'm sure you don't believe that aliens are visiting the planet and abducting humans to perform weird sex experiments on them, right? ........right?
But as it stands, the human tendency to be religious / superstitious is pretty well understood. Even from an evolutionary standpoint.
Now, having said all that.... I don't see how this answers the question I was asking. Remember, the claim is that the proposed "evidence" (for "intelligent design") is simply discarded at face value. No reason, no rhyme but just labeled as "non-evidence".
I can write you an entire book about why the thousands of religions that have been invented by mankind is not evidence of gods existing.
And I'm sure psychologists and alike can write a few dozen books more about it. In fact, most likely such books already exist.
That very same argument would apply to *any* proposed *cause*, and to all hypothetical constructs in "science".
True, but it doesn't address the issue from my perspective. All propositions as to "cause" are prone to human error.
Not really
I don't see a lot of ancient alien abduction reports found in human writings prior to the space age.
Even then it's a *minuscule* percentage compared to the number of humans that report having a relationship with "God".
You're comparing apples to oranges IMO.
So? Maybe there's a legitimate reason we 'feel' that way.
Maybe a couple of arguments at a time?
Sure.I'm not disputing the fact that humans are notorious for "making stuff up", but the same criticisms would apply regardless of what "cause" we might propose.
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?