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 see the difference between the twain. Care to explain?
For the millionth time, I am not arguing against theistic evolution.
Atheism is the position of disbelief of theistic claims.
Materialism is the position that the physical is all there is and that every single phenomena is the result of material interaction.
No, they are not the same thing.
I don't see how they are mutually exclusive. since either is impossible without the other. If indeed they are possible without each other, explain how.Atheism is the position of disbelief of theistic claims.
Materialism is the position that the physical is all there is and that every single phenomena is the result of material interaction.
No, they are not the same thing.
An atheist does not believe in the existence of God or gods (though they may believe in other immaterial things). A materialist believes that nothing exists except matter. A subtle difference, but they aren't synonymous.I don't see the difference between the twain. Care to explain?
Well, then I guess my concept of intelligent design isn't the same as the Discovery Institute's if that is the case since I am not arguing against theistic evolution.Intelligent Design IS an argument against evolution (theistic or otherwise).
So unless you invented your own concept of "intelligent design" (in which case I'm going to ask you to detail that concept and explain how it's different from Behe's model), then that is exactly what you are doing.
And considering the dropping of terms like "irreducible complexity", "specified complexity" and the references to bacterial flagellums etc.... those are word-for-word repeats of the "intelligent design" concept put out by the discovery institute.
The more you talk about this topic, the less clear it becomes what your actual position is.
You claim that your model of ID is "different" then that of the Discovery Institute, but everything you say about it is indistinguishable from the ID of the discovery institute.
...
The more basic point I'd like to make is that there is evidence of God all around us (in creation). The problem is that someone with an a priori disbelief in the supernatural will misinterpret this evidence as coming from totally natural means. Whereas if someone allows for the existence of the supernatural, they may come to believe that God created the evidence instead of the evidence creating itself.
An atheist does not believe in the existence of God or gods (though they may believe in other immaterial things). A materialist believes that nothing exists except matter. A subtle difference, but they aren't synonymous.
The more basic point I'd like to make is that there is evidence of God all around us (in creation). The problem is that someone with an a priori disbelief in the supernatural will misinterpret this evidence as coming from totally natural means. Whereas if someone allows for the existence of the supernatural, they may come to believe that God created the evidence instead of the evidence creating itself.
You are placing limits on the term-"demonstration" in order to avoid the very demonstration you demand.There is a problem with this view: When we (for the sake of the argument) allow the existence of the supernatural that doesn't get us to a specific god. One could as well claim that universe-creating pixies are responsible since this would be a supernatural event.
But the point is, we don't just claim that the supernatural doesn't exist. We have the problem that science is at the moment incapable of investigating supernatural causation. Unless someone comes up with a mechanism with which we can investigate the supernatural, it is by definition irrational to say it definitely exists. Existence has to be demonstrated.
The part where you claim that ID isn't testable in any way manner or form.
Whereas if someone allows for the existence of the supernatural, they may come to believe that God created the evidence instead of the evidence creating itself.
Already done dozens of times. The response of inability to see is all I get. So why keep perpetually and incessantly asking for a repeat?Yes, that is my understanding.
If I'm wrong about that, then all it takes to rectify that error is for you to explain how it's testable.
So why don't you?
You are placing limits on the term-"demonstration" in order to avoid the very demonstration you demand.
I don't see how they are mutually exclusive
. since either is impossible without the other.
If indeed they are possible without each other, explain how.
The problem is that someone with an a priori disbelief in the supernatural will misinterpret this evidence as coming from totally natural means
Whereas if someone allows for the existence of the supernatural, they may come to believe that God created the evidence instead of the evidence creating itself.
Of course that's the kicker. You don't accept demonstrations that lead to a conclusion that contradicts your view that things mindlessly designed themselves. Your modus operandi doesn't allow it because you illogically equate it with the supernatural. That is your primary stumbling block right there in a nutshell.. Existence has to be demonstrated.
Well, then I guess my concept of intelligent design isn't the same as the Discovery Institute's if that is the case since I am not arguing against theistic evolution.
Of course that's the kicker. You don't accept demonstrations that lead to a conclusion that contradicts your view that things mindlessly designed themselves.
AGAIN! I am not proposing the supernatural! How many times do I have to repeat the same thing for it to sink in?No such thing has happened. I love learning new things and so do scientists. But so far you only give excuses but don't show the SCIENCE where the supernatural has been demonstrated to exist.
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?