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.
Well, then you come up against the insurmountable infinite regression paradoxes of both being and location.
Not necessarily. The Big Bang may have been a transformation rather than a beginning.
-_- you took my use of direct a little too literal, my bad, poor word choice.So now to believe in the existence of something the inference MUST suddenly be based on DIRECT observation?
Please note that such a requirement isn't scientific since many inferences are drawn in science based on indirect observation such as the gravitational effects on orbits and lensing of light. Your demand clearly demonstrates the inconsistency of policy which is routinely and illogically deployed whenever the subject of an intelligent designer arises. It also clearly demonstrates how science is casually and routinely sacrificed for the sake of supporting the atheist agenda at all costs.
Well, that's what you are trying to demonstrate with your ID song-and-dance, anyway.It also clearly demonstrates how science is casually and routinely sacrificed for the sake of supporting the atheist agenda at all costs.
The problem is that you prefer to attribute intelligent abilities, such as the creation of exceedingly complex organisms which includes the human brain, to the unintelligent mindless chemicals which somehow programmed themselves to do it instead of reaching the logical and sane conclusion that what you are observing is the effect of and intelligent source. Both sanity and common logic usually rebel against that idea for a reason which somehow appears to escape you or else doesn't escape you but you choose to feign an acceptance of it anyway because the alternative is simply too unacceptable. That my friend isn't science no matter how fancifully you might strive to dress it up as such. It's like the old Spanish saying:
El mono,
aunque lo vistan de seda-
mono se queda.
True! The ask-a-question-game is repeatedly used. I call it the "Ï cain't see!" game actually.
So mind needn´t arise.The mind you are introducing into the discussion did not arise.
Technically, "God" can be defined as anything you want.
Edwin Hubble proposed at least two potential solutions to the photon redshift distance relationship observation, 'expansion' and 'tired light'/inelastic scattering. Scattering shows up in the lab and assuming that's the cause of redshift, it would result in a static universe which could be infinite and eternal as far as I know.
Not exactly. It depends on how you interpret redshift and whether one insists that "God" must remain exactly the same. Even in a big bang scenario, it's possible that God could simply take a "piece" of himself and create something temporary with it, which is still a part of him. Imagine for a moment I simply changed the terms to 'Godlfation, and God matter, and God energy. Even in an expansion scenario, God could still be the source of all the mass./energy that we have access to today, and it could still be a "part" of him.
LOL!So mind needn´t arise.
What was your argument again?
(And no, it wasn´t me who introduced it. It was you who introduced it when postulating an intelligent designer.)
Why don't we just bite the bullet and say that God did everything and anything we try to explain in another way, we just put God in front of it. Hence godevoluton resulted in human kind, godglobal warming is dangerous, godoverpopulation is appalling, godwars are bad news, godpoverty and godfamine are irritating especially to those involved, Still one day god will defeat godsatan and some will be saved. Meanwhile the goduniverse will continue ticking along, scienitsts will make occasional discoveries which god put there for them to find, cunningly disguising his creation with what appear to be measurable data but are really goddata all along. Then anything which scientists fail to prove is simply godstuff. Easy.
God is what the evidence indicates.
What evidence... and for what occurance?God is what the evidence indicates.
You're the one posting Bible verses here in the science forum, so I'm not convinced your summary of events lines up with reality.People are free to assume whatever they wish. That doesn't make their assumption true. As I stated, I am merely arguing for intelligent design. It is the atheists who strive to bring in God into the discussion.
I post Bible verses on threads posted on this scientific forum which involve God. I refrain from posting Bible verses on my threads which are about an intelligent designer.You're the one posting Bible verses here in the science forum, so I'm not convinced your summary of events lines up with reality.
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?