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 have no idea what you're talking about. Do you?On the subject of ID, do you think the term, 'retro-engineering', should be abandoned, in favour of 'retro-happenstance' ?
You people need to get it into your heads once and for all. Empirical knowledge is not the be-all and end-all of all human knowledge. Very, very far from it. Do you even realise that in earning your living from quantum mechanics, the very paragon in its success of all physical theories, and indispensable to almost all of modern manufacturing industry, you are battening on the work of men of imagination (a quality Einstein explicitly rated higher than the intellect), who could accept paradoxes/mysteries repugnant to human reason, and use them as springboards to further discoveries anything but repugnant to reason. In other words, 'science', properly so-called, in all its glory and all its desperate, desperate limitations.
Still got no idea."Happenstance" is his sardonic characterization of random variation and selection.
You mean like the great Christian and deist scientists who have virtually monopolised significant, indeed, major, scientific discoveries ? Wake up, Christmas. The notion that you people are rational is beyond laughable. You are a very termpory extremely aberrant anomaly, who owe your power today solely to the mulitinationals and their billionaire malefactors, who do not want their money-making endeavours subject to any moral constraints, whatsoever.
The Chinese and the Indians today provide some of the world's most brilliant scientists, and yet, though the Chinese even invented printing centuries before Christendom, both lost any interest in science, due solely to their non-Christian cultures. Christians, on the other hand, believed in a God who made man in his own image, and as He was a law-maker, the law-maker, they expected to see the physical order subject to rational laws, accessible to reason, and pursued their scientific quest with pertinatious diligence. The mainstream eastern religions either viewed the physical world as illusory (not too far from the truth, ultimately), or socially-oriented. They could still see through your simplistic, 'Lego' reductionist, classical physics as the ultimate reality. You atheists would never have dsicovered quantum physics in a million years. Literally.
No, I think he is contrasting them. Something can be "reverse engineered" only if it has been "engineered" (i.e. intelligently designed) in the first place. Thus the product of random variation and selection cannot be "reverse engineered." That is, we cannot infer our way back to universal common ancestry because the process of evolution is chaotic. I think that's what he means, anyway.Still got no idea.
Is he playing semantics on reverse engineering and transcribes that onto evolution?
Okay, understood (still makes no sense).No, I think he is contrasting them. Something can be "reverse engineered" only if it has been "engineered" (i.e. intelligently designed) in the first place. Thus the product of random variation and selection cannot be "reverse engineered." That is, we cannot infer our way back to universal common ancestry because the process of evolution is chaotic. I think that's what he means, anyway.
No. You appear to have completely misread my post.
And atheism isn't a 'practice', it's simply not having belief in a god or gods.
Your turn.
Forming hypoteses is different from making stuff up.
Do you consider not collecting stamps a hobby?OH, please, it's practicing unbelief.
If it ain't natural, it's supernatural, so if you have no natural explanation for the beginning, what's left.
There is no reason whatever why it cannot be both. The identification of a natural cause for a phenomenon does not rule out divine causality.If it ain't natural, it's supernatural...
Nice argument...Nope, I think I pretty well got it right, it was one frail attempt, and most people would know better than to try to pull something like that..
OK, so by that argument, you must 'practice' unbelief in all the thousands of god and religions that aren't the ones you believe - in fact in everything you don't actually believe... can't you see how useless (i.e. stupid) that viewpoint is?OH, please, it's practicing unbelief. And how you can see that terminology as important enough to bother to disagree with, is beyond me...
Do you consider not collecting stamps a hobby?
A natural explanation that we do not know, yet.
Once, man believed that thunder and lightening were caused by the gods making a ruckus.
There is no reason whatever why it cannot be both. The identification of a natural cause for a phenomenon does not rule out divine causality.
Nice argument...
OK, so by that argument, you must 'practice' unbelief in all the thousands of god and religions that aren't the ones you believe - in fact in everything you don't actually believe... can't you see how useless (i.e. stupid) that viewpoint is?
If you don't care that your arguments make no sense, I can see no point in conversing with you.
As a Christian who believes in my undetectable stuff, I don't understand why it should be "over" your undetectable stuff.So perhaps if dysert could come back and explain why we should accept his non-detectable stuff over our non-detectable stuff...?
I haven't left. I just don't want to get into a spitting contest. To read that you agree there's non-detectable stuff is a good thing I think.As I said in a previous post, one of the main points why, after all these years, I still cannot claim to "understand" Christians (or other theists) is that the second I think I have figured out one of them, another pops up and tells me "Oh, no, this isn't what I believe at all!".
So if I try to figure out the OP in light of the other posts that have been made here by other Christians, I need to come to the conclusion that atheists are atheists because they cannot see that there might be more to reality than what senses can detect.
That leads atheists to believe in other totally made up and undetectable, supernatural stuff, which they do accept as reality even if it cannot be detected by senses.
Basically what Kenny and others are saying here is: you are not better than me. Your stuff isn't better or more reliable than mine. All of that is ridiculous and potentially non-factual.
So perhaps if dysert could come back and explain why we should accept his non-detectable stuff over our non-detectable stuff...?
which means you were wrong in your initial assumptions about atheists. They don't deny the existence of non-detectable stuff, they just see no need in taking it into consideration until they detect it.I haven't left. I just don't want to get into a spitting contest. To read that you agree there's non-detectable stuff is a good thing I think.
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?