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.
So it seems you are all over the map here, talking about Islam, and whatever.Does it look that way?? By the way did you actually do physics at school?
You are missing the point.
My point is that awareness does not always mean there will be a response.
But if you really think that, you must realize that this also means that this might not exist.FYI, that was ultimately my same point as it relates to demonstrating awareness as it relates to Panentheism.
I'd have to say that is probably simply a limit of "observation". It's possible that we may not be able to observe a response even if something is "aware". Then again, it's possible that all sorts of things exist that we simply cannot "observe", at least not directly.
Because you intentionally chose things that would fit to life forms, without explaining why those things would actually indicate intelligent design.
Because you don't seem to understand that evolution has no long term goals.
Evolution does not work by going, "Oh, if I evolve such and such a feature, it will be handy in 20,000 generations."
Yeah, answer my question.
If I come across a particular thing, what can I look for that will tell me that it was designed by some intelligent entity?
Why do you even think that can only come about through the action of some intelligent entity?
All you need is for the thing to be able to make copies of itself, and also for that copying process to be imperfect.
I'm not asking for evidence of God, I'm asking for a way to determine if something has been designed or not.
But if you really think that, you must realize that this also means that this might not exist.
All you have is make-belief.
Of course He gave us the ability to adapt and evolve. That doesn't mean life was not created first.
False comparison, physics are great here and now.
What kind of consequences do you think this should have on our behaviour... especially regarding "religion" and "science"?How does that possibility not apply to all the "unseen" entities of cosmology or particle physics hypotheses? Presumably any hypothetical entity could not exist.
I think that you define "awareness" in any way you like and need to support your own ideas... and discard it, or redefine it if it doesn't suit you anymore. And you extrapolate from that shifting base to whatever you need.I think however that you'd tend to agree that awareness exists in some forms, if not all forms. At most we might underestimate the awareness of something specific in terms of form, but as long as that awareness expresses itself in some way, we should be able to observe signs of awareness from the object in question.
I think you contradict right now what you wrote earlier. After all, a prime ingredient in a "hypothesis" is the verifiability and falsifiability.Are you complaining about how any "hypotheses" begins? You don't think that human beings just "make-believe" in SUSY particle physics theories?
What kind of consequences do you think this should have on our behaviour... especially regarding "religion" and "science"?
Make your "hypothesis"... and then simply go on acting as if it was true?
Potentially, it could be that dad's version of a "different past" was correct. It wouldn't conform with anything that we know... but, hey, it could be "unobservable".
But you seem to feel the need to express your disagreement with him. Why?
In the same way, dark matter, dark energy, and all the "supernatural" (as you call it) stuff of the standard cosmologly that you disagree with... it could all exist.
And yet you feel the need to ridicule people who hold to this hypothesis and try to validate it. Why?
I think that you define "awareness" in any way you like and need to support your own ideas... and discard it, or redefine it if it doesn't suit you anymore. And you extrapolate from that shifting base to whatever you need.
I think you contradict right now what you wrote earlier. After all, a prime ingredient in a "hypothesis" is the verifiability and falsifiability.
But how could you do that, if you can fall back on "well, maybe it exists but we cannot observe it" excuse any time you want to?
That is the difference between "make-belief" and a hypothesis.
Yes I think you told us that before. How the creation of man was actually from a long evolution of animals, rather than a specific creation of man and woman by God.I personally believe that life was "created" by God dad.
I accept genetic muttation also, but nothing mutated until we were first created. I do not accept mutation as the creator of life. I think that view is a mutated one.I also accept the premise of genetic adaptation over time (evolutionary theory) as do most Christians.
Since science doesn't know believe whatever you like.Dad, I've tried to have this conversation with you before, but I simply cannot agree with your *assumption* that physics here and now was different in the past than it is right now.
Science has zero evidence either way. That leave the bible that you think says man came from an animal womb. Not much use discussing that with you. MIght as well discuss Aesop's fables.You have zero evidence to support such a "belief".
I trust Jesus did that for us when He said that it was all good as gold.You also refuse to externally crosscheck your personal and potentially *fallible* interpretation of a single book.
I accept genetic muttation also, but nothing mutated until we were first created. I do not accept mutation as the creator of life. I think that view is a mutated one.
I trust Jesus did that for us when He said that it was all good as gold.
I have, and it has many useful properties. It is easy to shape, and rare enough to make it an ideal form of currency. It is highly resistant to oxidation and corrosion, as well as being highly conductive, making it useful in electrical contact surfaces.Ever stop to ask yourself what's so good about gold?
So it seems you are all over the map here, talking about Islam, and whatever.
Now it is 'physics'. Not sure how that is topical, but I did some learning in school, and some later.
FYI, that was ultimately my same point as it relates to demonstrating awareness as it relates to Panentheism.
I'd have to say that is probably simply a limit of "observation". It's possible that we may not be able to observe a response even if something is "aware". Then again, it's possible that all sorts of things exist that we simply cannot "observe", at least not directly.
Since you felt I was somehow stacking the deck, I asked you to do it yourself instead of me doing it.
I simply suggested a *goal*, and you could figure out how we might get it done in terms of your "design".
The only goals were wide spread distribution of life in various forms.
I'm not asking you how evolutionary theory works, nor I'm I suggesting that anything I'm asking you to do is related to EV theory.
I'm asking you to start with a different premise and a *different* theory, and design something to fill the universe with a variety of living things.
I just asked you to ask yourself that same question when I asked you to 'intelligently' design living things. I tried to answer that exact question for you, and you immediately objected to my answer. That's why I asked you to answer it yourself.
I'm a little mystified as to how to proceed if you won't accept my answer, and you won't provide your own intelligent design parameters.
I did not insist to you that it had to come about one way or another. I'm simply asking your to look at both options.
And "awareness", whatever that might be.
The way most "theories/hypotheses" work in science, is they begin with some premise. That premise is then used to make a series of "predictions" that hopefully can be "tested" in some way or another.
If you begin with a "premise" of intelligent design, and you set a limited number of likely probable "goals", it's possible to "predict" what you might need to "design" into your life spreading agent.
I tried to answer that question for you and you accused me of stacking the deck, and/or not providing you with a prediction that is somehow unique to 'intelligent design'. The second requirement is not used in science, and you don't seem to like my answer to the question.
Yeah, that must be the cause why all the ID proponents are non-religious.
The ID arguments don't argue for ID. They argue for an unknown, supernatural, omnipotent force that somehow, in an unknown and unknowable (you might call it "mysterious") way "caused" something else. This concept is usually shortened to "deity"... except by people who want to introduce their respective deity into science, but know that they are not legally allowed to. Thus: liars for [deity of choice].
Merry Christmas!
Are you feeling well?The ID argument is valid regardless of any atheist aversion to either religion or an intelligent designer.
BTW
I don't celebrate Christmas. It stopped being merry when I learned that my parents had gone to extreme trouble to foist the Santa lie on me. Then it became a symbol of their untrustworthiness. So thanks but no thanks.
I'd also have to point out that there are things that respond which you would not call aware or alive. Fire responds to different atmospheres. If I decrease the oxygen content, the flame responds by growing smaller.
It's not about God, Henry, or Christians versus atheists. It's about "Bible-believing" Christians and their political agenda versus everybody else, theists and non-theists alike.Why are Christians here so extensively arguing with atheists? Just tell them "Ok". They don't want your reason or guidance to know God anyway. You are not helping them by engaging in a "debate", you are just making them tie their knot more tightly. And I wonder if arguing with non-responsive "partner" creates more harm than good for people who read such exchange.
Not to mention that people who come on Christian site and leave thousands upon thousands messages against God are special cases indeed.
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?