@lemonjello said
There is no need to respond to this speaker’s points, since the scientific community has already refuted them. The only relevant “evidence” presented here is regurgitation of Behe’s claims of irreducible complexity (IC). Behe’s arguments never made much sense to begin with, since it follows rather straightforwardly from his very own definition of IC and some basic evolut ...[text shortened]... do not add the disingenuity of having an embarrassingly selective commitment to scientific methods!

No need to respond, you are pathetic, you go on and on about a discussion on the nature of explanation talking about there is no evidence/proof for God in it when that wasn't the topic, and when I give you something you stick your head in the sand and say someone else, someplace else addressed these.

Why do you bother to respond to me if you are just going to blow off the things I say and not address them and bring up things I didn't say and address? I'm not the one denigrating science, I have been giving cause for my views, you are simply alluding to others without names or specifics as if that is a point worth making, without addressing the points yourself.

Scientific methods are not the issue here, people with strong religious views are also scientists with Nobel prizes behind their names. You are pushing a reality that can only be understood by our senses as if nothing outside of them could play apart since the only thing science can look at is the material world, it's a nice hiding place for those things it cannot account for.

The material world and the immaterial world are both part of our universe. Which came first? Do you have a clue that you can bring to the discussion without simply suggesting someone somewhere else knows? Which is primary, and which is derivative?

@moonbus said
@KellyJay

We are all creatures who live by faith, and no matter how you view the world and its history that will not change.

Yeah, we get it: you think science is just an alternative belief system which has a god-shaped hole in it. You don't understand how science works, although this has been explained to you numerous times, with the patience of saints.

Scie ...[text shortened]... table. It evidently seems compelling to you, but it isn't falsifiable, and therefore not scientific.

I'm not the one thinking science is an alternate belief system, I do not lambast science as something less than, I am saying it has limitations, and you have to believe things in advance to come up with specific answers. You have to take on "FAITH," what we see now is as it always is to encapsulate logical answers about the past, you have to believe what is going on now always will to predict what will take place in the future, and you deny faith is involved. You have repeatedly said the facts are on your side, without producing any "facts" validating your side. You are long on being dismissive but short on coming up with things that give you a positive reason to believe what you do and make no mistake you do believe things to be true without good cause.

You cannot falsify anything about your beliefs for the beginning of anything from the start of the universe or life, you cannot even claim you know there was one, yet you make definitive statements of how and why things are taking place now without knowing anything about the beginning. You have to deny the informational properties in life-directing processes and the formation of forms, without explaining outside of maybe saying, well that is just the way it is, which is not a reason it is a joke of an explanation.

You have to take on faith that the universe acts law-like in its manners to trust conclusions when experiments are done. If that wasn't true you could not take any experiment as evidence or proof of anything, because the same experiment done someplace else could give different outcomes. Science can only be trusted if it is taken on faith that the universe can be intelligently understood, which means the "FACTS" are not on your side, you only get facts when facts are possible.

@lemonjello said
As already explained, it is a truism that one’s views are based in what one takes to be true. That has exactly nothing to do with the Lennox video. You’ve completely lost the thread, which is not easily done on a thread of one’s own initiation. The discussion here is not about how one’s views are constituted; it is about what counts as a method of explanation. You and ...[text shortened]... f explanation. Science by and large gets it right. You and Lennox do not even try to get it right.

YouTube

If you want to talk about evidence, here is a speaker whose life was cold case murder investigations looking at evidence. He started as an Atheist and turned into a Christian based on investigating the claims of Christianity as it was a cold case murder where all of the people involved in the murder from the witness to the investigators at the time of the crime, are all long dead. Unlike Lennox, this is about the evidence, not the nature of an explanation, you can shoot at the points this guy is making to prove his points.

@lemonjello said
As already explained, it is a truism that one’s views are based in what one takes to be true. That has exactly nothing to do with the Lennox video. You’ve completely lost the thread, which is not easily done on a thread of one’s own initiation. The discussion here is not about how one’s views are constituted; it is about what counts as a method of explanation. You and ...[text shortened]... f explanation. Science by and large gets it right. You and Lennox do not even try to get it right.

You again complain about the very thing you do as well, we speak about things we believe are true and give reasons for them. That is no different for you than me, implying that there is no God as true is also pushing a point of view as well, and making that a point of failure is quite circular, and hypocritical.

The positive evidence far outweighs a case for the Creator than not. Conformational bias we both share that possibility, and suggesting science gets it right assumes just those things that you want to believe are validated are. Ignoring those things that show what you believe is on shaky ground.

@lemonjello said

How you view the world is based upon what you think is true in it, you deny that? We can fool ourselves by looking for confirmation of our biases over things that contradict them. You will not correct someone's way of thinking if you don't think they are doing it wrong, for crying out loud you are doing it here with me and you fail to see that?

That on ...[text shortened]... ly-nilly; there are rules to the methods of explanation, which neither you nor Lennox seem to grasp.

My views are based on what I think is true, are you any different? Nothing willy-nilly about the things I have been saying, your explanations don’t also share the same frailty of being either true or false? You assume what you are saying is correct because it aligns with your own interpretation of the universe, it must be true therefore?

@pettytalk said
I enjoy chatting with you, but I need to take a break from posting on these forums. But I look forward to more exchanges of ideas on religion in the very near future.

Until then, hold fast to what you believe, because it may come true, someday.
The Return of the Jedi. Luke 17:22-24

Jesus said to His followers, “The time will come when you will wish you could see the ...[text shortened]... hen the Son of Man comes, He will be as LIGHTNING that shines from one part of the sky to the other.

If true it holds on to me not the other way around.

@pettytalk said
You have pitched me another change-up.

If you base everything on scripture, scripture has nothing to stand on, other than itself. Truth is like sitting on a tripod, and it needs three legs to stand on.

This argument of scripture attesting to truth on itself has long been shown to be false. However, personally, I'm open to the idea that it's symbolic. But even when it ...[text shortened]... nces musically spoken by God indirectly, through artists. But you still need at least three sources.

No, it is not my fault you are looking at everything true as if it were a matter of opinion.

@lemonjello said

You seem to be pushing something that you are not willing to look at in your own life the same way! You are presuming how you view things is somehow different than anyone who believes in God, a real issue for you, you have to borrow from a theistic worldview on faith, to even settle on what is true in reality!

It is absurd the way you continue to insist ...[text shortened]... t scientific explanative approaches try, whereas the Lennoxian approach does not even bother trying.

We are all creatures who live by faith, and no matter how you view the world and its history that will not change. What is real is not defined by me or anyone else accept the One who created everything. Regardless of our worldview we are forced to accept on faith how we define the world, right or wrong, are we seeing it as it really is. Once we make up our minds then our judgment calls follow.

You don’t think it matters if what we believe is true isn’t? You can’t apply logic to validate anything without properly understanding of what you’re looking at. You can use mathematics to run your numbers and get a correct complication, but unless you looking at things properly the only thing you are doing is showing your math is correct.

Is it your opinion that life could spring up through mindless indifferent processes? Can you explain what it is we all are and see? Without a predetermined explanation you have nothing to compare evidence to for validation.

@pettytalk said
OK, for argument's sake it's literal! I don't suppose you believe in reincarnation, and therefore you could not claim to have been an eyewitness to the event, in a previous life?

Other than scriptural hearsay, please tell me how did you come to determine that it's literal?

I believe the scripture is the revealed Word of God, so the text is what was written as it happened, or that God showed those whom the Holy Spirit chose revealed events too. So if you go to scripture you must read it in light of the whole Bible, and not take a verse and try to understand only in the context you like to say ignoring everything else in the Word.

@pettytalk said
Was the parting of the sea literal, or just a symbolic parting?

Exodus 14:21-22
Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea into dry land, and the waters were divided. So the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea on the dry ground, and the waters were a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.

Literal, but whole story symbolizing some great truths. Getting the people of God out of the world is far easier than getting the world out of the people of God.

@moonbus said
Of course logic has limitations; I don't pretend that logic explains everything in the universe and I don't know of any serious philosopher who ever maintained that it does (not even Logical Positivists such as Alfred Ayer). But it's a cop-out to run under the skirts of 'God did it' every time we bump into something we can't explain logically.

"God is the only or the prime ...[text shortened]... of allegiance. It says something about the speaker (KJ in this instance) and nothing about reality.

Do you think your denial of God also doesn't speak to who you are, reality doesn't change to suit us, but it reveals what we are that I agree with. A wallet with ID and money will reveal an honest man or one willing to take what is not his, a man who swore to love and honor his wife for as long as he lives and who later cheats on her shows what he is, someone who hides their internet activity because they don't want others to know what he does in his alone time is revealing who he is. Something is said about each life as we go through life, Jesus Christ see us at our worst and still loved us enough to save us, making away for everyone, even though not everyone cares one wit about Him.

@moonbus said
Of course logic has limitations; I don't pretend that logic explains everything in the universe and I don't know of any serious philosopher who ever maintained that it does (not even Logical Positivists such as Alfred Ayer). But it's a cop-out to run under the skirts of 'God did it' every time we bump into something we can't explain logically.

"God is the only or the prime ...[text shortened]... of allegiance. It says something about the speaker (KJ in this instance) and nothing about reality.

When God did something, it isn't wrong to say so, even in the case of Gaps in our knowledge, but the most prominent issues now are not with gaps of what we don't know, it is what we do know where reality can only be done by God nothing short. It either goes as it just is, which is not an explanation, or silence when pressed, showing up for a cheap shot now and then.

@pettytalk said
You're a rascal. If we were playing baseball, and you were the pitcher, and I the batter, you would throw only change-ups.

The only ones who are putting hands on others, as per Mark 16:17-18 are false preachers and false teachers, mainly. Then there are a few who, like yourself have witnessed, are fooled into believing that they are actually performing these miraculous a ...[text shortened]... t again, and I need to go shopping for more pencils.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB9YIsKIEbA

I double posted one is still up

@spruce112358 said
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Beautiful...

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/17/1245377914/senate-articles-impeachment-mayorkas-vote

Senate: "You know what? No. You are not going to bring your little traveling Fox-News-Sound-Bite Show into OUR House! Nossir! Take that trash somewhere else!"

Acquitted, there was no trial.