- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
322d
@kellyjay saidAll of us already gave an answer, but you refuse to accept that the answer is that your question starts out wrong.
You have an answer of you just going to sit down and say no as if that was is an answer?
322d
@shallow-blue saidThe question doesn’t start out wrong, it does have but two possibilities that the rest of either explanation must account for everything that follows. If your answer can’t explain anything and the only reason why you pick the one that you do is because the other explanation isn’t to your liking then you have no reasons for your opinion.
All of us already gave an answer, but you refuse to accept that the answer is that your question starts out wrong.
320d
@divegeester saidFYI, the standard work to which many literalists, esp. Protestants and Evangelicals appeal, is James Ussher’s Annals, which fixed the date of creation as “evening, 22d Oct. 4004 BC.” Evening, mind you, not dawn!
Do you draw a distinction between believing the earth is 8,000 years old and believing it is 6,000 years old?
https://bibletimeline66.wixsite.com/bibletimeline66/james-ussher
@kellyjay saidI think this is about as low as you've sunk. You have no constructive argument left, so you resort to your 'scientist' to make your case for you. Do you really think that only scientists can take a view on whether your god exists or not? I pretend nothing, I don't even take issue with a scientist who gives up and admits that he/she has failed, but when a scientist therefore attributes natures' occurrences to supernatural causes then the science has gone, as has the scientist. To then attribute that which they are unable to explain to a particular god as opposed to any other god merely compounds the felony.
You should look up Dr Tour’s papers and patents then compare to your own. It will be obvious who the pretender is comparing his accomplishments to yours.
320d
@indonesia-phil saidI quoted him, and you've insulted him without addressing the points brought up. You pretend you know how life didn't begin while not being able to say how it did. You cannot give a positive reason for accepting mindlessness was the driving force behind life, while dismissing all of the positive reasons to accept one was behind it. I have tried to keep this limited to what we know, a mind can write code, it is discernable due to the meaning and functional complex structure of forms and activities the code directs. If you want to discuss God and gods go to the Spiritual forum, I'll be happy to take up the discussion.
I think this is about as low as you've sunk. You have no constructive argument left, so you resort to your 'scientist' to make your case for you. Do you really think that only scientists can take a view on whether your god exists or not? I pretend nothing, I don't even take issue with a scientist who gives up and admits that he/she has failed, but when a scientist ther ...[text shortened]... y are unable to explain to a particular god as opposed to any other god merely compounds the felony.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
319d
@kellyjay saidNo, it starts wrong. It starts with assuming that there is an end goal to a chemical reaction. This is wrong, and you refuse to accept that.
The question doesn’t start out wrong, it does have but two possibilities that the rest of either explanation must account for everything that follows. If your answer can’t explain anything and the only reason why you pick the one that you do is because the other explanation isn’t to your liking then you have no reasons for your opinion.
Arguing with you any further is like keeping explaining that 2 + 2 = 4 to someone who keeps asking "But why is 2 + 2 = 5 !!1?!?!I?".
319d
@shallow-blue saidThere is life, it has a very specified functionally complex nature where we see form and function arising due to genetic arrangements within that we can observe. If there was or wasn’t an end goal is just as much apart of the question as mind or mindlessness. You can stick your head in the ground and ignore this if you want, but it is fundamental to our understanding of all life and what it means to be human.
No, it starts wrong. It starts with assuming that there is an end goal to a chemical reaction. This is wrong, and you refuse to accept that.
Arguing with you any further is like keeping explaining that 2 + 2 = 4 to someone who keeps asking "But why is 2 + 2 = 5 !!1?!?!I?".
What I refuse to accept is people so sure they know the answer and difference, but utterly fail to give reasons beyond cleverly devised stories without mechanisms that can do the work which could be explained by a mindless process!
319d
@shallow-blue saidI can give reasons for why a mind is a better explanation, you can’t do the same with mindlessness.
No, it starts wrong. It starts with assuming that there is an end goal to a chemical reaction. This is wrong, and you refuse to accept that.
Arguing with you any further is like keeping explaining that 2 + 2 = 4 to someone who keeps asking "But why is 2 + 2 = 5 !!1?!?!I?".