Good behaviours vs beliefs

@kellyjay said
I think opinions need to be looked at individually, not according to who says them, but the soundness of the logic used, and the sources quoted. My opinion and anyone else’ should not be viewed according to who says what, instead how inline with the truth of reality is it? To reject anything by definition only without examination isn’t even addressing the topic, instead by prejudice.

So how sound is the logic used, and how near to the truth of reality would you say is someone who completely ignores all scientific evidence for hominid evolution, and instead believes verbatim words written a couple of thousand years ago, long before evolution and study of the fossil record were even a twinkle in anyone's eye? Nothing personal, just addressing a topic....

@indonesia-phil said
So how sound is the logic used, and how near to the truth of reality would you say is someone who completely ignores all scientific evidence for hominid evolution, and instead believes verbatim words written a couple of thousand years ago, long before evolution and study of the fossil record were even a twinkle in anyone's eye? Nothing personal, just addressing a topic....

No, I think it's clear you were being rather personal there.

And what could you, Phil, or KellyJay, or any of us ever hope to change with our manly verbal plumage?

@indonesia-phil said
So how sound is the logic used, and how near to the truth of reality would you say is someone who completely ignores all scientific evidence for hominid evolution, and instead believes verbatim words written a couple of thousand years ago, long before evolution and study of the fossil record were even a twinkle in anyone's eye? Nothing personal, just addressing a topic....

I have asked you for some specifics; what scientific evidence do you have? With
respect to evolution, even if true, it doesn't solve anything for you; it is still a
process doing highly complex work, and if true, does that reflect something
mindless or designed? Moreover, evolution is a process that requires life to already
exist, it doesn't address the beginning where the formation of life not only had
to occur but within its beginning, set up the processes to generate life hold
information, work off that information, create and maintain error checking and
on and on.

Not only do you have to have life arise from dead dirt into what we see today,
but there is also the small matter of matter and the rest of the universe setup in
such a way that life could happen. Mindless dumb luck or God?

@kellyjay said
I have asked you for some specifics; what scientific evidence do you have? With
respect to evolution, even if true, it doesn't solve anything for you; it is still a
process doing highly complex work, and if true, does that reflect something
mindless or designed? Moreover, evolution is a process that requires life to already
exist, it doesn't address the beginning where t ...[text shortened]... and the rest of the universe setup in
such a way that life could happen. Mindless dumb luck or God?

OK, as I have stated many times before, maybe a creator entity of some kind is the cause of it. But why must we anthropomorphize this entity? Why must we believe that Gabriel communicated with Muhammad or that Jesus communicated with Paul or that the Rishis had the Vedas divinely revealed to them or that this creator entity decided to walk on Earth as a progressive Jew?

@fmf said
OK, as I have stated many times before, maybe a creator entity of some kind is the cause of it. But why must we anthropomorphize this entity? Why must we believe that Gabriel communicated with Muhammad or that Jesus communicated with Paul or that the Rishis had the Vedas divinely revealed to them or that this creator entity decided to walk on Earth as a progressive Jew?

If you think it's clear mindlessness cannot do all that was required, then we must
come to the conclusion a mind did it. From that point on, the discussion moves to
who?

@kellyjay said
If you think it's clear mindlessness cannot do all that was required, then we must
come to the conclusion a mind did it.

How did you get that from his post?

@kellyjay said
If you think it's clear mindlessness cannot do all that was required, then we must
come to the conclusion a mind did it. From that point on, the discussion moves to
who?

Thank you for typing a question instead of addressing what I said. Here it is once again:

[1] Maybe a creator entity of some kind is the 'cause' of the universe.

[2] Why must we anthropomorphize this entity?

[3] Why must we believe that Gabriel communicated with Muhammad or that Jesus communicated with Paul or that the Rishis had the Vedas divinely revealed to them or that this creator entity decided to walk on Earth as a progressive Jew?

I'd be interested in your answers.

@fmf said
Thank you for typing a question instead of addressing what I said. Here it is once again:

[1] Maybe a creator entity of some kind is the 'cause' of the universe.

[2] Why must we anthropomorphize this entity?

[3] Why must we believe that Gabriel communicated with Muhammad or that Jesus communicated with Paul or that the Rishis had the Vedas divinely revealed to them or ...[text shortened]... creator entity decided to walk on Earth as a progressive Jew?

I'd be interested in your answers.

The maybe is the question as far as I concerned, no need to worry about who, if who is still up in the air as a requirement.

Once that is settled then we can move on to the rest, mindlessness or a mind caused the universe to be, and then in it life?

If there is a scientific refutation of that great spell it out, if not, why do people suggest science has resolved anything, when it comes to these issues, when clearly it has not!?

@kellyjay said
The maybe is the question as far as I concerned, no need to worry about who, if who is still up in the air as a requirement.

You ask about "who"?

Why must we anthropomorphize this entity?

@kellyjay said
Once that is settled then we can move on to the rest, mindlessness or a mind caused the universe to be, and then in it life?

When you say "mind", do you mean a "mind" similar to a human mind?

@kellyjay said
If there is a scientific refutation of that great spell it out, if not, why do people suggest science has resolved anything, when it comes to these issues, when clearly it has not!?

Science has made great strides towards the deeper and more detailed understanding that we currently have of the universe. Maybe the nature of the universe ~ as we know it ~ is the closest we can be [at the moment] to perceiving the nature of the creator entity that is the 'cause' of it all.

@fmf said
You ask about "who"?

Why must we anthropomorphize this entity?

I said unless we agree that mindlessness can not bring about the universe and life, discussions about who is premature. Once we acknowledge the necessity then it becomes something required. If the necessity of a creator is rejected, who cares how many names are floated, all are rejected out of hand.

@kellyjay said
I said unless we agree that mindlessness can not bring about the universe and life, discussions about who is premature. Once we acknowledge the necessity then it becomes something required. If the necessity of a creator is rejected, who cares how many names are floated, all are rejected out of hand.

It seems you don't want to address what I am putting to you and asking you.

@kellyjay said
I said unless we agree that mindlessness can not bring about the universe and life, discussions about who is premature. Once we acknowledge the necessity then it becomes something required. If the necessity of a creator is rejected, who cares how many names are floated, all are rejected out of hand.

...mindlessness ... discussions about who ... many names are floated ... need to worry about who ... mind ... the discussion moves to who ... etc. etc.

Why must we anthropomorphize this entity?

@kellyjay said
If you cannot understand whether our assertions stand or fall on the merit
of the assertion themselves, not personalities, I doubt very seriously you'd
grasp when someone is floundering or not.

What "merit" does your assertion that you are immortal stand on?