Good behaviours vs beliefs

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

I actually want to talk about the thing I'm talking about.

@kellyjay said
I actually want to talk about the thing I'm talking about.

What about addressing what FMF has put to you.

@kellyjay said
I actually want to talk about the thing I'm talking about.

But I AM talking to you about the thing you are talking about.

@divegeester said
What about addressing what FMF has put to you.

What about them? If he wants to talk about them, he can.

@fmf said
But I AM talking to you about the thing you are talking about.

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
What about them? If he wants to talk about them, he can.

Stop pouting kellyjay, you’re morphing into sonship.

@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.

But nobody knows for certain, so your point is moot.

@divegeester said
But nobody knows for certain, so your point is moot.

Is certainty required for you?

@kellyjay said
I actually want to talk about the thing I'm talking about.

To whom are you talking then? Or is your posting performative?

@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.

Maybe a creator entity of some kind is the 'cause' of the universe, I accept the possibility, but why must we anthropomorphize this entity?

@fmf said
Maybe a creator entity of some kind is the 'cause' of the universe, I accept the possibility, but why must we anthropomorphize this entity?

Why would it be just a possibility there is anything that leads you to believe otherwise?

@kellyjay said
Why would it be just a possibility there is anything that leads you to believe otherwise?

Believe otherwise...?

Are you not reading my posts?

@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.

Why do you feel we must anthropomorphize a creator entity if there is one?

@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?

Well, you've answered my question without intending to answer it, so I'll leave it there. As a final word, though, if science has only 50% of the answer to 'the big questions', or only 10%, or only 1%, then it's 50% or 10% or 1% more than your non - evidential, non - questioning belief in a mythological creator entity will ever have.

@fmf said
Believe otherwise...?

Are you not reading my posts?

Your not answering mine, it’s a binary choice meaningless did it all, or intent. To saying it is only possible is not even addressing the question, it is only acknowledging the question is a question.