1 edit
@kellyjay saidHe has no reason to disregard Scripture.
Exactly what did I say that had anything to do with scripture in my last? If all you are going to do is dismiss anything I say because I accept scripture than it isn’t logic that you are basing this on.
The Gospels and Paul’s letters are reliable and trustworthy documents.
Just like he never provided a single shred of evidence for macroevolution, he never provided a reason to disregard Scripture.
EDIT: That hombre’s all hat and no cattle.
@kellyjay saidYou spoke of 'competing hypotheses'. One of those 'hypotheses' is based solely on the particular scripture that you happen to believe is divinely inspired - do please correct me if I'm wrong.
Exactly what did I say that had anything to do with scripture in my last? If all you are going to do is dismiss anything I say because I accept scripture than it isn’t logic that you are basing this on.
1 edit
@avalanchethecat saidThere are a lot of hypotheses; some of them center on and around scripture. Some of them are solely based upon a natural theology meaning the universe is designed because what we see in it cannot possibly come about through purely natural undirected causes. Natural theology is simply what we can see in the universe no scripture is required, I believe in all truth is absolute so anything that is true is going to be true and live up with all other truth. You don't require scripture to notice that all of the digital-like code in life produces instruction and that written code in programs is found due to programmers. These types of things are evidential and to deny that cannot be done except through definition, meaning, you simply refuse to see and acknowledge them. I believe you are wrong.
You spoke of 'competing hypotheses'. One of those 'hypotheses' is based solely on the particular scripture that you happen to believe is divinely inspired - do please correct me if I'm wrong.
@kellyjay saidNope, that's just not true. The entire 'Intelligent Design' movement/argument is wholly predicated on ideas of a divine creator taken directly from christian scripture. Unless you're talking about the 'simulation hypothesis'?
There are a lot of hypotheses; some of them center on and around scripture. Some of them are solely based upon a natural theology meaning the universe is designed because what we see in it cannot possibly come about through purely natural undirected causes. Natural theology is simply what we can see in the universe no scripture is required, I believe in all truth is absolute ...[text shortened]... through definition, meaning, you simply refuse to see and acknowledge them. I believe you are wrong.
@avalanchethecat saidLOOKING AT THE UNIVERSE is not quoting scripture; please, as soon as the non-materialistic view is presented, no matter what your go-to is, the Bible isn't true? For crying out loud, not even bringing up scripture talking about processes is no different to you than quoting Peter or Paul?
Nope, that's just not true. The entire 'Intelligent Design' movement/argument is wholly predicated on ideas of a divine creator taken directly from christian scripture. Unless you're talking about the 'simulation hypothesis'?
@kellyjay saidYou are looking at the universe through a scripture-flavoured prism. You have the answer you want already and you're just looking for ways to confirm it. There is no way you could arrive at the idea of a god you believe in without the 'evidence' of your scripture.
LOOKING AT THE UNIVERSE is not quoting scripture; please, as soon as the non-materialistic view is presented, no matter what your go-to is, the Bible isn't true? For crying out loud, not even bringing up scripture talking about processes is no different to you than quoting Peter or Paul?
@avalanchethecat saidOkay, honestly, if one of us is looking at it through a flavored prism, it's you. I think you are the one who is so fixated upon it that even when we are not talking about it, that is all you think about. I didn't bring up scripture, didn't mention it, did not call attention to it in any fashion while speaking about what is in the universe, and your retort is scripture. In that case, only one of us isn't looking at things but is very worried about the implications to the point you cannot just stay on topic.
You are looking at the universe through a scripture-flavoured prism. You have the answer you want already and you're just looking for ways to confirm it. There is no way you could arrive at the idea of a god you believe in without the 'evidence' of your scripture.
2 edits
@kellyjay saidLol, now you're just being silly, and disingenuous to boot. The stuff you're talking about is all supposed 'evidence' parroted in support of the so-called 'Intelligent Design' hypothesis, as you well know. Without the already framed and hung picture of the christian concept of god, this hypothesis has no legs at all, and in fact, the simulation hypothesis I mentioned earlier gives a much closer match to the evidence you have cited. Nothing you have mentioned reasonably points towards an omniscient, all-powerful creator/god at all.
Okay, honestly, if one of us is looking at it through a flavored prism, it's you. I think you are the one who is so fixated upon it that even when we are not talking about it, that is all you think about. I didn't bring up scripture, didn't mention it, did not call attention to it in any fashion while speaking about what is in the universe, and your retort is scripture. In t ...[text shortened]... ing at things but is very worried about the implications to the point you cannot just stay on topic.
@avalanchethecat saidPlease, I wasn't talking about scripture, but mechanisms, processes, odds, requirements, things we use when we build things; it is the world I work in. You didn't discuss any of that instead went to scripture, which I'm glad to discuss, but out respect avoided that because I think the universe we live in speaks for itself; mindless processes are without a doubt utterly inadequate to the task of starting, maintaining a universe, in addition to starting and maintaining life. Not addressing the points raised, you brought up scripture; why? It isn't like I was talking to it at the time; you felt compelled maybe, who knows. I wasn't speaking to the Christian God; I was speaking to the mechanisms in life; a designer could be anything with the capabilities to design both the universe and life; it's a narrow list, I admit, but having said that, I'm sure more than one answer is out there. It isn't me being disingenuous here.
Lol, now you're just being silly, and disingenuous to boot. The stuff you're talking about is all supposed 'evidence' parroted in support of the so-called 'Intelligent Design' hypothesis, as you well know. Without the already framed and hung picture of the christian concept of god, this hypothesis has no legs at all, and in fact, the simulation hypothesis I mentioned ...[text shortened]... Nothing you have mentioned reasonably points towards an omniscient, all-powerful creator/god at all.
@kellyjay saidDo those "mechanisms in life" you refer to represent evidence that all non-Christian religions can point to as proof that their deity is the "designer ... with the capabilities to design both the universe and life"?
I wasn't speaking to the Christian God; I was speaking to the mechanisms in life; a designer could be anything with the capabilities to design both the universe and life;
@kellyjay saidYou are being totally disingenuous and you know it; "... without a doubt ..." in your mind, perhaps, but only because of the christian god paradigm already there entrenched.
Please, I wasn't talking about scripture, but mechanisms, processes, odds, requirements, things we use when we build things; it is the world I work in. You didn't discuss any of that instead went to scripture, which I'm glad to discuss, but out respect avoided that because I think the universe we live in speaks for itself; mindless processes are without a doubt utterly inade ...[text shortened]... t having said that, I'm sure more than one answer is out there. It isn't me being disingenuous here.
@fmf saidI believe the only thing we can say while looking at only life is that it couldn't have come into being, it couldn't have maintained itself, it would have never evolved due to a mindless, indifferent process, with no goal, targets, desires, cares, awareness of success and failures. It takes an agency a mind to write code, maintain code, and create specialized specified complexity where in some cases, the error checking involved is more complex than the thing it is checking. Couple that with the fine-tuning of the universe itself, there is a lot to account for, and ignoring these things by simply saying we don't know, is putting one's head in the sand because we do know a mind is required to do these types of things because we do these types of things.
Do those "mechanisms in life" you refer to represent evidence that all non-Christian religions can point to as proof that their deity is the "designer ... with the capabilities to design both the universe and life"?
Nice seeing you, by the way, you were not around. I was beginning to worry something had happened to you.
@avalanchethecat saidI'm not the one changing the subject, taking a discussion on what we see in the universe and backdooring someone else with a different topic that wasn't part of what they were discussing.
You are being totally disingenuous and you know it; "... without a doubt ..." in your mind, perhaps, but only because of the christian god paradigm already there entrenched.