@kellyjay saidThe answer to your entire (first) question is 'no', because, as I have said before, there is no 'error checking'.
It is a simple question do you think it a natural thing for a unguided mindless goalless process to make a functionally systematic life with error checking? This nature at work or is it unnatural because everything moves to equilibrium by nature?
You don’t acknowledge life has in it instructions guiding all the functions in it?
Your use of the word 'error' is in the first place erroneous, since it implies that nature is doing something 'wrong', and nature does nothing 'wrong' in any moral or conscious sense. Imperfect genetic copying often occurs from one generation to the next, as is self - evident, (so no error checking, then) which is a factor in the process of evolution.
Your second question is some kind of double - speak and makes no sense, since nature is by its' definition natural, it can be nothing else.
Once again, your use of the word 'instructions' is inappropriate, since it implies that an external force or intellect is giving 'instruction' to 'life', which it isn't. Nothing is being 'guided' by anything else.
So, here's one for you; how old do you believe the earth to be? It's a question which you conveniently ignore, or say that you don't care about, but I'm asking you once again to answer it.
@indonesia-phil saidYou are mistaken with respect to error checking in the biological world. Error checking is correcting possible errors in preforming necessary tasks. There are feedback loops, start stop mechanisms highly complex data storage in life, without these life would degrade very quickly.
The answer to your entire (first) question is 'no', because, as I have said before, there is no 'error checking'.
Your use of the word 'error' is in the first place erroneous, since it implies that nature is doing something 'wrong', and nature does nothing 'wrong' in any moral or conscious sense. Imperfect genetic copying often occurs from one generation to the next ...[text shortened]... u conveniently ignore, or say that you don't care about, but I'm asking you once again to answer it.
The answer to my question is that you think the bottom up approach in life due to mindless processes without a goal is natural not unnatural thing?
@kellyjay saidThere's nothing new here.
There is no, on the one hand, you don't create someone who always was by
definition He always was, which is eternal. Convenient for argument's sake is
asking for a definition that cannot exist because of the contradiction it would
create, in saying this uncreated one is created. You want to turn what you
asking for to be something other than what He is, instead of taking on the
definition of eternal.
God is a 'black box' - you don't have any explanation for what's inside the box.
Thanks for confirming.
@kellyjay saidMy guess is that life indeed originally came from non-life, but it's just a guess.
@BigDogg
Getting back to my question, looking at definitions, you think it natural that life
would spring from non-life with only by definition unguided, mindless, uncaring
processes?
The most honest answer is, I don't know.
@bigdogg saidI am not asking anything beyond do you call a mindless process that produces highly specified functionally complex work a natural thing. The black box 📦 I am not concerned about, I am asking is the thing you see in life doing the work a mindless, purposeless, unguided process? Is it a natural or unnatural process, can you make a judgment call identifying which?
There's nothing new here.
God is a 'black box' - you don't have any explanation for what's inside the box.
Thanks for confirming.
@kellyjay saidI think the honest answer is that we do not know what that process was and we can only speculate.
I am asking is the thing you see in life doing the work a mindless, purposeless, unguided process?
Your use of certain words ~ "mind", "purpose" and a "goal" and a "guide" with "instructions" and "someone who always was" and "He always was" and "caring" and so on and so forth ~ makes it clear that you seek to anthropomorphize the entity.
Seeing as you frequently lapse into doing exactly that ~ i.e. anthropomorphizing the entity ~ by referring to the narratives and doctrines propagated by ancient Hebrew mythology - I think your ulterior motive for framing this mystery in this particular way is not disguised.
Personally, I think there possibly is some kind of creator entity that exists ~ the nature of which, we can only offer conjecture about.
@kellyjay saidSee the post above yours for my answer.
I am not asking anything beyond do you call a mindless process that produces highly specified functionally complex work a natural thing. The black box 📦 I am not concerned about, I am asking is the thing you see in life doing the work a mindless, purposeless, unguided process? Is it a natural or unnatural process, can you make a judgment call identifying which?
@kellyjay saidWhen you read the Book of Genesis, did you immediately conclude that it was "the only meta-narrative that makes sense"? Has your "observing of the world and cosmos" - and any attempts to discuss it - been affected by the Book of Genesis ever since?
the observing of the world and cosmos didn't
get me thinking about God.
1 edit
@fmf saidWhen you think about all of the instructions in life guiding all of the processes that
When you read the Book of Genesis, did you immediately conclude that it was "the only meta-narrative that makes sense"? Has your "observing of the world and cosmos" - and any attempts to discuss it - been affected by the Book of Genesis ever since?
occur in life, are those natural or unnatural things to you? If you claim natural, how
did those instructions get there, by some natural or unnatural means?
@kellyjay saidWhat "instructions"?
When you think about all of the instructions in life guiding all of the processes that
occur in life, are those natural or unnatural things to you? If you claim natural, how
did those instructions get there, by some natural or unnatural means?