B
Bradski
Guest
On that you get no argument.
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
Then miracles must occur in the secularists’ scheme of things. I wonder what causes them… The blind Goddess?
T
tonyrey
Guest
How do you distinguish them - given that the term “natural” is indefinitely extensible to accommodate new discoveries? Can you give a **precise **definition?
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Sometimes it is just being rude and arrogant.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Or mindless processes have eventually led, naturally, to something that is aware of itself. Why not?
Does a human sperm or ovum have a mind?
Yet they regularly come together to produce intelligent beings.
R
rossum
Guest
The multiverse is one hypothesis among many. Deities are yet another hypothesis, and there are many different deity-hypotheses.
As to being the “simplest”, and intelligent deity is far more complex that a quantum-foam style multiverse. The multiverse is not intelligent, whereas an intelligent designer obviously is. Do you not think that intelligence adds complexity to an entity?
So? Buddhist and Hindu scriptures explicitly state that stars are other, distant, suns with planets. See the Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra, chapter 10 for an example. Does that make the Dharmic religions more true than the Abrahamic religions?
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Evolution is not random iteration. It is iteration with non-random selection. Your sources are feeding you false information. Why do you believe sources that lie to you?
rossum
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Good question.
R
rossum
Guest
Frequently. A single cell is mindless – it does not even have a brain. Yet some single cells, called zygotes, produce human beings.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Well, when a boy intelligent designer really really loves a girl intelligent designer, they get married and have lots of little intelligent designers.How do you explain the existence of intelligent designers?
How do you explain the existence of your proposed non-human intelligent designer(s)?
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
The material part of my mind is, and evolution is only concerned with the material. It works within the limits of science.
A carbon atom in my brain is just as “lifeless” as a carbon atom in a piece of limestone. Vitalism was shown to be false a very long time ago. There is nothing special about the material components of life.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
R
rossum
Guest
You appear to be reifying “mind”. Like everything else, a self-aware mind is produced when all the required conditions are present.
A single car is not a traffic jam, but put enough single cars together and you will get a traffic jam. There is no independently existing traffic jam, apart from the cars. Remove all the cars and there is no traffic jam. Mind is the same. It is a product of conditions. When the conditions are not present, then there is no mind. When the conditions are present there is a mind. There is no independently existing mind separate from the conditions. As a Buddhist, there are non-material conditions as well as material conditions. However, none of those non-material conditions are a mind. They are each part of a mind, but not themselves a mind. In the same way, a single car may be part of a traffic jam, but is not itself a traffic jam.
rossum
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Sure, I said “two of the greatest guitar solos”, not “the two greatest guitar solos”.
I could name any number of Frank Zappa solos too. Or Slash, or – you name it.
(But my most favorite composers are Bach, Beethoven, Stockhausen.)
G
grannymh
Guest
When it comes to human nature (Genesis 1:26-27) both Theistic Evolution *and *Intelligent Design are helpless.
I have never seen a Theistic Evolution post nor an Intelligent Design post which actually accurately demonstrated human nature as taught by the Catholic Deposit of Faith. So why, in heaven’s name, would anyone who is interested in human nature use them as their source of information?
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
False. Theistic Evolution makes no claims about the infusion of the human soul, given that evolution by definition is a mere material process. You should know that, and not relentlessly continue to perpetuate falsehoods.
F
fhansen
Guest
Romans 1:20 doesn’t speak about human nature either because, like TE and ID that’s not the purpose. The purpose is to demonstrate the existence of a Creator giving “motives of credibility” for such.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Spoken like a faithful Buddhist.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
No, because the Dharmic religions do not categorically state, as the Abrahamic religions categorically state, that the first thing created was light, as in “Let there be light!”
Science also categorically says that light filled the early universe.
Atheist Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.
“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Or mindless processes have eventually led, naturally, to something that is aware of itself. Why not?
Does a human sperm or ovum have a mind?
Yet they regularly come together to produce intelligent beings.
Both of these beg the question, given that the brain is assembled from and by the design plan within the genetic code of the sperm and ova when they combine, the question that remains unanswered is where did the design for the brain come from?
The question also remains unanswered when you, for example, assume natural selection acting on random mutations over a long period of time, is sufficient to account for that design. Until you demonstrate that it has been, all your assertions that it does, remain merely assertions.
You cannot use “survival” as the trump card, because you are, thereby, assuming that survival depended entirely upon random mutations - which, again, begs the question. You haven’t shown that, you assume that is what ensured survival because you assume that was the only mechanism in play.
- Status