T
tonyrey
Guest
Spock;5516533 Most Christians will readily and honestly admit that the biggest “thorn” in the side of Christianity is the Problem of Evil said:
- Status
S
Spock
Guest
I hope you are joking.
I did. It was a waste of my time. There is order in nature, but absolutely no evidence of design. The difference is enormous.
Thanks, but no thanks.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
I never understood your inability to grasp the totally fantastic and bizarre character of the nature order. Why do you think that, just because nature happens in a “sequence”, that it is any more reasonable then magic, that it should exist? It doesn’t in anyway shape or form strike me as less magical that a specific quality such as mind ought to exist in conjunction with a 3 dimensional pattern. Why should that be the case to extent that it is necessarily true of reality? What makes it true, and what difference would it make if mind didn’t occur through that specific pattern? For instance, it seems to me an arbitrary fact that things and qualities occur in regards to chemicals laws. There is nothing about laws in themselves that grant the necessity of their existence or their particularity in so far as their functional qualities and effects are concerned. In fact its odd to me that things are consistently ordered to various and specific ends, rather then being completely arbitrary and random; and given this fact, i agree with Paley when his claims that nature appears to him contrived.
There are many very intelligent atheists and physicist who are happy to think that the world came out of absolutely nothing without any cause whatsoever, and yet, just because people are willing to slap the label of science on a belief, they are willing to think that such a thing is perfectly normal to believe, much more plausible then the magical intervention of an already existing entity called God!!!
You keep describing supernatural intervention as magical, giving it the appearance of a fairy tale, in order to make it sound less reasonable then natural events. Not only is this bad debate tactics, it is a baseless assumption which has no support accept to point out that some things happen in a sequence. You must give support for you distinction between the reasonableness of God and the existence of the natural order in its functional sense; because otherwise you are just building up straw-men instead of creating constructive criticisms.
To me, the existence of the natural order isn’t any less amazing then positing the existence of God as the creator; and this probably goes some way into explaining why it is easier for me to take God seriously, because i see nature for what it is.
Either pure magic, or a creation of God.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
But thats the thing. With a scientific education this becomes…
Theories based on observable, repeatable, peer reviewed evidence, or god did it (pure magic).
T
tonyrey
Guest
It’s a complete waste of time trying to reason with some one who does nothing but make sweeping assertions without supporting them with detailed evidence. None are so blind as those who will not see… I leave others to judge how well you have evaded the issues at stake…
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
What assertions has he made, you are the one positing design so it is your responsiblity to back that claim up. The design argument has been debunked countless times.
Here…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
T
tonyrey
Guest
His assertions are there for you to read. I am not going to discuss them behind his back. Would you like it if you were in his position?
W
wanstronian
Guest
Not sure how it’s possible to discuss something ‘behind someone’s back’ in a public forum. Sounds more like a cop-out to me!
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are merely exhibiting your aggressive mentality - for which we already have plenty of evidence… You are hardly in a position to accuse me of a cop-out considering that you have failed to reply to my last response to you…
S
Spock
Guest
Oh, I am around… just don’t like to waste my time of nonsensical arguments.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Thank God for that!
T
tonyrey
Guest
- What exactly do you believe?
- How did you arrive at those beliefs?
- How do you know those beliefs are true?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
- Many many things
- That depend is on the cliams. With major claims (I.E the origin of the universe or man) i only accept repeatable, obserable, evidence.
- See above.
T
tonyrey
Guest
What is the repeatable, observable evidence of the origin of man and the universe?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Are you kidding?
W
wanstronian
Guest
Not at all - if anything your response quoted above is indicative of your own aggression.
Apologies for not responding - I’ve been away for a few days and several pages of thread have occurred without me - it’s too late to catch up now. And to be honest Tony, I don’t see a lot of point continuing the discussion with you - your standard response to everything is, “How do you know blah blah blah?” It’s an ironic argument from a theist!
I’m sorry my responses have made you so angry, but when your entire rationale for the existence of God seems to be the existence of consciousness, and you defend such a rationale so strongly, it’s inevitable that when it is shown to be groundless, you’ll get upset.
W
wanstronian
Guest
No, he’s not.
He literally doesn’t see the difference between observable, tangible, objective evidence, and metaphysical conjecture. In fact on occasion he uses the latter to attempt to discredit the former. At least that’s been my observation.
Sorry Tony, hope you can forgive me for talking behind your back in plain view on a public forum
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
No, he’s not.
He literally doesn’t see the difference between observable, tangible, objective evidence, and metaphysical conjecture. In fact on occasion he uses the latter to attempt to discredit the former. At least that’s been my observation.
Sorry Tony, hope you can forgive me for talking behind your back in plain view on a public forum
- Status