Personally, yes. Also if we are going to discuss evoluion vs. creationism we would have to accept the possibility of intelligent design and therefore the possibility of a creator. If we can not concede to this possibility then we can not debate between the two. Am I correct in this assumption...
Let me clarify, there are those who take this view. Not all, and I am coming from this perspective. nothing has been substantiated here at all yet in any direction.
True God, if there is a God, would be unchanging (immutable). He/she would be the the originator of time. All would begin and end within him. Being finite we make decisions through a trial and era process. Gods , being infinite, makes decisions that are instantanious. God spoke eveything into...
I am not refering to a boulder,but nature since "nature' within the context of the sentence being given the attribute of cause in a cause and effect relationship. Nature hence is being personified here, is it not? So, can I even make that statement.
If natural selection has the ability to...
No, I meant that the mediator for the origin of life and the evolutionary process are one in the same.
The analogy I was refering to was your last one about the fire.
Science has been given the definition today of being a methodology, but that is not its original meaning and even so, science...
Could they not be one in the same?
Still, within your analogy there are determing factors that come to gether to cause this incident. are there not?
Where does one end and the other begin. From what I understand of the root word "science" it means "knowledge". Where is the line drawn between...
So, is it safe to assume that you are saying life came about by unitentionality? Can anything therefore be determined and if so by whom? Would there then be no purpose and would not everything be meaningless? Why seek to survive?
Are we puppets of natural selection and evolution? Also,what...
The self is what and why would it project anything? What purpose would it serve? Who or what is it trying to impress? Let me clarify, in order to be a dependent arising it must be existing in order to arise and then project itself.
Am I to assume that you would not concede to the possibility that God is eternal outside of time and space? The idea that he created time and space and we are presently in them? He is also, being God, able to enter time and space. This is how I see it. If we cannot determine that which is...
need to correct myself. Not the laws of empirical evidence , but empirical evidence.
Empirical research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which we, in general, use a basis for scientific research.
A machine is run by an operator is it not?
Ok. What set the seive in motion and what constucted the seive? My point is that something set everything into motion and brought somekind of order out of disorder even if it were random natural selction. Something set it "natural selection" into motion. Yes or no?
Well, I am trying to show a correlation between that which is living or surviving and that which is not. Would you not say, according to the "laws of empirical evidence", that life or survival is a struggle against death or disorder? Life from the smallest cellular structure to the largest...
Even though there is disorder in the universe there is also order and survival in based on order, is it not? Survival of life seems to resist the natural propensity or death or disorder. If it did not would it then not be survival ?