Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[NulliuSINverba]

Not interested in Pigeon Chess, thank you.

If you expect clarity in my answers ...

... please offer clarity in your questions.

Thanks.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I am waiting for a non theist to show that intelligence is not the answer and that somehow luck and magic did it. There seems to be no other option here, except saying it is not God. Why is it not? Why luck? What is the answer if not God? I see no answer, just non theist claiming it is not, with no evidence to back it up nor another argument to give. It is as if they have not even stopped to think about.. I figure it is just therapy myself, a way to make themselves feel good because they feel there is no answer. Yet they always take the argument into the physical, which is completely wrong......

What if god was created in the same way? The universe and "god" are intertwined in my belief. And I specifically do NOT believe that they created us with an intentional forethought. They exist along side us. Just as we do not intentionally create with every specific instance of our children I do not believe god created it.

Imagine the AMAZING chance that YOU or ME or ANYONE exists in the form they do! The chances that you got exactly the DNA from your mother and father to create yourself. Along with all of the potential mutations that did or did not occur. And then we do that again but double it for both of your parents. And then quadruple it again for your grandparents. And then again for your great grandparents. And then the chances of the epigentic causes that shaped the genes they passed on which are all based on the random events of someone's life.

There was no specific intelligence required for these chances. Just the way our life moves on. The number of "possible" ways you could have existed just going back a few generations and simply based on genetics alone is beyond the number of stars in our universe. How is that for crazy?

Yet no one had to design that.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I'm not changing the subject. Perhaps we should. Do you know anything about teapots? I mean real ones, that's a good topic.
Ok anyways, that was really not changing the subject, the fact that you think it is is worrisome.

When I ask you to cite a specific "unsubstantiated theory" being offered by non-theists, I'm not asking you to point to something that's materialized after your original assertion was made. That feels like you're clutching at straws.

The nature of 'nothing' and how it relates to 'something' is very much on topic.

And you have "nothing" to compare to "something?" Or is it true that all you have is "something?"

asked him where everything came from, and he said the total energy of the universe is zero. That was his response, that's on topic.

Is the total energy of the universe zero? I suppose if you'd like that substantiated, you might ask the person who said it.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

What does that even mean, and why does everyone keep using it?

If you're struggling with the verbiage, just say so.

...

It's a word that will continue to be relevant as long as people keep making wild claims.

 

[Dr. Strange]

That depends on what scientist you are listening to and what the subject is. They can be dogmatic also.

time is relative. There is time before what we consider to be time

Many. Infinite. Back to a Monadic Singularity- God.

If you can say that there is time before our time then make your argument.

My argument is that without Creation there is no time. Time is relevant to matter. Hence, time began for us with Creation.

If you believe that there are multiple universes then each has its own time. One universe to another is not relevant, not relevant to the other.

My response to your post on Einstein was to indicate even a brilliant mind such as Einstein there is no possibility that he knows everything. One thing in particular Einstein could not comprehend was anything moving faster than the speed of light. Science knows that faster than the speed of light exists in our universe.

If you mean to say that Einstein was wrong then state your reasoning in regards to what you find Einstein in error about.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I am waiting for a non theist to show that intelligence is not the answer and that somehow luck and magic did it.

1.) Non-theists are not the ones claiming that the universe is the result of supernatural intelligence. This is the province of theists. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the ones making the claim. The correct formulation would run more like:

Non-theists keep waiting for theists to show that intelligence is the answer.

2.) Who is suggesting that it was magic?

3.) Can you please explain the difference between "God dunnit" and "magic?"

There seems to be no other option here, except saying it is not God.

How about this: You have not demonstrated that it is God.

Why is it not? Why luck?

If you won the lottery, you'd refuse the money because the odds were too mind-boggling?

What is the answer if not God?

Ahem. How about "WE DON'T KNOW?"

I see no answer ...

Argument From Ignorance

just non theist claiming it is not

I can't speak for everyone who doubts the claims being made by theists, but I'm quite content to simply say that the arguments being made by theists are not convincing.

with no evidence to back it up nor another argument to give.

If you come to my door selling Snake Oil, and I refuse to purchase it, why should I have to offer up an alternative (non-) answer to compete with your hoodoo voodoo?

It's quite enough to slam the door in your face. I don't owe you an explanation.

... they always take the argument into the physical, which is completely wrong......

Hmm. What shall "they" conclude when "they" notice that you physically typed your argument out on your computer?

 

[Desert Snake]

Yet no one had to design that.

How do you figure that? You admit the complexity, then state it needs no designer. O.k., so what is a better idea?

What are you talking about?

 

[Dr. Strange]

That depends on what scientist you are listening to and what the subject is. They can be dogmatic also.

time is relative. There is time before what we consider to be time

Many. Infinite. Back to a Monadic Singularity- God.

You must know something about time I don't know. Please elaborate or present your hypothesis.

 

[icehorse]

What does that even mean?

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Midnight Rain]

How do you figure that? You admit the complexity, then state it needs no designer. O.k., so what is a better idea?

What are you talking about?

I saw no one "design" any of the complexity. I have seen two people enact the process that create a human being. Watched as a human being grew up from that process and NO DESIGNER WAS TO BE FOUND.

And yet it has amazing complexity. Where was the designer that created the astronomical odds that created me? Where was he a generation ago? Where was he moments prior to my conception? Where will he be during my own children's lives? That is the problem I have with your assumption. Are we nothing more than marionettes dancing on strings? Or robots programmed without will functioning to the will of a designer?

Or do we have our own free will and our own ability to let process go?

 

[Dr. Strange]

Because what you speak of as ''God'' is the One, the first the Origin. What we are really speaking of is a God of a God etc, which is fractal and not quite the same

What I speak of is not what I believe. What you mean to say is that there is a Cause and Effect (Creation). I speak from theological knowledge and science. That something can come from nothing is scientifically possible. If, that which is spoken of as a singularity is the Cause then I suppose that singularity comes out of nothing again approaches some intelligent being. I doubt that is the case.

 

[Dr. Strange]

It is an evolving consciousness. It becomes cleverer

it is a form of, but I was speaking of something far more primordail, before the universe began

Everything. A universe with planets stars life etc It works.

I am not talking about politics

??

true chaos does not bring about anything, that is why it is chaos. There has to be some sort of organising principle.

It is of God, one of the same with man

I don't fully understand what you're saying here. Everything is an evolving consciousness, it is fractal, holographic, and is divine, coming from God, as all things are and do. Simple to complex.

Chaos brings about something. How is it that bringing about chaos is not something? How is it that Chaos did not bring about life as we know it? Is that not the order you are referring to? And yet, is not our order, chaos?

I wasn't asking you to talk about politics. I used it as an example to show chaos exists in our ordered world.

Politics was important to Jesus. As a revolutionary, it was everything. It was justice as is apparent to Judaism. Christians turn justice into salvation. That must be the reason why Christianity no longer follows Jesus' revolution of justice, freedom and equality. Funny how Christians think they know their God.

 

[Desert Snake]

I saw no one "design" any of the complexity. I have seen two people enact the process that create a human being. Watched as a human being grew up from that process and NO DESIGNER WAS TO BE FOUND.

And yet it has amazing complexity. Where was the designer that created the astronomical odds that created me? Where was he a generation ago? Where was he moments prior to my conception? Where will he be during my own children's lives? That is the problem I have with your assumption. Are we nothing more than marionettes dancing on strings? Or robots programmed without will functioning to the will of a designer?

Or do we have our own free will and our own ability to let process go?

Intelligent design doesn't have to mean interactive creation. It's the created things themselves that offer evidence.

 

[Parsimony]

We don't know if the Universe could have been any different than the way it is now. Sure, we can imagine scenarios where the Universe has different laws of physics, but that does not necessarily mean that the Universe could have actually been that way. We don't know enough about the mechanism(s) that brought the Universe into existence to say for sure one way or the other. When you burn hydrogen with oxygen, there are many different ways that one can imagine the oxygen atoms and hydrogen atoms to connect with one-another to form an endless variety of molecules. In reality, however, the only molecule you will actually get is water. The laws of quantum mechanics assure that. One can only propose the other molecular possibilities if they don't know the finer workings of molecular bonding. The Universe might be the same way. Chance might not factor into it anymore than it factors into the creation of water from burning hydrogen. We just don't know.

 

[Cephus]

Intelligent design doesn't have to mean interactive creation. It's the created things themselves that offer evidence.

But you haven't shown that any of the supposed evidence actually points to your imagined cause. All you're doing is using the argument from personal incredulity fallacy, you don't understand how it works, therefore God.

 

[Desert Snake]

But you haven't shown that any of the supposed evidence actually points to your imagined cause. All you're doing is using the argument from personal incredulity fallacy, you don't understand how it works, therefore God.

I don't even know what you're talking about. And, no, that's wrong, 'personal what'? nonsense.
Present a theory besides id, tell us how "it" works lol

 

[Cephus]

I don't even know what you're talking about. And, no, that's wrong, 'personal what'? nonsense.
Present a theory besides id, tell us how "it" works lol

Go look it up. Google is your friend.

 

[Desert Snake]

Go look it up. Google is your friend.

You don't know what you're talking about, those comments were nonsense.

 

[Cephus]

You don't know what you're talking about, those comments were nonsense.

You're the one who doesn't know what logical fallacies are, even though you routinely engage in them. Maybe you ought to get your nose out of that ridiculous Bible of yours and get a real education.

 

[Desert Snake]

You're the one who doesn't know what logical fallacies are, even though you routinely engage in them. Maybe you ought to get your nose out of that ridiculous Bible of yours and get a real education.

I don't read the Bible much.
Again, nonsense. Waiting for you to say something related to answering to the OP, dollars to donuts that's not going to happen.