Is it that incomprehensible to some that we theists may come to theism by way of evidence & reason?

[Milton Platt]

agreed!



Technology that specifically utilizes coded information systems with interdependent nested hierarchies- just like life and the physics and chemistry that support it- we can call these 'pink ponies' or 'natural' processes if you like, but the fact remains, there is only one proven method by which such information systems are originated, and that's creative intelligence.

In other words, spontaneous function ≠ spontaneous origin- that's a purely hypothetical extrapolation

Again that's not to say that they cannot be somehow created spontaneously, naturally, it's just not something we can test, repeat, observe, measure- i.e.. it ain't scientifically verifiable

Threep.......I'm not trying to be a pain in the backside here, honest.
The conversation is drifting along and you are not providing any answers to my specific questions. Answer the questions and then we can go from there.
Back when I originally responded to your posts here, you made the claim that a creative intelligence was scientifically proven to be the cause of everything around us. I had asked for then sources for the scientific verification. Who did the testing and observation, where are the published scientific papers that have that stated as their conclusion? They either exist, or they do not. Just give me some references to go by. I can do the lookup.

Additionally, you have made the claim that there is a more reliable way of understanding the world than the scientific method, and you have failed to provide support for this claim as well. Without evidence, even if it is weak evidence, I cannot understand what you are talking about. Name the process and then support with evidence that the process is more reliable than the scientific process.

If you cannot support the assertions, then your argument has already failed and the conversation is pretty much finished.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Threep.......I'm not trying to be a pain in the backside here, honest.

So it comes naturally?

only kidding, you'd have to try much harder!

The conversation is drifting along and you are not providing any answers to my specific questions. Answer the questions and then we can go from there.

well if I had a nickel...!

Back when I originally responded to your posts here, you made the claim that a creative intelligence was scientifically proven to be the cause of everything around us.

I certainly did not intend that, I acknowledge faith in my beliefs- do you?

My point is that everything around us boils down to information systems, and we only have one known method by which such systems are originated. I think I said repeatedly that I don't rule out the same happening spontaneously, it's just not verifiable as even hypothetically possible, far less a 'default' explanation

Additionally, you have made the claim that there is a more reliable way of understanding the world than the scientific method, and you have failed to provide support for this claim as well. Without evidence, even if it is weak evidence, I cannot understand what you are talking about. Name the process and then support with evidence that the process is more reliable than the scientific process.

If you cannot support the assertions, then your argument has already failed and the conversation is pretty much finished.

Another misunderstanding I fear, I have no problem with science the method, we all know and love. But science- the label- usually referring to an institutionalized academic opinion- that's something else entirely, & historically often diametrically opposed to the former