Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I've had that happen, and given the circumstances (it happened once and that was the end of it, so there's no way to do anything more) I just concluded "I don't know what that was".
I know.
Of course.
Well that's good. Simply not knowing what something is or how it came to be is not justification for concluding something like "it must have been designed". That's just an argument from ignorance.
I agree.
No, I didn’t. I responded to a post of yours about the supernatural.
but it was meant to be general.”
Yes. It was my mistake for not expanding the quote, but your mistake for including my response someone else's post.No, I didn’t. I responded to a post of yours about the supernatural.
I asked how you know the supernatural exists. You responded with, “Never said I did. If I did, please point out the post. Thanks.”
To which I replied that you are talking about the supernatural as if it exists.
That’s when you presented your story about camping with friends and seeing a strange object fall from the sky. (Post #273)
I replied that I wouldn’t assume it was a supernatural event.
You answered with:
“The example had nothing to do with supernatural.
The example was simply used to show why it's not unreasonable for me to speak of something that is real to me, even if it's not real to you - To speak of something that I understand, even if you don't understand.
I wasn't accusing you though. I just thought the expression was fitting,
Then I asked you why you brought up that story, when our discussion was about the supernatural.
Then in post #295, you said, “Why did I bring up what?”
To which I face palmed.
Then you attributed a post to me (about a song) that I didn’t write and asked me, “Are you serious? Where did I bring up a song?”
So needless to say, you appear a bit confused.
That's what confused me.
Once again, the only example you can provide is an example where you already have prior knowledge. I'm asking you how you can identify design without prior knowledge of its design.
But how does knowledge of objects that you only know from experience are designed, lead you to conclude that objects that you don't know from experience are designed, to be designed?
No, it's why your argument is flawed. You have no idea of the design process of the Universe, so you cannot assert design.
See above. Your argument is "x is designed, therefore y is designed". This is not a reasonable argument.
The difference being that the natural process can be and is directly observed, so this assumption is justified. If there is intelligence in the process, it is either undetectable or indistinguishable from nature, in which case the assertion of design is the assertion that has to be demonstrated.
I never said it can't. You're the one suggesting it necessarily does, and have yet to demonstrate why.
I don't have to, because I'm not the one making specific claims of how the Universe forms.
Both of these statements lack sufficient definition to be meaningful.
"Seems to be" is not an argument. If the Universe is "purposefully arranged" then why is the vast, vast, vast majority of it an empty, chaotic mess?
And it would all be basic equivocation.
Applying natural laws to an even which formed that natural laws is contradictory.
False. Give one example of a natural law which is known to come from an intelligence. Or are you committing equivocation again?
Irrelevant.
Again, all baseless assertions.
Because that's your way of understanding the world. It doesn't mean the world literally works that way.
Equivocation again. DNA is not a literal language.
Your entire argument is based on oversimplification, opinion, speculation, equivocation and a complete lack of any actual facts. That's not a logical argument.
Honestly, do you see this going anywhere? I can't. So here's the thing.
), even though you may have the opinion, I can't.
Please scientifically disprove evolution, then. I would love to see that.Honestly, do you see this going anywhere? I can't. So here's the thing.
I believe in a creator. I believe I have evidence of a creator.
You believe not. I can't 100% prove it. You can't disprove it.
You believe in the theory of evolution. You believe you have evidence that the theory is true.
I believe not. You can't 100% prove it. I believe I can easily disprove it - and scientifically it can be disproved (that's the beauty of my argument, because you can't disprove mine
No, you're making assertions and I am questioning the logic of those assertions. Thus far, you've failed to meet every challenge put to you to test your logic.
Of course it's an assertion, but it has a lot of actual logic and evidence behind it.
So you don't believe it's possible to reach a reasonable conclusion based on evidence rather than direct observation?
Except common ancestry is "in harmony" with scientific evidence. It's literally the foundation of modern biology and is re-affirmed pracitcally every time we discover anything new about biology. And your evidence isn't observable evidence, it's at best a hypothesis.
No, it's always been your move. You have yet to make one.
You seem to be going in circles. I don't like merry-go-rounds.
Look where that circle led you - right back to where I started.
Except you aren't reaching a conclusion by evidence, you're looking at two different things that are products of different processes and asserting that both share an element of "design", but are completely unable to provide any evidence or reasoning for this assertion. You aren't using evidence to reach a conclusion - your conclusion is already set. You're just making baseless assertions to try and support your conclusion.
A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a branching diagram or "tree" showing the evolutionaryrelationships among various biological species or other entities—their phylogeny (/faɪˈlɒdʒəni/)—based upon similarities and differences in their physical or genetic characteristics. All life on Earth is part of a single phylogenetic tree, indicating common ancestry.
You mean, explain the difference between reaching a conclusion based on actual facts and evidence - like morphology and DNA - and basing a conclusion on nothing?
Again, what do you need explaining? Your conclusion isn't actually drawn from evidence, and the argument you are making is fallacious. The fact that all living things share physiological traits and DNA are facts that lend credibility to the theory that life derives from common ancestry, and this is further confirmed by what is directly observed in the fossil record and upon further examination of our genetic lineage.
Yes. It was my mistake for not expanding the quote, but your mistake for including my response someone else's post.
So you are asking why I brought up the illustration.
I mentioned it more than once. I'm quite surprised you still don't get it.
It doesn't make it supernatural though.Your experience though real to you, may be foolishness to others, because you can't prove it. It does not make your experience less of an experience, and of no account or value to you... unless of course, you are swayed by others' opinions - perhaps for the sake of popularity.
I hope this is clear.
I'm am sure I mentioned the application about twice.
That's because you limited design to... I don't know what?
What is it with the supernatural argument. I don't get it?
What is it with the supernatural argument. I don't get it?