Theistic Evolution?

[Reflex]

Why bother to assert it's a problem when you offer no reason or evidence for your assertion?

Back at you. You'd make an interesting case study: you make the not-so-implicit assertion that mechanism is a sufficient cause and offer no reason or evidence for that assertion. Why not hold yourself to the same standard?

Really, you should read Whitehead's book. It's a free download.

 

[leibowde84]

1 John 4:8

God = Love

the kingdom of love comes from within you.

with the increase of love comes light. you are the light of the world, a city set on a hill cannot be hid.

Revelation 21:23
The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light.

http://phys.org/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html

None of this is empirical/verifiable evidence for the existence of God. I'm not sure how your citation regarding the quantum no hiding theorem is relevant to your biblical quotes either.

 

[Gambit]

Why bother to assert it's a problem when you offer no reason or evidence for your assertion?

Just for the sake of clarity. Do you believe there is no evidence of intelligent creativity (of any kind) in the world?

 

[Fool]

None of this is empirical/verifiable evidence for the existence of God. I'm not sure how your citation regarding the quantum no hiding theorem is relevant to your biblical quotes either.

light is information

both love and light are verifiable.

 

[leibowde84]

light is information

both love and light are verifiable.

Ok, but what does that have to do with verifiable evidence for God's existence? Pointing out that scripture claims that love and light are God, then pointing out that light and love exist doesn't get us anywhere, as it is circular logic. You are assuming that scripture is accurate in its portrayal of God, and you have yet to substantiate that claim.

 

[Fool]

Ok, but what does that have to do with verifiable evidence for God's existence? Pointing out that scripture claims that love and light are God, then pointing out that light and love exist doesn't get us anywhere, as it is circular logic. You are assuming that scripture is accurate in its portrayal of God, and you have yet to substantiate that claim.

you are assuming that language is like mathematics, precise. it isn't. language is a dumb parrot puzzle

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

love enlightens. it instills itself in that that it shines upon. E = m(c*c)

 

[leibowde84]

you are assuming that language is like mathematics, precise. it isn't. language is a dumb parrot puzzle

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

love enlightens. it instills itself in that that it shines upon. E = m(c*c)

I agree, but this still has nothing to do with evidence for God's existence. How is this relevant?

 

[Fool]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219

consciousness as a state of matter.

science studies material things to understand the information encoded in it. grasping the structure of the information is and of itself is an assimilation of that thing

 

[Gambit]

If you're trying to imply I'm dumb enough to conflate soul and consciousness, just say it.

Stop evading the question: "What exactly is it about our being that is not reducible to the sum of its physical parts?"

 

[Fool]

I agree, but this still has nothing to do with evidence for God's existence. How is this relevant?

god = love is the higher law.

god is verifiable and knowable because god is love and love is divine.

1 john 4:8

he who has loved another has known god.

the love of 5000 yrs ago is no different than the love that will exist 5000 years hence.

love is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

do not judge a tree by it's appearance but by it's fruit
do not judge a book by it's cover but by it's content

now allow me to shed some light upon you

http://www.livescience.com/24800-animals-emotions-morality.html

 

[leibowde84]

god = love is the higher law.

Before you can use this as factual support, you first have to support this claim. Can you do this without relying on claims in scripture? This is what I've been pointing out this whole time. If we agree that God is love and light, then you have a point. But you have thus far just assumed this to be true.

 

[Fool]

Before you can use this as factual support, you first have to support this claim. Can you do this without relying on claims in scripture? This is what I've been pointing out this whole time. If we agree that God is love and light, then you have a point. But you have thus far just assumed this to be true.

i don't need scripture to verify that love is verifiable or divine. i'm simply showing that an idea is not exclusive to a particular language, time, space, or species.

not even exclusive to a belief system.

you are hung up on scripture; which is epeolatry

 

[Gambit]

lol ... You are very wrong. In fact, your citation completely agrees with me. If there was verifiable evidence (empirical evidence) for the existence of God, God could be invoked. But, to the best of our knowledge, that doesn't exist.

No, the citation I provided does not agree with you.

"Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a paradigm of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."

(source: Judge John E. Jones, III Decision of the Court Expert witnesses were John F. Haught, Robert T. Pennock, and Kenneth R. Miller.)

And just in case you didn't get it, I'll repeat it. "They [SUPERNATURAL EXPLANATIONS] are NOT part of science." It is a "GROUND RULE" of science and/or methodological naturalism.

And, btw, I do believe in Intelligent Design, or at least that it is plausible.

The reason why intelligent design (ID) is considered to be a pseudoscientific view is because science seeks to give only mechanistic explanations based on natural causes, not teleological explanations based on supernatural causes. (There is no scientific evidence for consciousness or intelligence - human, divine, or otherwise.)

 

[Fool]

Before you can use this as factual support, you first have to support this claim. Can you do this without relying on claims in scripture? This is what I've been pointing out this whole time. If we agree that God is love and light, then you have a point. But you have thus far just assumed this to be true.

studies have shown that humans can be fed, kept cleaned, and even talked to but without affection and nurturing they will not mature healthy psychologically. love, or affection, helps the person to thrive.

there are all kinds of studies proving so.

without love some will die. people have died of a broken heart.

love is essential to life.

love isn't ancillary

 

[leibowde84]

i don't need scripture to verify that love is verifiable or divine. i'm simply showing that an idea is not exclusive to a particular language, time, space, or species.

not even exclusive to a belief system.

you are hung up on scripture; which is epeolatry

OK, so it should be easy to support your claim that love is divine. Can you do that?

 

[leibowde84]

studies have shown that humans can be fed, kept cleaned, and even talked to but without affection and nurturing they will not mature healthy psychologically. love, or affection, helps the person to thrive.

there are all kinds of studies proving so.

without love some will die. people have died of a broken heart.

love is essential to life.

love isn't ancillary

Again, I agree, but how is this relevant to evidence for God? You are still assuming that God is love and love I'd divine. Can you support this claim?

 

[Fool]

OK, so it should be easy to support your claim that love is divine. Can you do that?

definition of divine

a. Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of the concerto.
b. Extremely pleasant; delightful:

you're now welcome to prove love is not

 

[Fool]

Again, I agree, but how is this relevant to evidence for God? You are still assuming that God is love and love I'd divine. Can you support this claim?

you're assuming that love is separate from self. i'm implying that it isn't separate from anyone or anything.

know thyself

be still and know I AM love
i will exalted among the nations, people.
i will be exalted in the earth, the body.

Revelation 10:11
And he said to me, “You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings.”

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

definition of divine

a. Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of the concerto.
b. Extremely pleasant; delightful:

you're now welcome to prove love is not

So... "love is pleasant, therefore God"?

 

[Fool]

So... "love is pleasant, therefore God"?

love enlightens. it transforms base things into gold. it comes with the clouds of heaven, the thoughts of the mind.

it appears from out of the dark and lights up the face. it is the secret sun. the language of birds for we too are the children of love, of god.


Daniel 12:3
Those who are wise shall shine Like the brightness of the firmament, And those who turn many to righteousness Like the stars forever and ever.

Revelation 22:5
There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever.