There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Robert.Evans]

It did.

I think you will find sir that it did not. To say it designed it, means intelligence is involved.
It would have to come about through luck bringing about false processes that could make something incredibly complex, and we could then call it natural... as if that somehow meant something... haha

 

[Robert.Evans]

Actually, taking what you say at face value, one must conclude that you do not believe there is such a thing as natural happenings; everything is in fact artificial.

You either have or are for whatever reason pretending to have a very bad case of projection of purpose.

I am trying to understand an argument, an argument which is becoming clearer with the lack of answers to explain it. I think you might not see the argument very clearly.

If you say it is natural, i would have to ask you what you mean by that, yet again. Is the answer, Luck which brings about processes (artificial intelliegnce) to make something we call natural??

 

[LuisDantas]

Luck, in the sense that things "just happen", is certainly either a reality or a very convincing appearance.

If you disagree, fine. Not my problem.

 

[Robert.Evans]

If you take as a premise that anything that happens must have been meant to happen, then I suppose you will see sense in those questions.

One does not have to.

The point is, there has to be some sort of energy that brings about everything we see, whether we start at the BB or before. What is it? How does it do these things without intelligence? How can it be pure luck?

 

[LuisDantas]

The point is, there has to be some sort of energy that brings about everything we see, whether we start at the BB or before.

No. That is a theistic, or perhaps deistic, belief. People may hold such a belief, but there is no need for anyone to.

What is it? How does it do these things without intelligence? How can it be pure luck?

Things are as they are. I am sorry if that troubles you, but I can't do anything about that.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Luck, in the sense that things "just happen", is certainly either a reality or a very convincing appearance.

But not very convincing when one considers how complex things are. If we said a dice had only ones and twos on it, and rolled it down a slope, I think one could accept luck. But how so when it has a trillion sides on it. how does it bring about one specific number.

Anyway, for now I go. Tata

Think, give me a better answer. What is natural?

 

[LuisDantas]

But not very convincing when one considers how complex things are. If we said a dice had only ones and twos on it, and rolled it down a slope, I think one could accept luck. But how so when it has a trillion sides on it. how does it bring about one specific number.

Anyway, for now I go. Tata

Think, give me a better answer. What is natural?

Then it is not a matter of whether the answer is good enough for you, but rather of whether you are capable of accepting it.

 

[Sonofason]

...if you take as a premise that the universe was meant to be, then in essence nothing is natural, but rather designed by God.

I think that just empties the concept of God of any meaning, though.

And so by your understanding, what exactly is the complete concept of God, now that you have stripped away His creation?

LuisDantas said,

For one, because that is not at all an explanation. For another, because it hints at a purpose when there is no evidence of any.

Sure, just saying that something is natural is not an explanation either, although it does imply that there was no purpose involved in a happening.

Let us consider two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom floating about in the atmosphere. Let us suppose that these three atoms come reasonably close to one another, and in the presence of a spark. What you will get is an oxidation reaction producing water. Now, is this not by design? Or is this accidental? Well we don't know the answer to this question, right? Creationists will believe it is by God's design. Certainly, we can say well, that's just what oxygen and hydrogen do. But honestly, they do what they do because of their design. You can call it natural design, or God's design, but the chemical structure of hydrogen and oxygen are such that they can be combined.

Notice I use the word design and structure interchangeably. That is because they are synonyms. Here is a list of synonyms for the word structure:
construction, form, formation, shape, composition, anatomy, makeup, constitution; organization, system, arrangement, design, framework, configuration, pattern.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=structure+synonym

So elements have a design. They have structure. Structure you say can be generated either naturally, or artificially. However, you say, it is only artificial if it is done with intent. It is natural if something is structured without intent. May I ask if you have ever seen anything structured without intent? And if you have seen structures without intent, is that because you don't actually know if there was intent, or do you have some hard evidence to submit that structures and designs can exist without intent?

LuisDantas said,

Not all things are natural. Some happen because some kind of purpose directed them or sought them.

The only things that are natural are the things that are out of mans' control. That which is natural may be that which is under God's control.

 

[Sonofason]

Maybe so, but what is being discussed here is something else. Namely, whether there is in practice any difference between artificial and natural happenings.

I have addressed that which is being discussed above this comment of mine.

 

[Sonofason]

It did.

So nature can design stuff? How does it do that? Naturally?

 

[Sonofason]

It did.

So nature can design stuff? How does it do that? Naturally?

I think I'm beginning to understand Robert.Evans' argument.

 

[LuisDantas]

So nature can design stuff? How does it do that? Naturally?

I think I'm beginning to understand Robert.Evans' argument.

What argument? He has not presented any. He is just giving witnesses of his difficulty.

What do you understand of Natural Selection? While it is not quite the same mechanism that created DNA, the general principle applies. DNA is just a molecule that happens to have the ability to roughly self-reproduce

 

[Sonofason]

What argument? He has not presented any. He is just giving witnesses of his difficulty.

What do you understand of Natural Selection? While it is not quite the same mechanism that created DNA, the general principle applies. DNA is just a molecule that happens to have the ability to roughly self-reproduce

Overly simplistic analysis in my opinion. It also just so happens that God created everything that naturally occurs.

 

[LuisDantas]

Overly simplistic analysis in my opinion. It also just so happens that God created everything that naturally occurs.

That is just projecting a creator where there is nor need for nor evidence of any.

Your privilege, but don't expect that to have any meaning for anyone else.

 

[Iti oj]

If you are talking to me, I have, as already said, no problem with the physical sciences.
I want to know what the word natural is, IF everything is natural. You use the word process, and yet that is an artificial intelligence smuggled in, which has come about thorugh luck.

Where is there any intelligence "snuck in" ?

 

[Iti oj]

No sir

theoretical science would disagree, and with give good reasons why

You keep saying luck vs design. I just don't understand the question or point.
[/quote]
therein is the problem I think. If I build a house with intelligence, it will probably be better than one built without. Would you not say?
How would I build it without? I would have to make some kind of 'processes' that would 'artificially' build it for me. Luck is not going to do it, it is too complex, and that is just a house.

Ok. So all things, ultimately, are luck then. Is that right? Whatever processes come up, they come about by luck. Yes?[/quote]
Do you know how caves form?

 

[Sonofason]

That is just projecting a creator where there is nor need for nor evidence of any.

Your privilege, but don't expect that to have any meaning for anyone else.

It is also presumptive to assume that nature exists without a creator. When you see a building, you don't assume it is there accidentally. You assume it belongs to someone. Like this earth. I do not assume that it exists accidentally. I assume it has an owner, a responsible being in charge. Perhaps it belongs to an unknown, and unperceived designer. Please stick to the facts, and acknowledge that there may be absolutely nothing that occurs without intent. It's okay to say, I don't know if it was created or not. Do not assume the answers you do not know.

 

[Ouroboros]

If it is 'natural', then what is the difference in saying that, natural did it, compared with God did it?

No difference. God must be natural. God is natural. In my belief, God and Nature is one.

You thinking is not my thinking. Everything is an evolving consciousness. that is how all things are here, and how they evolved, and what they are. Consciousness. That's it.

Sure.

Conscious about what though? The temporality of consciousness is undeniable and unavoidable. And so is the spatial aspects too, and material. Being conscious means that you are conscious about something, in a temporal space. Which means you can have one without the other.

But to say something is natural means what? This is what I don't understand. What are you comparing it with that makes you think it is natural... and therefore is just going to happen, sir?

??? What is just going to happen?

Am I annoying you by the way? Since you suddenly are throwing that "sir" at the end? It comes off a bit awkward.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Then it is not a matter of whether the answer is good enough for you, but rather of whether you are capable of accepting it.

That is not an answer. I always think when people start answering in such ways, it is because they do not have an answer.

 

[Robert.Evans]

What argument? He has not presented any. He is just giving witnesses of his difficulty.

What do you understand of Natural Selection? While it is not quite the same mechanism that created DNA, the general principle applies. DNA is just a molecule that happens to have the ability to roughly self-reproduce

The argument is based about the discussion of: What is natural? What does it mean? Where does it come from? The idea is that if everything is natural, then what is everything?

What is natural selection? How can something natural without intelligence 'select' anything?

You said:
" DNA is just a molecule that happens to have the ability to roughly self-reproduce"

That makes it sound so easy I could knock one up in my garden shed.. haha. Luck appears to be the main factor here. This brings about artificial intelligences (processes) and they make random stuff non-random.

Ultimately it is all luck. I think Intelligence is a better answer. We should not become so wise as to be stupid, should we?