What's the term to describe this?

[Skywalker]

Do you have one of my posts that says Darwin in it?

The comments #46 doesn't have Darwin in it.

I was mentioning Darwin to express that the building has a builder.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I was mentioning Darwin to express that the building has a builder.

but you mentioned Darwin wasn't an atheist. We were talking about buildings and builder. How does that connect to him not being an atheist?

Darwin wasn't an atheist. He said that he didnt deny the existence of God. Darwin said, "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God." https://publicdomainreview.org/essay/was-charles-darwin-an-atheist/

 

[Skywalker]

but you mentioned Darwin wasn't an atheist. We were talking about buildings and builder. How does that connect to him not being an atheist?

Darwin wasn't being an atheist is connected to buildings having builders because even Darwin believed that, and you said that what I said about buildings having a builder looks like assumptions and intelligent guesses.

 

[Skywalker]

but you mentioned Darwin wasn't an atheist. We were talking about buildings and builder. How does that connect to him not being an atheist?

Because a building having a builder is proof of God, which connects to Darwin not being an atheist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Darwin wasn't being an atheist is connected to buildings having builders because even Darwin believed that, and you said that what I said about buildings having a builder looks like assumptions and intelligent guesses.

But I also said that we "know" buildings have a builder because we can ask, look at blue prints, and build buildings ourselves. So it's logical to assume man made things have "creators."

But to extend that logic to trees and plants, it should have the same process. We can assume our logic on life applies to our beliefs. They are still assumptions, beliefs, or based on faith.

So if there is a godly correlation it would have to be more distinct since unlike builders we can't test our assumptions.

Unless we admit they are assuming or making intelligent guesses, the question is just the same.

As for darwin, "even darwin believed..." doesn't prove anything. 1000 people can believe God exists and one does not doesn't make either side any more true than the other. One person's belief doesn't prove there is a builder either.

 

[Skywalker]

But I also said that we "know" buildings have a builder because we can ask, look at blue prints, and build buildings ourselves. So it's logical to assume man made things have "creators."

But to extend that logic to trees and plants, it should have the same process. We can assume our logic on life applies to our beliefs. They are still assumptions, beliefs, or based on faith.

So if there is a godly correlation it would have to be more distinct since unlike builders we can't test our assumptions.

Unless we admit they are assumptions or intelligent guesses, the question is just the same.

As for darwin, "even darwin believed..." doesn't prove anything. 1000 people can believe God exists and one dies not doesn't make either side any more true than the other. One person's belief doesn't prove their is a builder either.

I mentioned Darwin because even Darwin supports that evolution is not a fact. Its a hypothesis. I believe in microevolution, which is small changes within a species, but not in one being changing to another being.

 

[Valjean]

Nature doesn't work different from human creations. Things cant just come into existence-there has to be a reason, a design and a purpose. Something being too complex to exist on its own isn't an argument from incredulity because flagellum are irreducibly complex. Saying it could only be explained by God's creation isn't a false dilemma because the moral law and the heavens show that God is real.

Nature does work differently. Things happen unintentionally, by natural laws of chemistry, physics, &c. You're preaching; trying to fit a process you don't understand into a magical, religious inspired narrative.
The bacterial flagellar motor: brilliant evolution or intelligent design?
https://www.cell.com/current-biolog...m/retrieve/pii/S0960982207013383?showall=true
Bacterial Flagellum: Irreducibly Complex? - Articles

I dont believe in magic. Magicians are either into the occult or doing illusions, all of which glorify themselves. God does everything with a design and a purpose.

Don't confuse real magic with human "magic." Human 'magic' only appears magical cause the mechanism isn't immediately apparent --.,ew21 kind of like nature.

Even magicians will admit it's not real. Learn the mechanism and the magic disappears.

Magic is effect without mechanism. "Goddidit" isn't a mechanism, it's an assertion of agency. The religious propose no mechanism, just an invisible mechanic and, presumably, real magic.

 

[Skywalker]

Nature does work differently. Things happen unintentionally, by natural laws of chemistry, physics, &c. You're preaching; trying to fit a process you don't understand into a magical, religious inspired narrative.
The bacterial flagellar motor: brilliant evolution or intelligent design?
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(07)01338-3?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982207013383?showall=true
Bacterial Flagellum: Irreducibly Complex? - Articles

Don't confuse real magic with human "magic." Human 'magic' only appears magical cause the mechanism isn't immediately apparent --.,ew21 kind of like nature.

Even magicians will admit it's not real. Learn the mechanism and the magic disappears.

Magic is effect without mechanism. "Goddidit" isn't a mechanism, it's an assertion of agency. The religious propose no mechanism, just an invisible mechanic and, presumably, real magic.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that there is a Creator. https://www.livingwaters.com/stephe...7KbM-5AVCjQaVla9E7RplhcKEJ2WctXkuHVmnHEwWT5qs

“The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that everything is running down. If the universe was eternal it would have turned to dust trillions of years ago. It must, therefore, have had a beginning.”

God does everything with an order and a purpose. Magic isn't the right word. Magic has connotations of people wanting to be God, which led to original sin and the fall of the angels.

 

[Skywalker]

They are stating that the beautiful and intricate complexity of nature is a marvel hard to accept as just randomly happening.

They are not using the word 'proof' in the strictest sense of the word though.

Darwin said that he generally considered himself to be an agnostic and that evolution is a theory.

Bacterial Flagellum – X-Evolutionist.com

Charles Darwin said: in chapter six of Origin of Species:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

 

[Valjean]

I mentioned Darwin because even Darwin supports that evolution is not a fact. Its a hypothesis. I believe in microevolution, which is small changes within a species, but not in one being changing to another being.

How do the small changes know when to stop, so as to not accumulate into big changes?

Consider language. Didn't Latin microevolve, by a thousand small changes, into French, which itself developed from Proto Indo-European?

Tiny changes over time can create something unrecognizable from the prototype.

 

[Skywalker]

How do the small changes know when to stop, so as to not accumulate into big changes?

Consider language. Didn't Latin microevolve, by a thousand small changes, into French, which itself developed from Proto Indo-European?

Tiny changes over time can create something unrecognizable from the prototype.

The small changes can't turn into big changes because the essence of something cannot change. Plants don't become animals. The Latin language demonstrates what I said about microevolution not macroevolution being real because Latin microevolved into different languages, which also microevolved from other languages. Neither Latin or Proto Indo-European developed into anything but languages. They changed into unrecognizable languages, because of tiny changes over time, but they only changed into languages.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When someone says "look. proof of god is in nature... see!"

What is the name for the attribution they are putting to what they see and what they believe?

Since there is no direct connection between nature and creator (me and someone across the world should believe come to the same conclusion when looking at the same thing), it's based on the person who determines that connection not a obvious means of conclusion.

Maybe it's a fallacy, I don't know.

(From an abrahamic view)

Subjective?

 

[Valjean]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that there is a Creator. Stephen Hawking Has Spoken About the Beginning | Living Waters

Just because you don't understand Cosmogeny don't assume 'Big Bang' = Goddidit. God, by the way, doesn't explain the origin of the universe; physics, on the other hand, is learning more about it all the time, without resorting to intentionality, special pledings -- or magic.
Do some reading about it from a scientific rather than a religious source.

God does everything with an order and a purpose. Magic isn't the right word. Magic has connotations of people wanting to be God, which led to original sin and the fall of the angels.

You're preaching again. Support your claim.
Magic is simply effect without cause. I don't know how you got a connotation about people wanting to be God.

Original sin and fallen angels? -- Folkore!
Evidence, please.

Darwin said that he generally considered himself to be an agnostic and that evolution is a theory.
Bacterial Flagellum – X-Evolutionist.com

Evoution -- change over time -- is a fact. The ToE is a fact -- and a theory.

A spherical Earth is a theory. The germ theory of disease is a theory. Heliocentrism is a theory. In science, theory is the highest possible level of confidence.
Using "theory" in the common sense of conjecture shows either a profound ignorance of science or a deliberate straw man.

Darwin lived a long time ago. He described the rudiments of natural selection. He knew almost nothing of modern evolutionary biology, and exactly nothing about genetics or the other mechanisms of evolution.

 

[Valjean]

The small changes can't turn into big changes because the essence of something cannot change. Plants don't become animals. The Latin language demonstrates what I said about microevolution not macroevolution being real because Latin microevolved into different languages, which also microevolved from other languages. Neither Latin or Proto Indo-European developed into anything but languages. They changed into unrecognizable languages, because of tiny changes over time, but they only changed into languages.

Please explain what this "essence" is, and how we tell one essence from another. Please explain how small changes know when to stop changing. Please look at some fossil sequences and study some genetics.

 

[Heyo]

You may actually be trying describing panentheism, which can be a mainstream Abrahamic view and it is mine,

Nice visual explanation. They should have added deism (which is like theism but without the connection).

 

[George-ananda]

Darwin said that he generally considered himself to be an agnostic and that evolution is a theory.

Bacterial Flagellum – X-Evolutionist.com

Personally I believe in evolution but fostered by nature spirits.

 

[Heyo]

Just because you don't understand Cosmogeny don't assume 'Big Bang' = Goddidit. God, by the way, doesn't explain the origin of the universe; physics, on the other hand, is learning more about it all the time, without resorting to intentionality, special pledings -- or magic.
Do some reading about it from a scientific rather than a religious source.
You're preaching again. Support your claim.
Magic is simply effect without cause. I don't know how you got a connotation about people wanting to be God.

Original sin and fallen angels? -- Folkore!
Evidence, please.

Evoution -- change over time -- is a fact. The ToE is a fact -- and a theory.

A spherical Earth is a theory. The germ theory of disease is a theory. Heliocentrism is a theory. In science, theory is the highest possible level of confidence.
Using "theory" in the common sense of conjecture shows either a profound ignorance of science or a deliberate straw man.

Darwin lived a long time ago. He described the rudiments of natural selection. He knew almost nothing of modern evolutionary biology, and exactly nothing about genetics or the other mechanisms of evolution.

cc @Unveiled Artist

I think discussing with @Skywalker the intricacies of the ToE belongs into an other thread in another section.
But as he's here we can study his arguments and I can clearly see the argument from incredulity as well as arguments from ignorance. But I think I can also support my initial suggestion of a tautology.

 

[Heyo]

I believe that the existence of creation shows that there is a Creator. If you see a building you know that there is a builder.

What would be evidence of an absence of a creator?
And how can we see the difference?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because a building having a builder is proof of God, which connects to Darwin not being an atheist.

You lost me with Darwin. Builder of a building we see that in real life and we come to that conclusion by what we can observe "and" we can check it out, see who build what, how many builders, and we can build buildings ourselves. So it makes sense to assume because there is a building there "must be" a builder.

We can see flowers grow. We can observe the progress of a child's growth in its mother's womb. No one has created these things but they formed into being without a hand in sight. The only way to "know" there is a creator is beyond what you can observe "I see a tree therefore there's a creator." You need to know what the creator is (not just that it creates-I can create too, so I'm a creator). Then you have to discern the blueprints. When you study a tree's growth or flower, there is no obvious sign a creator is involved or every single person who sees it will draw the same conclusion regardless whether we believe in god or not.

It's a good assumption based on what we believe we know of reality, but as a fact, you'd have to show the process and connection rather than jump to conclusions based on what you see.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

cc @Unveiled Artist

I think discussing with @Skywalker the intricacies of the ToE belongs into an other thread in another section.
But as he's here we can study his arguments and I can clearly see the argument from incredulity as well as arguments from ignorance. But I think I can also support my initial suggestion of a tautology.

Ah. Thanks. I know nothing of evolution. But I did learn a new word. I haven't heard of tautology before-had to look it up.

I can see it the argument of incredulity. How does one back up that the argument of incredulity is a good justification for concluding something grand "must have" a grand creator?

I see argument of ignorance all the time. Quite annoying.