-->
@EtrnlVw
I apologise for my typos in the previous post. I am typing from my phone on the bus, a bad combination I'm afraid.
A challenge to theists. Can you be honest.
Posts
Total:
436
-->
@Mdh2000
I feep having read your posts again that our discussion needst to move back to its beginning, namely your statement that processes develop the un8verse. I ask what processes you believe develop the unverse? I ask this for the lurpose of being clear on the specifics of what you mean by processes.
Processes would include anything undergone that would bring about an end result, since we know nothing poofs into existence everything has a process to exist, literally just about everything other than maybe energy (and of course energy is utilized by God). I gave some examples earlier in the thread, the process of things forming such as stars and planets (which would include the process of the Big Bang), and those stars being used to continually seed the universe, the process of things arranging such as galaxies and solar systems, the process of things being developed such as eco-systems, habitats and the evolution of embodiments which are all the creatures you find on Earth. This is more or less a general outline.
-->
@Mdh2000
I apologise for my typos in the previous post. I am typing from my phone on the bus, a bad combination I'm afraid.
No problem bro, I didn't mean to negate our discussion but it seems we weren't getting anywhere, I did want to get back to it and find a way to consolidate it. Thanks for being patient. My time is somewhat limited.
-->
@ATroubledMan
Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly willing to hear you out, but as yet I haven't heard anything to consider other than you're claims, which so far run counter to what we already know, that which is verifiable.
Other than my claims? what other thing would you be looking for in our discussion? it is the very proposition I'm making that I want you to consider, I don't have any need at this moment for anyone else's claims but my own proposition.
And again, the only thing verifiable is that you know how the processes work, albeit leaving out the WHY they occur. I understand you don't have any reason to ask why they occur, but that is the point behind my argument...to ask yourself why would any processes be occurring at all.
If it's a superior view, as you say, why doesn't it have a superior explanation?
That's been done already, since you seem unable to pick up on it I'm going to leave it be I guess. Hopefully any readers will see the rationale in what I've been saying. And just to repeat it yet again, my argument rests in the idea that processes cannot occur all by themselves because inanimate forces can't generate intelligent results......that IS my explanation in a nutshell. And despite many people accepting that they do, I'm building the case for God through the use of common sense and rationale that God has been the Source behind the processes that have occurred in our universe.
You asked me show that, my practical answer is.....it is the very processes we see taking place that are used by God to bring things into existence, in other words if there was no intelligent source none of these processes would be taking place. So what we observe through the scientific method is how God creates the universe.
So I must say again, that from the Creationists perspective it is indeed a superior view and one reason it is, is because it deals with WHY processes occur in the first place, since it is illogical to assume that they occur by themselves. From your point of view, which I do get, you are content not asking why they occur since it appears there is no Prime Mover and I also went over that already briefly.
-->
@ATroubledMan
Yes, I would agree a design might be apparent and for sure the world thought that way for a very long time, until science came along and started to unravel the mysteries surrounding that apparent design, but instead of making confirmations on what they observed, they found the design was only a facade and that what lay underneath was another story altogether. What they found did not exempt a Creator, as you say, but it did show that the processes were natural and were able to operate on their own accord. This is what the scientific method uncovered.
You have the wrong idea about science which is somewhat typical, it's just a method of examining how the natural universe works. But that's it, it doesn't have the capability to reach the hand of God because of the nature of God, all it can do is confirm what it can observe and show the ingredient behind a process or end result. Science is a neutral study in that it makes no claims about or against God, that's not what it is for. So Theism is perfectly compatible with science, but Theism takes it a step further and deals with WHY these things take place since God is the Mover. By assuming science has all the possible insight you are avoiding the issue which is why I'm bringing it to your attention.
The design façade is not really an accurate way of exposing the dilemma, which is why I prefer to use the term processes and since it is logical to correlate processes with intelligence this changes the whole game. But just to clarify science never makes the claim natural processes operate on their own accord, you threw that in there, it's just showing the operation not making additional claims.
I understand what you're claiming, that the processes aren't natural and don't occur on their own, but if it has been shown that they do operate on their own and that those explanations are detailed and verifiable, so you would need a very extraordinary explanation that not only would refute what we know, but also offer an explanation to replace what we know. By just claiming that they don't is not really an explanation, nor has it been shown in any way or is it verifiable. I think you would have a great deal of work to have anyone consider your claims as valid.
I really went over this already which makes this somewhat frustrating, I dealt with it by giving you the recipe analogy. Perhaps go back to that explanation. As for your claim about them operating on their own read above. Science is only able to show the ingredients, not the one putting them together.
Its fine to make that claim, but you would need to explain how that works and how you know it to be true?
Obviously I can't show it to be true other than appealing to your rational mind, first I know God exists so that part is already a done deal. The only thing I can do for you is to have this discussion and hopefully move forward or get to a place where you are satisfied with my explanation.
I'm sorry, but I have to ask how would you know any of that? For example, can you show that God arranges patterns in solar systems or that God begins the process of a stars death? Since these explanations already exist supported by observable evidence and based on a stars composition and its process of evolution, what can you offer to show God is in control of them? At this time, all you're doing is just making claims, but you aren't actually offering any explanations supported by observations or evidence. I'm wondering at this point if you're just asking me to accept whatever you say without explanation? If that is the case, I'm very sorry, but my common sense tells me that would be wrong.
Well despite the fact I HAVE been explaining how this fits together I don't know what else to say. Maybe someone else will pick up on the rationale of what I'm writing and be willing to move forward in the discussion but I can't continue to keep repeating the same thing at this point. Once you see the rationale is in my proposition that processes are only associated with intelligence maybe we can get somewhere. I don't have to explain that it explains itself.
Okay, but why has science already shown that those processes do act on their own? Why do they have valid, verifiable and detailed explanations that fit with what is being observed?
Science hasn't shown that, your adding that bit of an assumption. Science is not anti-God lol, it only gives you one half of the equation.
-->
@ATroubledMan
By just claiming that they don't is not really an explanation,
Well in this puzzle it explains a lot because it's blatantly obvious and logical, to come to a logical conclusion we have to follow rational thought...my argument resides more on the fact that you accept that they do.
nor has it been shown in any way or is it verifiable.
Not verifiable through a method like science no but certainly has been shown through the correct methods or sources. Theism has been around longer than any other proposition and that isn't because it was stupid lol, more like because it's obvious to rational minds.
Actually once we get over this initial hump (which hopefully we do) we can discuss what religious and spiritual sources have been putting forward for a long time, one such theory includes the proposition of multiverses and parallel worlds which I believe is supported by the evidence.
I think you would have a great deal of work to have anyone consider your claims as valid.
Perhaps, but I think it's more about perspective really because nothing I'm saying is absurd or unreasonable. Once a person is convinced of a particular position it is hard to get them out of that.
Processes would include anything undergone that would bring about an end result, since we know nothing poofs into existence everything has a process to exist, literally just about everything other than maybe energy (and of course energy is utilized by God). I gave some examples earlier in the thread, the process of things forming such as stars and planets (which would include the process of the Big Bang), and those stars being used to continually seed the universe, the process of things arranging such as galaxies and solar systems, the process of things being developed such as eco-systems, habitats and the evolution of embodiments which are all the creatures you find on Earth. This is more or less a general outline.
And so the formation of planets, eco-systems and evolution are all definitely processes?
Other than my claims? what other thing would you be looking for in our discussion?
I have repeated that several times, I am looking for detailed explanations that refute what we already know about the processes of nature.
it is the very proposition I'm making that I want you to consider, I don't have any need at this moment for anyone else's claims but my own proposition.And again, the only thing verifiable is that you know how the processes work, albeit leaving out the WHY they occur. I understand you don't have any reason to ask why they occur, but that is the point behind my argument...to ask yourself why would any processes be occurring at all.
Considering that we know how the processes work and that they are random in that they have no appearance of being guided, then we can conclude there is no reason why they occur other than they just do.
That's been done already, since you seem unable to pick up on it I'm going to leave it be I guess. Hopefully any readers will see the rationale in what I've been saying. And just to repeat it yet again, my argument rests in the idea that processes cannot occur all by themselves because inanimate forces can't generate intelligent results......that IS my explanation in a nutshell.
I'm terribly sorry, but that is not an explanation, that is just a claim or an assertion. Here is the definition of explanation: An explanation is a set of statements usually constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts. This description of the facts et cetera may establish rules or laws, and may clarify the existing rules or laws in relation to any objects, or phenomena examined.
And despite many people accepting that they do, I'm building the case for God through the use of common sense and rationale that God has been the Source behind the processes that have occurred in our universe.
Again, I'm terribly sorry, but my common sense and rationale do not accept claims without detailed explanations. If I told you pigs could fly, would you just accept that claim without any explanation? I would hope not. Building a case for anything requires detailed explanations, that's just how it works.
You asked me show that, my practical answer is.....it is the very processes we see taking place that are used by God to bring things into existence, in other words if there was no intelligent source none of these processes would be taking place. So what we observe through the scientific method is how God creates the universe.
That is again a claim without explanation. How do you know God brings things into existence or creates the universe? Where is your evidence and your explanation? I can't just accept your claim without you explaining yourself and how you know it to be true?
So I must say again, that from the Creationists perspective it is indeed a superior view and one reason it is, is because it deals with WHY processes occur in the first place, since it is illogical to assume that they occur by themselves. From your point of view, which I do get, you are content not asking why they occur since it appears there is no Prime Mover and I also went over that already briefly.
But, it is logical that those processes occur entirely on their own because that's the knowledge we have accumulated about the world around us over that past 400 years. If there is a Prime Mover, then a detailed explanation would be required to validate that claim. That's how it works.
-->
@EtrnlVw
I understand science quite well, thank you. I am not avoiding anything, I am waiting for you to explain who you know what you know and the detailed explanation behind it. That's all I ask.You have the wrong idea about science which is somewhat typical, it's just a method of examining how the natural universe works. But that's it, it doesn't have the capability to reach the hand of God because of the nature of God, all it can do is confirm what it can observe and show the ingredient behind a process or end result. Science is a neutral study in that it makes no claims about or against God, that's not what it is for. So Theism is perfectly compatible with science, but Theism takes it a step further and deals with WHY these things take place since God is the Mover. By assuming science has all the possible insight you are avoiding the issue which is why I'm bringing it to your attention.
I really went over this already which makes this somewhat frustrating, I dealt with it by giving you the recipe analogy. Perhaps go back to that explanation. As for your claim about them operating on their own read above. Science is only able to show the ingredients, not the one putting them together.
You have repeated your claims several times, but have not offered a detailed explanation to any of it or have told me how you know these things. If you can do that, then I'm willing to listen, but if you just keep repeating your claims, then we aren't going anywhere.
Obviously I can't show it to be true other than appealing to your rational mind, first I know God exists so that part is already a done deal. The only thing I can do for you is to have this discussion and hopefully move forward or get to a place where you are satisfied with my explanation.
Are you saying you have no explanation, that I'm just to accept your claims with one? That doesn't appeal to a rational mind. How do you know God exists?
Well despite the fact I HAVE been explaining how this fits together I don't know what else to say. Maybe someone else will pick up on the rationale of what I'm writing and be willing to move forward in the discussion but I can't continue to keep repeating the same thing at this point. Once you see the rationale is in my proposition that processes are only associated with intelligence maybe we can get somewhere. I don't have to explain that it explains itself.
Again, you have not been explaining yourself, you have only been making claims. See above where I provided the definition of an explanation. I'm sorry again, but there is no rationale in your proposition as it has no explanation, no evidence and runs counter to our current body of knowledge.
Sorry, but what you're claiming is not blatantly obvious or logical as it runs counter to our current body of knowledge. You would need a very powerful detailed explanation to be considered logical or obvious.Well in this puzzle it explains a lot because it's blatantly obvious and logical, to come to a logical conclusion we have to follow rational thought...my argument resides more on the fact that you accept that they do.
Not verifiable through a method like science no but certainly has been shown through the correct methods or sources.
What methods? What sources?
Perhaps, but I think it's more about perspective really because nothing I'm saying is absurd or unreasonable. Once a person is convinced of a particular position it is hard to get them out of that.
It would appear you are convinced, but unfortunately, your claims without explanations are not convincing. I do hope you can change from just making claims to offering explanations that would convince, but as yet, you haven't provided anything other than claims.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Here's a good example of common sense, logic and rationale.
You wake up one day and find you have absolutely no knowledge of the Earth, Moon, Sun, Planets, nothing whatsoever. You go outside and someone asks you whether the Earth is flat or spherical. By just looking around you would probably conclude, based on common sense, logic and rationalizing that the Earth had to be flat. Then, you look at the Moon, the Sun and the other planets and see that they are all spherical. Then, you witness a lunar eclipse and see the Earths shadow on the Moon. You conduct various other tests and conclude that the Earth is indeed spherical.
What happened to the common sense, logic and rationale?
-->
@EtrnlVw
Quite a relevant point you have raised there.Theism has been around longer than any other proposition and that isn't because it was stupid lol, more like because it's obvious to rational minds.
For example, I'm an atheist and a critical thinker, therefore I can be considered to have a rational mind.
And my mind would rationalise that stating that a proposition has been around since time imemorial is an ad populum fallacy.
And of course, any rational mind would be aware of how obvious theism is....and how stupid it is.
-->
@Mdh2000
And so the formation of planets, eco-systems and evolution are all definitely processes?
FORMATION-
the action of forming or process of being formed.
a structure or arrangement of something.
an act of giving form or shape to something or of taking form : development
an arrangement of a body or group of persons or things in some prescribed manner or for a particular purpose.
Evolution-
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations
a process of change in a certain direction
a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state
a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
Ecosystem-
the complex of a community of organisms and its environment functioning as an ecological unit
a system, or a group of interconnected elements, formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their environment.
a complex network or interconnected system.
An ecosystem is a community of living organisms in conjunction with the nonliving components of their environment, interacting as a system.
Development-
the process of developing or being developed.
the act, process, or result of
Process-
a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.
phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result
a continuing natural or biological activity or function
Ecological succession-
The principles of ecological succession bear importantly on the relationships between man and nature. Ecological succession involves the development of ecosystem.
the process by which the structure of a biological community evolves over time.
the gradual and orderly process of change in an ecosystem brought about by the progressive replacement of one community by another until a stable climax is established
is the process of change in the species structure of an ecological community over time.
Planetary formation-
Models of planetary formation show that terrestrial planets are formed by the accretion of smaller bodies into larger and larger bodies. Follow the process long enough, and you end up with planets like Earth.
The formation and evolution of the Solar system began 4.5 billion years ago
The Stages of Planetary Formation
"Our knowledge of the process of planetary formation comes from a number of diverse sources which include"
"Broadly, four stages can be identified in the process of planetary formation."
Planetary formation process
I would say so. Processes would include anything undergone that would bring about an end result, since we know nothing poofs into existence everything has a process to exist.
-->
@ATroubledMan
Sorry, but what you're claiming is not blatantly obvious or logical
Okay bro, when it dawns on your rational mind one day that processes don't just occur all by themselves and you think to yourself "hmmm, maybe that Eternal guy had a legit point, maybe I should consider that God hypothesis" just let me know and we could move forward :)
-->
@EtrnlVw
when it dawns on your rational mind one day that processes don't just occur all by themselves
Rational minds look at the evidence, the facts, the measured observations and the four centuries of scientific knowledge mankind has accumulated to come to certain conclusions about our universe. Those conclusions clearly show everything we know has indeed come about entirely on its own, that no such Prime Mover has ever been located anywhere in those processes.
Rational minds never just believe something without explanations. facts and evidence. Did you read my example above about the Earth?
I'm assuming you're not going to offer any explanations for your claims? You're asking me to just believe whatever you say. That's not how it works. If it did, then any and all claims no matter how much they might go counter to what we know, would be considered legitimate points. That means I could make a legitimate point by claiming pigs could fly, or cows can jump over the moon, or anything else that doesn't make sense.
Can you not see this?
-->
@ATroubledMan
Rational minds look at the evidence, the facts, the measured observations
Yes they do.
Rational minds never just believe something without explanations.
No they don't. Thanks for the input, I qualify for both statements.
You're asking me to just believe whatever you say.
No, I'm not. I believe the word I've been using is consider, and that means to consider the rationale in my posts, that are weighed through evidence, inference, correlation, logic and common sense. Your opinions are based on your own conclusions (however you arrived at them), they are not conclusive. My statement still stands though, whenever you wish to move forward let me know.
entirely on its own, that no such Prime Mover has ever been located anywhere in those processes.
Thanks for the opinion. But that's absurd.....IMO of course. But just so you know, science doesn't claim that, that's your personal opinion.
-->
@EtrnlVw
That would then make the definition of "rational" null and void. That would mean it would be rational to believe pigs could fly. Is it rational?No they don't.
I believe the word I've been using is consider, and that means to consider the rationale in my posts, that are weighed through evidence, inference, correlation, logic and common sense.
I can't consider unexplained claims, especially when they are not weighted through evidence, correlation, logic or common sense, you provided none of that. No rational person would consider them.
Again, if you choose to provide all of that with explanations, then they can be considered.
Thanks for the opinion. But that's absurd.....IMO of course. But just so you know, science doesn't claim that, that's your personal opinion.
Since science has never found a Prime Mover, then the conclusion to that is obvious, that there is no evidence for a Prime Mover and that conclusion will stick until such evidence reveals itself. You can provide if you can and I'd be more than willing to consider it. So far, everything you've claimed is your personal opinion.
-->
@ATroubledMan
That would then make the definition of "rational" null and void. That would mean it would be rational to believe pigs could fly. Is it rational?
You were never once asked to believe anything irrational.
I can't consider unexplained claims, especially when they are not weighted through evidence, correlation, logic or common sense, you provided none of that. No rational person would consider them.
Perhaps reevaluate what I wrote.
Again, if you choose to provide all of that with explanations, then they can be considered.
I'm not going over the same things continually, I'm also not going to be lectured what the processes entail when my argument is that the processes are created through an intelligent Source, that's WHY they occur. I said we could agree to disagree and then we would be done with the discussion, but you seem to want to discredit my position and so you can try, but it remains. Until you acknowledge it we can't move forward.
Since science has never found a Prime Mover, then the conclusion to that is obvious, that there is no evidence for a Prime Mover and that conclusion will stick until such evidence reveals itself. You can provide if you can and I'd be more than willing to consider it. So far, everything you've claimed is your personal opinion.
Science doesn't make claims about the Creator, we went over that. They point to the ingredients (recipe) not the Maker or one that puts them together. The evidence for that Maker moves over to spirituality and religion, since science is unable to reach that Reality.
But thanks for the opinions.
-->
@EtrnlVw
It was irrational to ask me to believe in something that runs counter to what we already know, especially when that something had no explanations or evidence. Is it irrational for me to ask you to believe that pigs can fly?You were never once asked to believe anything irrational.
Perhaps reevaluate what I wrote.
You repeated your claims several times, each time I evaluated them and found they were just claims with no explanations, evidence, correlation, logic or common sense. I'm sorry if I can't just accept what you claim, that wouldn't be rational.
I'm not going over the same things continually, I'm also not going to be lectured what the processes entail when my argument is that the processes are created through an intelligent Source, that's WHY they occur.
I wasn't asking you to repeat your claims, I was asking you to substantiate them. Your claim is that the processes are created through an intelligent source. Please substantiate that claim with explanations and evidence, that's all I ask.
Until you acknowledge it we can't move forward.
We can't move forward because you are not explaining your claims. If I claimed pigs could fly, you would certainly want me to explain that, wouldn't you? I'm asking the same thing.
Science doesn't make claims about the Creator, we went over that.
Science also does not acknowledge a creator in the same way science does not acknowledge that pigs can fly. We can then make our own conclusions based on those facts.
They point to the ingredients (recipe) not the Maker or one that puts them together.
But, to invoke a Maker is your personal opinion, it has nothing to do with the ingredients or how the ingredients came together. If science can show the ingredients came together entirely on their own, what is the point of invoking a Maker?
-->
@ATroubledMan
But, to invoke a Maker is your personal opinion
It may be, and one supported by good reasoning, but I'm also not the only one. Perhaps if it doesn't interest you or you're not willing to consider creation as a legit proposition maybe don't get involved in religious discussions?
It may be, and one supported by good reasoning
That's exactly what I'm waiting for; good reasoning, which would include explanations based on evidence. That's how it works.
Perhaps if it doesn't interest you or you're not willing to consider creation as a legit proposition maybe don't get involved in religious discussions?
I am interested and I'm here to learn those propositions and evaluate if I can consider them legit, but if you can't explain them, then you're not providing a religious discussion in the first place.
I don't understand why this is my issue here, you are the one not explaining yourself.
-->
@EtrnlVw
a legit proposition
I have to ask this question and hope others can chime in with their opinions.
Is it fair that any claim can be made without explanations and they are all considered legitimate, no matter what the claim?
If it is fair, then why are there disagreements in religious discussions between theists?
-->
@ATroubledMan
That's exactly what I'm waiting for; good reasoning, which would include explanations based on evidence. That's how it works.
Explanation-
a statement or account that makes something clear.
You can go back and find that in any one of my posts with explanations.
Evidence-
an outward sign : indication
broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.This support may be strong or weak.
You can go back and find that in any one of my posts.
Evidence-
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
The available body of facts and information can be found in the overwhelming data base of religious and spiritual sources, that's up to you to source. That would be the method that correlates with the nature of what we are dealing with.
-->
@ATroubledMan
I have to ask this question and hope others can chime in with their opinions.Is it fair that any claim can be made without explanations and they are all considered legitimate, no matter what the claim?
All readers are free to read the logic and reasoning I used in my posts and at any time engage them. We're not talking about pigs flying, I gave you the basis of my argument and it's a rational basis. If you don't think it is then we can't move forward. But I respect your opinion.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Sorry, but based on what we already know, four centuries of knowledge, your argument is not logical, reasonable or rational. Are you sure you know the meanings of those words? I can provide detailed explanations of those terms and you'll see for yourself your claims do not abide by them.All readers are free to read the logic and reasoning I used in my posts and at any time engage them. We're not talking about pigs flying, I gave you the basis of my argument and it's a rational basis.
I understand we're not talking about pigs flying, but I am forced to use that example to show you that your claims cannot be taken as legitimate if you can't provide and explanations. Do you actually think this is how things work, that anyone can say anything and we are just supposed to take it as legitimatize?
-->
@EtrnlVw
You can go back and find that in any one of my posts with explanations.
No, you didn't provide explanations, that's what I've asking for all this time.
You can go back and find that in any one of my posts.
Your claims had no evidence, they were just claims.
The available body of facts and information can be found in the overwhelming data base of religious and spiritual sources, that's up to you to source.
No, it isn't up to me to source, that's not how these discussions work. I don't support your claims, YOU do. That's how it works. If you aren't aware how it works, there are some detailed explanations right here on this forum on how to debate. You'll find that it is indeed you who has to support your claims, that it's up to you to provide explanations and sources, not me.
We're not getting anywhere, you have refused to explain your claims and you expect your claims to be taken as legitimate when they can't be considering there is no evidence to substantiate them and that all evidence to date doesn't not support them in any way.
Unfortunately, until you do decide to come forth and explain yourself, your claims remain unsubstantiated and are no more than just personal opinions.
-->
@ATroubledMan
I have to ask this question and hope others can chime in with their opinions.Is it fair that any claim can be made without explanations and they are all considered legitimate, no matter what the claim?
I don't think any claim regarding God have been without explanations. But in regards to God, the explainer can only go so far, and then the rest might be up to the hearer.
I think that principle could apply in a number of other subjects as well.
If it is fair, then why are there disagreements in religious discussions between theists
If we use Christianity, and for the sake of argument the God of the Bible does existing, let's assume God meets all Christians at a starting point we all agree on. The simple message of salvation. From that starting point we all find out that God is real.
Beyond that many verses in the Bible are not quite (for lack of a better description) easy. And because I think God made us to love studying, exploring, thinking, and yes; applying logic and reason, we will disagree on a number of texts. And I think the verse that encourages us Christians to be like-minded is not meant to suggest we all agree on every verse and doctrine, but to be unified in spite of doctrinal differences unless they deviate from the original message we corporately agree on.
-->
@RoderickSpode
If the person can't explain anything in regards to God, why then would they claim that what they say is legitimate? I used the example of flying pigs. If I can't explain why pigs can fly, but will claim I know they can, how is that legitimate?But in regards to God, the explainer can only go so far, and then the rest might be up to the hearer.
And because I think God made us to love studying, exploring, thinking, and yes; applying logic and reason, we will disagree on a number of texts.
I wouldn't agree with that, God wants people to have faith in Him.
-->
@ATroubledMan
No, you didn't provide explanations
I'm done with your nonsense. I don't care whether or not you agree with it but at least you could acknowledge it. Here is my premise one last time.....here is the explanations (a statement or account that makes something clear). to support that premise.
Proposition (inference)=
The universe is made up of intelligent processes that achieve a particular ends, it operates as an intelligent source, that source would be what we call God (Creator). God uses the processes we observe in the universe to bring things into existence.
Rationale (reasoning)=
Processes do not occur all by themselves, it takes an intelligent source or operator to produce and direct results in a definitive manner. Nothing builds (evolves) itself into existence that has no way of planning, manufacturing or accomplishing that which would entail intelligence.
Common sense (explanation)=
It is irrational to believe and accept that inanimate (unintelligent) forces could ever produce anything let alone intelligent processes that manufacture intelligence and sentience. To build or achieve anything means to have a plan and then to put that plan into operation, common sense would tell us that proposition needs first a mind involved, or an intelligent source behind that achievement or destination.
Correlation=
We associate processes with intelligence or a mind, processes are always associated with intelligence. Production is always associated with a producer, developer is required for something to be developed.... one requires the other. There is a mutual relationship between that which produces and that which is a production.
Evidence (which includes the above assessments as well)=
"that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."
"something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign"
"information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"
"something presented in support of the truth or accuracy of a claim"
=Observations of real life activities (independent of nature, since I'm arguing that those are the processes of a Creator), real life productions, real life manufacturing, real life creations (art), real life development, real life construction, real life building, real life assembly ect ect, we know from real world observations that all those things require there to be a source to begin, evolve and accomplish anything.
Every single result of a production (process) in our real world I can present the originator of, not a single thing that has been produced can be shown to have created itself.
Can anyone show or produce evidence of anything in the real world producing itself without a producer, creator, developer, manufacturer, builder, designer ect ect?
Logic=
In our real life experience everything that brings about a result requires intelligence, so why when it comes to the productions of the universe is anyone willing to that fact?
Conclusion=
Science doesn't claim processes occur all by themselves, it examines how things operate and reports an accurate depiction of that alone, it makes no claims or objections about a possible God. Science is a method WE use, it has no mind or knowledge of its own, it just examines what we feed it and what we put into it. It reveals what ingredients are in a recipe but makes no reference to a maker because that's not a factor it can reach. To make the assumption that the scientific method exempts God or a Creator from the equation is to abruptly inject ones own presumptions. Science is not atheistic, it is a neutral study meaning that it is not only compatible with Theism but it shows the processes of how God creates things.
It is completely rational and logical to embrace a Theistic proposition of creation. Nothing ever comes from nothing since there was always something (intelligence/awareness) out of which all processes occur, this is a superior platform to any other hypothesis than to accept that somehow inanimate forces of nature developed intelligent processes. In a nutshell, all the things mentioned above have an intelligent cause and a rational reason why anything or any processes even begin and produce results. Evolution is also NOT an atheistic proposition even though it is presumed by atheists. Evolution too is a process that brings about a desired intelligent ends and results, it is by this very process how God plans and achieves that which It wants to create. It is by that very process why you even exist as a human, why we have the benefit of looking out into creation to observe the many beautiful species that exist as they do.
Anyone willing to consider this as a legit premise feel free to engage and move forward. There's lots more to discuss, how God did all this and by what methods, why does God create anything...how does this relate to you personally, what is a soul, why do we need physical bodies, why are there many different religions, what is the purpose behind spirituality ect ect just let me know.
-->
@ATroubledMan
I wouldn't agree with that, God wants people to have faith in Him.
Lol faith is trust and confidence, both trust and confidence are developed through evidence, experience and reason. Spiritual faith is not to believe in things with no reason or evidence, that's contrary to what it means to have faith. This is why Jesus refers to faith as "little faith" vs "great faith" or no faith at all, he correlates a persons confidence and trust with their own faith. You can't have faith without belief, which necessitates reason, you can't have faith without confidence, which necessitates experience and you can't have faith without trust which necessitates evidence. They all work hand in hand to build a persons faith.