Our friend JC sees patterns in reality but he uses his faith and not any body of evidence to attribute those patterns to an intelligent designer called Jesus.
Perhaps he doesn’t even realise that he is doing this.
But because these patterns are unidentified, people of different beliefs; Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, etc., can use their faith to attribute these patterns to their particular god.
So the Intelligently Designed Universe argument can be used by ANYONE precisely because it doesn’t identify who the designer is.
If I were a watch expert, I’ll bet I could tell who made some watches based solely on the parts. I wonder what a watch designed by divine providence (for lack of a better term) would look like.
Some animals make tools. Can a person identify such tools without prompting, such as seeing the animal use the tool? I think, not! How are we people supposed to identify divine providence produced stuff, then?
When humans design and produce stuff, there are telltale signs - straight lines, smooth surfaces, etc. - things not normally found in nature. How are we supposed to distinguish divine providence produced stuff from nature-produced stuff?
I am not willing, however, to assume that he doesn’t realize he’s not substantively addressing literally any specific points raised, by me or anyone else. He just keeps repeating his claims. It is nothing but deflection and denial. Let God be true, and every man a liar, etc.
That is the basic problem of trying to converse with apologists – there’s no actual conversation. Just denial and ad hominem disparagement of any and all objections, then projecting that onto us. And that is even assuming he acknowledges the objection at all.
However, thus far in this thread I’m giving JC the benefit of the doubt. But if he should dodge and deflect over the question of what evidence there is that unequivocally identifies the intelligent designer, then I can only conclude that he does realise what he is doing.
The irony of that is that Christians should love the truth, even if comes from the mouths on non-believers - rather than just holding to an apologetic line. The doing of which makes him appear, not as a lover of truth, but a lover of dogma.
Nope, it is in fact you who brought your beliefs to me, in an attempt to proselytise, so you seem to be projecting again.
I am guessing the irony of that hilarious assertion is lost on you again.
Take a minute, look up the definition of mystery and miracle, and then come back and laugh heartily, as I am, at that redundant tautology. Can you explain the breeding habits of mermaids? If not then by your rationale that means they must be real.
Let me guess, you think this appeal to mystery justifies unevidenced beliefs it was cause by a deity using inexplicable magic? Well as I have mentioned more than once, this represents irrational argumentum ad ignorantiam reasoning. So it’s unclear what you think repeating such poorly reasoned arguments will achieve, when the people you are repeating them to fully understand how poorly reasoned they are, and why?
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, reality is broadly defined as the state or quality of being real, actual, or true. It encompasses all of actual existence, facts, and events,differentiating them from what is merely imagined, fictional, or illusory.
You are the one making unevidenced claims, that cannot be evidenced to form any part of objective reality, not me. So more projection there.
You are preaching again, I don’t care for that, and it’s a violation of the forum rules. There is no evidence that intercessory prayer has any discernible effect, and of course apologists make the same vapid claims about it being answered by wildly different deities.
I have not nor am I shaking my fist at anyone. So your claim is doubly ironic, as it is you who is clearly bothered that others don’t share your unevidenced subjective religious beliefs, at least enough to seek us out, and bring them here to preach at others you already know don’t share them.
I don’t care that you choose to believe unevidenced archaic superstitions uncritically, this is a debate forum, and besides this claim is unnecessary as it was obvious from the very first. I have seen identical claims from countless deities that humans have chosen to imagine are real. Why are you telling me is a far more pertinent point?
It doesn’t even necessitate a deity as creator, first cause arguments are just that. Now for the tin foil hat brigade - why can’t a posited uncaused first cause be an entirely natural physical phenomenon? I mean if we are going to use bias and imagination in place of objective evidence, why not at least posit a causes(es) that we already know are possible. Oh, that last one was rhetorical.
Yes, a botanist certainly can explain how those ‘parts’ resulted in a particular flower. Hell, even a xtian monk could (and did) explain how plants evolve.
He is offering irreducible complexity now, and seems unaware it was debunked as an argument against evolution decades ago, can we really be surprised someone who champions an archaic religion is “living in the past”.
But this is the merry-go-round (carousel) that happens in threads where JC appears.
He offers up debunked and refuted arguments, not listening to how and why they have been demolished and then accuses us of having closed minds. That happened months ago and he disappeared for a while. Then the whole merry dance starts over again when he reappears - still trotting out the same dead arguments as before and still denying that they are dead. Then once again accusing us of having minds that are closed to the ‘truth’.
A truth which he claims can be ‘proved’ through evidence and logic, but which actually require an act of faith on the part of the believer.
I suppose I could have pressed him on what he saw in the Pale Blue Dot image that I posted a while back. Instead of just asking him what he saw I could have taken the initiative and told him what I saw - the Earth hanging in space. And then asked him if what I saw was a true statement.
If he said Yes, then I could have gone further. What was he using to see that this was part of God’s creation? Not his eyes. His eyes saw the same thing that I saw. So what else, besides his eyes was he using to the Earth as the work of God’s hand? The honest and truthful answer of course would have been that he was using his faith.
But he would never let himself be drawn into such a logic trap as that. That would expose the fact that all of his so-called scientific arguments require faith to see the hand of Jesus as the intelligently designing creator. That they do not work at all without faith.
But he would probably rather not answer or deflect or pivot to something else rather than do that.
Which are not the actions of an honest man who does not fear the facts. They are the actions of a man who protects his beliefs from the facts by never answering the questions that would reveal his the weakness of his arguments.
1 John 4 : 18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear expects punishment. The person who is afraid has not been made perfect in love.
I’m seeing a lot of fear in JC’s unwillingness to answer revealing questions.
My, you guys are in rare form today; but, that’s okay–such is always the case when Faith and faithlessness collide. My point was that not even a botanist can explain where the “stuff” came from for the flower and how it’s logically impossible that it all came together in a random way–and that’s not even broaching the subject of photosynthesis.
No, Walter, there wasn’t any fear there; it’s basically an argument in futility to try and reason with those whose minds are made up and consider Faith an archaic (and weak) mechanism of coping with the hard realities of life. And, the Scripture you quoted is a perfect one: because His Love’s the only reason I keep coming in here and putting in my two cents’ worth.
The difference is apparent: it’s like the Russian cosmonaut who came back from outer space and said “I didn’t see God anywhere” and Jim Irwin, after walking on the moon, saying “When I stood there and could hold the moon as a marble in the palm of my hand, I knew the moon was not enough.”
Repeating this lie I see, you’re the only one who has claimed to be certain, atheism is the doubt of a claim.
We have your own posts for that, would you like a quote?
Do I really need to point out the contradiction? I don’t care that you use religion as a crutch, in fact I empathise, but when you come here and preach at me, and then lie, well the quote function is the undoing of those who spin such webs…
you do see me as closed-minded and a somewhat ignorant purveyor of fables that are disguised as “truths.”
Thus, it would appear (to me) that you all are also close-minded and adamantly opposed to the possibility that your views MIGHT happen to be wrong. In your attempts to disprove the existence of Someone you don’t believe it, your minds have been blinded to the ultimate Reality that exists beyond our ability to understand and explain.
Yes we can feel the love…
That’s because faith us useless in validating the veracity of a belief, or we’d only have one religion claiming faith has revealed which deity is real, from the countless deities humans have imagined.
You were wrong, and even were you not, this is another argumentum ad ignorantiam appeal to mystery, it is poor / weak reasoning. How many times will you ignore this rational objection and keep repeating the same poor argument I wonder?
No it isn’t, you are peddling irreducible complexity, this was debunked in science decades ago. You don’t know what logic is do you? No scientific idea, let alone an established scientific theory cannot violate a principle of logic, did you not know this? Just Google it man ffs…
It is an objective fact that random events in (for example) evolution, have produced complexity, and not just evolution either.
So you won’t be addressing your use of an argument that science debunked decades ago then? Does that really sound like someone seeking honest debate or the truth? What does it say about beliefs that require this level of dishonest evasion?
Quod erat demonstrandum…
“Irreducible complexity—the creationist argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved gradually because the removal of any single part renders them non-functional—has been heavily debunked by the scientific community. It fails based on the principles of exaptation and modular evolution.”
So Walter, if @JustCurious repeats such an argument, now or in the future, then his dishonesty will be manifest. Seeking the truth, and being dishonest are of course mutually exclusive.
Or logic, or that epistemic, objective and nomological possibilities differ drastically. I have grave doubts that he understands the difference between possibility and probability, as well.
Thank you for making it for me. Irwin came to his conclusion, not on the basis of pure logic and not the basis of any body of evidence, but only by… faith.
His leap of faith on the moon stands in complete contrast to the claims you’ve been making, though. According to you there are apologetic arguments, based solely on scientific data and evidence, that prove the existence of an intelligently designing creator. Arguments that stand up on their own and require no act of faith to complete. Making them totally different from Irwin’s faith-driven conclusion.
But please take note of this, JC.
In this thread I’ve been giving you the benefit of the doubt. At no point in this thread have I said that your apologetic arguments don’t reveal an intelligent designer. No. My position is that these arguments do not identify who that designer is. Quite a different thing altogether.
So, giving you the benefit of the doubt, let’s go with your claim and tentatively accept that your apologetic arguments do indeed reveal the existence of an intelligently designing creator. Ok? You and I are the same page. But the next step is entirely yours.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that the identity of this creator is Jesus Christ?
Do you prove it by logic? Do you infer or deduce it somehow? Or do you believe it by faith?
So if there is no fear in the way you conduct yourself in this forum then you and I can return to that Pale Blue Dot image and you can answer my question honestly.
Shall we do that JC?
Will you show us this courage of yours and face up to the question as it was asked and answer it properly and honestly, with dodging, deflecting or pivoting away from it?
