Below is your exact statement I quoted, exactly the way I quoted it. The whole premise was for you to clarify your statement, which could have easily been answered with a, “this was what I was tracking when I made that statement”…but your reply was on a whole different tangent. I’m not sure why you trying to pitch your tent on something that is documented.
You can check back and read your reply and guage if it was a response to the question or a response to a question you made up.
It seems you missed the point I was making. Basically I pointing out the realities of human nature from behavioural science but again you seem to have sliced and misconstrued it.
“I don’t believe in any creation myths” OR “I don’t believe the universe was created”
AND
“The Universe was not created”
The latter seems like a positive claim to me, coming from a position of certainty, whilst the former comes from a position of uncertainty ie “I don’t know, so I withhold belief”
On that note, is it safe to conclude that you’ve committed a strawman?
It wasn’t my statement, you can’t even get the poster correct.
I don’t need to check back, as I can read, and that statement by Boomer, says he doesn’t believe the universe was created, plain as day for everyone to see.
So either you’re too stupid to know the difference between the assertion to not believe your claim, or the very different lie you posted that he was implying a contrary claim. Or you are trolling, which is it?
Nonsense, and here is your original claim and my response so everyone can see you’re talking bollocks yet again.
LOGIC DOES NOT MAKE BARE ASSUMPTIONS.
You also ignored my question, as do all theists, not that anyone here is surprised at such dishonesty.
The old fallacy, “intelligence is perfection”, which we contravene in our own IDs. You consider yourself intelligent, yet never made a perfect thing. Learn boy, intelligence is simply defined pattern towards purpose, god is perfection. Wanna look like a supermodel? Intelligence has brought gyms. Use both.
Genes maintain pattern in reproduction and sustenance not randomly altering self, each bearing its species, never crossing, and each species with its set of conjugate features. That’s organisation, administration… one word, intelligence.
More huff-puff, I almost smh off. These, as most findings of evolutionists, points rather to ID. Does this still make an argument if same intelligence that coded the genes, coded the syntax of these? Or are these events not caused under same defined conditions, whatever the variables, everytime they occur? Like A+B+C always=D syntax. You only point to coordination associated with intelligence. Now include the hows of water cycle, nutrient cycle, gaseous cycles, all we need to sustain life, coded into and self-sustained in nature, order in galactic systems…ID!!
If you’d deny ID in nature, it’s fine. Every intelligent person, even you, can easily guess why any would relish in denial.
Not really. Just think it’s courtesy to remind you, you really aren’t standing on any logical ground but in denial.
Evolutionist’s dreamland. Already challenged you to substantiate evidences, so they’re debunked again.
Recycled debunked evo myths. Subspeciation under highly manipulated laboratory conditions, better called adaptation can never prove trans-speciation, not to mention under uncontrolled conditions.
Dear logic criminal, Sheldon, hereby sentenced to… for contravention of section #9 and #10 of David’s logic laws.
Plus, guess what? this is how many religious doctrines became too and well, so much for that.
ROFLMAO, good one, if you hoped the christian part would make a stronger case. So much for your ‘scientific method’. Logic, is self-subsistent. All he’s got here is the old ignoratio elenchi, the interpolation into subspeciation.
Fine. Taken you admit to having no objective evidence for the evo rhetoric.
Long as you don’t bring it up till ready to subject it to thorough scrutiny, we’re good. My point of inviting you my thread was to show all so called “objective evidence” of current evo rhetoric is subjective and simply hopeful leaps, leaving the atheist only an option of agnosticism of origins with admission to ID. If you already put evolution in its place, we move.
As I said, the burden to find truth lies on you solely. We’re all fallible, so creator coded truth into your innate existence so another’s defect wouldn’t subvert your truth quest. So scrap that “if none’s able to convince me, I’m justified with my belief”, smelt miles away. It’s only courtesy we engage each other and a fortune if you’re convinced.
Proof of faith, as said before, lies not in logic. If you’d force all down that route, then you weren’t willing to give faith it’s place. Logic confirmed existence beyond its domain, across the Singularity, hence witnessing against who would limit existence to it. Again, I have pointed out, faculties of your existence not logically but empirically realised. There, is the track of faith’s quest, but you keep ignoring.
and faith is utterly useless in validating claims or beliefs, as there is literally nothing one could not believe using faith. I keep asking, if you believe something without any objective evidence, or based on faith alone in other words, then what is your criteria for disbelieving anything?<<<<
None should believe anything without objective evidence or tangibility, else creator needn’t give us senses. Come this far, still learnt nothing bout faith but holding your misconception.
Faith’s not believing blindly nor is creator requiring that anyone believe anything but existence. Paul didn’t try to believe any bout Jesus but simply contacted faith which, for the umpteenth time, is a substrate, the point in Hebrews, you miss. Like matter, to be contacted. Not trying to prove any nor proven by any, only a germ, growing itself into matter superimposing it’s quality. We don’t prove rocks, water or any matter logically. We make contact to attest to their reality. The question on faith, if rightly grasped, should only be how to contact and the only case against creator is if he requires it without making it contactable.
My technique was gonna be, after debunking all “objective evidence” for evo theory on my thread and showing the hypocritical denial in standing on it, going on to show logic, and so science, is absolute only in its domain, the material universe, which is but a subset of the whole of existence, then begin awaken you to other domains of existence. But you seem to care less for real answers on faith than girlie chit-chat and mudslinging tirades. We would gain nothing that way. At the rate were going, I may just have to drop some and prolly bow out.
Valid questions on existence and beyond logic, to be answered, in the quest of faith: 1. Does the Singularity not point to an existence beyond the current coordinate system and material plane? 2. Does it not show the limitation of current logic to account for existence beyond? 3. Isn’t the material plane considered real firstly because we are in some way conscious of it ever before logic? 4. Is logic then the absolute determinant of existence or derived from a precedent viz. consciousness? 5. Are there other modes of consciousness asides our physical senses? 6. Is this material plane all we’re conscious of? 7. If ID is evidenced in human intelligence, the body’s design and all lower intelligence littered across the universe, then as per the human-robot analogy, could there be a higher intelligence across the singularity? 8. If such higher intelligence is, and would relate with us, is it possible that in our design is ability to transcend this plane? 9. If so, could there be weaved into us, faculties beyond our physical body? 10. Are we conscious of any such faculties in us even if not logically determined?
Are we conscious of: i. a moral centre/conscience, poking us from time to time, guiding us also? ii. an emotional centre for fear, anger, hate, anguish, worry etc., causal of the chemicals our bodies release with these? iii. a metaphysical sense for dreams and visions, ESP? iv. an imaginative centre? v. a centre of desire for satisfaction and pleasure, which is the seat of boredom? vi. A cognitive centre, affecting choice, causal to the brain’s directing the body towards imagined action.
If you really wanna go deep on faith, try seriously considering these questions.
If it ends here, we should at least end on a cordial note. If you’d still like a meaningful discussion on faith, consider my questions, then we can proceed else I hope you find truth nonetheless.
You don’t know what fallacy means clearly. But then you don’t know what a scientific theory is either, so pretty typical for a creationist. I long ago stopped being surprised at how ignorant religion keeps many of its adherents.
You’re an arrogant clown, especially considering your posts contain some of the most ignorant idiotic drivel we’ve seen on here.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity,
Since you’re the one denying a global scientific consensus based on over 160 years of the most intense scientific scrutiny, and all to justify an absurd unevidenced belief in a deity from a bronze age superstition. The hilarity of a creatard accusing anyone of denial is palpable.
No one asserted that we were intelligent. You asserted DNA was intelligent. If it was, wouldn’t it intelligently design more intelligently? It is a chemical process and nothing more. ]
Asserting your god is perfect does not make it so. You don’t get to assert a god into existence. Provide evidence or go away.
You haven’t got a clue of what logical ground any atheist is standing on. Your inane responses and idiotic assertions are evidence of this.
As I already said the talkorigins website has a massive database of scientific evidence for evolution. It also has a massive database of creationist propaganda that science has debunked, most of them you have used here.
The fossil evidence alone establishes this.
Can anyone translate that gibberish into a coherent sentence?
So we can add English to the expanding list of things you don’t understand.
Your point is to deny an accepted scientific fact that contradicts the risible creation myth form your bronze age superstition, and of course the reason is because you can’t offer any objective evidence for your deity, or any creationist propaganda. Here’s a clue for you, because I know how slow creatards are…
SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARE ESTABLISHED BY OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, THEY CAN ONLY BE FALSIFIED BY THE SAME. WHEN A CREATARD GETS A NOBEL PRIZE FOR FALSIFYING EVOLUTION I WILL ACCEPT IT, BUT CREATIONISM WILL REMAIN AN UNEVIDENCED SUPERSTITIOUS MYTH.
Rubbish, you don’t half talk drivel. The best method we have for validating claims is the scientific method, which creatards risibly think they can cherry pick when it contradicts their superstitious myths.
And as I said there is literally nothing you cannot believe using faith. So yes of course faith based beliefs are irrational by definition. The efficacy of logic is manifest, as is the uselessness of faith. As I keep asking what is your criteria for disbelief if you are prepared to believe using faith?
What singularity? You don’t have even the most basic grasp of logic, that is abundantly clear.
So please demonstrate some objective evidence for a deity? I keep asking, but you just keep posting the same subjective rhetoric and logical fallacies.
WHAT SINGULARITY?
Argumentum ad ingorantiam fallacy, textbook.
I have no idea what means sorry, is it from dungeons and dragons?
Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, in order to remove bias and flawed reasoning.
Please demonstrate some objective evidence for this. Also why have you phrased this as a question?
Again what are you taking about, is this a reference to dungeons and dragons only I have never played it.
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that is? Or just your usual incoherent fallacious rhetoric?
How are questions valid if they are beyond logic, and therefore by definition irrational, that’s such an obviously errant title I want to laugh out loud. Why on earth would any rational person want to pursue a quest for faith as well, faith is utterly useless for validating claims, as there is literally nothing you could not believe using faith, as I have already explained.
If Sorrentino thinks speciation hasn’t been established on rigorous grounds, and continues to post canards on the subject, he’s going to have a very bad time here …
My bad. I asserted you were intelligent. If you have no intelligence, then you’re right, DNA has none. Fits perfectly with your origins theory of intelligence stemming from non-intelligence, that we design AI.
DNA that writes code for the compiler that encodes itself, what AI seeks to achieve with deep learning, has no intelligence in your world. I’d like to meet you in your world. Smh.
Smh. Laughable when someone suggests TO for critical study on evolution, and shows you’re neither a core scientist nor ready for in-depth analysis but only gathering unfiltered superficial info. You probably occupy yourself with other things leaving you little time for such although that wouldn’t be an excuse for a matter as important as your soul’s security. For your sake, here’s the fastest of the critiques on TO I found not that I propose creationism for that. Refute TO
TO is pure propaganda and uses counters against flimsy and outrageous creationist arguments to validate its argument, mere strawmanning, without presenting important info on the uncertainties and limitations of the evo theory but many half-truths instead. Prolly why it seems obsolete.
Again there’s nothing like overwhelming evidence/proof for evo rhetoric but only many findings with subjective interpretations. Such misconception stems from a lack of training in the scientific method.
Again, evolutionists consistently shift the goalpost by alternating the definition of evolution between mere adaptation and trans-speciation, an interpolation from prejudice, to make findings like the fossil record support their rhetoric, as is not the case.
You really should go do a thorough study on evolution from both sides of the arguments. That alone will help you understand why Darwinian evo is not proven but only accepted by a camp.
Such is not the case with logically deduced facts and laws which every scientist must accept without argument.
You’re an atheist cause you don’t want to ever investigate the validity of creator for loosing your freedom and having accountability. If you believe in your emotions, conscience etc. you can’t see or touch, you can relate with creator that exact way. Faith is a more tangible substrate than these. The question is if you’re willing to.
The fossil record establishes common descent and adaptation not trans-speciation.
I almost applauded you but oops!, missed a spot. The interpretation by evolutionists will have to first be established by the findings without prejudiced interpolation, letting facts interpret themselves.
Since you don’t know about it, don’t bother. Just know that science has proposed a point where our current space-time logic disappears.
Laugh less, when in ignorance, I’d suggest, dear Sheldon. Validity is tied to reality/existence. Logic derives from self-evident reality and towards deduced reality. Go figure!
Faith is utterly useless if you believe it’s blind belief, and well, that’s blind belief too because you could find out what faith is but choose not to.
The undergirding yardstick of reality is consciousness. Whatever we’re conscious of is self-evident reality. Learn boy, these are not derived by logic but from which we develop logic to deduce derived realities. This is why faith, like matter, isn’t to be logically deduced. A little baby knows mama is real because it’s aware of her not because of systematic deductions. We similarly know the universe is real, not by logic but by our consciousness of it.
So the substantiality of faith, like our universe, is in consciousness not in logic. The question must be ‘how to contact’. It is not about believing any claims but about contacting a tangible substrate. If one weren’t and is busy convincing himself of anything, he is still faithless.
You’re well informed but need training to correctly apply it.
Let us now reconsider the ten questions of which for reasons best known to you, you avoided the all important final three.
1. Does the Singularity not point to an existence beyond the current coordinate system and material plane? 2. Does it not show the limitation of current logic to account for existence beyond? 3. Isn’t the material plane considered real firstly because we are in some way conscious of it ever before logic? 4. Is logic then the absolute determinant of existence or derived from a precedent viz. consciousness? 5. Are there other modes of consciousness asides our physical senses? 6. Is this material plane all we’re conscious of? 7. If ID is evidenced in human intelligence, the body’s design and all lower intelligence littered across the universe, then as per the human-robot analogy, could there be a higher intelligence across the singularity? 8. If such higher intelligence is, and would relate with us, is it possible that in our design is ability to transcend this plane? 9. If so, could there be weaved into us, faculties beyond our physical body? 10. Are we conscious of any such faculties in us even if not logically determined?
Are we conscious of: i. a moral centre/conscience, poking us from time to time, guiding us also? ii. an emotional centre for fear, anger, hate, anguish, worry etc., causal of the chemicals our bodies release with these? iii. a metaphysical sense for dreams and visions, ESP? iv. an imaginative centre? v. a centre of desire for satisfaction and pleasure, which is the seat of boredom? vi. A cognitive centre, affecting choice, causal to the brain’s directing the body towards imagined action.
If you really wanna go deep on faith, try seriously considering these questions.
I cannot answer these questions for anyone but any who would understand faith must answer these himself and then ask how faith is to be contacted, like his emotions are.
Sheldon over to you, you determine if we go further, chit-chat and tirades will not pay. If you ask the right questions, I can answer, else…
