Rational Creationism

You are just talking out your ass. You have no evidence that is the least bit true.
erm ..... I wasn't aware where we suddenly switched from discussing a topic of logic to a topic of truth, but anyway, I'm happy enough to go in that direction now that you bring it up ....

Actually I have plenty of evidence that it is true.

Now what?
You don't know any entities with "greater potency than humans"
hehe

the only way for this statement to be true is if you are omnipotent
;)

nor do you know their requirements for designing anything.
well actually I do

I know that design has the requirement of potency.

That's why we deem certain things capable of being designed by ants, other things by humans, and yet others by god


You just pretend and make shit up.
Unlike you when you make claims like "I know what you know", eh?
:D
 
Actually I have plenty of evidence that it is true.

Now what?
You produce this alleged evidence and it is replicated and verified or it fails to be verified and replicated.

You still don't know any entities with "greater potency than humans" but by all means introduce them if you wish to assert that you do.

is if you are omnipotent
You should look up the word "omnipotent."

nor do you know the requirements for designing anything by such beings.

I know that design has the requirement of potency.

You don't know that. You are just assuming it. Creating a universe could be easier than falling off a log for all you know. You are just making crap up because you like the way it makes you feel.

In fact, given the size and scope of a universe, it seems for more reasonable that no potency is required.

You are wholly ignorant about every single aspect of gods.

All you are doing is making up fantasy gods.
 
aside from your personal gene pool, what makes them the best?

The other examples we have are generally very limited and not terribly prolific. Termites are probably the most sophisticated, their housing structures are better than ours by far, but that is their only design.
 
Swarm
The other examples we have are generally very limited and not terribly prolific. Termites are probably the most sophisticated, their housing structures are better than ours by far, but that is their only design.

Interesting.

So IOW the capacities of design are very much determined by the communities that they appear in.

And further more, the hierarchy of design sophistication is top down ... unless you are suggesting that termites have a conscious recognition of the human community and recognize and acknowledge the greater soophistication

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Actually I have plenty of evidence that it is true.

Now what?

You produce this alleged evidence and it is replicated and verified or it fails to be verified and replicated.
verified an replicated by who exactly?

You still don't know any entities with "greater potency than humans" but by all means introduce them if you wish to assert that you do.
Ironically, the only way for your all-knowing statement to be true is if you possessed omnipotence, omniscience, etc .......


I know that design has the requirement of potency.

You don't know that. You are just assuming it.
Beats me why you find this point controversial. All design requires some degree of potency


Creating a universe could be easier than falling off a log for all you know.
Even falling off a log requires the potency to get on top of one in the first place
:D

You are just making crap up because you like the way it makes you feel.
meanwhile you have the audacity to declare (in a world where we cannot even design a computer or car without an after sales assistance network) that creating a universe stands to be as easy as falling off a log ....


In fact, given the size and scope of a universe, it seems for more reasonable that no potency is required.
um dude

what planet are you on?
:m:
You are wholly ignorant about every single aspect of gods.

All you are doing is making up fantasy gods.
hehe

even if I was making things up, its not clear why you would personally hold that against me

erm ... the omnipotent one usually attributed as being the cause of all causes ... how about you?

There is no such thing evident. You have a misattribution.
duh

So during the interim of your lack of evidence you can use the word "god" to take on the hue of any meaning for the purposes of "logical" :)eek:) discussion, eh?
 
I'm not neccesarily saying there is no god - just that he's nowhere to be found in nature - perhaps there is somewhere else to look though - I dunno

The place to look is inside. We have a conscience that must deal with suffering and death. Every religion deals with the human conscience. There are several views in the field of philosophy:

Philosophy of the Mind

It is also examined in the field of psychology:

Spiritual Healing

The nonconscious part of the mind is like an ocean. I'd like to know what's in there.

iceberg.gif


Id, Ego, Superego
 
I find this debate as a whole to be a tiresome repetition of two degrees of absolutist views claiming one side is right when human beings will never be able to fully grasp the scope and meaning of existence and how it came to be.
 
I find this debate as a whole to be a tiresome repetition of two degrees of absolutist views claiming one side is right when human beings will never be able to fully grasp the scope and meaning of existence and how it came to be.

kind of difficult to use the word "never" without taking an absolutist stance
 
Life itself and all of the current research into creating synthetic life, which is coming quite along quite nicely.

'Life itself'? What is that?

How do you define 'life'? How do you recognize whether something is 'life', and something else is not? What are your criteria for such a recognition?
 
The place to look is inside. We have a conscience that must deal with suffering and death. Every religion deals with the human conscience. There are several views in the field of philosophy:

Do you know of any view that answers to the problem of evil in a satisfactory way?
 
Do you know of any view that answers to the problem of evil in a satisfactory way?

Evil is the absense of genuine love. Genuine love is selfless love, expecting nothing in return except the benefit of the other person. Hence evil is a form of selfishness coupled with a conscience that knows better.
 
So IOW the capacities of design are very much determined by the communities that they appear in.

What was god's community?

the hierarchy of design sophistication is top down

It can be, it can also be bottom up and middle out.

verified an replicated by who exactly?

Any one who cares to.


Ironically

Ironically you still don't know any entities with "greater potency than humans."

Beats me why you find this point controversial. All design requires some degree of potency

Sure if you are designing a screw. But there is no know form of "potency" which could effect an entire universe so why should I think that's required? It makes far more sense for it to be effortless.

meanwhile you have the audacity to declare (in a world where we cannot even design a computer or car without an after sales assistance network) that creating a universe stands to be as easy as falling off a log ....

Actually I say that it is absurd to think a universe is designed or created.

even if I was making things up, its not clear why you would personally hold that against me

Because you are making crap up and pretending its real in a way I find offensive.

So during the interim of your lack of evidence you can use the word "god"

Its a meaningless term which you already just make crap up about, why can't I?
 
Evil is the absense of genuine love. Genuine love is selfless love, expecting nothing in return except the benefit of the other person. Hence evil is a form of selfishness coupled with a conscience that knows better.

But where does evil come from? Why are people evil? How come people are selfish? And how come that they have a conscience that knows better?


Genuine love is selfless love, expecting nothing in return except the benefit of the other person.

Who or what decides what that 'benefit of the other person is'?
The other person?
The one who loves selflessly?
Someone or something else?
 
Back
Top