And how is my reflection evidence of ID as opposed to simply a non-intelligent mechanical process such as evolution?
If that is the best evidence you have to put forward, such that nothing else will convince me, then you have nothing other than your belief and your desire to have your questions answered when rationally and logically the best answer we have is "I don't know".
It's also circular reasoning, but that hasn't stopped you previously.
It's certainly a subjective position, but one that you claim as fact and that you claim is supported by science.
The rest of this sentence merely describes your appeal to authority and celebrity.
Science does not require certainty, so you again show your misunderstanding.
It merely requires falsifiability in what is theorised and tested.
And how have I refused to embrace what Quantum Theory has told me? How does QT act as evidence for your view?
You certainly are not a scientist, as you can not distinguish between what is and what is not science. You see the badge of "scientist" and assume that all that is said by that person is scientific. It isn't.
As for what they say making sense, noone disputes that it may make sense for you - but that doesn't mean that it is supported by science. You have singularly failed to provide any scientific support for the notion that is not based on an unwarranted assumption.
No, it's not. You have introduced unwarranted assumptions (unwarranted in so far as you try to claim the notion as scientific yet start from unfalsifiable assumptions). Your fallback to cries of "it's subjective" is merely a defensive posture on your part taken due to simply not understanding what is and what is not scientific.
No. Given the information at the time, fallacious reasoning will always be fallacious reasoning.
If new information arises, the argument may become not-fallacious, but that doesn't alter the fallaciousness of the argument when first presented.
Furthermore, fallacious reasoning can give the correct result - by coincidence. But the correctness of the outcome does not validate the logic of the argument.
No scientist has done any experiments concerning ID. It is not scientific. All they have is their unsupported opinion, an opinion they hold for whatever philosophical position they might hold.
But that does not make it scientific, and your claims that ID is supported in favour of other competing notions are simply incorrect.
And how is my reflection evidence of ID as opposed to simply a non-intelligent mechanical process such as evolution? If that is the best evidence you have to put forward, such that nothing else will convince me, then you have nothing other than your belief and your desire to have your questions answered when rationally and logically the best answer we have is "I don't know"
I believe that you’re an Intelligent human being, only a stubborn one. Now, Evolution does not explain you intelligence. And of course I wager you agree that there is a peculiar intelligence found in human beings, not found in the rest of creatures. So, as you look in the mirror, it should provoke you to wonder why you are different.
Two, just look at yourself, and see just how your organs have unfolded so conveniently in your favor. And remember, you as a human being, you are the only creature which “evolutionary process” conveniently denied any defense mechanism, except your wits.
It's also circular reasoning, but that hasn't stopped you previously.
You’re right there.
It's certainly a subjective position, but one that you claim as fact and that you claim is supported by science. The rest of this sentence merely describes your appeal to authority and celebrity.
Look, at he end of the argument, which I think is nigh, we are left mark timing on the same thing, calling it differently, and claiming ownership of the discovery. We have been endeavoring to understand reality, and whether it has been manifested by a power which is Purposeful (I.E Designer) and , Intelligent . Me I claim, that yes, there is a power, and I call Him God. I claim that reality is Spiritual, Its a unity, its purposeful, and everlasting. I claim that its made of Light, which has been slowed down in form of Spherical Waves, moving back and forth, differentiated by Law, manifesting the reality we perceive, which appears, local, but its non-local.
You, with your science and your logical reasoning, you have arrived at Quantum Realm, which has forced you to embrace an idea of reality which appears illogical. You claim that Quantum Systems which manifests reality we perceive is both particle like and wave like. You claim, its supper positioned. You claim its non-local. You claim its entangled, but you do not know what an electron is.
I conclude that we are being childish. We are saying the same thing, differently but each want to hold on to his position. Wells, since even if I claim that it’s a Unity, this still is my subjective view, I guess we can call it a truce.
Science does not require certainty, so you again show your misunderstanding.
It merely requires falsifiability in what is theorised and tested. And how have I refused to embrace what Quantum Theory has told me? How does QT act as evidence for your view?
I though “fact” were an example of “Certainty” I though you cannot deem a theory falsifiable unless you were using definite facts. Now, QM, gives you Probabilities” not certainties. You have refused to accept that QM. is different from Classical Method, and requires you to see the reality differently. It requires new thinking. QM to me, is the Game Changer. And even if I do not have a mathematical understanding of it, this does not affect my view of the Implications of Quantum View of reality. Its just astonishing. . Am excited, I guess. Its all I needed. “Entanglement” “Super positioning” “Uncertainty” etc. Of course there is no scientific conclusions. But I had a hunch, and when other scientists appeared to think so, well, I think I can say, that scientists have done a great service to the Christian Religion!
You certainly are not a scientist, as you can not distinguish between what is and what is not science. You see the badge of "scientist" and assume that all that is said by that person is scientific. It isn't.
As for what they say making sense, noone disputes that it may make sense for you - but that doesn't mean that it is supported by science.
As for what they say making sense……………… that doesn't mean that it is supported by science.(?) I do not understand you. What do you mean?
You have singularly failed to provide any scientific support for the notion that is not based on an unwarranted assumption.
Look, Science has given us data and its for us to draw our own conclusion, based on our own subjective assumptions, which to others may be unwarranted. You have your right to draw your own conclusions, and because your conclusions are based on your subjective interpretations, they too, will be unwarranted assumptions to me and others. So, as I said, its an impasse for Atheists and Theists Any one could be right. Commonsense tells me I am on the right track.
No, it's not. You have introduced unwarranted assumptions (unwarranted in so far as you try to claim the notion as scientific yet start from unfalsifiable assumptions). Your fallback to cries of "it's subjective" is merely a defensive posture on your part taken due to simply not understanding what is and what is not scientific.
Boy, Oh boy!
No. Given the information at the time, fallacious reasoning will always be fallacious reasoning.
If new information arises, the argument may become not-fallacious, but that doesn't alter the fallaciousness of the argument when first presented. Furthermore, fallacious reasoning can give the correct result - by coincidence. But the correctness of the outcome does not validate the logic of the argument.
Ok, you have my permission to call it fallacious if it makes you feel better, but I know sometimes logic does not make sense. (I, know I know, it sounds stupid)
No scientist has done any experiments concerning ID. It is not scientific. All they have is their unsupported opinion, an opinion they hold for whatever philosophical position they might hold. But that does not make it scientific, and your claims that ID is supported in favour of other competing notions are simply incorrect.
You appear to have unwarranted faith in a methodology whose capability have been found wanting. Same reason why many Scientists have abandoned it and wandered towards philosophy. Their opinions are unsupported solely because Science has failed, yes, failed to show the way beyond QM. But for guys like you, you still hope that Science will eventually find a way to a testable, reducible, and falsifiable,, factual understanding of reality beyond QM. Keep hoping.