Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

[bilby]

Agents with free will,

[citation needed]

made in God's likeness,

[citation needed]

 

[bilby]

God can predict the actions of people who assert that God doesn't even exist. Their free will is unaffected because they are completely unaware of His ability to fast-forward in time and know their future actions.

Similarly, when Wile E Cyote runs off a cliff, his altitude is unaffected because he is completely unaware that he is no longer supported by solid ground.

Of course, in reality, we need not be aware that our future is fixed in order to be unable to change it, just as Mr Coyote need not be aware that he is unsupported in order to begin to fall into the canyon.

 

[Lion IRC]

Agents with free will,

[citation needed]

John 7:18

made in God's likeness,

[citation needed]

Genesis 1:27

 

[bilby]

Now, if you want to claim you're just another Alexa and Someone else caused you to cause Alexa to ring that's your business.

It's exactly what your claim that God is real, is all knowing, and is the cause of everything, implies.

That you suck at logic so bad as to be able to pretend that it doesn't is a problem only for you.

 

[bilby]

Agents with free will,

[citation needed]

John 7:18

made in God's likeness,

[citation needed]

Genesis 1:27

Yeah, I expected that.

Do you have any evidence that's not just somebody writing down the claims, and expecting everyone to believe them just because they are written down?

 

[Lion IRC]

God can predict the actions of people who assert that God doesn't even exist. Their free will is unaffected because they are completely unaware of His ability to fast-forward in time and know their future actions.

Similarly, when Wile E Cyote runs off a cliff, his altitude is unaffected because he is completely unaware that he is no longer supported by solid ground.

You just made it analogous with atheists who think God doesn't exist eventually learning that He does. Well done.

Atheists freely choosing to run off the edge of a cliff because they don't think there's a God called gravity. That's your genius analogy?

Of course, in reality, we need not be aware that our future is fixed in order to be unable to change it, just as Mr Coyote need not be aware that he is unsupported in order to begin to fall into the canyon.

He fixed his own future by running off the edge of a cliff.

 

[Lion IRC]

Agents with free will,

[citation needed]

John 7:18

made in God's likeness,

[citation needed]

Genesis 1:27

Yeah, I expected that.

Do you have any evidence that's not just somebody writing down the claims, and expecting everyone to believe them just because they are written down?

I don't expect you to believe it.
I thought you were capable of internal critiques - ad arguendo

But if you wanna do the ..yabbut God isn't real thingy instead *shrug*

 

[Elixir]

I thought you were capable of internal critiques

Internal to what?

 

[bilby]

You just made it analogous with atheists who think God doesn't exist eventually learning that He does.

No, I didn't. You wanted me to, but (as I just pointed out to you) wanting stuff to be true doesn't make it true.

Well done.

Atheists freely choosing to run off the edge of a cliff because they don't think there's a God called gravity. That's your genius analogy?

No, that's your rather stupid analogy, very loosely based on mine.

For your analogy to be apt, we would need to inhabit a world where god was as easily detected as gravity is; Yet we have VAST evidence of gravity, and ZERO evidence of god.

 

[JohnG]

Maybe I'd better read the article to see if it actually does say "creation"..."create"..."created"

As a matter I don't argue with religious people these days...but this is an interesting one.

You seem hung up on the word "create" - as if that word can only mean something produced by your God.

Verb - Middle English createn, borrowed from Latin creātus, past participle of creāre "to bring into being, beget, give birth to, cause to grow," causative derivative from the base of crēscere "to come into existence, increase in size or numbers, grow"

Why do you feel this word excludes natural process? Can a cause create an effect? If not, why not?

 

[Lion IRC]

Maybe I'd better read the article to see if it actually does say "creation"..."create"..."created"

As a matter I don't argue with religious people these days...but this is an interesting one.

You seem hung up on the word "create" - as if that word can only mean something produced by your God.

I dont think that so if you want to argue you'll have to find someone who thinks that the word "create" can only mean something produced by God.

Verb - Middle English createn, borrowed from Latin creātus, past participle of creāre "to bring into being, beget, give birth to, cause to grow," causative derivative from the base of crēscere "to come into existence, increase in size or numbers, grow"

That's nice.

Why do you feel this word excludes natural process?

I dont think that so you'll have to find someone else to defend that strawman.

Words can mean lots of things to lots of people. "Natural" can mean different things to different people too.

In this thread there's a distinction being made between deliberate creation and unintentional creation.

Can a cause create an effect? If not, why not?

You mean can God create an effect? Sure.
Can humans create the same effect? Sure.

 

[JohnG]

Maybe I'd better read the article to see if it actually does say "creation"..."create"..."created"

As a matter I don't argue with religious people these days...but this is an interesting one.

You seem hung up on the word "create" - as if that word can only mean something produced by your God.

I dont think that so if you want to argue you'll have to find someone who thinks that the word "create" can only mean something produced by God.

Verb - Middle English createn, borrowed from Latin creātus, past participle of creāre "to bring into being, beget, give birth to, cause to grow," causative derivative from the base of crēscere "to come into existence, increase in size or numbers, grow"

That's nice.

Why do you feel this word excludes natural process?

I dont think that so you'll have to find someone else to defend that strawman.

Words can mean lots of things to lots of people. "Natural" can mean different things to different people too.

In this thread there's a distinction being made between deliberate creation and unintentional creation.

Can a cause create an effect? If not, why not?

You mean can God create an effect? Sure.
Can humans create the same effect? Sure.

Ok, but also in your first post in this thread...

"Created.
Great.
Another win for Team Creationists"

it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.

 

[pood]

Maybe I'd better read the article to see if it actually does say "creation"..."create"..."created"

As a matter I don't argue with religious people these days...but this is an interesting one.

You seem hung up on the word "create" - as if that word can only mean something produced by your God.

I dont think that so if you want to argue you'll have to find someone who thinks that the word "create" can only mean something produced by God.

Verb - Middle English createn, borrowed from Latin creātus, past participle of creāre "to bring into being, beget, give birth to, cause to grow," causative derivative from the base of crēscere "to come into existence, increase in size or numbers, grow"

That's nice.

Why do you feel this word excludes natural process?

I dont think that so you'll have to find someone else to defend that strawman.

Words can mean lots of things to lots of people. "Natural" can mean different things to different people too.

In this thread there's a distinction being made between deliberate creation and unintentional creation.

Can a cause create an effect? If not, why not?

You mean can God create an effect? Sure.
Can humans create the same effect? Sure.

Ok, but also in your first post in this thread...

"Created.
Great.
Another win for Team Creationists"

it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.

Yup, I was gonna say the same thing.

Of course he’s being disingenuous, and there is no “strawman” here. That’s exactly what he thinks, that “create” means by God, and while humans may replicate God’s “creations” nothing can be created naturally without mind behind it. Unfortunately for him, evolution shows just the opposite.

 

[JohnG]

Maybe I'd better read the article to see if it actually does say "creation"..."create"..."created"

As a matter I don't argue with religious people these days...but this is an interesting one.

You seem hung up on the word "create" - as if that word can only mean something produced by your God.

I dont think that so if you want to argue you'll have to find someone who thinks that the word "create" can only mean something produced by God.

Verb - Middle English createn, borrowed from Latin creātus, past participle of creāre "to bring into being, beget, give birth to, cause to grow," causative derivative from the base of crēscere "to come into existence, increase in size or numbers, grow"

That's nice.

Why do you feel this word excludes natural process?

I dont think that so you'll have to find someone else to defend that strawman.

Words can mean lots of things to lots of people. "Natural" can mean different things to different people too.

In this thread there's a distinction being made between deliberate creation and unintentional creation.

Can a cause create an effect? If not, why not?

You mean can God create an effect? Sure.
Can humans create the same effect? Sure.

Ok, but also in your first post in this thread...

"Created.
Great.
Another win for Team Creationists"

it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.

Yup, I was gonna say the same thing.

Of course he’s being disingenuous, and there is no “strawman” here. That’s exactly what he thinks, that “create” means by God, and while humans may replicate God’s “creations” nothing can be created naturally without mind behind it. Unfortunately for him, evolution shows just the opposite.

I just wanted to know what was going on there - it is probably a question of semantics. Lion IRC can chime in here....Is pood correct? Are you saying that man can only replicate God's creations? Therefore the word "create" can only apply to the original creation of everything?

Not really trying to argue...just want to know what the train of thought is here. Your posts were pretty vague about that.

 

[Lion IRC]

it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.

Yes, deliberately copying another caused event does seem like a win for the idea that events are deliberately caused rather than spontaneous.

 

[pood]

it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.

Yes, deliberately copying another caused event does seem like a win for the idea that events are deliberately caused rather than spontaneous.

So you DO feel that the word “create” excludes natural processes and hence, contrary to your claim, no one made a straw man of your position at all. Got it. And, of course, taking note of your straw man, natural causation and creation is not (necessarily) spontaneous, though there are those pesky virtual particles …

 

[Lion IRC]

it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.

Yes, deliberately copying another caused event does seem like a win for the idea that events are deliberately caused rather than spontaneous.

So you DO feel that the word “create” excludes natural processes

No.

Humans deliberately copying another caused event is a natural process.

and hence, contrary to your claim, no one made a straw man of your position at all.

No. They made a strawman of someone ELSE'S position.

Thats what a strawman is. You take someone elses position and knock it down mistakenly thinking that you've knocked down my position

I dont think that the word "create" excludes natural processes.

...natural causation and creation is not (necessarily) spontaneous

I know. Thats what I've been saying.

...though there are those pesky virtual particles …

They aren't pesky.
God can create any sort of particles He wants.

 

[bilby]

Humans deliberately copying another caused event is a natural process.

Humans deliberately copying an event thought to have happened in the past, to determine whether it actually can have happened or not, is a natural process.

Describing that event in the past as "caused" is just the logical fallacy of assuming your preferred conclusion.

 

[Lion IRC]

Humans deliberately copying another caused event is a natural process.

Humans deliberately copying an event thought to have happened in the past, to determine whether it actually can have happened or not, is a natural process.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Here. I'll repeat it.

"Humans deliberately copying another caused event is a natural process."

Describing that event in the past as "caused" is just the logical fallacy of assuming your preferred conclusion.

There's no logical fallacy in thinking your conclusion is correct.

But your conspicuous lack of arguments for unpredictable, spontaneous, uncaused events tells me a lot about your assumed preferences.

 

[pood]

it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.

Yes, deliberately copying another caused event does seem like a win for the idea that events are deliberately caused rather than spontaneous.

So you DO feel that the word “create” excludes natural processes

No.

Humans deliberately copying another caused event is a natural process.

It would be nice if you would stop slipping around, moving goalposts and otherwise dodging the issue.

Evolution by means of natural selection, genetic drift and other factors involves no creator at all, not God, not intelligent design. Do you agree that these things happen, and do so without intelligent design, foresight, or intent? Yes or no?

and hence, contrary to your claim, no one made a straw man of your position at all.

No. They made a strawman of someone ELSE'S position.

Thats what a strawman is. You take someone elses position and knock it down mistakenly thinking that you've knocked down my position

I dont think that the word "create" excludes natural processes.

But you just DEFINED a natural process as “humans copying another caused event,” which is true, since everything is natural, BUT, the question at hand is, do you think the word “create” can involve non-intelligent, non-supernatural, non-intended outcomes? Yes or no?

...natural causation and creation is not (necessarily) spontaneous

I know. Thats what I've been saying.

No, you haven’t.

...though there are those pesky virtual particles …

They aren't pesky.
God can create any sort of particles He wants.

So, according to you, God creates everything. When hydrogen and oxygen atoms stick together to create water, is God moving the two together between thumb and index finger? Or not? Does God, or his delegated angels, push the planets and moons together to orbit each other and the sun?