Nadja, who were your last two posts addressing? This is a huge thread so it's hard to keep individual comments/replies straight.

If you could use the Quote function (just click quote instead of reply) it would be helpful.

Thanks!

{edited for spelling} 

yeah when i used this thing without having mozzilla firefox the quote box was completely differant so i had to get used to not unsing it, it was confusing with all sorts of ({[< and it was easier to copy and paste, then the site basically forces you to download mozzila by constanly making it pop up at the top of the screen and totally messing up my post, so when i finally downloaded it i was already used to copying and pasting, now that you have mentioned it and i looked at quote again, it is alot easier then copy paste, so thanks for showing me the tutorial.

He's been told that many times. What he has to say is pretty unintelligible anyway just ignore him.

Scottmax,

Thank you for your interest. Yes, I'd prefer if Brian and Kelly speak for themselves and answer the question directly. While we’re waiting for them to answer, we might as well discuss some of the issues you brought up. First, it's difficult to take seriously your suggestion that the philosophers I listed may be rational with respect to science, logic, and philosophy, yet suddenly irrational just when it comes to their belief in God. You claim that "it is often a problem of compartmentalizing". For the sake of argument, I'll grant you this claim. Even so, it's not at all obvious that the analytic philosophers I listed have this problem; far from it, their philosophical work and their theistic inclinations are deeply integrated. And again, they represent but a mere fraction of analytic theists. There are others: Alexander Pruss, Peter Forrest, Michael Bergmann, William Vallicella, Lynn Rudder Baker, Robert Koons, Douglas Groothius, Hud Hudson, Richard Davis, Eleonore Stump, Robin Collins, Peter van Inwagen, William Alston, Keith Derose, Michael Sudduth, and hundreds more.

Are you really prepared to claim that all of those theistic philosophers coincidentally manage to suffer from this "compartmentalizing" problem? What textual evidence in their work can you point me to that would verify their tendency to “compartmentalize” their beliefs? If you can’t point to any, then how exactly do you know that they have the problem? Do you know any of them personally enough to say with confidence that they have the problem?

And does RRS really expect us to believe that these thinkers are utterly irrational -- that they are malfunctioning somehow -- to the extent that they believe in God? Does this not seem arrogant in excelsis? What about figures in history who accepted some form of theism, like Aristotle, Plato, Leibniz, Spinoza, Berkeley, Whitehead, Gödel, Cantor, etc.? Are they also irrational qua theists? What insight into rationality do you and RRS have that hundreds of the most brilliant minds throughout history and up to the present unfortunately missed out on? Have you or RRS taken the time to read most -- or for that matter, even a small portion -- of the work done by the contemporary philosophers above? Seems not (at least, you haven’t). So what is your basis for the sweeping generalization that their theistic beliefs are manifestly irrational? Even if I grant you that, say, a dozen of them are irrational, what about all the rest?

Moreover, why should we believe that these thinkers all suffer from full-blown mental disorders? What relevant psychological research have you and the members of RRS conducted to arrive at this conclusion? When it comes to you personally, it turns out: none at all. Your only basis for claiming that theists have a mental disorder is that it seems to you, now that you are a nonbeliever (how convenient), that they tie themselves in “logical knots”. This is a flimsy basis for such a controversial claim, and one wonders what you mean by “logical knots” (more on this below). RRS hopefully has more to offer than mere personal perspective. RRS wants everybody to believe that they extol the virtues of science; if they are really scientifically responsible, then surely they have the relevant scientific evidence for their claim that theism is a “mind disorder”. I have thus far been unable to find any living psychologists who have been led from long-term research, using widely accepted research methodologies, to the conclusion that theism is a mental disorder. Perhaps RRS did the work themselves? How long did their research last, did it take place in a controlled environment, how many subjects were involved, and was everything recorded and well-documented? Would the methodology behind their research be accepted by working psychologists? If not, then isn’t it scientifically irresponsible of RRS to claim that theism is a mental disorder?

Many neuroscientists and philosophers of mind, both theists and naturalists, believe that there are certain areas of the brain that contribute to a variety of religious experiences. But none of them, from my reading, classify this process as a full-blown “mental disorder”. This is partly why I ask that RRS clarify their claims.

You say you would like to see a "rational defense" of theism, so the obvious question is what your standards of a "rational defense" amount to. As it turns out, your understanding of rationality is not too strict (I suspect Brian and Kelly will have much higher standards). Basically, you think a person S is rational in believing p if and only if there is no contradiction to be found in the set of S's beliefs that support p. By "support" I take you to mean logical support. For two beliefs B1 and B2, B1 logically supports B2, let’s say, if and only if (roughly) B2 can be validly inferred from B1 either deductively, inductively, or abductively. So much for the fist clause of your definition. Your second clause involves the idea of S being able to answer objections against p, should they arise, without thereby engaging in formal contradiction. Assuming standard first order propositional logic, a formal contradiction is a proposition of the form p and ~p. I will accept your definition, for the sake of argument.

Based on your definition of rationality, then, to "rationally defend theism" a theist must defend her belief in God against objections without collapsing into contradiction (i.e. without having of a belief of the form p and ~p). She must not support her belief in theism with any contradictory beliefs.

I volunteer. I'll be glad to rationally defend my theistic beliefs against your objections. Feel free to raise them in your next post. If you find no contradictions (and you won't) lurking in my defense, what will you do? Will you concede the point that one can be rational in believing theism? Will you tweak your definition of rationality? It'll be interesting to find out. (You’ve already alluded to “the” problem of evil; please state the exact version you have in mind, with numbered premises and conclusions, since there are many floating around now. Are you referring to the traditional logical version, or Rowe's evidential version, or Draper's, or what?)

Getting back to your defense and clarification of the idea that theism is a “mind disorder”. Why exactly do you think this? What does it mean? Well, you say, you can just see “the logical knots that theists must tie themselves up in just to make the beliefs make sense”. So your basis is unscientific; it amounts to personal opinion, absent of any ancillary psychological case studies. But let that pass. Now, you obviously haven’t read a sufficient amount of the work done by the philosophers above to support your claim that they all suffer from mental disorders (if you have, then feel free to quote and exposit the portions of their work where they "tie themselves in logical knots&quot. I doubt you know them personally. So it turns out that your claim doesn’t have a lot going for it.

Best,

W. Gavagai

I realize that this was addressed to Scottmax, but I'd like to take a couple swipes at some of this stuff. 

There are few other conclusions to draw when it is well established that belief in God does not rest on rational grounds. Major Church theologians have admitted this, including heavyweights like Aquinas and Augustine. The Roman Catholic Church understands that belief in God is matter of faith, not reason...why don't you?

Please support this statement. As Scottmax pointed out, he couldn't see anywhere where the thinkers you mention presented a rational proof of God. As for compartmentalization, we are as being as charitable as we can toward people that we acknowledge are rational in all other things. We could come right out and accuse them of intellectual dishonesty, but that's a harsh charge on no evidence.

Your lists smack of an appeal to authority. Even as an appeal to authority, they somewhat lack weight unless we are directed to actual writings where these wonderful analysts provide a rational defence for belief in God. 

You first. You are the one claiming that these men held/hold rationally founded beliefs in God. Either show us evidence that this is true, or admit that we don't know why they believe in God. Again, compartmentalization is something we throw out as a plausible theory because we know from psychology that people can do this. All we are saying is that we don't understand any better than you how these otherwise rational men could hold the irrational belief in God.

You can stop trying to beat us down with your constant appeals to the authority of these wonderful thinkers. Unless you can show where they specifically addressed the issues, their names alone aren't going to impress us. I for one don't mind appearing arrogant as long as I'm right. 

You are also presenting a strawman when you ask us if we think these men are irrational overall. It is their God belief which is irrational, not the men themselves.

You may also wish to be cautious in appealing to ancients like Aristotle and Plato. They were simply labouring under a condition where they had so little data about the world that it is hardly surprising that they came to flawed conclusions. Most of the scientific thought of these thinkers has been disproven, and their utterances regarding God should suffer the same fate.

You are also on shaky ground claiming, with certainty, that pre-20th century thinkers were definitely theists. It is only in the last 100 years or so that people have been able to be openly atheist without prohibitive social or even physical consequences. Many people simply went to church, observed the rites of their family's religion and kept their private opinions to themselves. And it is often irrelevant to point to a person's theism when religion is not their field of study. Lots of very intelligent people just go along with the herd and claim membership in a religion because it is the default position and they really haven't bothered to apply themselves to the questions involved.

The RRS is presenting an opinion, not a peer-reviewed paper for the journals. One source of support is Dawkins (a guy who knows more about such things that either of us) who likens the propagation of the idea of religion in the mind to the propagation of a virus in the DNA code of a cell.  Read the God Delusion for more about the theory.

The fact is that we call people with irrational beliefs insane, in every arena except religion. If you had no awareness of religion, what would you make of a man on the street, waving around a book claiming that it was authored by an invisible being who was going to judge you after you were dead? And, further, that this being had turned himself into a human so that he could be tortured to death as punishment because other people broke the laws he made? It's a garden variety paranoid delusion.

I'd only say it becomes a disorder when it drives a person to irrational beliefs and behaviour. Our brains also have centres that provide sexual feeling, but we don't call that a disorder either until someone starts obsessively stalking members of the opposite sex.

Blah blah blah whatever. We all know what a rational defence is.

No, no, no, no. No shifting the burden of proof allowed. You tell us why you think there is a God and then we'll present our objections.

It turns out that you are overly eager to call a lot of people stupid and uneducated when nothing could be further from the truth. I think you'll find that many, many people on this site know a lot more about this stuff than you do. Your ridiculous assertion that belief in God can be arrived at through rational means is proof enough that you are out of your league. Disagree? Then show us what you've got.

Why do you believe there's a God? 

is the designer designed? how do i know, how many times does it take to explain a simple fact, i can not infer into something i do not observe, i can only infer from that which i observe, so again, i observe that the wing of a bird is designed, then I infer the designer, please explain what is so hard about that to understand?

im sorry but while the shoe is inside of the shoe factory everything around him is designed, i can not point you to something that is not designed becasue the entire universe is designed, i can show you a design, you will agree that the wing of the bird is designed will you not? or the wing of a 747 jumbo jet? ill show you a human heart and then ill show you a robotic artificial heart, as you can see they are all designed, we can recognize design using the abstract reasoning of our brain, much as we can also understand the concept of time.

No, i am not "jumping" to a conclusion that the universe is designed, do you "jump" to the conclusion that the artificial heart is designed, or the wing of the jumbo jet, how about the artificial heart, are you "jumping" to conclusions that their is an inherent concept within the item that indeed makes it designed?

and why do you need to know my qualifications for something that is "not designed", hmmmm, why is an example of something designed not good enough for you?

how can i show you something which does not exist, such as also you can not show me that God does not exist.

I do not know the designer personally so i dont know if it is a he, she, it, them, or whatever, sorry i used "he" it is a common mistake when reffering to something as such i used it earlier to refer to all intellectuals, saying "men of reason" well i also meant woman, and girls and boys and children, so, i was not stating that the designer is a "he".

gotta head to the pool right now, ill answer the rest of yer post when i get back later, magus.

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes and removed white space at end of post]

 (the quote thing isnt working for some odd reason)

magus, contemplating deeply says,

Isn't intelligence a process that in and of itself needs some sort of values to even exist, kind of like how the universe needs the natural law? I guess I would ask how your "designer" acquired these properties or this intelligence? I ask this because I need some ground into understanding what exactly can be done without design in your mind.

is intelligence a "process", i do not think so, it is more of an "attribute" of awareness. what do you mean without a "design" in my mind, Why do I need a design in my mind, take the example of stonehenge, we do not know who designed it but we can infer things about the people that did design it by its design, they obviously were studiers of astrology for instance. who says that the "designer" of the universe does not have value to exist, that would be jumping to conclusions that you can not observe from your perspective. please explain deeper the concept you have with "designer in mind" I am not really getting what yer trying to say, so it is hard to answer the question of "what can be done" without a "designer in mind"

[Magus contemplating deeply replies,] 

 Isn't intelligence a process? How did you designer have this process without it in and of itself without being designed? I see you on your most resent post said "How said the designer doesn't have a designer... This is the paradox I was talking about, a recursive loop. Designed designed by designer who is designed by a designer, ect... Or at some point something didn't need design. For right now the only things we have to go on is the natural laws... If I can find a designer or process that created those natural laws I will change my perspective. I shouldn't assume there is more, unless I have an idea on how to determine such. 

I do not assume a designer, it is logically inferred, their is a big differance, I do not understand why you can not fathom this simple concept, what exactly am I "assuming" , its all about logic, "the wing of the bird is designed" therfore " their is a designer", im not "assuming" their is a designer. and about the loop, how do you know that it is not as you say it is, a recirsive loop of designs and we are the center point of their designs, as we design no universe, if I can show you the end of the design proccess, which is this universe, why can you also not infer that it could have a beggining.

gatogreensleeves said:

The typing monkeys scenario was in regard to DNA, which is unquestionably ordered and non-random. Thus Perakh's "reading" order in random sequences where it does not exist is an absurd analogy in relation to the genetic code.

It doesn't matter where you think you derive your meaning from, the point is that you DO feel your life has meaning even though the materialist implication is that meaning does not exist. That is quite telling. It is also a major inconsistency for that world view.

My example was merely to point out that omniscience alone does not negate free will, in the same way your knowing the outcome of some event does not make you responsible for it.

As for humans (or God) needing to experience evil as a perpetrator before understanding it, I couldn't disagree more. Ravi Zacharias made a very good point when he alluded to the fact that it is not the rapist who understands the depth of evil in the act he commits, but the one who is raped.

In other words, the victim of the evil understands the horrors far more intimately than the person who commits the act. And as I stated before, Jesus experienced the evil from that vantage point. Thus He has a far better understanding of it than anyone.

You answer that as if you do not have to devote any of your intellectual energy to determining whether or not a "fetus" (which, btw is the latin term for OFFSPRING or INFANT), is really a person.

I think Dr. Seuss put it best when he said "A person's a person no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who.

I personally can't think of any instances where selfishness is seen as a virtue no matter what the outcome. If you can, please elaborate. So I used the word generally because there can be exceptions to the rule.

Defiling the Sabbath day was in essence blasphemy against God and the resulting penalty was death, this has not changed. Likewise, beating a slave with the intent to kill was punishable by a penalty to be determined by the Judges.

The second instance, though, seems to be describing a case where the intent was not to kill the slave thus the owner would not be punished since the loss of the slave was deemed penalty enough.

As to the overall justice of the institution of slavery and whether or not it was "ethical" for Israelis (or anyone else) to own slaves requires more thought. During that period in the Ancient Near East, slavery for Israelis was both an option (i.e. to keep from falling into severe poverty) and sometimes a requirement (as in the case of a not being able to repay a debt.) But the fact that there were laws set up to ensure that slaves were not killed without impugnity was an ethical way to guard against abuse of your fellow man. Eventually, Israeli slaves could redeem themselves or choose to remain a slave. So it seems that this particular system more closely paralleled an employer/employee relationship than the system of slavery we are familiar with.

As for American slavery, this was a different animal all together. Not only did the slave traders "steal" people from various lands (a direct violation of Leviticus 20:16 where the offenders would have been put to death), but owners were not punished at all for harming slaves.

As to whether or not God views certain sins as being more or less evil, like I said, all sin is deserving of death. To hasten that death in response to certain sins is certainly God's perrogative. Since He is able to see the far reaching consequences for the various sins, it would make sense that He could assign varying degrees of punishment. If a particular sin would cause exceeding harm to the nation in general (as in the case of Blasphemy), then it should receive the swifter punishment.

The 3rd Chapter of Galatians and also the 4th chapter of Romans addresses what makes a person righteous. As Paul states: "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness...But to him who does not work but believes on [God] who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin." (Romans 4:3-8)

So all Old Testament saints who put their trust in God were declared righteous because, by their faith, their sins would be covered by Christ's sacrifice in the future. Thus the timing of Christ's first advent did not preclude anyone who lived prior from receiving salvation.

Ritual laws are moral laws in the sense that by maintaining ceremonial cleanness a person was showing reverence to God. When the perfect sacrifice occurred (i.e. Christ's sacrifice) believers are declared "clean" by their faith in Him.

The OT rituals were merely a shadow of the sacrifice that was to come, so even though they were part of an overall system in which sins were "covered", they could not remit sins completely. Only Jesus' death could accomplish that.

As I said above, the Sabbath was ethical in the since that man showed his faith in God and His providence by obstaining from work. Essentially, it had a double purpose: 1.) for man to rest and 2.) to show he trusted God.

Well, again, your statement is arguing for some sort of dichotomy between the brain and the mind, which is what I've been maintaining all along. If the brain is the "car" and the mind is the "driver" that can "control" the car, then you have only proved my point, not yours.

Adding a qualifier does not affect whether or not a law is absolute, it simply ensures that the offender will be clearly identifiable.

O.k. you are trying to make a point from the "post fall" perspective. God made humans and everything else perfect from the beginning, however when man chose to rebel against God and remove himself from God's provision, that is when man became subject to death and imperfection. So the vitamin C gene in humans and apes was probably functional at one time, but now is not. Everything is in a state of decay now, not only bodily or physically, but genetically. As Romans 5:12 says "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:". Likewise all of creation was subjected to the same through Adam's rebellion (Romans 8:20).

So making the argument "why did God design things so poorly" really isn't very compelling once you understand that the imperfect state we observe is not the way it was originally intended to be.

I'm not exactly sure what you think "horse toes" and "chicken teeth" are supposed to prove other than the fact that scientist's have a biased interpretation of animal structures.

Yes, but order is due to the inherent abilities placed in the animal or plant via its DNA, not from "random" factors.  Which brings us back to square one where we are haggling over whether or not God is responsible for the formation of DNA or the unlikely alternative that DNA formed itself.

You are exactly right. God does know how much evidence you need. Maybe even if you were presented with all the evidence in the world, you would still choose to rebel against God, that's why He doesn't give you more.

But I like to think that perhaps you are still in the process of gathering that evidence as we speak and will come to believe at a later date. Call me an optimist .

There are multiple discussions going on in this thread which have veered sharply from the original intent of this thread.

Since everything is intermixed, it is impossible for the mods to split out the posts and start new threads in the appropriate forums.  (When individual posts are moved, it's more than likely going to move posts not associated with the individual topic.)

Could the participants please start new threads in the appropriate forums and take the discussions there?  You can always post a link at the end of this thread so interested parties can find it.

Thank you. 

Tilberian and Scottmax:

Thanks for your replies. We'd probably all agree that the burden of proof is usually on the one pushing a positive claim.  Let me review the exchange so far. Scottmax, along with RRS, make the following claim.

Claim: theists are irrational to the extent that they believe in God.

I pointed out several analytic theist philosophers who believe in God. Now, since the burden of proof usually falls on the one who advances a positive claim, and since Scottmax and RRS made the claim above, I asked that they (1) clarify their claim, and (2) support their claim by pointing out the irrationality of these philosophers’ theistic beliefs.

To be perfectly clear, then, I’ve not come here claiming a la Comfort that I can provide "proof" of God’s existence. My project is modest and reasonable. I’ve merely come here asking you guys to articulate and defend your claim that theism is irrational. (Thus, the issue was never about me or anybody else providing a rational “proof” of theism, contrary to Tilberian’s interpretation of the exchange. Moreover, my purpose in providing those lists of theistic philosophers was not to argue from “here are philosophers who are rational and who believe in God” to “therefore, theism is rational”; I agree with Tilberian that if I had done that, I might have been verging on some sort of appeal to authority. But I’ve not done that. I’ve asked for Scottmax and RRS to support their claim by showing me how those philosophers are irrational. I think at most I've suggested that they're brilliant and that they are respected in the philosophical community as rational thinkers, and certainly that much is true.)

Scottmax is apparently having difficulty locating articles where those philosophers express their belief in theism. Fine, let's spare ourselves some time and make it easy: I believe that God exists. So Scottmax, you think I am irrational as a result. Recall your definition of rationality. As follows: a person's belief in some proposition p is rational if and only if all propositions supporting that belief are non-contradictory and all objections proposed for that belief can likewise be answered without contradiction.

So as I say, I believe in God. In reporting my belief, I have not asserted any formal contradiction.  Nor is it clear that there is some contradiction on which I must rely to hold my belief in God. Nor have I contradicted myself when defending my belief in God against various objections. (This last remark is true simply in virtue of the fact that you've not raised any objections yet.) So far, then, I have satisfied the conditions in your definition. 

Of course, this doesn’t mean God exists. It’s possible for one to be rational in believing some proposition even though the proposition in question is false. I hope the issue is clear now. It’s not about whether God in fact exists, nor have I ever said that I will provide a “proof” of his existence in this thread; it’s about whether one can be rational in believing that God exists. This distinction is uncontroversial. In fact, it is accepted by most philosophers of religion. And epistemologists in general accept the distinction between the truth value of a proposition and one's belief in a proposition.  I’ve merely reported my belief in God. And it appears to conform to Scottmax’s definition of rational belief. Of course, he might have some reasons to think that my belief is actually irrational. I await such reasons.

Cheers,

Gavagai

P.S. Tilberian, attentive readers will notice that I never once claimed (implicitly or explicitly) that the members of this forum are "stupid" and/or "uneducated". You seem to think I have, though. So I apologize if anything I've said has offended you personally. 

Firefox has nothing to do with the Quote function. If had actually clicked on the tutorial link that has been given to you many times you would have seen that. 

Someone went to all the trouble to create a tutorial to teach even the simplest of minds how to use the Quote function and you can't figure that out but you are calling someone else an idiot?

Theist is spelled "T h e i s t". You can't spell Theist and you are calling educated people idiots. This is what I was saying about the Christian Nazi's. They fear education. If this person was educated he would not have been so easily brainwashed.

Now that the mods have stepped in and are requesting that the numerous tangential discussions be taken to other threads, I would like to reiterate some questions about the debate that I'd asked earlier.

Is any of the following likely to be made available at this or some other site in some convenient format?

Video - yes I saw it at ABC's site, but it came in awkward pieces

Audio

Transcript

My discussion with Scottmax has been moved here:  

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7547

 Thanks, Tilberian.

- W. Gavagai

My response to theist1's universe hypothesis is continued here...

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7556

Obnoxiousbroad says,


(How you think VoM's comments support you is beyond comprehension.)

I was admiring his contemplation about the possibilities of the designer, that is how you come to understand abstract truths about the universe, through contemplation, although his theory had one major mistake and flaw. He said in point 2 that

(02. Designed a factory to manufacture this design)

Where in the analogy did this occur? Because in the analogy the Design would be manufactured abstractly in the mind of a human, not in a factory, he makes no sense, why would I design a factory to then design the design for an airplane, its ridiculous what he asserts, but as I said I am admiring his use of contemplation.


Obnoxiousbroad says,

That would, if I read the Bible correctly, mean prayer... which is equally as effective as finger-crossing. I'll stick with that.

What crack did you smoke? Who the hell is talking about the bible? Are you obsessed with the bible? Do you filter all of your knowledge through the bible to see if it is acceptable or not? don’t even bring up the bible during this conversation, its ridiculous. We should go by the rules of the original debate between Kirk and Sapient, so please do not refer to the bible again.


Obnoxiousbroad says

(You didn't say "women's breasts," and even with surgery, no man will ever lactate. I'll also throw in that there are many women whose breasts don't function properly; you'd think their "designer" wouldn't make such small, but significant, mistakes. )

Do you know the designer personally? Does he not make imperfections? Wow, I didn’t know you knew so much about the “designer” to actually know that he is perfect, wow, hook me up with his phone number dude.


Obnoxiousbroad says,

(No need to be rude.
Humans with technology mimicking what's found in nature does not substantiate your claim that the universe is designed, but it's obviously what you believe. You have faith and an opinion, but neither of those things are evidence.)


Just returning the favor to the RRS, I would insist that you do the same for me, but don’t worry I wont call you a “nimrod” if we ever have a formal debate on national T.V.

Just answer the questions that I posed, It is “evident” that an artificial heart is designed, it is also evident that a human heart is designed,  Tell me what the difference is? Because if something is “evident” I can use it as “Evidence” can I not?



Obnoxiousbroad says

As an aside, your analogies are, to be kind, baffling. But I'll try to work with this one. When Boeing designs a jet they plan to put into production, they build that jet - the end result. The factory must then be set up to get it built. If Boeing is analogous to your designer, then they'd have to build every earlier version of flying machine (including those that failed) before that jet rolled off the line.

See you also can contemplate, but I guess you can not recognize sarcasm……..


Obnoxiousbroad says,

There's" - it's a contraction of "there is." And you're being rude again.
Again I'll ask how VoM's comment supports your assertion. Can we observe a safety valve that will shut down evolution? I know for sure we can observe how some forms of life (or biological/physical systems) have evolved which have deleterious effects on various species' chances of survival; including human beings, who are assumed to be the crowning achievement of a "designer." And some mutations that we observe are either a help or hindrance depending on where or when that population is. Sickle Cell Anemia kept people from dying of malaria when the mutation occurred, but now it creates negative health consequences for those with the trait. That seems about as far from evidence for design as I can imagine.
You have yet to provide evidence that the natural world is designed by some sort of otherwordly sentience, rather than simply arranged in recognizable patterns that emerge as one studies the form and function of the things around them. We know Stonehenge was designed because we know human beings were capable of such things at that time. We can't possibly say the same for the universe or even any small part of it when the empirical, observable, falsifiable evidence points elsewhere.

Again, I was admiring his ability to contemplate upon the possibilities of the design, and the designer,

That’s a nice opinion that you have on the design, but as usual not supported by any logic, its just your opinion, as I have said before, Evolution is a “process” do you understand that word?
A Process does not design things, a “Design-ER” does, a Process is the subject of a “Design-er” to “produce” the “item” that was “design-ed“.  So who “Design-ed” the human heart obnoxious?

He also fled from me rather than answer my points. 

I did try to post a response to this but apparently something went wrong... 

Multidimensional universe theory has no implications for awareness.  

If you want to break down all boundaries between objects. Do you really want to do that? Because then there is no frame of reference at all and everything you think and say is irrelevant. 

No, I said we CAN'T know the position of the particle. As in, the information doesn't exist. As in the particle occupies a random position within a probability field. 

Because we can observe that not everything in the universe has the same characteristics. I am intelligent. The beer bottle on my desk isn't. Therefore we have no reason to believe that the universe is an intelligent entity unless we see it acting as such. We haven't.

i dont want you to think i am ignoring you, i am tired and do not feel like typing, i will respond to you tommorow after work.

im at work so i will wait to respond to your posts tilberion and maya, because i want to get home first before i deconstruct your assertions, for now i just wanted to post something for you to ponder.

An artificial heart is Design-ED through the process of manufacturing

Who is the design-ER?

The Human Heart is design-ED through the process of Evolution

Who is the design-ER?

All things design-ED require a design-ER.

Evolution and Manufacturing are the “process” of design,

Therefore they can not be the design-ER.

The designer of the artificial heart is “man”

The designer of the Human heart is “God”.

I can define man as the "design-er" of the artificial heart.

Therfore I can define “God” as the “Design-er” of the Human heart.

Prove my theory wrong with the use of LOGIC and not OPINION, because it seems that both of you do not understand the differance.

Psychologically: happiness.  Physiologically: the propogation of species.  We appeal to both.  Your turn to answer my questions extrabiblically.

Of course it does.  It's in your "good book" with the qualifier that it is an "instruction in righteousness." (2 Tim. 3:15)

What we are determining here is the qualification of crime fitting the punishment between God's laws.  You are ignoring this issue.

indeed i am home now and I did put the wrong words into the definitional theorum, which i will restate, but I think you might have missed the point of the theorum.

The universe is a concrete reality, God is an Abstract reality, therefore, to understand and define God we must "link" the abstract reality to the concrete reality, I was actually trying to give you the definition of "my God", as you can see I should have used the word produced in the first part of the theorum, not designed, i was at work and wasnt paying alot of attention. here is the proper definitional theorum for the definition of my God.

The artificial heart is designed, it is produced through the proccess of manufacturing.

who is the designer?

The human heart is designed, it is produced through the process of evolution.

who is the designer?

 All things designed require a desiger.

 Evolution and Manufacturing are the “process” of design, Therefore they can not be the designer.

The designer of the artificial heart is man.

The designer of the human heart is "My God"

The Human Heart exists, therefore "My God" exists.