Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Faustus5]

Yes I CAN quote the parts of scripture in the Bible that explains evolution, naturally, by natural selection, to me, which, by the way explains it in the most simplest and easiest way.

No, you absolutely cannot do this, and are just making excuses. You aren't fooling anyone.

[Mans]

Dear Steve

It is not an old and classic expression in the discussions but is a basic logic which offer this belief that:

"the regularity in the the nature and things is the sign of intelligence and the representation of an intelligent regulator".

You can find the numerous books about molecules and atoms in the libraries, academies and universities that are the result of research and study of many scientists in this field during these two centuries, and the researches continue so!

The regularity and wonderful array of molecules, atoms and crystals in the substances with interminable formulas and calculating that ordinary people can't understand them!


Atoms themselves speak with our logic





We are not speaking about the regularity and order in the molecule and atoms of a substance, but are talking about various molecule and atoms in milliards element and complex substances in the universe.

Something is seen in these numerous substances commonly and that is regularity and order in their molecules and atoms that are the smallest components of those objects. We can't find something in our world to be out of this general rule and have had a irregular structure.

Now we ignore the life and biological and organic things that follow the same regularity and are more complex and mysterious than inanimate things.

So the relation between regularity and its intelligent originator is a general and permanent logic and is not included over time.

[Sculptor1]

Sorry to inform you but my socks were created by Marks & Spencer.

And who and/or what were those "marks" and "spencer" things created by?

I think you assume too much.
Eventually you get to a point where the green slime on the surface of a planet just got greener through nature.

[Sculptor1]

Yes I CAN quote the parts of scripture in the Bible that explains evolution, naturally, by natural selection, to me, which, by the way explains it in the most simplest and easiest way.

It is simply not in the Bible.
Please show where!

[Terrapin Station]

But I NEVER assumed any such thing. I even used the 'if' word, as evidenced by my written words. Therefore, IF God is said to have created every thing, by someone, then, to them, every thing, including ALL individual socks is evidence.

The rest eliminated for irrelevance.

Start over then. I'm not asking you to answer for other people ("to them"). Answer for you. So give your answer, not what might be someone else's answer. How is a sock evidence for God?

[Steve3007]

It is not an old and classic expression in the discussions...

You're familiar with William Paley's watchmaker analogy, yes?

(When I referred to this as "a classic argument" I didn't mean anything pejorative. I simply meant that it's an argument that many people have made on previous occasions.)

[Terrapin Station]

It is not an old and classic expression in the discussions...

You're familiar with William Paley's watchmaker analogy, yes?

(When I referred to this as "a classic argument" I didn't mean anything pejorative. I simply meant that it's an argument that many people have made on previous occasions.)

The only reasonable way to conclude that a watch was made by a sentient being is via empirical evidence that watches (and/or very similar artifacts) are the sorts of things that sentient beings make. You need direct empirical evidence of people making things like watches. Without that evidence, there would be no good ground for concluding that there was any intelligence behind a watch.

[Sculptor1]

It is not an old and classic expression in the discussions...

You're familiar with William Paley's watchmaker analogy, yes?

(When I referred to this as "a classic argument" I didn't mean anything pejorative. I simply meant that it's an argument that many people have made on previous occasions.)

It's a poor argument. Watches do not reproduce over generations. There is no life and death struggle to be able to tell the time.

[Steve3007]

I'm not interested in the quality of the argument. I was just trying to establish with Mans that that is the argument he is making. As I said, it's an argument that's been had over and over and over and over and over again so I'm not personally interesting in critiquing it again, which would involve mentioning such things as bacterial flagella and the recurrent laryngeal nerve. I wanted to know what arguments against it Mans has heard to see if there's any possibility of anything new.

[Mans]

It is not an old and classic expression in the discussions...

You're familiar with William Paley's watchmaker analogy, yes?

(When I referred to this as "a classic argument" I didn't mean anything pejorative. I simply meant that it's an argument that many people have made on previous occasions.)

Yes, I understood what was your mean and I didn't get it as a pejorative purpose.

You did mean, that is the reason that people bring as a theorem and logical example, often. I don't know who is William Paley but I guess he is a famous western philosopher, who believes in the creator of the world and has discussed in this background comprehensively.
Probably he has told, despite the regularity and orderly systems in the universe the autonomous evolution of materials by themselves is not acceptable. If this philosopher has expressed such the doctrine, I will confirm that.

You requested me to bring a new proof that is different with the general one. Well, I can bring such the new evidence from God, but you need to interpret it with the nowadays medical sciences!

o people, if you are in doubt about the resurrection, remember that we first created you from dust, then, from a sperm drop, then from a clot, and then from shaped tissue formed and unshaped, so that we might clarify for you. we establish in the wombs whatever we will for an appointed term, and then we bring you forth as infants, then you come of age. some of you die, and some of you are kept back to the vilest state of life, after knowing somewhat, they know nothing. and you see the earth dry; but no sooner do we send down rain upon it than it begins to quiver and swell, putting forth every fine variety (of herbage). (5)

Please note, this is the word of God that was sent down about 1400 years ago; when the nowadays medical science, research and technological devices such as developed X-Ray, Sonography and CT scan systems (that can detect the fetus in the womb of his/her mother) didn't exist and the old people and physicians didn't know the phases of evolution of a secret fetus in the womb of a woman, notably. At the time which the chemistry medical didn't exist in the world, and people were treated with natural herbal medicines.

[Mans]

In the verse, Dust does mean the solvable elements in the soil that plants use to grow, such as Zinc, iron, Manganese and so on.

[Steve3007]

I don't know who is William Paley but I guess he is a famous western philosopher, who believes in the creator of the world and has discussed in this background comprehensively.

Given your area of interest I'm very, very surprised that you haven't previously heard of Paley's watch/watchmaker analogy.

You requested me to bring a new proof that is different with the general one.

No, I was assuming that you must have previously discussed this with others and was interested in hearing what arguments you've encountered against your position. Hence:

Have you discussed it previously with others? If so, what kinds of arguments against it did you encounter? Were any of them interesting? Given that it's such a well worn subject it would be interesting to try to find a new angle.

But if you've never encountered any opposition, no worries.

I can't really make out an argument in what you're saying but I presume it's something along the lines of "some stuff that couldn't possibly have been known at the time was written down a long time ago. Therefore God." It's a very well worn one. It's been said many times in this forum before. I'm not really interested in discussing it again. But if it's what you believe, go for it.

[Mans]

Steve, what you are looking for? Who you are interested to discuss with? Apparently you consider me as a raw person for discussion and wish for an expert and modernist one?

You also suppose the verse that I brought as a scientific witness is old without you pay attention to its contents and points, while the verse cover all the history out of any particular time.

God has predicted such the cursory and emotional thinking against his words:

"whenever our verses are recited to them, they say: 'we have heard them, if we wished, we could speak its like. they are but tales of the ancients."

[evolution]

Are you aware that different people see and have different meanings, for the same word?

If you assume there is one meaning for each and every word, which everyone agrees with, then you will find that you are sadly mistaken.

If you think that I am ignoring 'the'meanings to words shows that you appear to not be aware that words mean different things to different people.

Most of the time the meaning of a word is one, but the interpretations that comes from different concepts are many.

I think you will find many words have many different meanings/definitions. And, some words even have completely opposing definitions/meanings, and then on top of that there are, as you suggested, many different interpretations that come from many different people's concepts.

I think those who with agnostic tendency try to make a divine discussion mixed up and complex to confuse he who brings some simple proofs about existence of God! I think in addition to other factors, one of the key reasons of disbelief in God is just this manner of thinking which they leave the vivid and simple proofs and go to the complex words, phrase and philosophies that take them away from the subject more and more, because a group of them think this manner of philosophy is more develop than theistic belief and is closer to nowadays science and technology, while today a trivial microbiological beings with a particular genetic array has made man, science and technology unable!

Are you even aware that I am trying to show, with evidence and proof, how God exists, and who and what God is as well?

Are you also aware that this can be done very simply and very easily? That is; when you people who believe, and those who disbelieve, STOP believing and disbelieving.

?... excuse me, your expression shows multiple concepts that made me confused! Do you believe in God?

No. But I also neither believe nor disbelieve absolutely any thing else also.

The material sciences is just a page of creation book and there are so many knowledge and mysteries upon these issues that man doesn't know! How can we travel to the Mars with an airplane?! And how we can travel to the farthest galaxies with a spacecraft with hydrogen and oxygen (or even atomic) fuel?! I think if it is possible, it will take long about thousand trillion years!!

(despite I love astronomy sciences and NASA researches very much, I had to bring this example)

I have no idea what this example is for exactly.

I wanted to show the smallness of man and shortness of his ability against the unknown things in the universe.

I am pretty sure that most, if not all, people in a philosophy forum already KNOW that what human beings know in relation to what there is to possibly learn and know is rather very "small and short", as you put it.

When we even don't know the record of the Mars in the solar system history (the airplane was an example about the insufficiency of our knowledge and recognition) and are not aware about a so far galaxy in the space, how we can expect to know their creator sensibly?

But thee Creator is already KNOWN, logically and sensibly, by some.

I was going to answer some of your questions but my English is slow and writing long comments makes me tired. I will reply to the questions later. But let me I answer one.

Yes, the computer mouse is my own design. It is not among those mouses that are taught in the internet or instruction articles


Okay, if you say so. But did you mean 'the' computer mouse is your own design, or, 'that' computer mouse is your own design?

?... excuse me, I couldn't get this complicated philosophy or probably it is because of my incomplete English that I don't know the difference between "the" and "that"

'The' computer mouse means 'the computer mouse, itself'.

'That' computer mouse means 'that one particular individual computer mouse that you showed a picture of'.

I am not sure if this helps, but this is the best I can do at the moment. That is; until a specific clarifying question is asked.

Also, you are taking me toward your manner of answering quote by quote.

Okay, I follow it but am careful not to lose the path ... LOL

[evolution]

Yes I CAN quote the parts of scripture in the Bible that explains evolution, naturally, by natural selection, to me, which, by the way explains it in the most simplest and easiest way.

No, you absolutely cannot do this, and are just making excuses. You aren't fooling anyone.

LOL another prime example of how assuming and/or believing one already knows the truth BEFORE actually finding out what thee actual Truth IS can lead them completely and utterly astray.

Your assessment and conclusion could not be MORE WRONG.