Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Why Is It So Hard For Mankind To Accept The Truth Of God On Intellegent Design?

Even the most famous scientists recognize intelligent design.





[media=https://youtu.be/BoncJBrrdQ8]

[media=https://youtu.be/34XBkm4QiLo]

The blind see beauty with a heart of stone and claim, 'No Intelligent Design.'
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
sree251 · 41-45, M
I accept intelligent design but not a designer.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@sree251 how does that work? Either it's design by a designer or it is an accident.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@sree251 The 'designer' is what it has always been... sex, death, and a constantly changing environment.

Nothing else is needed.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955
Either it's design by a designer or it is an accident.

It's neither by designer nor random. It's the way it is: beyond all human understanding.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@sree251 design requires a designer. Information required intelligence.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955
design requires a designer.

Yes, everything man-made requires a maker. Nature is not artificial.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@sree251 As I said, all the 'products' of nature, both past and present, are produced by sex, death, and a constantly changing environment.

Nothing artificial about that... it's an entirely natural process, for which there is a tsunami of evidence.

beyond all human understanding

On the contrary, we understand it very well
sree251 · 41-45, M
@newjaninev2
As I said, all the 'products' of nature, both past and present, are produced by sex, death, and a constantly changing environment.

Nothing artificial about that... it's an entirely natural process, for which there is a tsunami of evidence.

A natural process is not caused by acts of will, an agency of the mind. Such actions are not natural.

You brought up a good point. The mind itself is not man-made. What about the act of will?
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@sree251 so what produced sex?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@sree251 Yes, the natural world has no need of acts of will... sorry, I thought I made that clear.

In explaining the natural world there's absolutely no compelling necessity to postulate anything that might possible have a 'will'.

What humans call their 'will' is far from an established phenomenon... both its existence and extent is a subject of constant debate.

The same applies to 'mind'.... very possibly merely an artefact of neural function.

I seem to remember that Daniel Dennett has done some interesting work around that, but it's not my area of interest.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955
so what produced sex?

What do you mean, Joe?
sree251 · 41-45, M
@newjaninev2
Yes, the natural world has no need of acts of will... sorry, I thought I made that clear.

But ours is neither a natural way of life nor a natural world. Is your life in a city natural? Is your lifestyle as a woman, man, transgender, etc., natural?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@sree251 As any advertising company will tell you, the word 'natural' merely means 'it exists'. Simply by existing, it qualifies.

'contains all natural ingredients' is a given... unless they want to claim their product contains supernatural ingredients 😀
sree251 · 41-45, M
@newjaninev2 No product of a business company is natural.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@sree251 The Big Bang as envisioned by atheists. In the beginning was nothing and nothing lasted for a very long time until suddenly without any reason what so ever nothing exploded and became everything. Some time later again for no reason whatsoever bits of everything got together and made dinosaurs.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955
The Big Bang as envisioned by atheists.

The verb envision means to imagine or picture. Kids often envision themselves doing exciting things when they grow up, like being movie stars, professional athletes, or astronauts. The Big Bang is not a scientific name by any measure. It is a derogatory name atheist use for God.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@sree251 all theories scientific or otherwise "envision". Then the attempt is to prove it. The Big Bang was given to the theory by Fred Hoyle. Fred Hoyle was an atheist. However the name became popular so that when the name is used everyone knows what is meant by the expression. Silly you trying and failing to be some sort of grammar Nazi.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@sree251 Around 14.7 billion years ago (I think it was a Wednesday morning) the universe entered a period of inflation which was followed by an ongoing state of expansion.

There is ample evidence of that (happy to show you the evidence).

Your postulation of a magical entity isn't needed for any of that, and offers no sort of explanation.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@newjaninev2
Your postulation of a magical entity isn't needed for any of that, and offers no sort of explanation.

I made no postulations. I did say: "I accept intelligent design but not a designer."
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@sree251 do you have no idea what an oxymoron is there can be no design without a designer. What you want is a very lucky accident.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955
do you have no idea what an oxymoron is there can be no design without a designer.

I know that it is hard to understand what I said. Nature is not man-made. The sun is not man-made. Artificial things that are not natural are made by us using our reasoning. Scientists have been trying to figure out how natural things come about? How can two different human cells (sperm cell and egg cell) come together, fuse to become a third totally different cell that divides itself repeatedly to form other different types of cells ( bone cell, muscle cell, skin cell, brain cells,etc) that arrange themselves into a human body.

Look, I am not some goddam idiot who dismisses nature as something comprehensible and can be explained by scientists and priests.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment