Sorry, Bex.
LinearAq has the jist of it.
How can anybody possibly believe in a God that relies on chance, if they believe that He created at all?
Why are you so contemptuous of other beliefs. I thought one of the talking points of creationism and IDology was to allow people to look at alternative explanations for how things are the way they are.
Do you mean to say no belief is worthy of contempt, no matter how silly?
Do you mean to say allowing folks to have and discuss beliefs requires one to always pretend they're not silly? Even when they're trying to peddle them?
Do you mean to say a silly belief not held by anyone, but merely advanced hypothetically in the process of making a silly argument should be treated as if it weren't silly?
I believe in a God that has power over nature and all the elements. Is He not of infinite wisdom? infinite power? Infinite foresight? Infinite and unlimited ability?
So he can design a universe that starts with an inflation from the seed of his mind, and not need to do any fixing or adjusting.
But what if this is boring - why do something when you KNOW how it will come out? Can you play chess with yourself and get excited about the game? What if you introduce just enough chaos into the system that the flap of a butterfly wing in costa rica can cause a hurricane in japan? What if the last directive is "surprise me" ... ?
What if Bex isn't interested in imagining up a new god?
After all, she did say "I'm not interested in playing 'chance' games with imaginary dice as a way of proving the universe did the same. Because the comparison is ridiculous, when you consider what is required for all these things to come together, work together, start and be sustained."
Which might give a disingenuous participant a motive to take the discussion in that direction, while continuing to omit to address her points...
He did not specifically mention the Christian God, he simply mentioned the "god did it" excuse/explanation, which he arrogantly swept to oneside as though it was a bogus excuse used by people who cannot accept 'reality'.
Yes it is bogus. It does not explain how he did it. How things happen is what we study in science.
So you shouldn't mind explaining
how love evolved, in that case. Or
how birds evolved the capacity to navigate precisely to places they've never been?
And unless you play the double standard game yet again, you condemn Darwin & the other evolutionists who said these things evolved because they're advantageous and never explained
how.
The excuse that "god did it" just explains why it happened ... at best. Some people try to use it as a "how" explanation, but it doesn't tell you how.
"God did it" is an historically correct answer to many questions. It does explain how, to some extent. The answer to how the cake got on the table: Mother put it there. You can continue asking questions until the limit of the responder's knowledge (or patience, in some cases) is reached. How did she put it there? How did she obtain it?
You cannot demonstrate anything bogus about honestly answering a question to the best of one's ability. I would maintain that the intent to do so is itself bogus. Care to challenge my assertion?
I have never in all my days seen anyone claim "God did it" was any more of an explanation than it appears to be. I have seen attempt after attempt by evolutionists to cover up their inability to explain how love evolved by pouring out 2 hours' worth of words that all boil down to "evolution did it". If you attempt to tackle the question, I fully expect to see it once again.
Either you have an imaginery dice, or you face reality that you have a created dice. It isn't really going to help solve any analogies, if you continue to to ignore the starting point.
You created the argument, and if it isn't going the way you designed it then there must be something false in your created {A} means no random {B} argument.
The argument works just fine. The only potential flaw I find is that it went over someone's head. And so one could hypothetically contend that the flaw lies in the over-complex properties of the argument rather than some property of the head. Of course this is
strictly an hypothetical scenario.
You also miss the point that I agree with you, since I also start with a created universe. Mine created the conditions under which life arose and by which it evolves. By your argument these are not random results but designed ones.
Donning the ID cap, eh? I missed it too. Congratulations on taking a step in the right direction. It'll be a shame to see you bounce right back when this phase of the discussion passes.
Shame you can't kick all the habits. Still misrepresenting Bex' argument, I see. I'd say "scroll up", but we all know that's too much trouble.
Anyhow, creating a die and rolling a die aren't the same thing. The die has to be created before it can be rolled. The result is a
random outcome within
designed parameters. It is not entirely random. It is not entirely predetermined.
I look forward to a good laugh when you try to obfuscate that.
