Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

For goodness sake. The supernatural is NEVER an answer to anything.

You appear to be in denial that reality can include anything which is not the product of scientific determinism.  So if reality does include events which are invoked from outside the observed laws of science you will be in a perpetual state of saying: "I don't know" to the source of these events.  There is no evidence to say that every event which has ever occured throughout the history of time is a consequence of previous events.  This is merely an assumption made by naturalists.  But there is substantial evidence to suggest that there is more to reality than scientific determinism.

[Alan Burns]

There is nothing crude about the process of evolution, Alan. Simple, yes, but it has produced some of the most beautifully structured, and intricate forms of life we can imagine.

The process of unguided natural selection is indeed crude, but I hope one day that you will come to realise that the guiding hand of the Creator is intimately involved in bringing these most beautifully structured and intricate forms of life into existence.

[torridon]

There is nothing crude about the process of evolution, Alan. Simple, yes, but it has produced some of the most beautifully structured, and intricate forms of life we can imagine.

The process of unguided natural selection is indeed crude, but I hope one day that you will come to realise that the guiding hand of the Creator is intimately involved in bringing these most beautifully structured and intricate forms of life into existence.

in which case you believe that god also created rats and cockroaches and ebola and polio and influenza.

[BeRational]

For goodness sake. The supernatural is NEVER an answer to anything.

You appear to be in denial that reality can include anything which is not the product of scientific determinism.  So if reality does include events which are invoked from outside the observed laws of science you will be in a perpetual state of saying: "I don't know" to the source of these events.  There is no evidence to say that every event which has ever occured throughout the history of time is a consequence of previous events.  This is merely an assumption made by naturalists.  But there is substantial evidence to suggest that there is more to reality than scientific determinism.

You are also in the same state, but instead of saying "Don't know", you invent an answer.

There is NO evidence for the supernatural. It's all just in your mind so that you feel you have some sort of answer.

You need to grow up, and admit you cannot know everything.

Can you deal with not knowing?

[torridon]

I just decided to drink a glass of water because I was thirsty. Did a supernatural event just take place in the torridon household ?

But you could have chosen to drink fruit juice or lemonade or beer.  Any conscious decision is supernatural because it is invoked by your conscious self, not by your animal instinct.

It was a really hot day yesterday. My dog was thirsty too, so I put down a bowl of water and a bowl of milk and Rover, like me, chose to go for the water. In both of us, the feeling of thirst triggered the response of imbibing our favourite thirst quencher. You think Rover's decision was natural, but my decision was supernatural ?

The fact that I am free to choose is sufficient evidence to conclude that my choice is invoked by my spiritual soul.  I do not know if Rover is free to choose, or whether he is guided by instinct.

So you are open to the possibility that dogs are supernatural also.  OK. How about if I am driving and a child steps into the road; I react without thinking at lightning speed to avoid a casualty. Is there a supernatural event in that scenario ?

[Shaker]

You appear to be in denial that reality can include anything which is not the product of scientific determinism.  So if reality does include events which are invoked from outside the observed laws of science you will be in a perpetual state of saying: "I don't know" to the source of these events.

Yes, that's right. Better a humble "I don't know" than a load of preposterous badly- or undefined, unevidenced wibble, wouldn't you say, Alan?

[Alan Burns]

So you are open to the possibility that dogs are supernatural also.  OK. How about if I am driving and a child steps into the road; I react without thinking at lightning speed to avoid a casualty. Is there a supernatural event in that scenario ?

I am sure I have stated before that many of our actions and repsonses are automated without need for a conscious decision.  I would expect that most human beings are able to differentiate between a reflex action and a deliberate act driven by conscious free will.

[Alan Burns]

Yes, that's right. Better a humble "I don't know" than a load of preposterous badly- or undefined, unevidenced wibble, wouldn't you say, Alan?

But if you keep on saying "dont know" when confronted by supernatural events you may never be able to discern the truth.

[Alan Burns]

There is nothing crude about the process of evolution, Alan. Simple, yes, but it has produced some of the most beautifully structured, and intricate forms of life we can imagine.

The process of unguided natural selection is indeed crude, but I hope one day that you will come to realise that the guiding hand of the Creator is intimately involved in bringing these most beautifully structured and intricate forms of life into existence.

If it is intimately involved, you have to accept it is responsible for all the bad things like disease!

I know we do not live in a perfect world.  Every human being will be subjected to some form of suffering during their lifetime. But I also know that I could not possibly have become aware of my own existence without my God given soul.  And I also know from God's revelations that that evil exists.  I do not know how far the fingers of evil reach on our planet, but I do know that I need to be delivered from this evil with God's help.

[Alan Burns]

And with what 'supernatural' events have you been confronted AB?

First and foremost is the awareness of my own existence.

[Shaker]

Yes, that's right. Better a humble "I don't know" than a load of preposterous badly- or undefined, unevidenced wibble, wouldn't you say, Alan?

But if you keep on saying "dont know" when confronted by supernatural events you may never be able to discern the truth.

When confronted by allegedly (note that word, Alan - its important) "supernatural" events, what means or methodology do you employ to find out whether it's true or not?

[floo]

And with what 'supernatural' events have you been confronted AB?

First and foremost is the awareness of my own existence.

And what is supernatural about that? Presumably your parents conceived you in the normal way, your mother didn't have an 'immaculate' conception! 

[ekim]

Yes, that's right. Better a humble "I don't know" than a load of preposterous badly- or undefined, unevidenced wibble, wouldn't you say, Alan?

But if you keep on saying "dont know" when confronted by supernatural events you may never be able to discern the truth.

... and if you keep saying you "do know" when confronted by events which are claimed as supernatural you may never be able to discern the false.  Not only that, it is possible that you might lead the gullible into ignorance.

[torridon]

So you are open to the possibility that dogs are supernatural also.  OK. How about if I am driving and a child steps into the road; I react without thinking at lightning speed to avoid a casualty. Is there a supernatural event in that scenario ?

I am sure I have stated before that many of our actions and repsonses are automated without need for a conscious decision.  I would expect that most human beings are able to differentiate between a reflex action and a deliberate act driven by conscious free will.

OK, I guess you see the act of thinking as something done by the soul which is a supernatural entity, hence a choice which is the result of conscious thought is a free will supernatural event. What about babies then, they don't think things through, they just react, does that mean they don't have a soul; or is the soul something which develops gradually ?

[torridon]

And with what 'supernatural' events have you been confronted AB?

First and foremost is the awareness of my own existence.

So other creatures that have self-awareness, elephants and dolphins etc, you would see these as having a soul also ?

[Shaker]

A bag of Maltesers says he'll say no 

[Maeght]

There is nothing crude about the process of evolution, Alan. Simple, yes, but it has produced some of the most beautifully structured, and intricate forms of life we can imagine.

The process of unguided natural selection is indeed crude, but I hope one day that you will come to realise that the guiding hand of the Creator is intimately involved in bringing these most beautifully structured and intricate forms of life into existence.

If it is intimately involved, you have to accept it is responsible for all the bad things like disease!

I know we do not live in a perfect world.  Every human being will be subjected to some form of suffering during their lifetime. But I also know that I could not possibly have become aware of my own existence without my God given soul.  And I also know from God's revelations that that evil exists.  I do not know how far the fingers of evil reach on our planet, but I do know that I need to be delivered from this evil with God's help.

Replace 'know' with 'believe' and this would be a lot more accurate (aprt from the fingers of evil bit - that wouldn't make sense!).

[Alan Burns]

Yes, that's right. Better a humble "I don't know" than a load of preposterous badly- or undefined, unevidenced wibble, wouldn't you say, Alan?

But if you keep on saying "dont know" when confronted by supernatural events you may never be able to discern the truth.

When confronted by allegedly (note that word, Alan - its important) "supernatural" events, what means or methodology do you employ to find out whether it's true or not?

Lets just look at the methodology employed by a naturalist (such as Richard Dawkins) when confronted with something which is difficult to explain.

In his book, "The Blind Watchmaker", Dawkins has to keep dipping into an apparently infinite supply of testable beneficial mutations to explain how a complex organ such as the human eye came into existence through natural selection.  And he supports this by examples from fossil records and knowledge of biology.  At no point does he give any realistic assessment of how feasible it is to assume that all these mutations were the result of random mutations.  He seems to assume that no matter how much specific complexity is reqired, - it must have happened like that because God does not exist.  So no matter how complex or specific a scenario is needed to explain something, the naturalist will assume that this is just the way it happens because there is no God.

[Maeght]

Richard Dawkins, and the vast majority of scientists who work in the field, including people who do believe in God, see no issue with a natural, unguided process resulting in complexity such as the human eye. You have an issue because it conflicts with your beliefs.

[Shaker]

Lets just look at the methodology employed by a naturalist (such as Richard Dawkins) when confronted with something which is difficult to explain.

No, let's not, Alan. Let's not because it'll divert the thread but more importantly, it'll give you the perfect excuse to bob, weave, duck, dive and dodge the issue, which is that I asked you a question which you can either answer or you can't. If you can, do so. If you can't, say so. But do one or the other, instead of wheeling out this greasy, evasive bullshit. We're not discussing Richard Dawkins or his ideas in any of his books - only Vlad invokes Dawkins for absolutely no reason whatsoever around here. I think most people by now know what Dawkins's methodology is - I'm asking about yours, not his, because his is well known and yours is a mystery. That's why I asked.

I'd be delighted to discuss any point on this or that in The Blind Watchmaker with you. It's one of my favourite books by a favourite author, easily one of my few desert island books as I stated on a recent thread. We can do that elsewhere by all means. But for now, you've been asked a simple question*, so have the courtesy to answer it, admit that you can't, or say that you'd prefer not to. Take your pick.

Incidentally, I don't know whether you're mixing up your Dawkins books but while he does touch upon the multiple evolution of eyes in TBW, he's far, far better and goes into far more detail - fifty-three pages' worth of detail in fact - in the chapter 'The Forty-fold Path to Enlightenment' in Climbing Mount Improbable, which you should read, learn and inwardly digest.

* "When confronted by allegedly (note that word, Alan - its important) "supernatural" events, what means or methodology do you employ to find out whether it's true or not?"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lets just look at the methodology employed by a naturalist (such as Richard Dawkins) when confronted with something which is difficult to explain.

No, let's not, Alan. ....................... - only Vlad invokes Dawkins for absolutely no reason whatsoever around here.

Is that Richard's hand up your arse, Sooty?

[Alan Burns]

Richard Dawkins, and the vast majority of scientists who work in the field, including people who do believe in God, see no issue with a natural, unguided process resulting in complexity such as the human eye. You have an issue because it conflicts with your beliefs.

There are a significant number of scientists (though they may be in a minority) who maintain that the unguided natural selection process can never be capable of anything more than a fine tuning process on something which is already complex.  And the human body has many complex organs - some, like the brain, are much more complex than the human eye.  The problem is that there is no valid way of verifying that the unguided natural selection process alone was responsible for bringing life into existence.  I am aware that naturalists have tried to demonstrate the viability of the natural selection process using mathematical models, but the parameters used for these models are light years away from true reality.  My own view on this is based on the ability of human beings to exercise their free will to bring about human creativity.  This is evidence that intelligent design can and does occur in this universe, driven by free will, so whatever gave us this gift of free will must also posses this ability, and must have used it to interact with nature to bring us into existence.  And the bible says that we are made in God's image.

[Shaker]

Its free will, free will, free will, free will, free will all the way with you isn't it Alan? No wonder you're so desperate to defend it so often - remove that and the rest of the tottering house of cards comes crashing down round your ears.

[Gordon]

Richard Dawkins, and the vast majority of scientists who work in the field, including people who do believe in God, see no issue with a natural, unguided process resulting in complexity such as the human eye. You have an issue because it conflicts with your beliefs.

There are a significant number of scientists (though they may be in a minority) who maintain that the unguided natural selection process can never be capable of anything more than a fine tuning process on something which is already complex.

Names and CV's please - my money is on these being creationist pseudo-scientific clowns.

And the human body has many complex organs - some, like the brain, are much more complex than the human eye.  The problem is that there is no valid way of verifying that the unguided natural selection process alone was responsible for bringing life into existence.

Another of your arguments from incredulity.

I am aware that naturalists have tried to demonstrate the viability of the natural selection process using mathematical models, but the parameters used for these models are light years away from true reality.  My own view on this is based on the ability of human beings to exercise their free will to bring about human creativity.  This is evidence that intelligent design can and does occur in this universe, driven by free will, so whatever gave us this gift of free will must also posses this ability, and must have used it to interact with nature to bring us into existence.

More arguments from incredulity, with some arguments from ignorance added to the mix

And the bible says that we are made in God's image.

So it does - so now we have an argument from authority as well. Good job that the use of fallacies isn't rationed, Alan.

[Alan Burns]

* "When confronted by allegedly (note that word, Alan - its important) "supernatural" events, what means or methodology do you employ to find out whether it's true or not?"

Anyone who has served on a jury will verify that for any given situation, there is no foolproof method of determining the truth.  What you need to do is look at the available evidence, then apply your gifts of intelligence and common sense to determine what is most likely to be true.