IC please clarify for us

[MikeNovack]

Many long before Darwin had argued for evolution

Interesting, isn't it? Many had been trying to find a God-free explanation of the universe for a very long time...unsuccessfully. Darwin gave them their first remotely plausible attempt. It took them a long while, it seems.

Not necessarily "god free"

Perhaps evolution challenges your notion of the nature of deity. But somebody could easily believe in deity and evolution. Especially if they were rare thinking people of the "intelligent design" persuasion. Evolution is a very intelligent design, an elegant solution to having life, once created, persist in spite of changes to the environment. Perfect for a deity who doesn't want to be constantly tinkering to keep things going.

One could argue that a creation requiring constant tinkering would be an example of unintelligent desgn.

I UNDERSTAND -- YOU want/believe in a deity interested in constant tinkering, watching what we do or don't do, etc. But not believing in that sort of deity doesn't imply disbelief in deity

PS:Back in my uni days, if I were looking for a daily minion, I'd expect more luck finding one in the math/physics building than in any humanities building. Being involved in the hard sciences does not correlate with disbelief in deity, though `perhaps not the sort of deity you believe in IC.

[Immanuel Can]

Evolution is a very intelligent design, an elegant solution to having life, once created, persist in spite of changes to the environment.

Except for a few things. First, that its non-observable, non-testable and non-repeatable, so not scientific. And secondly, that there can be no "design" or "solution" in a world that is supposed to be run by mere time and chance. "Design" implies a deliberate plan or intention; "solution" implies there was a "problem" that somebody was "solving." But the indifferent universe doesn't care whether you exist or not, and is not capable of caring; and it certainly isn't capable of "designing" anything, since it has no inherent purposes or plans.

So you're anthropomorphizing the "forces" alleged to be behind evolution, and using them as a placeholder for the Creator. But they don't have any of the capacities you're attributing to them.

[Gary Childress]

Evolution is a very intelligent design, an elegant solution to having life, once created, persist in spite of changes to the environment.

Except for a few things. First, that its non-observable, non-testable and non-repeatable, so not scientific. And secondly, that there can be no "design" or "solution" in a world that is supposed to be run by mere time and chance. "Design" implies a deliberate plan or intention; "solution" implies there was a "problem" that somebody was "solving." But the indifferent universe doesn't care whether you exist or not, and is not capable of caring; and it certainly isn't capable of "designing" anything, since it has no inherent purposes or plans.

So you're anthropomorphizing the "forces" alleged to be behind evolution, and using them as a placeholder for the Creator. But they don't have any of the capacities you're attributing to them.

OK. So God created the universe and nothing created God. God just popped into existence, unlike matter which can't pop into existence because it has to be "created" by an uncreated creator who came from nowhere first. God created the universe. Thus, if the universe is a dog-eat-dog jungle, then God created a dog-eat-dog jungle. God is a dog eat dog kind of God. Oh wait, no God is benevolent. Everything God does is "good" by definition.

[Janoah]

Of course. But what makes you believe that "it cannot be understood literally" in this case? That's what I've been waiting to hear.

A talking snake, can a serious person seriously believe this.

Why would that be possible for a God that created the whole universe to make possible?

This idea of God is not scientific, with such an idea, one can believe any fairy tales.


***What makes you think Albo's not a mere speculator? ***

Speculator? I didn't expect that from You.
Let's consider that the exchange of opinions has taken place, thank You for Your attention.

[Immanuel Can]

God just popped into existence, unlike matter which can't pop into existence because it has to be "created" by an uncreated creator who came from nowhere first.

We're not talking about created "gods," Gary.

The idea of a created "god," if by that concept we mean the First Cause and Supreme Being, is not even a coherent idea. If that "god" were created, it would have to be a contingent, dependent, caused being, not God.

We're talking about the First Cause. We're talking about the Creator of all things. And logic and mathematics prove to us, beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt, that some such First Cause had to exist. (We know this, because of the impossibility of an infinite regress of prerequisites.)

So if that First Cause were not God, just what do you suppose it would be, Gary?

[Immanuel Can]

A talking snake, can a serious person seriously believe this.

Why would that be possible for a God that created the whole universe to make possible?

This idea of God is not scientific,

You keep saying it. But you haven't shown it.

[Impenitent]

the spiritual is not empirical...

derivations for either...

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

This idea of God is not scientific,

You keep saying it. But you haven't shown it.

IC, what empirical evidence do you suggest would show either the existence of a deity or the n0n-existence of a deity? If there isn't any, if empirical evidence has nothing to do with belief in deity, then not scientific (by the definition of science).

[phyllo]

Snakes don't have vocal chords. They can't talk.

So why would there be a talking snake?

[Impenitent]

Snakes don't have vocal chords. They can't talk.

So why would there be a talking snake?

in certain parts of the world, the snakes do talk...

listen for the rattle

-Imp

[Janoah]

Why would that be possible for a God that created the whole universe to make possible?

This idea of God is not scientific,

You keep saying it. But you haven't shown it.

Anything that contradicts the law of nature is unscientific.

[Janoah]

the spiritual is not empirical...

Science is also spiritual, but what do you mean?

[Impenitent]

the spiritual is not empirical...

Science is also spiritual, but what do you mean?

what is the spirit of a thing?

how do you sense it?

is the spirit of a tool created by its user? or merely temporarily transferred?

intent is a different flavor of the same question...

how long does it last?

-Imp

[Janoah]

the spiritual is not empirical...

Science is also spiritual, but what do you mean?

what is the spirit of a thing?

how do you sense it?

is the spirit of a tool created by its user? or merely temporarily transferred?

intent is a different flavor of the same question...

how long does it last?

-Imp

"Why do Jews always answer a question with a question?"

[Impenitent]

Science is also spiritual, but what do you mean?

what is the spirit of a thing?

how do you sense it?

is the spirit of a tool created by its user? or merely temporarily transferred?

intent is a different flavor of the same question...

how long does it last?

-Imp

"Why do Jews always answer a question with a question?"

Shalom

-Imp