Yes I would like to see this link you speak of.
Excuse me if I didn't say it or didn't see it but What is your definition for reality?
Hey man thanks for this conversation it is starting to get great. (I am not lieing!) Have a great day I going to be gone for a bit, but looking forward to what you have to say.
Quote:Actually, yes it has. We know there was a time before life on Earth, and we know that life now exists on Earth, which means somewhere along the line inorganic substances must have somehow coalesced into living things. What we don't fully understand yet is how, but within the next 100 or so years (maybe sooner) we probably will.The difference is God is alive. He has a mind and a will and emotions. Then out of His creativity He made all things, including human beings that have minds wills and emotions. Now I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but I see that there is a spontaneous life coming from you world view and how that is happening isn't explained. Why we have minds, wills, and emotions which is a product from non-life isn't explained either.
Furthermore, your own beliefs are that your god spoke life into being from non-life, so I don't see why that's even an issue.
Quote:My recognition of the fact that there is no discernible reason or design behind reality is not a failing of my world view. Your insistence that there must always be a cogent answer to your incessant "why" is a failing of yours.So I find this an interesting statement...very interesting. I would love to hear your further thoughts on why you see this as a failing. God is a cogent answer for why materials behave the way they do. You expect the same from my God that is why you demand evidence. So, why when I ask for it you say my insistence for a cogent answer is a failing? Let's be consistent or explain why this isn't being inconsistent. If that is the case then the same would be applied for your statement that I have quoted below.
Quote:That would be because your mind is simple, and because you don't understand the kind of simplicity Occam's Razor is talking about. Your hypothesis is virtually untestable, making it one of the first things to fall to the Razor in favor of other explanations that would be easier to prove or disprove.Your statement that material always existed is untestable. Your idea that humans and monkeys came from the same ancestor is untestable. So are we going to throw those out?
Quote:Because there is evidence to suggest that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, yet there is no evidence to suggest that supernatural realms or beings exist at all.I am going to assume you are saying that there is nothing in the universe that can destroy matter/energy. Yet, God is not apart of the universe but created the universe so it would make sense that nothing in the universe could undone what God has done. (Ecc 3:14)
Excuse me if I didn't say it or didn't see it but What is your definition for reality?
Hey man thanks for this conversation it is starting to get great. (I am not lieing!) Have a great day I going to be gone for a bit, but looking forward to what you have to say.
