RE: The code that is DNA
December 30, 2019 at 5:04 pm
(This post was last modified: December 30, 2019 at 5:43 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(December 30, 2019 at 4:24 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: In my experience, theists often have quite varied, and sometimes mutually exclusive definitions of god, so before we go forward you should probably clarify. What is your definition of god?
My definition would be : an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being,[/quote].
Okay.
Quote:which is probably a definition most theists can agree on.
You’d be surprised, lol.
(December 30, 2019 at 4:24 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: No, I wouldn’t. How could I? If I have zero evidence that cars are designed, or how they’re designed, how could I rationally justify reaching that conclusion?
Quote:Oh, so basically, if we erase factories from the picture, you would think cars were just assembled by some evolutionary sleight of hand process?
If all we’re doing is erasing factories from the picture, then I still have mountains of evidence that cars are designed, as pointed out in my previous response to you.
Quote:Their very existence in an orderly fashion fully justifies the conclusion.
No, that’s wrong. We have all kinds of examples of things in nature that appear ordered and designed, but are not. Is every individual snowflake designed by god? We know how snowflakes form, don’t we? So, if we have things in the world that appear designed and are designed (like cars), and we also have things in the world that appear designed, but are not (like snowflakes), then is appearance of design a reliable way to determine whether something is or isn’t designed? How good is reasoning that leads you to mutually exclusive conclusions?
(December 30, 2019 at 4:24 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Let’s take your example a step further. What if everything in the universe was made of cars? Without any contrast, could you still be confident that the universe was designed?
Yes, I can be confident of that. I am certain no car made itself into existence, it has no reason in itself, nor the whole observable universe, and the fact that it contains complex objects such as cars naturally warrants a designer.
(December 30, 2019 at 4:08 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: A mechanical device is obviously designed, a biological one, especially one as flawed as humans, not so much.
Why is it obvious in the first case but not in the second? What does mechanical entail that biological doesn't?[/quote]
Because we have evidence that people make things, or in other words, we have evidence of a designer, lol.