Dear Resident Theists

[ignoramus]

Yeah, he's a cross breed with Dawkins!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Obj to Obj 1: Every classification above that of a species -family, order, phylum, etc- is at a higher level of order. Does that make them supernatural?

This has become an argument over semantics. We are using the same words, but you’re talking about a difference of degree whereas I’m talking about a difference of kind. Let’s agree to drop it.

Obj to Obj 2: Who said anything about robots? (That does not compute.)

Then substitute a different metaphor like ‘deterministic electrochemical reaction.’ Point stands.
Obj to Obj 3: How come I wasn't informed? Do we actually have a specimen, dead or alive, of a metaphysical first cause? Only 'natural' to associate it with the divine/supernatural? I see what you did there. Just because a thing is funny does not make it true.[/quote] I’m surprised that you would resort to such a cheap diversion. The rhetorical request for a specimen is not germaine to the issue. God would not be a thing like unto other things. For form of inquiry must be tailored to the subject. The means for mathematical knowledge is much different from that of biology. The natural sciences take for granted the things about which philosophy inquires like causality and essential natures.
In the most recent debate with Metis, I presented the case for the 5 ways of Aquinas. He replied with the typical objections presented by most atheists, all of which misrepresented Aquinas or relied on spurious arguments that had no bearing. In another thread, Esquilax opined that he was disappointed with Metis, since as he claimed, disproving them is trivially easy and would be the subject of his blog post. I requested that he PM me the link to his arguments when he is done. In both cases I called their bluff (although perhaps Esquilax has not completed his blog post).
My point is that atheists repeatedly claim that the 5 Ways have been disproven without doing the heavy lifting of actually confronting the arguments head on. One atheist member wrote something like “11th century cleric. Nuf sed.” Last time I looked truth didn’t have an expiration date. The sum of a triangle’s angles was the same in the Year of our Lord 1100 as it is today. These kinds of ignorant comments are not any more legitimate than those based on modern analytic philosophy’s incoherent ideas about causality or the pernicious unreality of nominalism.
My point Whateverist, is that you and everyone else has been informed for about 500 years despite all the rhetorical bluster and philosophical wiggling to escape the firm and compelling conclusions of natural revelation.

[Ronkonkoma]

[...] You can see this when Stephen Hawkins concludes there is a high likelihood of aliens existing in outer space with much greater intelligence than ours.

And seeing mankind reaching out, what do you think the Creator did? Turn a blind eye?

So Stephen Hawkins [...]

Who the f*** is Stephen Hawkins?

Lol

You see - how can anything you say be taken seriously, if you don't even know the guy's name?... Read a book some time. No - not the bible...

Hawkin, Hawkins, whatever. Who cares. I would be the first one to tell you not to take me seriously.

---

Hawkins?

Shipping scientists..... Welcome to the internet ._.

Yea I had to look the guy's name up.

[Homeless Nutter]

Hawkin, Hawkins, whatever.[...]

Nope - still not right. lol

Why don't you stick to what you know? Like stories about Jizzus and other such nonsense?

[...] I would be the first one to tell you not to take me seriously.

Dully noted.

[Longhorn]

I mean not that it wouldn't be interesting. But I imagine being paralyzed kinda gets in the way of sex....I think.

[Angrboda]

[Whateverist]

"Only a mind is going to get it right. A mindless process can make the planet [Earth] quickly and permanently sterile."

-- Astrophysicist Hugh Ross.

That merely expresses the unsupported intuition of a person who sees things your way. My intuition tells me there is nothing in the supernatural category, no mind to create it all. Probably best to just disagree.

The reason we have the appearance of so many religions, creation stories and deities is because we live in a universe that fills us with wonder and we sense that there is a huge world beyond our comprehension. This is especially true of early civilizations that were more exposed to nature. When was the last time I saw the milky way? But Abraham probably contemplated on it every night. Either way, there is a reaching out towards the divine on the part of humanity.

Not what I had in mind but to each his own. I was thinking of how our brains have evolved to deduce the intentions of others, something we do automatically. So feelings of wonder get linked to feelings of gratitude and those get assigned to "Another".

Either through the archaic religions and philosophies, and more recently through science. You can see this when Stephen Hawkins concludes there is a high likelihood of aliens existing in outer space with much greater intelligence than ours.

Hawkins is likely correct that there is other life and at least some of it would be sentient and sapient. There is no way to know where we would fall on an intergalactic IQ test (if such a thing even makes any sense). The safest thing to do is assume there is as good a chance that alien life is more intelligent than us as less intelligent than us. There might be some reason to suppose it would all approach the same limit. Who knows?

[robvalue]

Aliens are gonna laugh in our stupid faces.

Still walking around in just 3 dimensions? Dumb fleshbags.

[Kingpin]

I've said it before, if there is ever any definitive proof of sentient life outside this planet I would have to abandon belief in God as I understand it.

[robvalue]

In that case I'd say your days of belief are numbered

It's only a matter of time and technology. The odds against there being any other forms of life out there have to be ridiculously small.

Thing is, they may well have existed in the past and died out. There's a lot of past.