What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?

[JackRussell]

Well I don't think anybody is suggesting that the protocell is a complex as modern cells, you can read people like Chen and Szostak on that one.

But I know creationists don't like actual research and aren't happy without total certainty. Life's a biatch.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm probably on a tangent in my response, what I'm saying is that you can look at the world and not see any evidence of Divine power, because the universe was designed to be independent of God, a super economy if you like.

Made to look exactly like it wasn't made, eh?  Oh what tangled webs we weave.....

It is not necessary to say "God did it to every action," as if there isn't a real physical phenomenon at play, but to appreciate the thing made by God anyway.

If you say so, but if you're going to insist that one appreciates this or that, consistency would demand that we hold pixies accountable for their fuckups as well. Though it seems like moot point in a universe where everything intentionally looks like pixies don't do a damned thing anyway.

There is a mindset, which says that as soon as something has a tangible and physical explanation or mechanism, then God isn't in the question.

It's like a kid who gets money from his dad in his bank account, one day he finds out that the money is automatically added each month, and so he now believes in the bank and dismisses his dad's contribution altogether.

If the payments were made to look exactly like his dad wasn't making them...then he would be completely justified in thinking that his dad didn't make them.   If daddy doesn't like this state of affairs...perhaps he shouldn't have sold the lie so convincingly in the first place?

[Banned]

Well I don't think anybody is suggesting that the protocell is a complex as modern cells, you can read people like Chen and Szostak on that one.

But I know creationists don't like actual research and aren't happy without total certainty. Life's a biatch.

There's no such thing as a simple cell, and the single cells are even more complex.
They may not have as many working parts, but they are chemically sophisticated.

Your criticism of creationists is a generalization at best.

[JackRussell]

Well I don't think anybody is suggesting that the protocell is a complex as modern cells, you can read people like Chen and Szostak on that one.

But I know creationists don't like actual research and aren't happy without total certainty. Life's a biatch.

There's no such thing as a simple cell, and the single cells are even more complex.
They may not have as many working parts, but they are chemically sophisticated.

Your criticism of creationists is a generalization at best.

Way to miss the point; you are not up to date my friend.

[Banned]

[quote="Khemikal" pid='1719579' dateline='1521543954']

If you say so, but if you're going to insist that one appreciates this or that, consistency would demand that we hold pixies accountable for their fuckups as well. Though it seems like moot point in a universe where everything intentionally looks like pixies don't do a damned thing anyway.
[quote]

There is simply too much power and intelligence invested in the universe.
It is not possible to comprehend it, no matter how long you live, the knowledge is infinite.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you say so..but you also said that the universe was intentionally made to look like this wasn't the case at all.

In any case, is this proposed rule of incomprehensibility only a rule for me...? What are you doing, what are you talking about?

[GrandizerII]

There's no need for divine creation when there is something in or about the universe that is eternal.

What you are saying is quite significant.
If science keeps going with those notions, it is only doing what was predicted over a 100 years ago, 1880's.
Science will be introduced to the ultimate way to make God of no consequence and obsolete.
This philosophy will open up the gates to discovering another aspect of matter, hitherto ignored by the vast majority.
People will fall for this, not just intellectually, but with every sense, because it will produce some mind blowing results.

Yeah, that "science thingy" sure disturbs the shit out of some theists.

[Banned]

If you say so..but you also said that the universe was intentionally made to look like this wasn't the case at all.

In any case, is this proposed rule of incomprehensibility only a rule for me...? What are you doing, what are you talking about?

If you and I live forever, we would always learn something, the knowledge is endless.
The universe or nature was made as a creation, not a God.

You won't find God in nature. He is separate from it.
And it was made so that you can lose yourself in it, by adventure, work or whatever.

So you can study nature for a life time, without having to acknowledge God.

Nevertheless, the universe was intended as a gift for the life within it - especially intelligent creatures, and it is nice when God is acknowledged, appreciated and loved, which is consequential, and cannot be manipulated or forced, if it is genuine.

Freedom is paramount to God, and that trait is expressed even in the options of the behavior of atoms.

The universe isn't robotically 'controlled' or invaded by God, as some churches say.

[The Grand Nudger]

You won't find God in nature. He is separate from it.

I wonder..then, how anyone is supposed to have found god where he can;t be found?  

Nevertheless, the universe was intended as a gift for the life within it - especially intelligent creatures, and it is nice when God is acknowledged, appreciated and loved, which is consequential, and cannot be manipulated or forced, if it is genuine.

If somebody sent me a pipe bomb as a gift I'd be entirely less than appreciative.  Pixies "gifted" us with a pipebomb.  Except..you know, in a way that makes it look like they didn't, from a completely hidden location..according to you.

[Whateverist]

So...here's the trouble. 

If you accept that these chemicals have "specific activities"...it doesn't matter much whether you think goddidit.  If chemicals have "specific activities" -however- they ended up that way is all the explanation required for why things made of chemicals have "specific activities".  If you want to add "godidit" to the list..fine, but you'll have to show a god.  Until then..the rest of us will posit that the "specific activities" account for self assembly..for example..in life, and your acceptance of those "specific activites" is acknowledgement that the chemicals can self assemble.

Could have been pixies, or the loch ness monster, or maybe it;s just a brute fact...but no matter what that answer is, you've already acknowledged the point of contention and made "god" incidental in the process.  One of any number of ways or reasons for some state of affairs x..but, once that state of affairs exists..there's no need of reference to the incidental anymore.  Regardless of whether goddidit, it were brute fact, or if the loch ness monster sprinkled fairy dust all over organic chemistry...what it would do..is what we see it doing - because that's the nature of those chemicals...they have specific activities.

Yes it is possible, if not common, to look at something designed and dismiss the inventor. There's a lot of people who drive cars but are clueless about the designers.

Oh I know just what you mean. I get so tired of trying convince the unbelieving that cars did not just pop into existence through randomstance. The situation so much the same as for life itself that way, isn't it?[/sarcasm]