Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Angrboda]

Bumblebees are affected by forces that are intangible to us.  Bumblebees are tangible.  Your principle denies that they are thus affected.  You deny bumblebees.

What forces am I denying? As I said probably 10 times on this thread, the physical hand of God enacts the so-called "forces" (electricity, gravity, magnetism, etc)

Is God's physical hand tangible?

[Paleophyte]

Oh I see you do want to discuss Abraham. Weird of you to introduce Abraham at a juncture in the debate over gravity - but fine by me. Let's discuss.

You mentioned Yahweh in your very first sentence and attributed all of the fundamental forces to him. I don't see that it's a big leap.

Did you read my theodicy summarized in one of the early posts?

Nope, why would I? This ramble is +50 pages long, and your deluded if you think I'm reading through that.

5. God commanded the prophet Abraham to kill his own son Isaac. But why should Abraham disobey his conscience? When speaking to prophets, the divine Voice speaks at the level of 100% certainty.  Abraham, therefore, suddenly became 100% certain that killing his son was of the highest moral urgency and virtue. In a nutshell, God MODIFIED his conscience (temporarily).

So mind control and child sacrifice is what keeps our magnets from falling off our fridge? Explain to me how that's sanity.

[The Grand Nudger]

Can you point to a defect in my rebuttal?  No?  Then stop with the pathetic talk about delusions when you're the one that's deluded.

I'll state it again for clarity.  Things need to be similar to that analogized for an analogy to have force.  An eversoftening golf club isn't similar to forces like gravity.  The analogy involves contact.  Gravity does not.  The analogy has no force.  It is a failed analogy.

No contact? That's even worse. Now I don't even have to swing the intangible golf club to move the ball. It's all magic - really it is.

Come back to me when you start making sense.

b-mine 
All things are possible with god.  You really ought to spend more time with that thought right there.

[Jal]

I've never been asked to give a formal definition. Let me give it a whirl:

Matter is a piece of visible reality describable in terms of volume, density, mass, shape, size, and location.

Awesome! You've defined matter. Poorly and incorrectly, but you've defined it. Unsurprisingly, gravity isn't matter.

Try defining "tangible".

Reading comprehension: 0/10

[Paleophyte]

Awesome! You've defined matter. Poorly and incorrectly, but you've defined it. Unsurprisingly, gravity isn't matter.

Try defining "tangible".

Reading comprehension: 0/10

There's a difference between defining tangible and writing an intangible definition.

[Jal]

Awesome! You've defined matter. Poorly and incorrectly, but you've defined it. Unsurprisingly, gravity isn't matter.

Try defining "tangible".

Reading comprehension: 0/10

"Matter is a piece of visible reality describable in terms of volume, density, mass, shape, size, and location."

Actually that DOES include a definition of tangible, implicitly. But you are correct that I should have elaborated a bit more. As follows. 

Part of matter's definition is susceptibility to collisions, and this what tangible really means.

WHY do objects collide? Here again is another common-sense axiom: Two pieces of matter cannot occupy the same space.

If I approach your body, I cannot stand where you are standing, because we cannot both occupy the same space. 

Therefore the effort to approach you culminates in a clash/conflict defined as one object pushing another out of the way as to make room for itself to "stand" in that position.

Unless the two objects interpenetrate each other's pores, at which point they still aren't really occupying the exact same space, they are just filling up each other's unused space.


Tangible, then, means to be a piece of matter, but specifically, it refers to the "collision-able" aspect of matter.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nothing that you believe came from or depends on anything you write above.

[arundharma]

The problem with Atheists is their definitions of Atheism.  It makes no sense.

What part of "I don't believe you" did you find confusing?

Deep Science is not their strong suit.

This explains why the church has such an excellent record on disease prevention and rocket launches.

Atheists are just stuck in fake reality that their own mind perceive.

Is this the reality without your imaginary friend? Have you ever heard of projection?

The confusion resides in the mind of Atheist not with the Theist. Your absence of belief is irrational and irrelevant. The church or any place of worship is not representative of anything and therefore does not bear any reliable reference in any discussion. What imaginary friend are you referring to ? What do you mean about projection? How does that even bear any weight?

[Paleophyte]

Tangible, then, means to be a piece of matter, but specifically, it refers to the "collision-able" aspect of matter.

Nice try, but that isn't what "tangible" means. Things don't just exist because you can bump into them.

It's something real or concrete that can be touched or measured.



Or were we suggesting that gravimeters had a soul? Perhaps they're full of fairies?

[Paleophyte]

The confusion resides in the mind of Atheist not with the Theist.  Your absence of belief is irrational and irrelevant.  The church or any place of worship is not representative of anything and therefore does not bear any reliable reference in any discussion.  What imaginary friend are you referring to ?  What do you mean about projection?  How does that even bear any weight?

You seem to be very bad at this. Perhaps you're confused. Have you tried pulling the candlestick out of your butt? I won't help you breathe. Try again.