Re: Ray's God is Evil

On Apr 24, 3:52 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 24, 12:03 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip

snip


BUT, HOWEVER, the Design Hypothesis says----explicitly----that design
corresponds to the work of invisible Designer (= Theos),

Ray, once again, I have to point out that saying what corresponds to
the work of an "invisible designer" implies that one knows what an
invisible designer's work looks like. When has anyone ever observed
any work done by an "invisible designer'? If you don't know that,
you can't logically ascribe any unknown work to such a designer.

Worse, if you have a known process that produces the appearance of
design, claiming an "invisible designer" is unwarranted to explain
such appearance of design. You are assuming your conclusion,
another logical fallacy.

which is
direct evidence supporting the concept of Theism.

As pointed out above, it's not "direct evidence" by a logical
fallacy. Without having a known example of what an "invisible
designer" produces, you can't ascribe any appearance of design to that
being.

This is why
Darwinists oppose said hypothesis tooth and nail.

Actually, scientists oppose that idea because there isn't any evidence
for it, and it's logically flawed. If there were actual evidence
for God, "Darwinists" and any other scientist would have to
acknowledge it.




That can be and is done by science all the time - to at
least the human level if not a bit beyond.  Science can in fact
determine, quite accurately and with a very high degree of predictive
power, if at least human level intelligence was most likely required
to produce a given phenomenon.

Ray, you seem to miss, or at least misunderstand, the "at least" part
of the equation.  

[blushing begins] Agreed. I have completely misunderstood. Now I
understand. I thought that you were actually attempting to argue that
human beings caused species, IC systems, and rain forests to exist![/
blushing ends]

After making a mistake that huge, don't you think you should probably
re-examine all your positions?


I finally understand your position. But let me tell you that "human
level intelligence" is nowhere to be found in History of Science-
Creationism v. Darwinism-evolution literature.

Ray, you aren't familiar with all such literature. Darwin himself
talks about "human level intelligence" when he's discussing breeding
of domestic livestock, and plants.

This is why I was
baffled with your argument.

Not just because you are unable to apply simple logic?


I kinda like your approach, now. You are
saying that life reflects at least human level intelligence.

Which is another baseless assertion.



Arguing that "at least" human-level intelligence as
required leaves the door wide open for the possibility that even
higher levels of intelligence could have been involved.  

The Creationism-Evolution debate is historically framed as
Intelligence or Mind vs. unguided-undirected-unintelligent material
causation.

Actually, it's not. It's framed as religious belief versus
scientific theory.

If you are arguing for at least human level, that is,
biological phenomena to reflect human **level** intelligence, a level
that we should be able to recognize readily, and easily, then I
finally understand.


However life doesn't require such a concept. Life and it's diversity
does not require imposing any level of "intelligence" to explain it's
existence. Moreover, there isn't any evidence that such an
"intelligence" was present during life's formation and through the
vast majority of it's existence.

snip


Darwinism and this Forum exists to say that Theism has been proven
false. And I now understand the concept that you are arguing.

Actually, evolution exists to explain the evidence. This forum
exists to keep creationists away from real science groups. Science
cannot, and does not attempt to prove that "Theism is false". It's
your own false assumption that if evolution is true, then theism is
false. That's your own 'atheist ideology'.




For example, even you would probably agree
that those things that are the result of human free will are not the *direct*
result of Divine will.  

To interject suddenly human free will into a discussion about
biological agency and the extent of the rejection of the agency of
creation by Sean Pitman is baffling.

The point, Ray, is that not everything in this universe is directly
designed by God.  

Agreed.

This is a direct contradiction of your earlier statements. Also,
Ray if what is not designed directly by God? Some examples, please.



But everything is under His control----everything. I am sure you would
agree that there is a difference between the concept of "design" and
the concept of "control."

So, are snowflakes directly designed by God, or are they just
"controlled" by God? Why can't evolution be controlled by God as
well?





For example, practically all of the various breeds
of dogs that we have today were produced by the deliberate intent of
human breeders - not by God directly.  

Self-evidently true.


which is an admission that microevolution happens. Breeding
different varieties of dogs is no different in essence than different
varieties of finches, or guppies, or bacteria descending from an
ancestral population in the wild.


What God did was produce the
first dog-type, something like the wolf most likely, as well as the
potential for genetic diversity that we actually see expressed today.
God did not produce all the various types of breeds originally.  

God *introduced* the species or concept of "dog" and the species or
concept of "wolf." Dogs and wolves are not the same species.

According to the evidence, they are.

Wolves
exist as a species in the wild because wolves mate with other
wolves----not dogs.

Wolves do mate with dogs in the wild.


While both species have the ability to mate with
one another, the unions are difficult.

Which means they are in the process of speciation. Previously you
claimed that two species could not mate at all. Now you are admitting
that mating is possible. Why the change?


The same thing goes for certain types of mutations that result in numerous
phenotypic variations for all living things.  God doesn't direct each
random mutation with deliberate forethought.  God didn't deliberately
make the single point mutation that produced sickle cell anemia for
example.   God doesn't make the mutations that result in various forms
of cancer, like CML or AML, for example.  Would you at least agree
with that?

Sean: the Creation v. Evolution debate is NOT about cancer, sickle
cell anemia, or antibiotic resistance.


Again, there isn't any such debate in science. It's largely a
political and social debate. Sickle Cell anemia and antibiotic
resistance are both examples of evolution in populations. Cancer is
due to genetic mutations, but are not inheritable. (predisposition
to cancer may be)

The Creation v. Evolution
debate is about how species come to be in nature, that is, what caused
or causes their existence, past and present. Divine agency or unguided
material?

"Divine agency" is an inherently unscientific concept. Material
concepts is all that science can study.


William Paley (Divine agency):

"IN crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and
were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer,
that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for
ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this
answer. But suppose I had found a watch [= species] upon the ground,
and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that
place...." (1802; bracket added).

Ray, species are not watches. It's a metaphor, and a flawed one. A
watch does not reproduce, and doesn't have a mechanism for being
produced, other than human manufacture. Living things, on the other
hand do reproduce imperfectly, and are subject to natural selection.
That's how species can be produced without requiring a manufacturing
plant to produce them.


Charles Darwin (unguided material):

"On The Origin Of Species [= "watches"] By Means Of Natural
Selection" (1859).

Again, Darwin wasn't talking about watches, he was talking about
living organisms. Watches don't reproduce, and they don't get
affected by natural selection.



But to answer your question: God does not cause cancer; but He allows
its existence and spread.

Why? For what purpose would God allow cancer to exist and spread, if
God is in direct control over everything?

I agree with Dr. Walter Lammerts (genetics;
species immutabilist): Satan is a master geneticist (reference upon
request). The Bible plainly tells us that disease is a result from the
Fall. The N.T. tells us that ALL curses are off, null and void, to
those who are IN Christ.

Don't you find it interesting that your idol Gene Scott died from
cancer? What was Gene's punishment for? Maybe for spreading
falsehoods about God, and the Bible?


Dr. Sean Pitman: "Ray's God is Evil"

Dr. Gene Scott: Whatever God says or does is righteousness.

So, was giving Gene cancer righteous?


God told Joshua to kill every man, woman and child in the promise land
(= righteousness).

If God told you to kill, would you do it, Ray? If so, how does that
make you different from the suicide bombers in the middle east?


You need to read the Pentateuch where God catalogs----specifically----
the curses that He will inflict upon Israel IF they forsake Him and
worship idols.

Idols such as Gene Scott, perhaps?





So far, whenever I've presented this last question to you, you never
answer it.  Is there anything that is produced or created outside of
God's direct deliberate will and action?

I have now answered.

So, what's outside of God's "deliberate will and action"?


There are two and only two sources: God and the license He allows to
Satan because of the Fall.

Which makes God an accessory, after the fact of any evil that
happens...... Sean is right, your god is evil



God, in creating free will, voluntarily gave up the option
of controlling some things.  

This belief is sourceless, subjective, since the Biblical Theos goes
out of His way to demonstrate the exact opposite: He retains absolute
control despite the monkey wrench of human free will.

God retains absolute sovereignty or the option to act, but God does
not maintain absolute control of all actions or no one would be able
to be held responsible for his/her own actions.  According to your
argument here, God would be chargeable with extreme evil and cruelty.
For example, would you credit an act of child rape to the absolute
control and deliberate will and action of God?  Hmmmm?

You have misunderstood my argument because my argument is a skeleton
at best. This subject or topic takes too much time and explanation for
this Forum. But my master argument will appear in my forth-coming
paper.

Hiding behind your paper again, Ray? Why not show a little
courage?





But for now: we must face the fact that God *could have* intervened
and stopped the unspeakable act----but He didn't.


Why not? Everything is under God's control. Why did God permit
it?




Please at least try and give this question a fair shot, at least an
attempt at a thoughtful answer, next time you post a thread like this
one.

Again, I fail to see the relevance of evil human acts to biological
production.

It's a matter of what is, or is not under God's control. If God
could have stopped it, but didn't he's negligent at best.





Similarly,Sean would argue, in creating natural
laws,...

Deism.

You really think I'm a deist?  

Nope. Below I said you claim to be a Theist. Above, I recognized the
comment to be advocating Deism.

"Similarly, Sean would argue, in creating natural laws,..."

Deism. The real issue is: why is a Theist advocating Deism? Do you
understand? I would really like an answer, Sean.

Ray, deism is a form of theism.


DJT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: whered Sean go?
    ... Advocating ID is an enterprise that presupposes the existence of God. ... the reason why scientists oppose ID is that it is no more ... Designer, Mastermind or God. ... ID corresponds to the work of invisible Designer or Divine causation ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A new Note to T.O. (and to Ray M.)
    ... it might violate the "Word of God" as given in the Christian Bible. ... Ray, creationism is not "sound logic and reason". ... Second, since no work of any invisible designer has ever been observed, no one know what corresponds to such. ... Darwin never became an atheist, and he accepted the scientific restraint of methdological naturalism, like any other scientist. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge for Seanpit
    ... What methodology has been used to construct the lifeform? ... Darwinist is attempting to trap an IDist into identifying the Designer ... Ray, has anyone told you you are a gifted mindreader? ... Bible God reveals Himself as a Person. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What Creationist (a topic about Sean Pitman)?
    ... God or Designer. ... When Sean refuses to ... "Very rapid flash crystalisation" means a catastrophe has taken place ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OK, I just posted on Dembskis site!
    ... significant number of non-theistic scientists saying "yeah, ... and more importantly in belief that God was listening - that God could ... But I'm less sure of what Behe personally thinks about God (or that ... hapless designer he claims to have caught) than I am of my speculation ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading