God caused or uncaused?

You provided a quote: and then tacked on which is not just irrelevant to the topic but also a misrepresentation of the quote you were using. You seem to do this alot, stick something out there then draw some unwarranted conclusion out of your ass.The quote is saying nothing about life being incredible, it says that Special Creation is incredible, using the definition of incredible to be unsupportable, incorrect, false, wrong.Is there some reason you continue to try to palm the pea, con the readers, misdirect attention?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm not sure where you get your information, likely from Biblical Creationist sites, but that is simply yet another misrepresentation of the truth and another attempt to con the audience by misdirecting their attention while you palm the pea.It is the classic tactic of Biblical Christians to take things out of context and use them to misrepresent truth.Richard Lewontin fully supports the TOE and you can find one of his responses to the many attempts by the Biblical Christians to misrepresent his position here.But there is an even bigger issue.The topic is "God caused or uncaused?"Evolution is totally irrelevant to that question.In Message 124 I pointed out where you were misrepresenting the meaning of one of your own quotes.Here you respond not to the issue of your misrepresentation but instead compound the offense by bringing in yet another unrelated and irrelevant example by once again misrepresenting someone's position.Even if the Theory of Evolution or the FACT that evolution happened were to be proven false, it would add no support or legitimacy to either Biblical Creationism or the existence or non-existence of some God.It would also provide no information on the topic of this thread.You can of course, continue to use misrepresentation, diversion and misdirection in your posts in the hope that the audience will not see you palm the pea. However, do not be surprised when some sharp eyed youngster notices and points out the attempted con.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Don't you ever get tired of misrepresentation and slight of hand games?You likely got that from AIG or one of the other nonsense Biblical Creationism sites and it is just another example of taking things out of context, of trying to misdirect attention while the Biblical Christian palms the pea. Here is a link that includes the quote in context.So far all you have presented has been smoke and mirrors, misrepresentation, slight of hand and other con man tactics. Well it is irrelevant whether reality is caused or uncaused because reality is not the topic. In case you missed it, the topic happens to be "God caused or uncaused?" and Evolution is totally unrelated to that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It might have been a complex question were it not for the preceding messages where it was demonstrated exactly where and how you were misrepresenting and playing slight of hand games.The problem is that instead of addressing the topic, your own topic, you dance around presenting irrelevant nonsense and unimportant fantasy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry but that is simply false.When we look around the universe the vast majority of information out there is created by non-intelligence, by random events in nature and by chemical reactions and physics.A few examples are the rings in trees produced by variations in the seasons and weather, ripples on a pond or waves on an ocean, patterns in crystals, inclusions in rocks, sand dunes in the desert and snowflakes.While the appearance of design is pervasive and ubiquitous in reality, almost all examples are simply the result of natural forces and not intelligence.And none of that has anything to do with the topic which in case you have forgotten is "God caused or uncaused?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

in reply to Omni saying:

quote:

---

Further, you again assume that evolution requires a progression to greater organization/complexity. That is not so: evolution merely describes the process by which generations of organisms over time adapt to a changing environment.

---

Sorry Rob but your response is not simply an example of misrepresentation, but rather irrelevant as well.If life started as a single celled organism, then at that point in time the only option was towards greater complexity. However that applies only during a period when there are only single celled organisms. Once there are multicelled critters evolution could be towards greater complexity or towards lessor complexity and we can see examples of both.Evolution does not require a progression to greater organization/complexity.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Wind, weather, sunlight, gravity, chemical bonding ... Snowflakes have no DNA, nor do waves, sand or inclusions.The information we see in the universe, the vast majority of the information, from the shape of stars and galaxies to the ripples on a pond are caused by non-intelligence.Sorry, but thems the facts.And it still has nothing to do with the topic which in case you have forgotten is "God caused or uncaused?"Do you ever plan to post something that is relevant, important or not a misrepresentation of facts or someones position?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry but you are still simply trying to misdirect the audiences attention while you palm the pea.Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution which is what Omni was discussing.As I pointed out in Message 159, the very message you are replying to: Misrepresenting me yet again, eh Rob?No, my intent is to point out the Truth, to make it clear when others are misrepresented and to explain clearly to the audience exactly how the palming of the pea happened. That is fine, you are not required to respond to any posts. One of the great things about a forum like EvC is that we each get to try to provide the best support for our positions, and the audience can see and read, decide for themselves which positions are supported and which have not been.In this case, in case you have forgotten, the topic is "God caused or uncaused?" and we still await some support for your position on that question.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Which have not been shown to be the result of intelligence.The topic, by the way Rob, in case you have forgotten is "God caused or uncaused?"We are still waiting for you to support your position on that question.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry, but mathematical laws are not physical laws, and the laws you speak of are not what governs anything. The laws you speak of are just human attempts to explain what happens naturally. It is not some human created or intelligence created law, (or at least you have never provided any supporting evidence for such a position), that governs what we see in this universe. What we see in the universe would be there even if humans had never postulated any mathematical or physical laws, existed before any such laws were described and will likely exist long after the last human (as we know humans of today) has evolved into something else or gone extinct.Also, in case you missed it, the topic of the thread is "God caused or uncaused?" Do you ever plan to offer anything to support your position on that question?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Rob says: Sorry but definitions are not the reality, but just a history of how humans have used a word. The definition can be an accurate representation of reality or totally unrelated. Finding that at sometime in the past, people have used the word God to represent reality offers no support for anything other than the fact that people have used the word that way.In addition, a definition does not cause reality. To so assert is simply to present another fallacy.It does not provide any support for the assertion that God equals reality and in particular, does not provide any support for a Christian or Biblical God.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Of course you could, however since I included a direct quote from the message before you edited it, I imagine you would have as hard a time supporting that as all the other points including the revised message.You now say: That is simply another example of attempted misdirection while you palm the pea.Let's parse the statements."Reality is absolute, logical, and uncaused."That might well be true."And the defintion of God is 'reality'."As pointed out above, that is irrelevant and just an attempt to insert an unimportant and irrelevant assertion in the hopes that the audience does not notice. All that shows is that in the past people have used that as a definition. It certainly provides no support for either the existence of God or in particular a Judaic, Christian or Biblical God."Reality does cause the physical world, though it is itself uncaused and unchanging."No, another silly and false assertion. Reality IS the physical world.BUT, the topic happens to be "God caused or uncaused?" Do you have any plans to address that question?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, not yet. We are still learning. LOL, No. Quantum Dimension? LOL Perhaps even more depending on the element. Yes, likely. But who knows, one day we may well know even more. Yet another unsupported assertion and an attempt at misdirection while you palm the pea. You have no idea what I worship and even if you did, it is irrelevant to the topic or the thread. Sorry but I have actually worked very hard to present the reasoning behind all of my posts.BUT, the topic in case you had not noticed is "God caused or uncaused?" Do you plan on addressing that question at anytime in this thread?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That has nothing to do with worship.I can test reality. I do not believe in it, I have a very high confidence level that the universe is somewhat like what I can see. Again, as I pointed out before, I have a very high confidence level in the world and universe. That is not just a matter of belief, it is the result of testing and experience.You also try yet another Three Card Monte by inferring that I do not believe in God. It is a misdirection, trying to say that having confidence in reality excludes a belief in God. Sorry but that is just yet another example of you attempting to misdirect the audience's attention while you palm the pea. You drop in a totally unrelated and unsupported assertion (that what I believe is what I worship) in the hopes that the audience will not notice you tried to change the topic yet again.And, just in case you have not noticed, the topic is "God caused or uncaused?" Do you have any intention of ever addressing that question?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't know. I'm still waiting for you to address the topic, and until you do so, it is impossible to say how well you will be able to support your position.The topic, in case you have forgotten, is "God caused or uncaused?"My personal belief is that GOD is uncaused, but I also realize that is simply a personal opinion and unsupportable. I also think it is pretty unimportant and irrelevant whether or not GOD is caused or uncaused.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion