creationism/intelligent design is inconsistant with the definition of God

[Retro Rob]

You guess wrongly.

Hey, I can't be right all the time.

Likelihood is irrelevant, you're just painting the target around the arrow.

Likelihood is relevant when the planet Earth is said be a product of the "cosmic rolling of the dice and landing a six"... the likelihood of these sort of conditions just falling in place is remote, as noted by those who say if this were to happen again, we would not be here -- not by a longshot.

How do you explain God's complexity and uniqueness? A God designer? Infinitely possible gods?

I'm not the one proposing "infinite possible Gods" to explain God's existence.

Nice try to flip it back on me.

It isn't that it it "too simple." The learned scientists understand that it isn't a meaningful answer. The question is "how both we and our universe came into existence." There is no "who" component to that question.

To you and to them it's not a "meaningful answer".

Explaining how something works doesn't explain away a creator. We can explain the way a watch works, so I guess we explained away the person(s) responsible for making the watch.

Like I mentioned once before, adding 2+2 can indeed explain how I arrive at 4, it doesn't address where the number 4 came from nor why we have the number 4.

Do you believe your God's methods for universe creation are knowable? Can you actually answer HOW "both we and our universe came into existence"?

I think they are knowable, but not "known" at this point.

I am just as comfortable and knowing we exist, as you are with knowing the universe "just is", as you put.

 

[Paul98]

Hey, I can't be right all the time.



Likelihood is relevant when the planet Earth is said be a product of the "cosmic rolling of the dice and landing a six"... the likelihood of these sort of conditions just falling in place is remote, as noted by those who say if this were to happen again, we would not be here -- not by a longshot.



I'm not the one proposing "infinite possible Gods" to explain God's existence.

Nice try to flip it back on me.




To you and to them it's not a "meaningful answer".

Explaining how something works doesn't explain away a creator. We can explain the way a watch works, so I guess we explained away the person(s) responsible for making the watch.

Like I mentioned once before, adding 2+2 can indeed explain how I arrive at 4, it doesn't address where the number 4 came from nor why we have the number 4.



I think they are knowable, but not "known" at this point.

I am just as comfortable and knowing we exist, as you are with knowing the universe "just is", as you put.

Your argument is basically you don't think a couple things could happen naturally so god did it. Which is an absurd argument because this god and everything that would support the gods existence and what it would be able to need to do to create our existence is far more complicated that the natural argument.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Likelihood is relevant when the planet Earth is said be a product of the "cosmic rolling of the dice and landing a six"... the likelihood of these sort of conditions just falling in place is remote, as noted by those who say if this were to happen again, we would not be here -- not by a longshot.

No, you haven't understood my point. You're just painting the target around the arrow. The arrow is gonna land somewhere, and we cannot infer some kind of mystical guidance of the arrow just because you are so amazed that it happened to land in one place rather than another.

I'm not the one proposing "infinite possible Gods" to explain God's existence.

Nice try to flip it back on me.

I'm not flipping anything. What are you talking about? I asked you a question. Answer it. Here it is again:

How do you explain God's complexity and uniqueness? A God designer? Infinitely possible gods?

Well?

To you and to them it's not a "meaningful answer".

No, it isn't a meaningful answer, period. When you respond to a "how" question with a "who," you haven't answered the question.

Now, the question regards (your words here) "how both we and our universe came into existence." How do you believe that happened?

Explaining how something works doesn't explain away a creator.

Have I said that it does?

We can explain the way a watch works, so I guess we explained away the person(s) responsible for making the watch.

What are you talking about? Have I made any argument along such lines?

I think they are knowable, but not "known" at this point.

In what way are they knowable? What do you know about them that can support this suggestion that they are knowable? What objective and reliable method could one use to investigate them?

I am just as comfortable and knowing we exist, as you are with knowing the universe "just is", as you put.

Huh?