I think we've reached the end of the line with this discussion. No progress is being made. You still won't rebut arguments made to you.
And you still can't see that you aren't offering any.
Disagree. It's logical to suspect intelligence, but not to assume an intelligent designer was necessary.
Then why do you insist on doing it? All I assert is that the design is manifest all around us, and in us. It is omnipresent and self-evident. And it's existence implies intention. I assert nothing about any sort of "designer" beyond the abject mystery of it all.
There are naturalistic theories and hypotheses for all of reality that are logically possible. It is an act of faith and conclude, "The living cell is too complex to have arisen naturalistically." It's a special pleading fallacy - "Complicated things need an intelligent designer. A living cell couldn't possibly have come to exist without an intelligent designer." "What about that intelligent designer? It's likely more complex than a cell. Isn't it an error to posit an even more complicated entity to explain a less complicated thing because you think the less complicated thing was too complicated to exist without an intelligent designer? What made something as complicated as a deity?" "That's different. The rules don't apply to God (insert nebulous reason that does not answer the question here, such as "God has always existed" or "God is outside of time")."
I assert none of this, so I have no idea who you're debating with, here.
Then why do you use that word? It carries baggage well beyond what the great mysteries connote. Look at the problems Einstein caused by using the word to mean the laws of nature. Look at all the time wasted here for me to finally discover that by God you mean unanswered questions. I can't tell if you actually believe anything different from me. We both agree that there are mysteries, but you call them God. We agree that the universe evolves in a directed way, but you call that intent.
Dude, YOU'RE the one carrying all that baggage, not me. To me, "God" is just a word. It's the word English speakers use to refer to the mysterious source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. (Regardless of how we choose to imagine or conceptualize that mystery in our minds or religious practice.)
"God" is just a word. Our ideas of and about "God" are just our ideas of and about god. If your neighbor's idea of God does work for you then ignore it. If Christianity's idea of God doesn't work for you then ignore it. Neither
are God. Neither
define God. They're just different ways people choose to conceptualize that great mystery in their minds, so they can relate themselves to it as they believe they ought. Same as you are.
No, God is the term most people use to mean an agent that transcends the universe, and by agent, I mean aware. They talk to it and think it hears them. That's what most people in the world believe
It would be logical to presume that the source, sustenance, and purpose of the universe would be
transcendent of the universe that it's manifesting. Although this kind of concept stands admittedly at the far edge of the reach of human logic.
It would also be logical to presume that we humans are doing so in whatever ways we find most positive and effective for us. As is also true of you. Because as cognitive beings, we are all finding ourselves confronted with the great mystery of being (and of our own being), and it effects us each, uniquely. So, naturally, we all respond to it uniquely. And we tend to seek out others who are responding to it similarly to ourselves. To learn from them, and to teach them, and to support each other along that way. It's a significant part of our being human.
I already rebutted this, with a clear definition of what I meant by faith, and how I removed it from my way of thinking, which rebuttal you ignored, only to say essentially, "You have faith anyway." My answer remains unchanged.
And you are still acing on faith. Just because you place that faith in something other than an idea of "God" doesn't make your act of faith no longer an act of faith. These goofy semantic negations don't hold any logical validity, which is why I keep ignoring them.
I propose that we end this discussion here, or if you like, take the last word yourself. There is no progress possible under these conditions - vague definitions and ignoring rebuttals and repeating yourself guarantee that - and no point in continuing in these circles. I have nothing more to add to all of my unrefuted arguments, arguments you don't acknowledge As I said before, I assume you read and understand them, but there is no evidence of that in your responses, and I can't see a reason to continue.
