Philip wrote:Audie: "Seriously! It may be that a god made the universe, but is one needed, for example, to supervise and direct every raindrop to its destination?"
Once I have set the parameters of my software to "random," yet within certain parameters, while not micromanaging how it works, I still ultimately have control over them. I can override the system I created and control, any time I so desire. Is that how God does it? I don't know. I don't think (on most days) He decides what color socks I put on. I am a free being with choices - some sinful - meaning, He doesn't micromanage my choices. He won't even micromanage my choices concerning Him (acceptance or rejection).
Audie: "The raindrops pick up CO2, and sink into the ground. Moving underground
the water dissolves a bit of calcium carbonate and
thus are limestone caves made. That is the process,
thats how they form."
Would you call it godless, or what?
, their mechanisms, their programming, their essential elements? Who set the processes into motion? It's just more of "look at what's in my right hand because in my left hand I've got NOTHING."
Audie: "Good illustration of how knowing nothing about a subject makes it look boring."
OK, there's a typical sarcastic and condescending statement by Audie.
Audie: "I do agree with you to the extent that discussing it with the know-zero-creo is senseless."
No arrogance there either, right, Audie?
Audie: "I guess we all do senseless thing, like argue Splash-Splash vs total immersion.
"
ALL of those beauts in just one post. Oh, you are such the innocent little lamb.
Another attempt to belittle while not addressing the real issue.
Audie, NO one has falsely accused you of anything. You have prolifically made many such sarcastic, condescending and arrogant statements - so, OWN them! Shall I gather a page of them for review? So, stop playing "victim," put on your "big girl" pants, and develop a bit more of a thick skin. Whenever someone points out that you are playing a game of smoke-and-mirrors, you attack them and act as if people were out to get you. Or you act as if you are their intellectual superior. Mostly, because you have unreasonable faith in highly improbable and unproven things. Yes, FAITH!
Again, you are back to pointlessly talking about processes, while the real question you constantly fail to address is WHAT or WHO made the processes even possible
That is A question, one to which nobody has the answers, and which while of importance, perhaps, if one did find out, WHAT, as they say, has it to do with the price of tea?
To me, this is like you say its pointless to discuss the process of building a car, if we dont know the ultimate secrets of the universe. Pointless to discuss anything at all.
As for my remark that it was a good illustration of someone not knowing what they are talking about, it was not sarcasm.
using language that normally signifies the opposite,
I meant exactly what I said, and unlike some of the comments made to me, it happens to be true. He did illustrate that he knows next to nothing on the subject.
ALL of those beauts in just one post. Oh, you are such the innocent little lamb. :roll:
Now we have an actual example of sarcasm. Condescension too. Not to mention hypocrisy.
Audie, NO one has falsely accused you of anything.
Never said anyone did. My complaint is about people making up things. "You think that.." "You always..." when the statements are simply not true.
Suggesting that Im complaining of accusations is itself false, for that matter.
When I do complain of someone stating falsehoods, then Im playing victim.
I dont play smoke and mirrors.
I dont think anyone is 'out to get me", much as its obvious that some here dont happen to like me, which is fine, I dont like them. Hence the avoidance, and suggestion that they just dont address me.
Mostly, because you have unreasonable faith in highly improbable and unproven things. Yes, FAITH
Your opinion, stated as fact. And its not true.
Do you see some sort of difference between stating an opinion as fact, and making things up? I dont. In court they'd call it perjury.
Do you see no differences among the various meanings of the word "faith"?
Presuming you do not intend equivocation fallacy, lets look at this.
Which one do you mean?
1faith
noun \ˈfāth\
: strong belief or trust in someone or something
: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs
: a system of religious beliefs
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of
: without question <took everything he said on faith>