Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:01AM, Blü wrote:

mytmouse

mytmouse: We, obviously and self-evidently, posess a mighty power than transends mere biology.

blü:  If we possess this power, why do we need large brains at all?
If we possess this power, what can it do that large brains can't?
On what examinable evidence are your answers based?

mytmouse: (FACEPALM)

None out of three responded to.  All evaded.

So it's not just me who thinks you're talking through your trousers - you agree.

Very curious.

Don't ask questions that have glaringly obvious answers. 

Apr 27, 2012 -- 6:11AM, fodaoson wrote:

…Hatcher terms it, a "minimalist" concept of God. He is essentially making a case for the existence of a single self-caused cause of the universe that is not the universe itself. Some may reasonably question whether "a single self-caused cause of the universe that is not the universe itself" qualifies as "God". Many an atheist may not have any issue with such a "God" but would rather question the label. A theist, on the other hand, would recognize that a "single self-caused cause of the universe that is not the universe" can be logically translated into religious terminology as "the One and Self-Subsisting Creator of the universe"…

“of a single self-caused cause of the universe that is not the universe itself. “   From nothingness, some thingness, or from chaos came existence, order . Whatever the event, the cause, the spark, is what hatcher labels’ god’.   I do not expect atheist to accept it as a god and I do not expect persons of faith to accept it.  Atheist can only accept [              ]  and people of faith need a creator involver. Only when a person is fully in the state of being dead, will that person know  or not know the absolute.

Well, I can't argue with your conclusion. 

We'll get the answer when we're dead. 

Then again, I also think there will be more questions. For me, Hell would be running out of questions. 

Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:01PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Apr 26, 2012 -- 11:58PM, Ken wrote:

Evolution is a natural process. If it is the mechanism whereby reason and intelligence developed, why drag God into it? How would you distinguish an intelligence that evolved by purely natural means from an intelligence bestowed by God? The features that distinguish them would be your evidence, not the bare fact that humans possess a certain degree of intelligence.

I never said evolution wasn't natural, or a process.

You're getting hung up on the "natrual" thing. I've already stated, I don't belive in magic. I've acknowledged the hardware and mechanisms. Good. Now, let's move on.

Dogs, cats, apes, dolphins and even ants possess varying degrees of "intelligence." As do humans.

However, we obviously possess something that transends that. And the almost obtuse refusal to even acknowledge that -- and the implications that follow -- strikes me as, well, rather un-intelligent.

I don't know anything about transcendence. Animals have various degrees and kinds of intelligence. Human intelligence differs from dog intelligence just as dog intelligence differs from dolphin intelligence. Is there anything about human intelligence that couldn't have evolved without divine intervention? If so, what? It won't do to just say "It's obvious." You have to present a reasoned argument.

Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:13PM, Ken wrote:

Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:01PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Apr 26, 2012 -- 11:58PM, Ken wrote:

Evolution is a natural process. If it is the mechanism whereby reason and intelligence developed, why drag God into it? How would you distinguish an intelligence that evolved by purely natural means from an intelligence bestowed by God? The features that distinguish them would be your evidence, not the bare fact that humans possess a certain degree of intelligence.

I never said evolution wasn't natural, or a process.

You're getting hung up on the "natrual" thing. I've already stated, I don't belive in magic. I've acknowledged the hardware and mechanisms. Good. Now, let's move on.

Dogs, cats, apes, dolphins and even ants possess varying degrees of "intelligence." As do humans.

However, we obviously possess something that transends that. And the almost obtuse refusal to even acknowledge that -- and the implications that follow -- strikes me as, well, rather un-intelligent.

I don't know anything about transcendence. Animals have various degrees and kinds of intelligence. Human intelligence differs from dog intelligence just as dog intelligence differs from dolphin intelligence. Is there anything about human intelligence that couldn't have evolved without divine intervention? If so, what?

What makes you think evolution isn't divine intervention, as such?

Again, "intelligence" is one thing. But we understand. We know. 

Or, at least we have the capcity to do so -- and the opportunity to willfully develop that, through both our own individual and collective efforts. 

Willfull ignorance chaps me as much as I suspect it does you. "Creationism" is, well.... well, I'd rather not go off in a streak of profanity... but you get the idea. 

However, I don't dispair over said ignorance.

I hope you don't either. 

Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:18PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:13PM, Ken wrote:

I don't know anything about transcendence. Animals have various degrees and kinds of intelligence. Human intelligence differs from dog intelligence just as dog intelligence differs from dolphin intelligence. Is there anything about human intelligence that couldn't have evolved without divine intervention? If so, what?

What makes you think evolution isn't divine intervention, as such?

There is no indication of that. The process can be easily and completely explained without recourse to divine intervention.

Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:18PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Again, "intelligence" is one thing. But we understand. We know.

And? My neighbor's Labrador retriever knows things too.