Indeed–biology as biology should be fascinating to someone who fervently believes that God directly designed life instead of evolution, but curiously, no one who claims to believe shows a speck of interest in the actual science.
I’m fascinated by their utter lack of faith in what they are promoting.
Well, by saying “a reasoning agent isn’t reason”, I only mean that these are different concepts, yet also related concepts, “a reasoning agent has reason”.as “reason” is defined in the dictionary. So yes, the laptop is not reason, a person is not reason, but they both can have reason, so in that sense, reason comes from reason, a human reasoning agent needs to come from a reasoning agent, from a self-existent reason, that is my view.
Well, “all thoughts are ultimately physical processes” is a claim that needs defending, what evidence do you have for that?
No, I wouldn’t say that, I would say an agent that produces reasoning, has reason, and that a human reasoning agent needs a self-existent reasoning agent as a source, so in that sense, reason comes from reason.
No, I would not, I want to know if an agent with the ability to design and make a plane made it, if the design was good, and if the assembly was done well, and if there was also intent to make a plane. Did you know that early metal planes used to burst in midair? From metal fatigue, as I recall. So all the past flights that were successful weren’t enough to conclude the planes were reliable, that in and of itself is not good reason to trust a plane.
Certainly, I’m not claiming anyone can have perfect knowledge.
And I certainly don’t think intensity of belief makes something more likely to be true. Nor that truth is a matter of choice! I think maybe you are the one being immature here…
Except when quoting McLatchie’s completely unsupported value of 10^53.
Which is just one of the many points made against you that you have not refuted.
The fact that they happen at all in a way where they can be physically influenced and have physical impact in turn I dare actually call “proof” of them being physical, because that is pretty much what “being physical” means.
The laptop was produced by reasoning agents, the human beings that designed and built it.
If your argument is to make any sense, those human beings must be “self-existent reasons.” Are they?
This is just reinforced by the fact that creationism and ID don’t attempt to answer let alone ask the same questions as OOL research and evolutionary biology.
It should come as no surprise that creationism and ID advocates don’t have a real interest in biology.
My take is that they hold a dogmatic committment to certain religious beliefs that have not been arrived at through reason. However, they do recognize that, in the modern world, beliefs not grounded in reason and evidence are not given much respect, and those grounded in science are the most highly accepted and respected. Their solution is to try convince themselves and others that science does in fact support their beliefs.
That’s why, for instance, Answers in Genesis has a doctrinal statement saying proclaiming that only scripture defines what is truth, yet spends most of it resources trying to persuade people that science also supports what is written in scripture.
Here is an article by William Lane Craig that, I believe, gives the whole game away. Unfortunately, it is now behind a paywall, but I read it when is was briefly open access:
God Is Not Dead Yet - Christianity Today
In it, he admits that, in his view, the existence of God is only apprehended by direct revelation, in his words thru “the witness of the Holy Spirit”. Why, then, has he spent his career coming up with complicated logical arguments designed to prove God’s existence? Because he fears that in the current cultural climate people are likely to reject such revelation even if they receive it, because they have learned to trust reason as the primary determinant of what is true. His goal, then, is to, in effect, soften people up so they will receptive to “the witness of the Holy Spirit” when it happens. It’s been 18 years since I read that article, but it really struck me as a shocking admission, and I am quite sure I am recalling it correctly.
There are, of course, people who don’t need much softening up, and that’s why @lee_merrill is convinced that a hypnogogic hallucination was an actual visit from a demon,
He needs a visit from one of Scrooge’s haunters, the Ghost of Christmas Past, but with the modification that instead of focusing on Christmas, the ghost should drag him through the rottenness of his various arguments.
”These are but the shadows of things you have said. That they are what they are, do not blame me!”