I’ve reported this link and run. Again. Yet again.MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 28, 2025 3:06 pmHere is a good place to start if you're serious and not simply doing a quick 'gotcha' response.I Have Questions wrote: ↑Sat Jun 28, 2025 6:19 amWhat do you mean, specifically, by the term “natural processes”?
https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Sci ... 1416542744
I have this book and finished reading it about a month ago. Written by a man who was the head of the Human Genome Project, was an avowed atheist, and came to Christ and belief in the Christian narrative.
And no, I will not respond to your next question having to do with, "Well, give us the top five reasons Collins gives for his belief in God and in Jesus Christ and the Christian story."
Read the book.
Regards,
Mg
Complex?
-
- God
- Posts: 2105
- Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am
Re: Complex?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
-
- God
- Posts: 2105
- Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am
Re: Complex?
Bump. Please tell me what you mean (that’s what you mean, not what someone else thinks) by “natural processes”. You said it, so you should know to what you were referring.I Have Questions wrote: ↑Sat Jun 28, 2025 6:19 amWhat do you mean, specifically, by the term “natural processes”?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
-
- God
- Posts: 5718
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm
Re: Complex?
OK. If you need to do it, do it.I Have Questions wrote: ↑Sat Jun 28, 2025 5:25 pmI’ve reported this link and run. Again. Yet again.MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 28, 2025 3:06 pm
Here is a good place to start if you're serious and not simply doing a quick 'gotcha' response.
https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Sci ... 1416542744
I have this book and finished reading it about a month ago. Written by a man who was the head of the Human Genome Project, was an avowed atheist, and came to Christ and belief in the Christian narrative.
And no, I will not respond to your next question having to do with, "Well, give us the top five reasons Collins gives for his belief in God and in Jesus Christ and the Christian story."
Read the book.
Regards,
Mg
Regards,
MG
-
- God
- Posts: 3449
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm
Re: Complex?
I would suppose natural processes refers to the structures and relationships and changes studied by physics and chemistry. Is there a mysterious point for special clarification?
-
- God
- Posts: 5718
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm
Re: Complex?
Not as far as I can see. I'm not sure what the hang-up is. Natural evolution is pretty much the accepted view as to how we came into being and are creatures that can type on a keyboard. If Adam and Eve also came into being they would have been part of that process in some way. We obviously don't know all the details or it would be a 'done deal' and there wouldn't be any controversy.huckelberry wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 1:15 amI would suppose natural processes refers to the structures and relationships and changes studied by physics and chemistry. Is there a mysterious point for special clarification?
Controversy is what seems to make the world more interesting.

Regards,
MG
-
- God
- Posts: 2105
- Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am
Re: Complex?
MG is trying to say that God had sex with Mrs God and Adam and Eve were born as we were born, but he doesn’t want to say it out loud because of the obvious implications.huckelberry wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 1:15 amI would suppose natural processes refers to the structures and relationships and changes studied by physics and chemistry. Is there a mysterious point for special clarification?
He’s also suggesting that his God is quite limited in what he can and cannot do. So, not a God then.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
- malkie
- God
- Posts: 1729
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:41 pm
Re: Complex?
Adam and Eve had sex, and produced offspring who then had sex with ... whom, exactly?I Have Questions wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 8:21 amMG is trying to say that God had sex with Mrs God and Adam and Eve were born as we were born, but he doesn’t want to say it out loud because of the obvious implications.huckelberry wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 1:15 amI would suppose natural processes refers to the structures and relationships and changes studied by physics and chemistry. Is there a mysterious point for special clarification?
He’s also suggesting that his God is quite limited in what he can and cannot do. So, not a God then.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details.
Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
-
- God
- Posts: 5718
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm
Re: Complex?
So are you suggesting that God could pitch the perfect no-hitter every time He comes up to pitch? Worlds without end? No matter how good the other team might be?I Have Questions wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 8:21 amHe’s also suggesting that his God is quite limited in what he can and cannot do. So, not a God then.
Regards,
MG
-
- God
- Posts: 2105
- Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am
Re: Complex?
I’m not saying that. Your Church is saying that.MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 30, 2025 3:28 amSo are you suggesting that God could pitch the perfect no-hitter every time He comes up to pitch? Worlds without end? No matter how good the other team might be?I Have Questions wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 8:21 amHe’s also suggesting that his God is quite limited in what he can and cannot do. So, not a God then.
Regards,
MG
Saying that God can is limited is oxymoronic.God the Father is the Supreme Being in whom we believe, whom we worship, and to whom we pray. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
-
- God
- Posts: 2105
- Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am
Re: Complex?
Come on…think! You know the answer to this…malkie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 11:26 pmAdam and Eve had sex, and produced offspring who then had sex with ... whom, exactly?I Have Questions wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 8:21 amMG is trying to say that God had sex with Mrs God and Adam and Eve were born as we were born, but he doesn’t want to say it out loud because of the obvious implications.
He’s also suggesting that his God is quite limited in what he can and cannot do. So, not a God then.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.