Complex?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
I Have Questions
God
Posts: 2104
Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am

Re: Complex?

Post by I Have Questions »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Sat Jun 28, 2025 3:06 pm
I Have Questions wrote:
Sat Jun 28, 2025 6:19 am
What do you mean, specifically, by the term “natural processes”?
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
I’ve reported this link and run. Again. Yet again.
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.
I Have Questions
God
Posts: 2104
Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am

Re: Complex?

Post by I Have Questions »

I Have Questions wrote:
Sat Jun 28, 2025 6:19 am
MG 2.0 wrote:
Sat Jun 28, 2025 12:18 am
I think it was more than likely that God 'created' Adam and Eve through natural processes.

Regards,
MG
What do you mean, specifically, by the term “natural processes”?
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.
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.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 5718
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Complex?

Post by MG 2.0 »

I Have Questions wrote:
Sat Jun 28, 2025 5:25 pm
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
I’ve reported this link and run. Again. Yet again.
OK. If you need to do it, do it.

Regards,
MG
huckelberry
God
Posts: 3449
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Complex?

Post by huckelberry »

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?
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 5718
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Complex?

Post by MG 2.0 »

huckelberry wrote:
Sun Jun 29, 2025 1:15 am
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?
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.

Controversy is what seems to make the world more interesting. :lol:

Regards,
MG
I Have Questions
God
Posts: 2104
Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am

Re: Complex?

Post by I Have Questions »

huckelberry wrote:
Sun Jun 29, 2025 1:15 am
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?
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.

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.
User avatar
malkie
God
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:41 pm

Re: Complex?

Post by malkie »

I Have Questions wrote:
Sun Jun 29, 2025 8:21 am
huckelberry wrote:
Sun Jun 29, 2025 1:15 am
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?
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.

He’s also suggesting that his God is quite limited in what he can and cannot do. So, not a God then.
Adam and Eve had sex, and produced offspring who then had sex with ... whom, exactly?
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details.
Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 5718
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Complex?

Post by MG 2.0 »

I Have Questions wrote:
Sun Jun 29, 2025 8:21 am
He’s also suggesting that his God is quite limited in what he can and cannot do. So, not a God then.
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?

Regards,
MG
I Have Questions
God
Posts: 2104
Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am

Re: Complex?

Post by I Have Questions »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Mon Jun 30, 2025 3:28 am
I Have Questions wrote:
Sun Jun 29, 2025 8:21 am
He’s also suggesting that his God is quite limited in what he can and cannot do. So, not a God then.
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?

Regards,
MG
I’m not saying that. Your Church is saying that.
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.
Saying that God can is limited is oxymoronic.
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.
I Have Questions
God
Posts: 2104
Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am

Re: Complex?

Post by I Have Questions »

malkie wrote:
Sun Jun 29, 2025 11:26 pm
I Have Questions wrote:
Sun Jun 29, 2025 8:21 am
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.

He’s also suggesting that his God is quite limited in what he can and cannot do. So, not a God then.
Adam and Eve had sex, and produced offspring who then had sex with ... whom, exactly?
Come on…think! You know the answer to this…
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.
Post Reply