No, you aren’t. Evolution is a known fact; a process we have a great deal of data on; it’s also a process that obeys known physical laws. God is something that we have zero evidence of and know nothing about, and supposedly physical laws don’t apply to it. We don’t have the data necessary to even say that a God is possible; much less that one exists; much less anything about it’s nature. God and evolution aren’t all alike.
Non-physical things can’t exist.
I have, repeatedly.
A non-physical entity existing in a timeless state.
If your “creator” is immaterial, then she/he/it cannot do much of anything, right?
It’s an inferred logical conclusion.
Just as scientists tell us that “given evolution is true, we know that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor”.
No, it’s not the same. A simpler entity that involves things we know to exist is a better explanation than a more complicated entity that as far as we know is impossible and for which we have zero evidence.
If it’s inferred, it’s inferred in error. It’s not implied by anything.
No you aren’t. You’re merely asserting. Your inferrences are completely unfounded and unimplied.
There is nothing in the natural universe which is analogous to a clock. This is the fundamental fallcy of your whole position. You haven’t been able to point to a single thaing that can’t be explained by natural processes, including the formation of matter.
The multiverse is bound by the laws of time.
Please provide evidence that something bound by time can be moving without a first cause.
But that’s not what scientists say. They say “given this mountain of evidence from multiple fields, humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor.”
The non-physical creator entity is in a constant, unchanging state of interacting with the universe.
Have you considered the possibility that the universe was created by a peracious cylidous?
Virtual particles appear without cause all the time, everywhere, and they interact with normal particles thus influencing them. The first cause argument is long obsolete.
Which is a worthless collection of words as far as I can tell.
If you want to fool yourself so you can pretend you chose Deism based on intellect go ahead. Don’t expect anyone here to applaud your self delusion.
there was no such premise inherent in that statement. ILM was asking why YOU would presume a necessity for magic to explain perceived “complexity” when we have observable examples of so-called complexity existing with no need of magic.
[/QUOTE]
If you are beginning with the assumption that raccoons can exist without the need for a creator, then yes, you are assuming no designer is required. That’s simple logic.
So to put it another way, if there is a Creator, the scientific method will be unable to find it?
They’re just assertions.
Inferred from what neccesary implication?
Scientists don’t say that. Evolution alone (selected changes in allelles leading to adaptation and speciation) does not necessarily have to imply common ancestry. Common biological ancestry of all species on earth is inferred from more data than the mere knowledge that evolution occurs.
No; he’s saying that science doesn’t “allow for possibilities”. It looks for evidence, not wild guesses.
No it doesn’t, as I have explained multiple times.
No, the truth. When have the people who used God as an explanation ever been right ?
The scientific method is also useless for finding evidence of the Easter Bunny, Batman, Thor, and Santa Claus.
Are you noticing a pattern here?