We found love through the Lord (From The Argus)
Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.
We found love through the Lord
7:00am Saturday 2nd February 2013 in News By Anna Roberts, Crime reporter
Meet Mark and Christina Betson – who have God to thank for their marriage.
The couple got together after meeting on a Christian dating website and said that if it was not for the man upstairs they would still be single.
Speaking to The Argus, Mr Betson described how, both their prayers had been answered.
Catholic Mrs Betson met Church of England vicar Mr Betson during her first week of using the website last year.
He was the first man she went out with while on a week’s free trial, while he had been using the website for six months.
Mr Betson said he was about to quit the website but decided to go on one last date – and he is glad he did.
Now the couple are happily married and spend their time together at their home in Upper Beeding, near Horsham.
Mr Betson, 35, the parish priest for Upper Beeding, explained how he logged onto Christian Connection – the dating website – with the hope of finding a partner.
Difficult search
He said: “In a rural parish there are not many people my own age and not many single ones.
“Also my job is very full on.
“I had been on other dating websites but they seemed a bit more superficial.
“I had met other women on Christian Connection and while they were really lovely, we just did not click.
“But when I met Christina I knew she was the one.
“We had the same sense of humour and openness.”
The couple’s first date was a walk along a river and then tea and cake.
Thanking God
From there, they carried on seeing each other and just six months later were engaged.
Mr Betson said: “We have God to thank for us meeting.”
Primary school worker Mrs Betson, 34, agreed, adding: “I did pray before going online and it happened in such a perfect way for me.
“I now thank Him daily for bringing us together.”
Have you met your partner in an unusual way? Email anna.roberts@theargus.co.uk.
See the latest news headlines from The Argus:
- Brighton and Hove Albion players on trial for sex assault - day eleven
- Texan cheerleaders' Brighton treat
- A27 closed in both directions near Worthing after serious accident
- Lose your head at Brighton Fringe - literally
- Sussex hospital gets blood recycling technology
Add us to your circles on Google+
Comments(60)
668 The neighbour of the beast
says...
8:44am Sat 2 Feb 13
Yes, Anna, I met my partner standing next to a bouncy castle that was making awful raspberry and screeching noises. I had no idea it would one day be my mother-in-law.
Telscombe Cliffy
says...
8:46am Sat 2 Feb 13
Angryoldman
says...
8:52am Sat 2 Feb 13
All 9 of me wrote:Unfortunately a belief in sky fairies warps and deludes the mind.
don't they mean they have the internet to thank ??
Nelly P
says...
8:57am Sat 2 Feb 13
How on earth can you call this story 'news'?
Lady Smith
says...
9:12am Sat 2 Feb 13
Nelly P wrote:My thoughts exactly. What's that I hear? Why, the sound of the bottom of the barrel being scraped in the newsroom again....Truly pathetic.
In other news an agnostic met an atheist on another dating website and they lived happily ever after.
How on earth can you call this story 'news'?
Ballroom Blitz
says...
9:12am Sat 2 Feb 13
Nelly P wrote:Took the words out of my mouth..
In other news an agnostic met an atheist on another dating website and they lived happily ever after.
How on earth can you call this story 'news'?
PETE OF QUEENS PARK
says...
9:46am Sat 2 Feb 13
668 The neighbour of the beast
says...
9:51am Sat 2 Feb 13
It's a story with a religious theme that doesn't involve child abuse...of course it's unusual and praise-worthy.
Does Christian Connections have a link for same-sex partnerships/marriag
e? What is the Lord's position on LGBT issues? Is He really a woman?
Does the rapid rise of Sharia Law mean that religion will be increasingly implicated in state-sanctioned homophobic attacks? How can politicians defend primitive religions if they advocate hate crimes?
I like it when stories come up about religion and the ongoing slaughter propped-up by devout followers of different varieties of sky pixie.
mimseycal
says...
10:48am Sat 2 Feb 13
earloflucan
says...
10:57am Sat 2 Feb 13
I met my wife at a satanic ceremony to give homage to the Devil we have been happily married for 43 years OH praise to Satan for bringing us together
Mr Murdoch
says...
11:10am Sat 2 Feb 13
earloflucan wrote:.. "fairy tales"..."sky fairies"... "imaginary friend"...
What utter dribble poor deluded couple who believe in fairy tales and shame on the Argus for printing such an unworthy piece of rubbish
I met my wife at a satanic ceremony to give homage to the Devil we have been happily married for 43 years OH praise to Satan for bringing us together
Interesting... When someone is losing an argument that's when they stoop to insults, rather than logic.
In this supposedly 'enlightened' society with equal rights for all we should celebrate diversity, not sling mud at it just because we don't believe it. Especially when it is positive news like this.
elainepkils
says...
12:44pm Sat 2 Feb 13
Mr Murdoch
says...
12:57pm Sat 2 Feb 13
elainepkils wrote:Just think about it logically for a moment. Does the fact that people die in the UK and crime takes place mean that the Prime Minister or Queen simply does not exist?
God made their marriage come about whilst letting 20 thousand children die a day from poverty and starvation. Priests and rabbis abusing little children daily,when the Church could spend some of their millions helping the starving God does not exist get real.
Twenty thousand children die a day due to human corruption and greed. And the terrible things people/religion/chur
ches do to misrepresent God is also irrelevant to a logical discussion about whether he exists or not.
still waiting
says...
1:38pm Sat 2 Feb 13
MuammarQaddafi
says...
2:02pm Sat 2 Feb 13
Mr Murdoch
says...
2:08pm Sat 2 Feb 13
It's a real shame when people stoop to silly insults as means to belittle people's beliefs, rather than intelligence or logic.
668 The neighbour of the beast
says...
3:23pm Sat 2 Feb 13
To cut to the quick, yes, anything is possible? This does not necessarily invole logical argument, by the way.
God might exist. But the odds are equally in favour that those monkeys have finished typing the complete works of Shakespeare before you can make an effective argument to support the weird and incoherent, war-inducing disagreement common to most religions?
What kind of a weirdo would say "my son needs to die so that I can take away all of your sins"?
Why would such a deity commend a father for saying "here, rape my daughter but just don't upset my male guests"?
The truly great thing about Christianity is that at least it allows debate. Odd that most people in this liberal country would have something along the lines of 'fear of death' in the back of their minds before speaking out publicly about the spread of Islamic fundamentalism.
Perhaps though, playing logical fallacy games means that those worshipping a different god, and despising others for their choice, are just as likely to be correct if they use the same argument as yourself?
No point appealing to logic on matters outside of her control.
All that said, I hope this lovely couple have a wonderful life together and that they had nice weather on the big day.
Kind regards
Ethereal goblin (Ms)
Mr Murdoch
says...
3:42pm Sat 2 Feb 13
The irony is that it requires more 'faith' to believe that all those wonderful snowmen we saw recently on almost every street corner just simply 'happened', rather then were built :-)
668 The neighbour of the beast
says...
4:07pm Sat 2 Feb 13
Mr Murdoch wrote:Surely you mean the snow people/ persons?
Logic falls apart when you confuse the issue of religion and its misrepresentation, with the debate over the existence of God. It's as illogical as saying that football hooligans represent football.
The irony is that it requires more 'faith' to believe that all those wonderful snowmen we saw recently on almost every street corner just simply 'happened', rather then were built :-)
As it happens I understand the recent snow people were beheaded by possibly dark forces in wellington boots using hedge-trimmers supplied by the local council (Argus passim). I don't think they were even offered stoning.
Odd that anyone would create snow people only for them to melt repeatedly in the flames of Luton for eternity because they failed to worship the Norse snow god: Ullr.
elainepkils
says...
4:27pm Sat 2 Feb 13
Tammy Flugh
says...
5:57pm Sat 2 Feb 13
mimseycal
says...
6:29pm Sat 2 Feb 13
bluemonday
says...
6:50pm Sat 2 Feb 13
elainepkils wrote:so,god creates the earth,gives man the knowledge to create a world where no one has to starve or suffer but man screws it up for his own benefit,but yet that's still gods fault.give the guy/woman a break
God made their marriage come about whilst letting 20 thousand children die a day from poverty and starvation. Priests and rabbis abusing little children daily,when the Church could spend some of their millions helping the starving God does not exist get real.
Hoarder12345444
says...
6:56pm Sat 2 Feb 13
Angryoldman wrote:Great they found happiness, but god didn't help, because he doesn't exist, at all.
All 9 of me wrote:Unfortunately a belief in sky fairies warps and deludes the mind.
don't they mean they have the internet to thank ??
mimseycal
says...
9:14pm Sat 2 Feb 13
Hoarder12345444 wrote:To them God does exist though and like it or not, that is what counts to them.
Angryoldman wrote:Great they found happiness, but god didn't help, because he doesn't exist, at all.
All 9 of me wrote:Unfortunately a belief in sky fairies warps and deludes the mind.
don't they mean they have the internet to thank ??
PaulOckenden
says...
9:35pm Sat 2 Feb 13
MuammarQaddafi
says...
9:52pm Sat 2 Feb 13
Mr Murdoch
says...
11:49pm Sat 2 Feb 13
MuammarQaddafi wrote:Yes you are right. But it is sad when you see some use phrases such as "imaginary friend" "fairy in the sky" etc as a derogatory way of belittling other's beliefs, as if it is based on nothing. No one has been able to prove that God does not exist. And we are surrounded by constant examples of intelligent design -from artists to musicians to poets and architects.
@Mr Murdoch, "invisible friend" is no insult. Christians do believe that God is invisible, and that He is a Friend, do they not? I seem to recall something from my Sunday school days about straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
Everyone has a right to believe in something, but we should all take a moment to at least once, question and analyse that belief - atheists included, as that also requires a leap of faith- without belittling others.
stepford
says...
1:28am Mon 4 Feb 13
It'd be more suited to a copy of Take A Break or some similar hocus pocus "true life" mag.
stepford
says...
1:31am Mon 4 Feb 13
Mr Murdoch wrote:If people believe in stupid things, why can't be mock it? You'd soon take the micky if they thanked the Easter Bunny for their relationship.
MuammarQaddafi wrote:Yes you are right. But it is sad when you see some use phrases such as "imaginary friend" "fairy in the sky" etc as a derogatory way of belittling other's beliefs, as if it is based on nothing. No one has been able to prove that God does not exist. And we are surrounded by constant examples of intelligent design -from artists to musicians to poets and architects.
@Mr Murdoch, "invisible friend" is no insult. Christians do believe that God is invisible, and that He is a Friend, do they not? I seem to recall something from my Sunday school days about straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
Everyone has a right to believe in something, but we should all take a moment to at least once, question and analyse that belief - atheists included, as that also requires a leap of faith- without belittling others.
There is no such thing as intelligent design. Things you point out as examples do not require an intelligent designer. It's just human development. Nobody can prove unicorns don't exist, but that doesn't mean they do or that believing in them is rational. Also, atheism doesn't require faith; it requires rationality and logic.
Mr Murdoch
says...
1:42am Mon 4 Feb 13
No such thing as "intelligent design"?....ok that's fine if you don't want to believe in intelligence! But I don't think van Gogh or Beethoven would appreciate you trying to tell someone that there was no intelligence behind their work... in fact according to you their work 'just happened' Maybe like the snowmen that appeared across the countryside recently -they weren't the work of creative people, they just resulted from an explosion of snow according to your theory. Now that certainly does require a leap of faith...
stepford
says...
11:37am Mon 4 Feb 13
Mr Murdoch wrote:I have logic on my side and have had long and complex discussions about it and I came to the conclusion that it is a stupid belief. There's no logic to your idea that I can't be mocking and correct. And 'intelligent design', in this context, refers to a creation theory.
Stepford -The fact that you call it "stupid things" from the outset reveals you have already lost the argument. No need to stoop to insults if you have logic on your side.
No such thing as "intelligent design"?....ok that's fine if you don't want to believe in intelligence! But I don't think van Gogh or Beethoven would appreciate you trying to tell someone that there was no intelligence behind their work... in fact according to you their work 'just happened' Maybe like the snowmen that appeared across the countryside recently -they weren't the work of creative people, they just resulted from an explosion of snow according to your theory. Now that certainly does require a leap of faith...
Regardless of belief, this is basically a free (presumably) advert for Christian mingle and not a news story. Christians will thank God for their relationships. This isn't news. Atheists and people of religions other than Christianity also build relationships on and off the net. Many other Christians have too. How is this a news story?
Mr Murdoch
says...
11:48am Mon 4 Feb 13
But interestingly, creation isn't a theory. You just created a username, and created a post on a website created by a website designer. No doubt you also frequently design things yourself. I work in the film production industry which is full of 'creative' people. We have examples all around us, which if we apply the scientific method of observation and hypothesis, means the action of intelligent creative design does indeed take place, it can be replicated and is hence not a myth.
mimseycal
says...
12:49pm Mon 4 Feb 13
Mr Murdoch wrote:Creative design does indeed exist. However Creative Design in a theological context is a totally different proposition.
Thanks Stepford. I agree this isn't a news story. But there have been the usual insults in the comments section which I am reply to. Even if you disagree there is no reason to mock someone's beliefs.
But interestingly, creation isn't a theory. You just created a username, and created a post on a website created by a website designer. No doubt you also frequently design things yourself. I work in the film production industry which is full of 'creative' people. We have examples all around us, which if we apply the scientific method of observation and hypothesis, means the action of intelligent creative design does indeed take place, it can be replicated and is hence not a myth.
Mr Murdoch
says...
1:09pm Mon 4 Feb 13
mimseycal wrote:"Creative Design in a theological context is a totally different proposition."
Mr Murdoch wrote:Creative design does indeed exist. However Creative Design in a theological context is a totally different proposition.
Thanks Stepford. I agree this isn't a news story. But there have been the usual insults in the comments section which I am reply to. Even if you disagree there is no reason to mock someone's beliefs.
But interestingly, creation isn't a theory. You just created a username, and created a post on a website created by a website designer. No doubt you also frequently design things yourself. I work in the film production industry which is full of 'creative' people. We have examples all around us, which if we apply the scientific method of observation and hypothesis, means the action of intelligent creative design does indeed take place, it can be replicated and is hence not a myth.
How so mimseycal?
elainepkils
says...
2:00pm Mon 4 Feb 13
Mr Murdoch
says...
2:14pm Mon 4 Feb 13
elainepkils
says...
2:52pm Mon 4 Feb 13
Mr Murdoch
says...
3:07pm Mon 4 Feb 13
But we need to remove this gross misrepresentation from any discussion of God's existence. The beauty of life, of art, music, literature, science, philosophy, of the ability to laugh and love -and even have this discussion over whether God exists or not- let us celebrate that, and the intelligence and creativity so apparent therein.
mimseycal
says...
8:54pm Mon 4 Feb 13
Mr Murdoch wrote:Creative Design in a theological sense, or to give it its more commonly given name, Intelligent Design, presupposes the existence of God.
mimseycal wrote:"Creative Design in a theological context is a totally different proposition."
Mr Murdoch wrote:Creative design does indeed exist. However Creative Design in a theological context is a totally different proposition.
Thanks Stepford. I agree this isn't a news story. But there have been the usual insults in the comments section which I am reply to. Even if you disagree there is no reason to mock someone's beliefs.
But interestingly, creation isn't a theory. You just created a username, and created a post on a website created by a website designer. No doubt you also frequently design things yourself. I work in the film production industry which is full of 'creative' people. We have examples all around us, which if we apply the scientific method of observation and hypothesis, means the action of intelligent creative design does indeed take place, it can be replicated and is hence not a myth.
How so mimseycal?
In fact it postulates the existence of God as being evidenced by the fact that the complexity of the universe and life is such that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by attributing the mere existence to an intelligent design(er).
It is in fact a posteriori argument masquerading as an a priori one.
Mr Murdoch
says...
9:19pm Mon 4 Feb 13
Thus we must look at physical evidence to establish how nature works, in the priori sense. And we are surrounded by such evidence on a very simple (absent of presupposition) level: children take snow and make a snowman (or woman). However, the snowman just appeared overnight from nothing takes a leap of faith -and a presupposition- that such an extraordinary occurrence is possible, even though it has never happened before.
mimseycal
says...
11:56pm Mon 4 Feb 13
Mr Murdoch wrote:Nope ... a posteriori argument depends on observation. Therefore the argument that something does not exist can never be a posteriori argument.
Alternatively, an argument that God does not exist is similarly posteriori, it presupposes non-existence is possible, which cannot be proven.
Thus we must look at physical evidence to establish how nature works, in the priori sense. And we are surrounded by such evidence on a very simple (absent of presupposition) level: children take snow and make a snowman (or woman). However, the snowman just appeared overnight from nothing takes a leap of faith -and a presupposition- that such an extraordinary occurrence is possible, even though it has never happened before.
Let me explain using the swan analogy that is the most common one. You see 100 white swans and therefore argue, a posteriori, that all swans are white; which given the basis of your empirical observations to date is a perfectly valid conclusion, or inference.
It however depends on no black, grey or purple polka dotted swans being observed at sometime in the future. A posteriori argument therefore is always left subject to change depending on potential future observations.
Now it is true that non-existence can be taken as an a posteriori argument in that non-existence can be proven on observational data. I see no strawberries and therefore conclude, quite legitimately, that strawberries do not exist until such time as I am presented with a strawberry when observational data will quite rightly prove my a posteriori argument - there are no strawberries - false.
However I cannot legitimately make the a posteriori argument that "unicorns exist" because I have seen a horse and I know that some animals have horns on their foreheads and everybody knows that a wild unicorn can be tamed by a maiden.
There are some concepts that you cannot prove nor disprove and must take on faith. The existence and equally the non-existence of God being one of those. Just as your example of the snowman springing up from nowhere without any presupposition (of a group of children having a midnight snowman building frenzy) would require a leap of faith.
Mr Murdoch
says...
12:38am Tue 5 Feb 13
You write: "There are some concepts that you cannot prove nor disprove and must take on faith. The existence and equally the non-existence of God being one of those."
Yes that was my point -that a belief in the non-existence of God (atheism) also requires faith.
However my additional argument worth considering is that it actually requires more faith than a belief in intelligent design, as there are tangible examples of creative design (e.g. the device you are using to make these comments on a website) all around us, which can be replicated (i.e. scientific method) so go beyond a simple hypothesis. However there are no tangible/replicable examples of design resulting from 'nothing'. And even if there was a scientific test that could prove that life/design results from nothing, it in itself would be controlled by intelligence and thus prove that ultimately there was a designer involved.
It is the same with philosophy -theorising over posteriori/priori arguments for example are fantastic, as it broadens horizons and allows us to analyse life from differing perspectives; but it is also the result of humans 'creating' something new, of intelligent design in it's own right, even when ironically some try to use it to rationalise the alternative.
mimseycal
says...
9:39am Tue 5 Feb 13
Is this not rather an example of an anthrocentric (human-centered) fallacy (J.S.Mill - System of Logic (1843).
Because mere humans cannot create something out of nothing, and because the universe exists there must be something that fashioned the universe and therefore it of necessity follows that God is the Intelligent Designer.
Pure anthrocentric fallacy!
Mr Murdoch
says...
10:44am Tue 5 Feb 13
That takes a rather large jump in logic... in fact nothing could be further from the the truth. The discussion here is whether God exists or not. If he does, does that then logically place human's at the centre of the universe?
Actually no it does not, quite the opposite. If he does exist it means there is a higher authority, to which we are answerable, which most definitely means we are not the centre and/or supreme! Religions -such as Catholicism- have promoted an anthrocentric philosophy as a means to subjugate the people, but as mentioned previously do not confuse misrepresentation when considering this issue logically.
In fact, belief that God does not exist is entirely anthrocentric because it alleges there is no 'higher authority' to which we are accountable or who deserves our respect, meaning we are all centres of our own universes.
mimseycal
says...
12:39pm Tue 5 Feb 13
Now the issue isn't whether God exists or not but rather whether the theory of Intelligent Design of necessity proves that God exists.
That is where the anthrocentric fallacy sits; which is also precisely the reason that the theory of Intelligent Design cannot of necessity prove the existence of God or otherwise.
Now you are welcome to change the goalposts but please at least have the intellectual integrity to do so openly.
You also make the mistake of assuming that the anthrocentric fallacy = anthrocentric reasoning.
Anthrocentric reasoning does, I'll grant you, lead to the anthrocentric fallacy but that is it.
As for the failure to accept the existence of God, or otherwise, of necessity implying that there is no higher authority then the individual - which is what I read in your statement - well ... there is another failure to differentiate between the general and the particular.
Egocentricity would suggest that indeed there is no higher authority then the individual. However the very nature of 'man' (using this in the generic sense and therefore embracing all the various manifestations and instances; male female, hermaphrodite, undecided or transgendered ;)) is that it is a social animal. Therefore it depends on cooperation and interaction; which of necessity would imply that there is a higher authority beyond the individual.
Those individuals who elect to accept, on Faith, the existence of God, would necessarily hold that God is the higher authority. Others, who do not elect to accept, on Faith, the existence of God, would hold the rules of social interaction, the law of the land, the regulations that determine the exchange of goods and services, as having a higher authority.
Mr Murdoch
says...
12:59pm Tue 5 Feb 13
However I would certainly differentiate the "rules of social interaction" in a discussion about the existence of God. Are you saying that if one believes in God then that person also by default does not hold to the "rules of social interaction, the law of the land, the regulations that determine the exchange of goods and services, as having a higher authority"? I think not. Interestingly, a belief in God is more likely to engender more respect for social/natural order, than a "survival of the fittest" mentality.
Rather than cloud the issue, let's keep this simple, and I think the snowman/woman illustrates this very well. Which one do you think is egocentric/anthrocen
tric and/or taking a larger leap of faith?: 1. The snowman who says he was made by someone else. 2. The snowman who said he made himself.
If we are looking to find a scientific principle to explain our existence (and as already established both a belief and non-belief in God requires faith) we must look to the scientific method when analysing this.
Intelligent/creative design or whatever you want to call it is simply not a theory. We see evidence of it all around us, and in fact in having this discussion, we are a living example of it.
mimseycal
says...
8:44pm Tue 5 Feb 13
As for your claim regarding the effect that the 'survival of the fittest' would manifest. The phrase itself originated in evolutionary theory where it was applied as synonymous with natural selection. A living organism would have to adapt to the surroundings in which it found itself. Failure to do so would lessen its chances to procreate and therefore the opportunity to produce progeny. Failure to produce progeny in the long run would inevitably lead to extinction in the normal course of events.
The original phrase refers to eventual consequences. Your contextual application of the phrase refers to intentional actions. They are two different phrases with two entirely different meanings.
As for clouding the issue and keeping it simple ... Any claim made by anyone (snowman, one eyed one horned flying purple people eater or a man/woman) would depend on a: an ability to formulate a concept b: the ability to articulate that concept and c: an audience that could assimilate that concept.
The ability to formulate a concept requires experience. The ability to articulate a concept requires language/a way of transmitting meaning. The ability to assimilate a concept requires 1: the ability to process the meaning transmitted 2: a framework/reference against which the meaning can be evaluated/measured.
So the presumption, with or without preconceptions, that a snowman would claim anything is taking us beyond the realms of the simple and into the realms of fantasy.
As for your last claim you are applying anthropomorphic reasoning. Humans developed speech and reasoning, humans discovered electricity, humans designed, developed and innovated electronic communication; none of which implies of necessity that the universe was created by an intentional act or series of actions on the part of an intelligent designer.
So to return to my original post. Creative design does indeed exist. However Creative Design in a theological context is a totally different proposition.
Mr Murdoch
says...
9:26pm Tue 5 Feb 13
Of course I am sure you have intentionally missed my point regarding the snowman for the sake of humour...! Obviously this was not to be taken literally -but illustrative of the philosophical situation.
But I am curious as to why you can state with such certainty that there is no correlation between design on a basic level and then scaling this up to a larger scale -the universe and life in it. How is it that a basic principal suddenly becomes invalid on a larger scale?
For you to know that it is invalid and/or a different proposition would mean that you have evidence that something designed does not require a designer. You can supply an example please?
Additionally there are many aspects to life that simply couldn't happen 'by chance'. Such as RNA and proteins forming by chance, in the same place, at the same time, to be able to work cohesively together to form a cell.
mimseycal
says...
10:49pm Tue 5 Feb 13
The appearance, unexplained, sudden or otherwise, of an inanimate object, even if it has anthropomorphic features, does not imply anything with regards to the existence or non existence of an intelligent designer of something other than the inanimate object itself.
The fact is that your arguments all depend on the basic premise that intelligent design and therefore the existence of an intelligent designer is an accepted fact. You cannot possibly hope to prove, or disprove for that matter, a proposition on the premise that the proposition is true.
You apply the term creative design in the concrete sense (the snowman/electronic communication) - evidenced, verifiable and when it comes to the two people in this discussion, experienced (the case might be totally different if you were to try and use the snowman to a Khoikhoi who had never left his/her native homeland.
You then rely on this concrete premise to prove a proposition which, by its very nature of not being proven, is abstract.
I really don't know in how many different ways you want me to repeat the same objection to your fallacious argument.
As for your claim that life could not have happened 'by chance'. Of course it hasn't happened by chance. The spontaneous generation theory has been losing support since the 17th Century and by the middle of the 19th century due to evidential support (by scientifically verifiable methods) the theory of biogenesis had by and large consigned it to history.
Since then a variety of theories regarding the origin of life have been proposed all based on scientifically verifiable methods. Not one of them can claim, or has attempted to claim, to be the definitive explanation of the origins of life.
Human knowledge is however ever expanding. We are learning more and more each day. At one stage we held that the Sun, Moon, stars, and those planets we could see orbited Earth. We now know this most definitely not to be the case.
If you will allow this agnostic Jew with humanistic overtones to quote - 1 Corinthians 13:11: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; now that I have become a man, I am done with childish ways and have put them aside.
I propose that in knowledge mankind is still a child. The more we learn, the more we realise how little we know. In that sense your theory of Intelligent Design is as valid as any other theory but for the fact that it is scientifically unverifiable and on the premises you put forward, unprovable.
mimseycal
says...
10:54pm Tue 5 Feb 13
The appearance, unexplained, sudden or otherwise, of an inanimate object, even if it has anthropomorphic features, does not imply anything with regards to the existence or non existence of an intelligent designer of something other than the inanimate object itself.
The fact is that your arguments all depend on the basic premise that intelligent design and therefore the existence of an intelligent designer is an accepted fact. You cannot possibly hope to prove, or disprove for that matter, a proposition on the premise that the proposition is true.
You apply the term creative design in the concrete sense (the snowman/electronic communication) - evidenced, verifiable and when it comes to the two people in this discussion, experienced (the case might be totally different if you were to try and use the snowman to a Khoikhoi who had never left his/her native homeland.
You then rely on this concrete premise to prove a proposition which, by its very nature of not being proven, is abstract.
I really don't know in how many different ways you want me to repeat the same objection to your fallacious argument.
As for your claim that life could not have happened 'by chance'. Of course it hasn't happened by chance. The spontaneous generation theory has been losing support since the 17th Century and by the middle of the 19th century due to evidential support (by scientifically verifiable methods) the theory of biogenesis had by and large consigned it to history.
Since then a variety of theories regarding the origin of life have been proposed all based on scientifically verifiable methods. Not one of them can claim, or has attempted to claim, to be the definitive explanation of the origins of life.
Human knowledge is however ever expanding. We are learning more and more each day. At one stage we held that the Sun, Moon, stars, and those planets we could see orbited Earth. We now know this most definitely not to be the case.
If you will allow this agnostic Jew with humanistic overtones to quote - 1 Corinthians 13:11: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; now that I have become a man, I am done with childish ways and have put them aside.
I propose that in knowledge mankind is still a child. The more we learn, the more we realise how little we know. In that sense your theory of Intelligent Design is as valid as any other theory but for the fact that it is scientifically unverifiable and, on the premises you put forward, unprovable.
mimseycal
says...
10:57pm Tue 5 Feb 13
Mr Murdoch
says...
11:33pm Tue 5 Feb 13
And that is most interesting that you describe yourself as agnostic, and that essentially you accept the theory of intelligent design is potentially valid, and that life didn't happen by chance.
My question then is... if it didn't happen by chance, what is the alternative you propose?
My proposition is that intelligent design/creative design, in a concrete sense, is an accepted fact (i.e. no one is foolish enough to believe the car they drive simply happened via an accident in a factory). Scientists use their intelligence to put two elements together to form a new one, to even, controversially, 'create' life.
Why then can this not apply on a larger scale? This is a scientific (not philosophical) hypothesis that is viable and replicable in different environments -simply seen in the inanimate (snowmen!) but also in the animate.
And what theory - other than intelligent design - can explain how a complex cell organism can form when individual components such as the RNA and proteins would need to co-exist simultaneously?
What is the alternative to chance?
mimseycal
says...
12:41am Wed 6 Feb 13
The proposition that life originated by chance was contained in the spontaneous generation theory. As previously stated that was starting to lose ground in the 17th century and debunked almost entirely by the mid 19th century.
So to intimate that my accepting that life did not originate by chance must of necessity mean that I am in agreement with the Intelligent Design, thereby effectively dismissing what I have actually said about subsequent theories, not to mention the point I made regarding the incomplete stock of knowledge in our possession to date, is rather disingenuous to say the least.
I have read your proposition a number of times and so far you have not been able to construct an argument that is either logically irrefutable or demonstrably provable.
Shifting your proposition from the (fashioned) snowman to the (manufactured) car does not alter the fact that your proposition relies on proving its veracity on the premise that your proposition is true.
This is becoming rather a circuitous argument. We are not advancing but merely repeating ourselves over and over again.
As for scientific hypotheis regarding the origin of life ... I am not a scientist but merely an avidly curious individual with the rather odd habit of reading anything that I come across. I suggest you look at abiogenesis for scientific hypotheses about the origins of life.
Mr Murdoch
says...
1:16am Wed 6 Feb 13
You sadly seem to want to read more into what I am writing than is there. My last comment was quite clearly full of questions that you have converted into statements. I simply asked you "what is the alternative to chance?" and you have translated this into me disingenuously stating that you are in "agreement with the Intelligent Design" which is absolutely not what I said at all! I was only asking what you thought...
The reason for the circuitous 'argument' (although I would prefer and hope 'discussion') is that you seem rather disinclined to answer a very simple question and would unfortunately rather pick holes in the manner of description and/or illustration (so I will try to avoid mention of snowmen or cars as that will clearly lead you onto another tangent and you will miss the point of what is being said!).
It's simple: If we accept design on a basic level, then why not on a larger more complex scale, when intelligence would logically be even more critical?
And the question/answer does not have to be philosophical. The scientific method is used to establish what scientists cannot physically see (for example planetary systems) so there is no need for presupposition here, just simple observation and logic.
Observation of life in its wonderfully complex form, its beauty, humour, its creativity in areas such as music and art, and its yet to be discovered future wonders and potentials, are very good reasons why it is seriously worth considering that there is indeed intelligence behind it, and a purpose, and to celebrate that.
mimseycal
says...
2:05am Wed 6 Feb 13
Mr Murdoch
says...
2:28am Wed 6 Feb 13
elainepkils
says...
2:57pm Thu 7 Feb 13
The bible was written by men who say they were actually at the conversations between two people for if they are not then how do they know what was said. Anyone can accept these things in the bible as true but I need proof. If you prove there is a god then he must be so wicked as to help footballers but not starving children.
Mr Murdoch
says...
3:40pm Thu 7 Feb 13
Actually I liked to be convinced, I don't want to believe in anything that is without some logic and as you say proof. We all need to question our beliefs at least once, if not regularly.
But just because there are children starving in terrible conditions (primarily due to gross mismanagement and greed) simply does not mean that God does not exist and/or he does not care and want to take action. It is just the same as alleging that the Prime Minister or any authority figure does not exist in the UK every time a crime takes place. There is a much bigger picture being ignored to allege non-existence based on 'seeming' non-action.
From all the evidence I can see, God does care deeply and will act. In fact the Bible contained laws for the protection of food and children in ancient times, and in more recent times promoted basic principals such as to 'love thy neighbour', 'love thy enemies' and to look after and give to the poor, widows and orphans. Misrepresentation by mainstream religion has meant most have lost sight of the huge amount of good being promoted.
The Bible also says that 'man is made in God's image' so if we rightly feel horrified by the injustice and destruction apparent around us then we can be rest assured he does too, and wants to -and will- do something about it.
All 9 of me says...
8:42am Sat 2 Feb 13