god didnt build plants, because they are natural, plants dont need a mechanic
Debate Rounds (5)
natures prime operative is progress, anti force being preservation
You say nature flows in the path of least resistance. Naturally, yes. But who said "God" is not what is natural? If all natural and unnatural things come from a God, them plants come as well. Even if you use "God" as the Christian one, God created all that is natural and human beings twisted his creation with the help of the "Devil".
Your claim is only true if you say God makes things that are out of nature/physics, which is contradicted by the Bible and even post-modern definitions of "God", like "he who makes the laws of physics". The whole discussion is flawed, though, because of the great amount of definitions that the word "God" can have.
a plant is not a concept
plants are, there is no need for some one to repair them because no one build the plants
natural is random, not specified, intent is specified
You said natural is random, not specified.
Life is not random. Life follows patterns, which are known as the laws of physics, chemistry, maths...
You can know plants are not entirely random because plants of the same species look the same. They have same attributes and characteristics as well. Natural is constructed randomly under well established laws through observation and experimentation. That said, it's random, following a specific set of rules. They can do anything as long as it's inside those rules.
What I'm saying is: it all depends on your concept of God. If a God is someone who makes the laws of science, then plants, being under laws of science, exist because of God's intent.
You also have to try to express yourself clearly. This is a communication and communications are two-ways based. You can't assume I will understand your message just by you saying random things. I contradicted your arguments and I want mine to be contradicted as well. Otherwise, it's not a debate, but an argument.
random is a pattern
math is not natural, math is mechanical, and math is only considered true based on reality or logic
creation and destruction is impossible in reality, matter=1=1=transformation
so science created plants if i believe it?
"random is a pattern"
Yes, the results of how your body looks and how plants grow are random WITHIN laws. I'm arguing that it's possible that those laws come from some sort of intent. You DID NOT answer my question about God. What's God for you?
"Math is not natural"
Maybe not. But we can understand how the world works with it. Thus, we can understand how nature works. Fibonacci, etc.
"Math is only considered true based on reality or logic"
What do you consider true? Isn't it true what is based on reality?
"creation and destruction is impossible in reality, matter=1=1=transformation"
True and False. In reality all we have is something being transformed into another thing, or an amount of things, etc. That said, things are being destroyed and created everytime. When something rises, something falls. It's the ultimate circle of life.
"so science created plants if i believe it?"
What the hell is your problem, man? I'm not saying science created plants. I'm saying plants follow a natural pattern which are based on laws of physics. Men did not "invent" laws of physics. These are known behaviors of the world we live in, based on experimentation and observation. Those LAWS are how we can know our world. I'm not saying science created plants. I'm saying nature, God, whatever you call it, operate under certain laws that makes the creation of plants possible.
yes, you cant figure much out about the world without thinking..
reality is true.. consideration is not true
make the matter that is an apple nothing, i dare you
creation=from nothing to something
nature is created or not
possibilities are false
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate