So let’s address your possible response to your colleague. The de re answer would be that no one can make any meaningful propositions about the way that God made the universe or anything in it until we understand God’s purpose for His creation.Therefore, his argument is unfounded.As a Christian, you can refer to Genesis 11, where we read the account of people making the vast technological leap of baking clay into bricks, which enabled them to build a “tower to the heavens.” God saw what they had done and said “now that they have done this, nothing that they think of will be impossible for them.”He therefore confused their language so that they were hampered in their ability to make further tech discoveries. We can conclude that God’s purpose for creating humans was not so that they could make these sort of achievements.Food for thought - the description of the tree of life in Revelations refers to the leaves of the tree being for “the healing of the nations”. Could this somehow be a process for reversing the confusion imposed by God at the Tower of Babel?
Our tech advancements simply change our context. They don’t change our fundamental nature. They don’t change our hearts. God is interested in observing our demonstration of choices. The tech level of our context is immaterial to that observation. A good person will be good whether he is building a fire in a cave, or living in a high-tech mansion.
Speaking de re to your proposition, I can’t help but again express incredulity that anyone could possibly suppose that the God who is powerful enough to create a human being out of nothing would be left awestruck by an iPhone. Doesn’t that just seem to be a little bit ridiculous?
Hmmmm...It’s odd to me that you claimed to be a Christian but seem to have little understanding of what that means. In fact, your other posts depict you as an atheist. What gives? Why misrepresent yourself?Also, you don’t seem to understand how a formal debate works, and you don’t understand what free will is even though it was explained to you.I would add that your other “debate proposals” have similar issues.You’re welcome here, but best to share ideas honestly in the appropriate section.
This is quoted from the "Guidelines" that you would do well to read:"This is a space designed for structured debates within the Reasonable Faith online community.Please note that new threads should only be created in this forum when two parties have agreed to a debate topic and format, and have a debate administrator who has agreed to oversee the whole process.If you wish to issue a debate challenge, it can be done here in this thread, by PM, or in another forum.I will update this post with a list of available challenges, debate administrators, etc."