The fact that you keep bringing up this ridiculous false dichotomy, where the only two options are 'magic man did it', and 'blind chance', demonstrates that you haven't a clue about how evolution works. It's very, very far from blind chance alone.
Well.. while I do believe in God, I do find this argument somewhat misplaced and misconstrued..
..the argument, as always, is, if we can't explain how something came to exist, we must be open to the idea that it was created by intelligent design, supposedly, God.
The problem is that much of the history of religion, particularly early pagan religion, and, arguably, much of the Old Testament - is based upon fear and ignorance.. that is, that we can't understand something, so we attribute it to the supernatural, to a "god".
This is the falicy of intelligent design "science". Because our minds cannot comprehend or explain something.. we must look to a greater power as its source.
Sorry - but my belief system isn't so insecure that I need to engage in simplistic and flawed pseudo-science. I can believe in God without the need to justify it by a theory than holds no water. I have no need to "prove" to anyone else than God exists. I am completely comfortable that other people don't hold that belief.
This, to me, is how religion should be. Those who feel the need to "prove" God's existence, or to press upon others their version of God's existance.. well, deep down, it simply exhibits their own insecurity and betrays their lack of faith.
"..the argument, as always, is, if we can't explain how something came to exist, we must be open to the idea that it was created by intelligent design, supposedly, God."
This is emphatically not what the ID argument is.
"Sorry - but my belief system isn't so insecure..."
You are quick to justify yourself, impugn motive, and jump to the ad hominem rather quickly, my friend.
"I am completely comfortable that other people don't hold that belief."
And that in a nutshell is the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian. We are commanded to "love our neighbour", and to seek their good as well as our own. Belief in God is not a matter of indifference, as in, "paper or plastic?". What you conclude about God, and how you act upon the results will dictate where you spend your eternity.
David -- in an unintended, unwilled, undesigned universe blind chance is really all you have. Anything else, and you've got a problem. I'm sure you'll agree at least with the "blind" aspect. When you sin, there is no one there watching you or to hold you to account. As for chance, if you postulate "self-organization", you've got a big problem, and if you postulate natural selection, well, you must admit it is blind. The problem with natural selection is it must have something to select. You are stuck with order from disorder, life from non-life, consciousness from non-consciousness, morality from rocks, etc. etc.
Since the universe, in total, is the result of blind chance, and life is the result of blind chance, I think I'll stick with my blind chance monicker.
So, can I put you down for "Blind Chance", or do you want to go with "Intelligent Design"?
I'm with "david" and I chose door number three: that would be 'natural selection'.
Calling it "blind" just underscores your lack of knowledge rkball. There is nothing "blind" about favorable mutations being selected over unfavorable ones.
This 'poll' is silly anyway, the only people who think ID belongs in the same sentence as evolution show themselves to be completely ignorant of science. Your using "blind" is an excellent example of that!
Not to belabour the point.. but I have a strong sensitivity to those who are wrapped up in "loving their neighbor" by pushing their faith on their neighbor, "for their own good."
Can you say, "the crusades"? Can you say "residential schools". God has a special place in hell for those who use his name to press their own agenda of control and manipulation.
Believe or don't. No big deal. Be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew or an atheist.. I will not criticize anyone's faith or lack thereof, until they seek to compel it upon others.. which, at its core is the whole thrust of "ID theory".. ie.. we NEED to prove to others that we are right, and NEED to prevent the godless concept of evolution from being the only game in town in our science classes.
I'm not woried. I have no difficulty seeing evolution and God as completely compatible.
"Calling it "blind" just underscores your lack of knowledge rkball. There is nothing "blind" about favorable mutations being selected over unfavorable ones."
So, you think the selection is being made consciously?
"Can you say, "the crusades"? Can you say "residential schools". God has a special place in hell for those who use his name to press their own agenda of control and manipulation."
So, you believe in God and hell. What about heaven, and how to get there? Or are you driven solely by anger and hate?
"That it happens without reason. That it's random. That there is nothing behind it. It is none of those things."
If the existence of the universe itself is the result of insentient, unthinking, unfeeling "Blind Chance", then everything in it, including life processes, is, ultimately, a result of Blind Chance.
Since life popped into being not by design but by luck or blind chance, then everything that life entails, including natural selection, is, ultimately, the result of Blind Chance -- including, unfortunately, your reasoning abilities.
So, I wouldn't put much stock in anything that either comes from your blind-chance brain.
"Since life popped into being not by design...then everything that life entails, including natural selection, is, ultimately, the result of Blind Chance"
But the mechanism by which they work are not 'blind' at all!
I met my wife through blind-luck. Nothing designed about the meeting at all. Does that mean that EVERYTHING we do is blind-luck? Of course not. The way we met has nothing to do with how we live now...
"including, unfortunately, your reasoning abilities.
So, I wouldn't put much stock in anything that either comes from your blind-chance brain."
It's funny - you appear to be quite nasty. Everybody has shown you respect in these posts, but you seem angry that we disagree with your views...
That you imply that my brain is less than trustworthy sure does show YOUR true colours... it's sad really.
So, I wouldn't put much stock in anything that either comes from your blind-chance brain."
It's funny - you appear to be quite nasty..."
Not at all, and I am sorry if you took it that way. This is a point that has been made by others, such as C.S. Lewis, and by myself over and over at this blog and I assumed you were familiar with the argument. That a brain that is the product of mindless forces, and not designed for rational thought but for -- nothing really -- is by definition untrustworthy.
It's like trusting a computer that was assembled by a hurricane that passed through a junkyard of spare electronics parts.
And that is the brain that you and all of us are stuck with if we are undesigned creatures the product of mindless forces.
In fact I believe that you were designed by God and that he gave you a brain designed for both analytical reasoning and abstract thought, and therefore some credence can be given to your reasoning abilities.
Logically it is you, and not I, who should have a problem with trusting rational thinking from humans.
So... you believe that there is a "mechanism" that came into existence by blind chance that somehow transcends blind chance? Or that blind chance somehow begat something that has nothing to do with blind chance, is that it?
"It's like trusting a computer that was assembled by a hurricane that passed through a junkyard of spare electronics parts"
Not quite... if that self-assembled computer had thousands of years of testing, and solid evidence that it WAS (mostly) trustworthy you'd have an apt comparison.
"that is the brain that you and all of us are stuck with if we are undesigned creatures the product of mindless forces."
I'll never understand the logic of theists... HOW, WHEN, WHERE doesn't change the WHAT! We have the brains that we have... It doesn't change the brain we have to credit god with designing it... it is what it is.
To say that "that is the brain we're stuck with" implies that you can change "the brain we're stuck with" by crediting god with creating it! Ludicrous!
"That a brain that is the product of mindless forces, and not designed for rational thought but for -- nothing really -- is by definition untrustworthy."
By this logic, if a cheetah's leg's were not purposefully designed to run fast, but merely evolved over many generations by natural selection, then we can conclude that a cheetah does not, in fact, run fast.
Sorry, that just does not fly. We can see that the human brain can reason quite well (at least for some of us), just as we can observe that the cheetah can run fast.
"Not quite... if that self-assembled computer had thousands of years of testing, and solid evidence that it WAS (mostly) trustworthy you'd have an apt comparison."
Self-assembled computer? Really?
Testing - by whom or what? It's a hurricane and a junkyard. Exactly, by analogy, the conditions in the universe before life pops into place.
Trustworthy -- what would the criteria be, if there was no mind to test and assess it?
"I'll never understand the logic of theists... HOW, WHEN, WHERE doesn't change the WHAT! We have the brains that we have... It doesn't change the brain we have to credit god with designing it... it is what it is.
To say that "that is the brain we're stuck with" implies that you can change "the brain we're stuck with" by crediting god with creating it! Ludicrous!"
Not really. It goes to philosophical underpinnings. And also scientific improbabilities -- that life would come from non-life, consciousness from non-consciousness, rationality from pond scum, etc. Same for morality. If morality evolved from pond scum, why take it seriously? It certainly can't have any objective validity -- if evolution had evolved us to kill other tribes, then that would be the "good", and to forgo would be the "bad".
A theist understanding of reality is coherent, an atheist's lacks coherence. You've got to do better than just cry, "just is!, just is!".
"If morality evolved from pond scum, why take it seriously?"
Because it doesn't matter WHERE it came from! It makes life bearable, and gives people something to live by. That good feeling YOU get when you help someone is the same feeling I get when I help someone - no god required.
It's sad that WHERE it came from is so important to you, and that coming from "pond scum" invalidates it entirely for you... but that's religion for you I guess.
"By this logic, if a cheetah's leg's were not purposefully designed to run fast, but merely evolved over many generations by natural selection, then we can conclude that a cheetah does not, in fact, run fast."
Non-sequitur (but a nice try!).
"Sorry, that just does not fly. We can see that the human brain can reason quite well (at least for some of us), just as we can observe that the cheetah can run fast."
Reason as an abstract objective entity cannot actually exist in a purely material world, which is what most darwinian atheists posit. Nor can logic, which you make use of, nor mathematics or numbers for that matter -- yet they seem to. The number 2 seems to exist whether or not you have two stones to count, for example. Nor can the mind. Only the brain. Nor can free-will. All you can have are chemical reactions taking place in those undesigned, unintended brains.
In a universe driven by only one consideration -- survival -- we can attribute some validity to a cheetah's running prowess, but can we trust a brain that has evolved into abstract thinking and reasoning, way beyond mere survival value? In fact, if the only criteria is survival and propagation, a brain might well evolve that is delusional yet functional.
No, when it comes to abstract thought and reasoning, a darwinian is on shaky grounds for any number of reasons.
Having just stumbled upon your site today I started commenting on this post before reading any of the others... but having perused some of the other posts it has become clear that you feel that without god - life has no meaning.
I find that truly sad... and utterly unreasonable!! That my life is without meaning is simply not true. You've said things like:
"In an uncreated universe, having feelings of sorrow is an absurdity."
What utter BS! I can't imagine how you come to this conclution, and the fact that I feel sorrow at times proves you wrong too!
" it has become clear that you feel that without god - life has no meaning."
That is absolutely true. Without God, life has no meaning. No purpose. No value. We are not here for a reason, and we have no purpose for being here. Life is unintended, and, if it should cease, it is a matter of utter and complete indifference.
"That my life is without meaning is simply not true."
In an unintended, uncreated universe, any meaning you may discern or create is at best provisional and temporal. Or, more possibly, delusional.
"'In an uncreated universe, having feelings of sorrow is an absurdity.'
What utter BS! I can't imagine how you come to this conclution, and the fact that I feel sorrow at times proves you wrong too!"
No, it does not prove me wrong. That molecules and atoms should have feelings is an absurdity. That a rock should have feelings is an absurdity. That feelings should somehow evolve from an insentient, unthinking, uncaring universe is a whopping absurdity.
What does 'creation' have to do with sorrow?
Creation, and a Creator, provides coherence to the human condition. Atheism results in preposterous absurdity.
It's like mixing coal dust and water and getting feelings. That may not be the exact formula, but it illustrates the point.
"Reason as an abstract objective entity cannot actually exist in a purely material world, which is what most darwinian atheists posit. Nor can logic, which you make use of, nor mathematics or numbers for that matter -- yet they seem to. The number 2 seems to exist whether or not you have two stones to count, for example."
Talk about a non sequitur!
You took the position that if the human brain evolved its capacity to reason (rather than being specifically created to reason), then there is no rationale for trusting the brain's capacity to reason.
My point (and I believe anon.'s point as well) is that we can observe the properties and capabilities of the human brain as it exists--its capacity for memory, for language, for pattern recognition, for spatial geometry, etc., and that those observations will tell us what the brain can and cannot do. Just as we can observe that a cheetah runs fast, we can observe that humans have high cognitive abilities. Those observations are not invalidated if we do not postulate a supernatural "designer".
You seem to be arguing some variation on Plato's Forms ("The number 2 seems to exist whether or not you have two stones to count, for example."), but this argument is entirely beside the point. Regardless of whether there is some transcendent "form" of the number two, or of logic, or of reasoning, does not change at all the fact that we can observe the human capacity for mathematics, or logic, or reasoning.
Regarding your use of the term "darwinian atheists", I have to wonder if you consider Pope John Paul II to have been an atheist, since he accepted the evidence for evolution.
Of course it would be wise to state that without design nature does not exist. In pure chaos even atoms would not exist. Saying that a rock "evolved" into a human being doesn't hold any water if there is no way the rock could exist in the first place. Of course one of the greatest arguments against 'natural selection' is ICE. In every instance known to man when a material goes from a liquid state to a solid state the material gets smaller. Water when it turns to ice becomes larger and thus floats. Should the water shrink like every fluid all living beings within the water would perish. Funny how the one 'almost' law of nature gets abrogated in order to sustain life.
Nature or Intelligent Design? That's not even a question!
joe: Lay off the crack. What you just said is wrong in so many ways, and is indicative of a lack of understanding so powerful that I doubt that I could even correct you.
Yes, Darwinian evolution. Or, more precisely, the current scientific understanding of evolution at the time the Pope wrote the following:
"In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences . . ..
"Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. . . . Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
The Pope specifically rejects a materialistic view of the emergence of life on earth -- which is what darwinian evolution insists upon.
The issue is the sufficiency of the undirected darwinian hypothesis. Not to mention how life came from non-life, and a universe from nothing, etc. etc.
Joe -- thank you for your comment and support. I agree with you. Without "design" there would be no order to the universe. In fact, there would be no universe at all.
I have heard of the Ice apologetic before, but have not looked into it.
Of course one of the greatest arguments against 'natural selection' is ICE. In every instance known to man when a material goes from a liquid state to a solid state the material gets smaller. Water when it turns to ice becomes larger and thus floats
Absolutely not true. Gallium, bismuth, acetic acid, antimony and silicon ALL are less dense in solid phase than liquid phase. Plus H2O is not always less dense in solid phase. Depending on how the crystals form, ice is sometimes more dense than water.
28 comments:
The fact that you keep bringing up this ridiculous false dichotomy, where the only two options are 'magic man did it', and 'blind chance', demonstrates that you haven't a clue about how evolution works. It's very, very far from blind chance alone.
Well.. while I do believe in God, I do find this argument somewhat misplaced and misconstrued..
..the argument, as always, is, if we can't explain how something came to exist, we must be open to the idea that it was created by intelligent design, supposedly, God.
The problem is that much of the history of religion, particularly early pagan religion, and, arguably, much of the Old Testament - is based upon fear and ignorance.. that is, that we can't understand something, so we attribute it to the supernatural, to a "god".
This is the falicy of intelligent design "science". Because our minds cannot comprehend or explain something.. we must look to a greater power as its source.
Sorry - but my belief system isn't so insecure that I need to engage in simplistic and flawed pseudo-science. I can believe in God without the need to justify it by a theory than holds no water. I have no need to "prove" to anyone else than God exists. I am completely comfortable that other people don't hold that belief.
This, to me, is how religion should be. Those who feel the need to "prove" God's existence, or to press upon others their version of God's existance.. well, deep down, it simply exhibits their own insecurity and betrays their lack of faith.
"..the argument, as always, is, if we can't explain how something came to exist, we must be open to the idea that it was created by intelligent design, supposedly, God."
This is emphatically not what the ID argument is.
"Sorry - but my belief system isn't so insecure..."
You are quick to justify yourself, impugn motive, and jump to the ad hominem rather quickly, my friend.
"I am completely comfortable that other people don't hold that belief."
And that in a nutshell is the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian. We are commanded to "love our neighbour", and to seek their good as well as our own. Belief in God is not a matter of indifference, as in, "paper or plastic?". What you conclude about God, and how you act upon the results will dictate where you spend your eternity.
David -- in an unintended, unwilled, undesigned universe blind chance is really all you have. Anything else, and you've got a problem. I'm sure you'll agree at least with the "blind" aspect. When you sin, there is no one there watching you or to hold you to account. As for chance, if you postulate "self-organization", you've got a big problem, and if you postulate natural selection, well, you must admit it is blind. The problem with natural selection is it must have something to select. You are stuck with order from disorder, life from non-life, consciousness from non-consciousness, morality from rocks, etc. etc.
Since the universe, in total, is the result of blind chance, and life is the result of blind chance, I think I'll stick with my blind chance monicker.
So, can I put you down for "Blind Chance", or do you want to go with "Intelligent Design"?
Please lock in your vote.
I'm with "david" and I chose door number three: that would be 'natural selection'.
Calling it "blind" just underscores your lack of knowledge rkball. There is nothing "blind" about favorable mutations being selected over unfavorable ones.
This 'poll' is silly anyway, the only people who think ID belongs in the same sentence as evolution show themselves to be completely ignorant of science. Your using "blind" is an excellent example of that!
Not to belabour the point.. but I have a strong sensitivity to those who are wrapped up in "loving their neighbor" by pushing their faith on their neighbor, "for their own good."
Can you say, "the crusades"? Can you say "residential schools". God has a special place in hell for those who use his name to press their own agenda of control and manipulation.
Believe or don't. No big deal. Be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew or an atheist.. I will not criticize anyone's faith or lack thereof, until they seek to compel it upon others.. which, at its core is the whole thrust of "ID theory".. ie.. we NEED to prove to others that we are right, and NEED to prevent the godless concept of evolution from being the only game in town in our science classes.
I'm not woried. I have no difficulty seeing evolution and God as completely compatible.
"Calling it "blind" just underscores your lack of knowledge rkball. There is nothing "blind" about favorable mutations being selected over unfavorable ones."
So, you think the selection is being made consciously?
What do you think is meant by "blind"?
"Can you say, "the crusades"? Can you say "residential schools". God has a special place in hell for those who use his name to press their own agenda of control and manipulation."
So, you believe in God and hell. What about heaven, and how to get there? Or are you driven solely by anger and hate?
"So, you think the selection is being made consciously?"
No, but not blindly either.
"What do you think is meant by 'blind'?"
That it happens without reason. That it's random. That there is nothing behind it.
It is none of those things.
"That it happens without reason. That it's random. That there is nothing behind it. It is none of those things."
If the existence of the universe itself is the result of insentient, unthinking, unfeeling "Blind Chance", then everything in it, including life processes, is, ultimately, a result of Blind Chance.
Since life popped into being not by design but by luck or blind chance, then everything that life entails, including natural selection, is, ultimately, the result of Blind Chance -- including, unfortunately, your reasoning abilities.
So, I wouldn't put much stock in anything that either comes from your blind-chance brain.
"Since life popped into being not by design...then everything that life entails, including natural selection, is, ultimately, the result of Blind Chance"
But the mechanism by which they work are not 'blind' at all!
I met my wife through blind-luck. Nothing designed about the meeting at all. Does that mean that EVERYTHING we do is blind-luck? Of course not. The way we met has nothing to do with how we live now...
"including, unfortunately, your reasoning abilities.
So, I wouldn't put much stock in anything that either comes from your blind-chance brain."
It's funny - you appear to be quite nasty. Everybody has shown you respect in these posts, but you seem angry that we disagree with your views...
That you imply that my brain is less than trustworthy sure does show YOUR true colours... it's sad really.
So, I wouldn't put much stock in anything that either comes from your blind-chance brain."
It's funny - you appear to be quite nasty..."
Not at all, and I am sorry if you took it that way. This is a point that has been made by others, such as C.S. Lewis, and by myself over and over at this blog and I assumed you were familiar with the argument. That a brain that is the product of mindless forces, and not designed for rational thought but for -- nothing really -- is by definition untrustworthy.
It's like trusting a computer that was assembled by a hurricane that passed through a junkyard of spare electronics parts.
And that is the brain that you and all of us are stuck with if we are undesigned creatures the product of mindless forces.
In fact I believe that you were designed by God and that he gave you a brain designed for both analytical reasoning and abstract thought, and therefore some credence can be given to your reasoning abilities.
Logically it is you, and not I, who should have a problem with trusting rational thinking from humans.
So... you believe that there is a "mechanism" that came into existence by blind chance that somehow transcends blind chance? Or that blind chance somehow begat something that has nothing to do with blind chance, is that it?
"It's like trusting a computer that was assembled by a hurricane that passed through a junkyard of spare electronics parts"
Not quite... if that self-assembled computer had thousands of years of testing, and solid evidence that it WAS (mostly) trustworthy you'd have an apt comparison.
"that is the brain that you and all of us are stuck with if we are undesigned creatures the product of mindless forces."
I'll never understand the logic of theists... HOW, WHEN, WHERE doesn't change the WHAT! We have the brains that we have... It doesn't change the brain we have to credit god with designing it... it is what it is.
To say that "that is the brain we're stuck with" implies that you can change "the brain we're stuck with" by crediting god with creating it! Ludicrous!
"That a brain that is the product of mindless forces, and not designed for rational thought but for -- nothing really -- is by definition untrustworthy."
By this logic, if a cheetah's leg's were not purposefully designed to run fast, but merely evolved over many generations by natural selection, then we can conclude that a cheetah does not, in fact, run fast.
Sorry, that just does not fly. We can see that the human brain can reason quite well (at least for some of us), just as we can observe that the cheetah can run fast.
"Not quite... if that self-assembled computer had thousands of years of testing, and solid evidence that it WAS (mostly) trustworthy you'd have an apt comparison."
Self-assembled computer? Really?
Testing - by whom or what? It's a hurricane and a junkyard. Exactly, by analogy, the conditions in the universe before life pops into place.
Trustworthy -- what would the criteria be, if there was no mind to test and assess it?
"I'll never understand the logic of theists... HOW, WHEN, WHERE doesn't change the WHAT! We have the brains that we have... It doesn't change the brain we have to credit god with designing it... it is what it is.
To say that "that is the brain we're stuck with" implies that you can change "the brain we're stuck with" by crediting god with creating it! Ludicrous!"
Not really. It goes to philosophical underpinnings. And also scientific improbabilities -- that life would come from non-life, consciousness from non-consciousness, rationality from pond scum, etc. Same for morality. If morality evolved from pond scum, why take it seriously? It certainly can't have any objective validity -- if evolution had evolved us to kill other tribes, then that would be the "good", and to forgo would be the "bad".
A theist understanding of reality is coherent, an atheist's lacks coherence. You've got to do better than just cry, "just is!, just is!".
"If morality evolved from pond scum, why take it seriously?"
Because it doesn't matter WHERE it came from! It makes life bearable, and gives people something to live by.
That good feeling YOU get when you help someone is the same feeling I get when I help someone - no god required.
It's sad that WHERE it came from is so important to you, and that coming from "pond scum" invalidates it entirely for you... but that's religion for you I guess.
"By this logic, if a cheetah's leg's were not purposefully designed to run fast, but merely evolved over many generations by natural selection, then we can conclude that a cheetah does not, in fact, run fast."
Non-sequitur (but a nice try!).
"Sorry, that just does not fly. We can see that the human brain can reason quite well (at least for some of us), just as we can observe that the cheetah can run fast."
Reason as an abstract objective entity cannot actually exist in a purely material world, which is what most darwinian atheists posit. Nor can logic, which you make use of, nor mathematics or numbers for that matter -- yet they seem to. The number 2 seems to exist whether or not you have two stones to count, for example. Nor can the mind. Only the brain. Nor can free-will. All you can have are chemical reactions taking place in those undesigned, unintended brains.
In a universe driven by only one consideration -- survival -- we can attribute some validity to a cheetah's running prowess, but can we trust a brain that has evolved into abstract thinking and reasoning, way beyond mere survival value? In fact, if the only criteria is survival and propagation, a brain might well evolve that is delusional yet functional.
No, when it comes to abstract thought and reasoning, a darwinian is on shaky grounds for any number of reasons.
Having just stumbled upon your site today I started commenting on this post before reading any of the others... but having perused some of the other posts it has become clear that you feel that without god - life has no meaning.
I find that truly sad... and utterly unreasonable!! That my life is without meaning is simply not true. You've said things like:
"In an uncreated universe, having feelings of sorrow is an absurdity."
What utter BS! I can't imagine how you come to this conclution, and the fact that I feel sorrow at times proves you wrong too!
What does 'creation' have to do with sorrow?
You have some strange, strange views RKBall!
" it has become clear that you feel that without god - life has no meaning."
That is absolutely true. Without God, life has no meaning. No purpose. No value. We are not here for a reason, and we have no purpose for being here. Life is unintended, and, if it should cease, it is a matter of utter and complete indifference.
"That my life is without meaning is simply not true."
In an unintended, uncreated universe, any meaning you may discern or create is at best provisional and temporal. Or, more possibly, delusional.
"'In an uncreated universe, having feelings of sorrow is an absurdity.'
What utter BS! I can't imagine how you come to this conclution, and the fact that I feel sorrow at times proves you wrong too!"
No, it does not prove me wrong. That molecules and atoms should have feelings is an absurdity. That a rock should have feelings is an absurdity. That feelings should somehow evolve from an insentient, unthinking, uncaring universe is a whopping absurdity.
What does 'creation' have to do with sorrow?
Creation, and a Creator, provides coherence to the human condition. Atheism results in preposterous absurdity.
It's like mixing coal dust and water and getting feelings. That may not be the exact formula, but it illustrates the point.
"You have some strange, strange views RKBall!"
Thank you.
May I quote you on this?!
"Reason as an abstract objective entity cannot actually exist in a purely material world, which is what most darwinian atheists posit. Nor can logic, which you make use of, nor mathematics or numbers for that matter -- yet they seem to. The number 2 seems to exist whether or not you have two stones to count, for example."
Talk about a non sequitur!
You took the position that if the human brain evolved its capacity to reason (rather than being specifically created to reason), then there is no rationale for trusting the brain's capacity to reason.
My point (and I believe anon.'s point as well) is that we can observe the properties and capabilities of the human brain as it exists--its capacity for memory, for language, for pattern recognition, for spatial geometry, etc., and that those observations will tell us what the brain can and cannot do. Just as we can observe that a cheetah runs fast, we can observe that humans have high cognitive abilities. Those observations are not invalidated if we do not postulate a supernatural "designer".
You seem to be arguing some variation on Plato's Forms ("The number 2 seems to exist whether or not you have two stones to count, for example."), but this argument is entirely beside the point. Regardless of whether there is some transcendent "form" of the number two, or of logic, or of reasoning, does not change at all the fact that we can observe the human capacity for mathematics, or logic, or reasoning.
Regarding your use of the term "darwinian atheists", I have to wonder if you consider Pope John Paul II to have been an atheist, since he accepted the evidence for evolution.
Not darwinian evolution.
Of course it would be wise to state that without design nature does not exist. In pure chaos even atoms would not exist. Saying that a rock "evolved" into a human being doesn't hold any water if there is no way the rock could exist in the first place. Of course one of the greatest arguments against 'natural selection' is ICE. In every instance known to man when a material goes from a liquid state to a solid state the material gets smaller. Water when it turns to ice becomes larger and thus floats. Should the water shrink like every fluid all living beings within the water would perish. Funny how the one 'almost' law of nature gets abrogated in order to sustain life.
Nature or Intelligent Design? That's not even a question!
joe: Lay off the crack. What you just said is wrong in so many ways, and is indicative of a lack of understanding so powerful that I doubt that I could even correct you.
Yes, Darwinian evolution. Or, more precisely, the current scientific understanding of evolution at the time the Pope wrote the following:
"In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences . . ..
"Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. . . . Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
No, not darwinian evolution.
The Pope specifically rejects a materialistic view of the emergence of life on earth -- which is what darwinian evolution insists upon.
The issue is the sufficiency of the undirected darwinian hypothesis. Not to mention how life came from non-life, and a universe from nothing, etc. etc.
Joe -- thank you for your comment and support. I agree with you. Without "design" there would be no order to the universe. In fact, there would be no universe at all.
I have heard of the Ice apologetic before, but have not looked into it.
Thanks again.
Of course one of the greatest arguments against 'natural selection' is ICE. In every instance known to man when a material goes from a liquid state to a solid state the material gets smaller. Water when it turns to ice becomes larger and thus floats
Absolutely not true. Gallium, bismuth, acetic acid, antimony and silicon ALL are less dense in solid phase than liquid phase. Plus H2O is not always less dense in solid phase. Depending on how the crystals form, ice is sometimes more dense than water.
Reid -- thanks for the information. Good science is always welcome.
Post a Comment