Subject:
|
Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:27:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1408 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> patently absurd because there would have to be someone with intelligence that
> has the 'blueprint' of a house and can see how these 'pre' pieces would fit in
> properly. It just doesn't wash.
Funny. Here you argue against teleology (the world is as it is because it was
{designed})
> Bottom line, for me anyway, is that, even though I accept the premise of the
> evolution theory, it's too perfect to happen randomly, without some sort of
> guidance, either by a creator who set things in motion and walked away (a la
> bline watchmaker) or by a creator who can influence the creation on such a level
> to remain undetectable by the creations.
And then here you finish an arguement {for} teleology.
A question for you: Isn't it possible that these coincidental parts of physics
(water being less dense as it freezes, the strength of gravity being just so,
etc) could be totally different and life could still arise? And then, wouldn't
those strange lifeforms feel that everything was 'a little too perfect' to be
explained away by chance?
> Whatever the case may be, I find it to be hypocritical when people say "We know
> that there are things that science can never answer" and then go on to say
> "You're faith in God is delusional". If there are things outside of science,
> then let those things be God and don't think that those that do believe are
> somehow less intelelctual than those that don't.
Most of the things 'outside' of science, deal more with metaphysics than
physics. Questions like "{Why} is there Gravity?" - "What is the {meaning} of
evolution?" - "How is it that an atheistic, unaware, unfeeling universe could
produce thinking, feeling beings?"
But then again, these questions are also like "How is Hamlet different
(better/worse) than MacBeth?" - this is also a question that is beyond the scope
of science. Science, as a tool, isn't helpful for most of the humanities -
because they deal with issues that can't be quantified, mathematized, and
theorized. However, I don't think that there is necessarily room for god in
there either.
I guess maybe I don't understand what the main point is of your argument. It
seems like you're trying to say "I can believe in god and still be a smart guy."
In which case, sure. But are you trying to argue for a way that we can
know/prove god's existance? Or rather, showing us the specific details that
lead you to a belief in god?
-Lenny
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
