Reply With Quote
Karma is a . Be sure to add that.
To resort to insults, which is generally accepted as a vainly attempted emotional attack, backhanded or otherwise, is a last resort tactic that carries no weight in any kind of discussion or debate, this is common knowledge, which apparently you have no conception of, and if you do, chose to ignore it.That is fine, if your intent is to make a fool of yourself, which you did, or if your intent is to troll, oblem, not mine. All I did was point out the fallacies of your arguments and the worthlessness of the tactics you vainly tried to use to support your contentions.Obviously this upset you, otherwise you would not have reacted in an emotional manner.Kids like you should be seen and not read, and when you act up in an unruly manner, then you need a good spanking (by commonly agreed upon extension, administered by your parents). In case you weren't aware, the whole animal kingdom uses corporal punishment to keep their offspring in line. You demonstrated your ignorance on a colossal level by "generalizing" my statement to include "all" kids by "me", a major ad hominem on your part.To resort to insults, which is generally accepted as a vainly attempted emotional attack, backhanded or otherwise, is a last resort tactic that carries no weight in any kind of discussion or debate, this is common knowledge, which apparently you have no conception of, and if you do, chose to ignore it.That is fine, if your intent is to make a fool of yourself, which you did, or if your intent is to troll, which you do in this forum quite often if the majority of your posts are any indication.I found psychology to be quite nebulous in that it relied on generalizations in it's attempt to explain human behavior. I won't go into detail, but will just say that the "norm" is next to impossible to be replicated, and IMHO lacks in quantifiability.Many of the social sciences suffer from these same problems including a "dearth of accurate terminology".You misunderstood this then, and still do now. You resorted to the age old argument that just because someone somewhere has this "true" knowledge that that makes it true for all, but this is a common fallacy. What in esill do now. You resorted to the age old argument that just because someone somewhere has this "true" knowledge that that makes it true for all, but this is a common fallacy. What in essence you are doing is "assuming" at best, and assumptions are not proof, nor are they YOUR proof unless you have the evidence in your possession; Anything less than that, then you have a reliance on others, and depending on how much you trust those "others" determines how much you believe it to be true. And if you "believe" it to be truth, without possessing the evidnce, then that is no different than having faith that it is the truth.You brought up the typewriter analogy as being an example of evidence, and I extended it to include computers and cell phones.I believe you meant this about yourself since you failed to understand the comparisons, and logic, and thus resorted to insults which is an emotional response rather than a reasonable and rational response. And this was your problem, not mine. All I did was point out the fallacies of your arguments and the worthlessness of the tactics you vainly tried to use to support your contentions.Obviously this upset you, otherwise you would not have reacted in an emotional manner.Kids like you should be seen e, the whole animal kingdom uses corporal punishment to keep their offspring in line. You demonstrated your ignorance on a colossal level by "generalizing" my statement to include "all" kids by "me", a major ad hominem on your part.And we can only laugh at the level you continually stoop to in showing how truly moronic you are on this site."others" determines how much you believe it to be true. And if you "believe" it to be truth, without possessing the evidnce, then that is no different than having faith that it is the truth.You brought up the typewriter analogy as being an example of evidence, and I extended it to include computers and cell phones.I believe you meant this about yourself since you failed to understand the comparisons, and logic, and thus resorted to insults which is an emotional response rather than a reasonable and rational response. And this was your problem, not mine. All I did was point out the fallacies of your arguments and the worthlessness of the tactics you vainly tried to use to support your contentions.Obviously this upset you, otherwise best, and assumptions areTo resort to insults, which is generally accepted as a vainly attempted emotional attack, backhanded or otherwise, is a last resort tactic that carries no weight in any kind of discussion or debate, this is common knowledge, which apparently you have no conception of, and if you do, chose to ignore it.That is fine, if your intent is to make a fool of yourself, which you did, or if your intent is to troll, which you do in this forum quite often if the majority of your posts are any indication.I found psychology to be quite nebulous in that it relied on generalizations in it's attempt to explain human behavior. I won't go into detail, but will just say that the "norm" is next to impossible to be replicated, and IMHO lacks in quantifiability.Many of the social sciences suffer from these same problems including a "dearth of accurate terminology".You misunderstood this then, and still do now. You resorted to the age old argument that just because someone somewhere has this "true" knowledge that that makes it true for all, but this is a common fallacy. What in essence you are doing is "assuming" at best, and assumptions are not proof, nor are they YOUR proof unless you have the evidence in your possession; Anything less than that, then you have a reliance on others, and depending on how much you trust those "others" determines how much you believe it to be true. And if you "believe" it to be truth, without possessing the evidnce, then that is no different than having faith that it is the truth.You brought up the typewriter analogy as being an example of evidence, and I extended it to include computers and cell phones.I believe you meant this about yourself since you failed to understand the comparisons, and logic, and thus resorted to insults which is an emotional response rather than a reasonable and rational response. And this was your problem, not mine. All I did was point out the fallacies of your arguments and the worthlessness of the tactics you vainly tried to use to support your contentions.Obviously this upset you, otherwise you would not have reacted in an emotional manner.Kids like you should be seen and not read, and when you act up in an unruly manner, then you need a good spanking (by commonly agreed upon extension, administered by your parents). In case you weren't aware, the whole animal kingdom uses corporal punishment to keep their offspring in line. You demonstrated your ignorance on a colossal level by "generalizing" my statement to include "all" kids by "me", a major ad hominem on your part.To resort to insults, which is generally accepted as a vainly attempted emotional attack, backhanded or otherwise, is a last resort tactic that carries no weight in any kind of discussion or debate, this is common knowledge, which apparently you have no conception of, and if you do, chose to ignore it.That is fine, if your intent is to make a fool of yourself, which you did, or if your intent is to troll, which you do in this forum quite often if the majority of your posts are any indication.I found psychology to be quite nebulous in that it relied on generalizations in it's attempt to explain human behavior. I won't go into detail, but will just say that the "norm" is next to impossible to be replicated, and IMHO lacks in quantifiability.Many of the social sciences suffer from these same problems including a "dearth of accurate terminology".You misunderstood this then, and still do now. You resorted to the age old argument that just because someone somewhere has this "true" knowledge that that makes it true for all, but this is a common fallacy. What in essence you are doing is "assuming" at best, and assumptions are not proof, nor are they YOUR proof unless you have the evidence in your possession; Anything less than that, then you have a reliance on others, and depending on how much you trust those "others" determines how much you believe it to be true. And if you "believe" it to be truth, without possessing the evidnce, then that is no different than having faith that it is the truth.You brought up the typewriter analogy as being an example of evidence, and I extended it to include computers and cell phones.I believe you meant this about yourself since you failed to understand the comparisons, and logic, and thus resorted to insults which is an emotional response rather than a reasonable and rational response. And this was your problem, not mine. All I did was point out the fallacies of your arguments and the worthlessness of the tactics you vainly tried to use to support your contentions.Obviously this upset you, otherwise you would not have reacted in an emotional manner.Kids like you should be seen and not read, and when you act up in an unruly manner, then you need a good spanking (by commonly agreed upon extension, administered by your parents). In case you weren't aware, the whole animal kingdom uses corporal punishment to keep their offspring in line. You demonstrated your ignorance on a colossal level by "generalizing" my statement to include "all" kids by "me", a major ad hominem on your part.To resort to insults, which is generally accepted as a vainly attempted emotional attack, backhanded or otherwise, is a last resort tactic that carries no weight in any kind of discussion or debate, this is common knowledge, which apparently you have no conception of, and if you do, chose to ignore it.That is fine, if your intent is to make a fool of yourself, which you did, or if your intent is to troll, which you do in this forum quite often if the majority of your posts are any indication.I found psychology to be quite nebulous in that it relied on generalizations in it's attempt to explain human behavior. I won't go into detail, but will just say that the "norm" is next to impossible to be replicated, and IMHO lacks in quantifiability.Many of the social sciences suffer from these same problems including a "dearth of accurate terminology".You misunderstood this then, and still do now. You resorted to the age old argument that just because someone somewhere has this "true" knowledge that that makes it true for all, but this is a common fallacy. What in essence you are doing is "assuming" at best, and assumptions are not proof, nor are they YOUR proof unless you have the evidence in your possession; Anything less than that, then you have a reliance on others, and depending on how much you trust those To resort to insults, which is generally accepted as a vainly attempted emotional attack, backhanded or otherwise, is a last resort tactic that carries no weight in any kind of discussion or debate, this is common knowledge, which apparently you have no conception of, and if you do, chose to ignore it.That is fine, if your intent is to make a fool of yourself, which you did, or if your intent is to troll, which you do in this forum quite often if the majority of your posts are any indication.I found psychology to be quite nebulous in that it relied on generalizations in it's attempt to explain human behavior. I won't go into detail, but will just say that the "norm" is next to impossible to be replicated, and IMHO lacks in quantifiability.Many of the social sciences suffer from these same problems including a "dearth of accurate terminology".You misunderstood this then, and still do now. You resorted to the age old argument that just because someone somewhere has this "true" knowledge that that makes it true for all, but this is a common fallacy. What in essence you are doing is "assuming" at best, and assumptions are not proof, nor are they YOUR proof unless you have the evidence in your possession; Anything less than that, then you have a reliance on others, and depending on how much you trust those "others" determines how much you believe it to be true. And if you "believe" it to be truth, without possessing the evidnce, then that is no different than having faith that it is the truth.You brought up the typewriter analogy as being an example of evidence, and I extended it to include computers and cell phones.I believe you meant this about yourself since you failed to understand the comparisons, and logic, and thus resorted to insultsTo resort to insults, which is generally accepted as a vainly attempted emotional attack, backhanded or otherwise, is a last resort tactic that carries no weight in any kind of discussion or debate, this is common knowledge, which apparently you have no conception of, and if you do, chose to ignore it.That is fine, if your intent is to make a fool of yourself, which you did, or if your intent is to troll, which you do in this forum quite often if the majority of your posts are any indication.I found psychology to be quite nebulous in that it relied on generalizations in it's attempt to explain human behavior. I won't go into detail, but will just say that the "norm" is next to impossible to be replicated, and IMHO lacks in quantifiability.Many of the social sciences suffer from these same problems including a "dearth of accurate terminology".You misunderstood this then, and still do now. You resorted to the age old argument that just because someone somewhere has this "true" knowledge that that makes it true for all, but this is a common fallacy. What in essence you are doing is "assuming" at best, and assumptions are not proof, nor are they YOUR proof unless you have the evidence in your possession; Anything less than that, then you have a reliance on others, and depending on how much you trust those "others" determines how much you believe it to be true. And if you "believe" it to be truth, without possessing the evidnce, then that is no different than having faith that it is the truth.You brought up the typewriter analogy as being an example of evidence, and I extended it to include computers and cell phones.I believe you meant this about yourself since you failed to understand the comparisons, and logic, and thus resorted to insults which is an emotional response rather than a reasonable and rational response. And this was your problem, not mine. All I did was point out the fallacies of your arguments and the worthlessness of the tactics you vainly tried to use to support your contentions.Obviously this upset you, otherwise you would not have reacted in an emotional manner.Kids like you should be seen and not read, and when you act up in an unruly manner, then you need a good spanking (by commonly agreed upon extension, administered by your parents). In case you weren't aware, the whole animal kingdom uses corporal punishment to keep their offspring in line. You demonstrated your ignorance on a colossal level by "generalizing" my statement to include "all" kids by "me", a major ad hominem on your part.And we can only laugh at the level you continually stoop to in showing how truly moronic you are on this site.
are, the whole animal kingdom uses corporal punishment to keep their offspring in line. You demonstrated your ignorance on a colossal level by "generalizing" my statement to include "all" kids by "me", a major ad hominem on your part.And we can only laugh at the level you continually stoop to in showing how truly moronic you are on this site.
Karma is a . Be sure to add that.
So you believe in the Christian god and Vishnu?Karma is a . Be sure to add that.
DMC that was one of a quote. If you really posted all that Xmas1997 I suggest you bring some of that medication to the gtg I will purchase some.
Doesn't want to debate, and you claim you are in my head?
Sorry to burst your bubble and disappoint you there, sport, but I barely give you a second thought, except to be civil enough to reply to the posts you direct at me.
In that regard your posts are no more important to me than any others other than your emotional hostility which you have to deal with, not I.
You get back what you put out.
Karma is a like that sometimes.
Let's be friends, scrah.
Let's have a debate. You pick the topic. I'll argue against.
You must be bored.
Lol post 2576
I wish there was a God and that he would smite you all.
Or you could just put yourself out of your obvious misery and do the Robin Williams
scientists never claim they have all the answers.
they come up with those dates with several methods... for the universe (post bang) they use the observed rate of expansion the universe (a figure they derived with knowledge of distance of other galaxies and their relative speeds). if they determine that the rate of expansion is actually rapidly accelerating (another possibility), the math would imply the universe could be even older, upwards of 20 billion years. they don't take random guesses, its all math
as for the age of the earth, they know it is at least 4.4 billion years old due to radiometric age dating of the oldest known samples they have found, both on earth and on the moon, which have been pretty consistent. if they discover older material or meteorites, the earth could be older than thought. the age of fossils are determined in a similar matter. they dont just throw numbers out of thin air because they sound plausible.
science doesn't, nor has ever claimed to have all the answers. only religion does
Last edited by spurraider21; 08-13-2014 at 12:19 PM.
mouseology
I reject your use of the word "faith".
As noted, I have a great deal of trust in science, as the empirical process has proven itself to be good at determining explanatory theories.
Further, the other strength of science is that you can gather proof and data, and recreate experiments and data.
This gives me a very good reason to trust that process. This requires no real faith, as faith is generally something that you "just believe", and can't rationally justify.
Attempting to make trust in science as somehow equivalent to faith in the existence of something for which there is no evidence, is not only wrong, but intellectually dishonest.
Faith is the excuse people use when they don't have a good reason to believe something.
Science doesn't present anything as an absolute truth.
The theory of evolution is, however, as close as it gets. There is such a vast mountain of evidence that is explained by only this theory, and no other proposed alternative.
The ultimate strength of a theory, though, is that it makes predictions about future evidence.
Can parts of the theory be modified when new evidence is presented? Yes.
This is not "twisting" anything, but merely understanding reality and the mechanisms of evolution, and improving our knowledge base about those mechanisms.
One should change one's theories with new evidence, if that evidence points to an alternative explanation. That is the ultimate strength of the scientific method, i.e. that it does change.
The alternative is stagnation.
Lastly:
The goal of science is to improve our understanding. One becomes famous by overturning incorrect theories and replacing them with better ones. Any scientist that attempts to question such a strongly supported theory should have a much better theory that better explains all the evidence.
If you want to put forth a better theory that explains the diversity of life on our planet feel free to do so, and outline how it better fits the evidence we have collected.
If a scientist wants to present "bible God did it a few thousand years ago, and it was re-done after a global flood" as a viable theory, that scientist deserves to be mocked, because that isn't a scientific theory. Presenting it as such is laughable on its face, given all we know about our planet and the universe.
I agree.
A good question to ask:
"How do you know that?"
Most people start pulling the imagined properties of "god", whatever they conceive that to be, out of their ass.
Even people who think they have an inerrant holy book still have to interpret that holy book, and flounder badly when you point out the errancy of that book.
I understand where you're coming from and I am not using "faith" in this context to mean a "faith based science" in the same sense someone using a "faith based religious belief" would use.
It could be faith in "anything" that we believe and trust in, without proof.
All along I have been using the noun "faith" as defined by most dictionaries, specifically The Merriam-Webster dictionary primary definition, which is:
faith
noun \ˈfāth\
1.: strong belief or trust in someone or something
Full Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
— on faith
: without question <took everything he said on faith>
This would make it an synonym of the words "trust" and "belief", which may be where some of people's confusion comes from.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
You're taking two different definitions of the word faith and saying it's the same thing for both science and religion.
Terrible reading comprehension again and again and again.
Reread my post, I clearly used the words, "I am not using".
Do you ever get anything right without twisting things around?
You're stupid.
I didn't expect you to be able to understand. Morons never do.
Blake. Why do you do this? He does stupid things intentionally to annoy you and then when you do the round and round it's literally the same you have been doing for a year now. It's not not healthy.
I don't think he's intentionally stupid, imo.
Honestly, I think you're the one being disingenuous about this. The whole point of trying to expand the scope isn't to get out of the existence/non-existence barrier. It is to get you away from arguing with empiricism about things that haven't yet been tested. You can either argue about time, existence and universe as logical constructs or as scientific ones. Science doesn't define things in terms of logical barriers. The "universe" stopped having its classical definition the moment we were able to study it as a mass system. After that, it got physical constraints, it no longer had its logical extensions.
If we discovered that this expanding ball was just one of many expanding balls, do you think we'd stop calling this the universe? No, we wouldn't. There would just be other universes, and then there'd be terms like multiversal cluster and mega-verse and whatever.
That's only for us to know god is the answer. That's not something either of us is asserting is going to happen.For god to be the answer, something has to be known about the answer to know it's the answer. That seems simple enough.
None of that prevents belief from being binary. It just splits the issue up into smaller issues that are still binary.But belief isn't binary if we simply change the definition for belief to include a notion, a hope, an allowance and a conviction. Otherwise anyone who's heard the word "god" now must believe god exists, at least as a word.
Um, all right?Higgs Boson, for example... If it was just suggested and never found, it would eventually be dismissed. If it was known that it could never be found to begin with, it wouldn't have been suggested. If the god you propose cannot possibly be located, then the god doesn't exist. I didn't say we would find the god, but that we could. But we cannot. However it is indeed your freedom to believe such a thing exists or existed in whatever plane or universe that makes sense to you. I have some odd notions myself about certain things.
The sun rising in the East is absolutely not an a priori truth.But you say them as if you know these things, and as if mentioning it is like mentioning that the sun rises in the East.
I think that humans are the closest analogues to god, yes. At least as far as we can understand, we are the things most able to control the causal chain. However, since we are part of the chain, such a control is just an illusion.So you think humans are in the image of god, but imperfect? How would the mover begin it's own existence? I see that you are saying the mover exists out of necessity, so not contingent, but there's no reason to accept that to be the case and no reason to restrict that necessary aspect to a god.
I'm not saying a mover exists out of necessity. I am saying that I'd only belief it doesn't exist when I actually encounter a convincing argument for it.
I imagine there'd be quite a few, but they'd say so for a different reason than that which you're suggesting. The primary reason would be that I don't conform to their idea of god, and as such can't be a theist. I think a lot of them would say that about people of other religions. A, "You don't really believe in god unless you believe in my god," kinda thing.If you were to gather a room full of theists, randomly picked, and tell them your beliefs.... how many of them would claim you do not believe in god? You're claiming to be dry ice and then saying ice is misrepresented as turning into water too quickly.
Nope. I'm merely stating that the two terms aren't separable since there's no aspect that I assign to god besides being the PM. Like if I said god was necessarily the PM and kind, then an unkind PM would not be god. So I'm trying to meet you half-way and say the closest thing to an ungod-like PM would be a causesless effect. I guess technically speaking, if such an effect were at the head of the chain, I would accept it as the PM and be perfectly fine with people not calling it god.Why can't you apply it to a non-god? Why can't a necessary thing be a non-god? Are you getting around to intent now? If so, that opens a new can of worms.
I think you're just showing your bias. We both ultimately believe space and time are just parts of the same thing, so it's hard to really think about them separately.In front of something means you'd arrive at one point before you'd arrive at the other point. That's time based. If the two points are superimposed, as a singularity would be, then how can anything be before it where time and space are condensed to an infinite level of density, where neither time nor space obey our current rules? Why can't that exist without cause, since cause is only needed in the current model? Could there be another universe where uncaused events occur?
As for the rest of what you say, I don't see why not. I think you're proposing magic, but I am not nearly as inclined to judge you harshly for it.
There's actually no difference, especially from a factual space. The only thing you know for sure is that you exist, and once you're gone, that existence goes away with you. So the only existence protected by a priori truth is your own life-span. The rest is just our belief about how time works. We believe it's a physical construct of the universe (meaning in this case to be the expanding sphere that's about 13 Billion years old, not everything anywhere in any possible way).This is misleading at best. There's a huge difference between saying "what happened before I existed" and saying "what I did before I existed". I am not referring to a 1st person perspective of time. I am referring to something more along these lines:
That's simply a radiation (meaning expansion) chart. It's post-Bang, completely agnostic to whatever happened before. It's not even trying to claim that nothing happened before.Now what happened before? Where's the time when there was only space and suddenly a singularity appeared and started fluctuating?
This is what I was trying to say up top. You keep mixing definitions of universe. On one hand, you want to describe it in a logical (classical) sense, to mean everything in existence. But it's not thought about that way in a physical sense. It's considered to be an actual object that we can study and learn things about. It has borders, and an age, and a life-span. If there is another such expanding sphere "somewhere" else, then it would be considered a different universe by science. It would have a different chart, a different radiation pattern. It might not be as big or as old. Or it could be older and bigger.
The turtle analogy is from the second extension of world-turtle concept, not the first. When asked what the world turtle resided on, the reply was another turtle. It was a way of not answering the question and simply introducing an intermediate step and calling it done. the head of the causal chain, an uncaused effect, a prime mover, cannot be a turtle by definition. It's the actual ground the turtle stack is standing on. My whole point is that such ground has to exist, regardless of what turtles are on top of it. Something being cyclical is just another turtle because it's still on this side of the existence/non existence barrier.Yes really. It's the only thing being proposed here that has to be supported by a magic carpet instead of just a paradigm shift. It's the only thing that cannot ever even theoretically be disproven or proven. It's no different than saying the solar system resides on the back of a turtle. If you don't know, why wouldn't a turtle make sense?
Nope. Been a deist for a long time despite only being 24 year old. Family's nominally Christian, but we hardly did anything with it.If you don't think you can find proof of something, you shouldn't consider it to be your answer. I could see a pessimist thinking "I bet it's that but if so I'm ed", otherwise why select as an answer something you can never know to be true? I'd like to avoid asking personal questions, but part of me wants to know if you had a more devout belief system at one point in your life, and if you "regressed" to deism. I'd understand if you don't answer.
Anyway, it depends on how one define's "answer". It's not an answer to any physical phenomenon, but rather an answer to all of them. As a result, I can still look for proximate mechanisms without feeling like I already know the answer. Theism doesn't generate a lack of motivation for me.
It's a bad take, man. It's bad primarily because it's a poor analogy. There is no switching of scopes going on between the universe and extensions of the universe. It's also bad because it's misleading. Humans are individuals and so of course they can have mothers. But the human race is a mass group and so do not have a single mother. However, they have an origin, just like individual humans do. It was just a response by someone wanting to make headlines and feel good about himself. It means nothing to a plenum of empirical trends we've observed.Because you consider it to be terrible and baseless doesn't make it so. You haven't given an example of god, you've only said one is necessary to satisfy the requirements. Well then why can't a non-god be uncaused as well, why can't there simply be no 1st event and why can't time be eternal? What stops it? You're saying the demonic possession theory is worthy, but the brand new, never before heard of virus that causes two heads to grow and causes a person to live 400 years is silly. Both require a vivid imagination, only the demonic possession thing has no basis in science. Your god has no basis in science and you've acknowledged that, but if your god created the universe, then your god must have a basis in science as the universe has a basis in science.
I said nothing about them being found. I'm speaking logically, not archaeologically.I have two twin brothers, twin uncles who both have twins. First born doesn't mean first found. What if they are found together? We can't go back that far and say "this one was born first" and pretty sure first sapiens types had no idea what a sapiens was.
"Two plus two equals four," is not testable. It's just true.Oh I do know, and I know it's important when you're proposing an answer to something that your answer be testable to see if it's correct. Yours isn't, but then you aren't offering it as the opiate of the masses. It's just one way that belief means different things to different people. I think some people form beliefs inductively and others lean more toward a deductive belief system.
As far as the rest of the quote goes, yeah, I'll accept that. I think people use both belief systems depending on the situation. I will say, that Marx wasn't talking about theism necessarily when he said that. He was anti-religious and saw no reason to consider god at all, whereas Freud was a straight-up atheist and thought the idea of god was damaging to people.
He thought all those things because they were the most reasonable at the time. Empiricists had to work to show they were right. It's perfectly reasonable to attribute big actions to be actors. The only difference is now we understand that actions are complex and require a lot more understanding to know their causes and effects.Not really. He thought a god created everything, maybe several gods. He thought a god pulled the sun across the sky and that bad weather was angry gods. We don't know it's not, we cannot ever prove that bad weather isn't caused by angry gods. We can find easier explanations though, testable and falsifiable ones.
Well, I'm glad we all understand each other now. I definitely feel I learned a bit from your objection after seeing that both the analogies were held by the same people.
We disagree on the bold part, though. At least we do in a proximal sense. I don't believe that saying god created the universe is an explanation for how the universe works. It's one thing to look at something complex and say, "Wow, look at god's handiwork." That's what deists often did, according to that Franklin book. They took the complexity of life as proof of god's existence. I don't do that, but I can understand people thinking I do.
But what is completely different is to look at something complex and say, "There's no other explanation but to say god has created this directly. No way could any proximate mechanisms lead to this." That's how the analogy was used by opponents of evolution. They thought you could slap the "god" stamp on something and call it solved, no science necessary. I don't swing that way. Even though I believe this universe was set into motion, I do not believe there's anything about this universe that we can't learn through investigation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
