<gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:8040cf31-cc44-4125-8f84-8be0bf8068b1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
6 Feb., 05:03, "Semper LibčrŽ" <nopolicestates????!?
Hj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Midwinter" <midwinte...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:pcqdnYFA8-8PnzTanZ2dnUVZ8tbinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > "Semper LibčrŽ" <nopolicestates????!?Hj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said :
>
> > > Complex AND purposefully organized.... That is observable evidence
in
> > > the same way that any fool can recognize a complex and organized
> > > computer program as having an intelligent and purposeful
> > > creator/programmer.
>
> > The trouble with this very common argument - the Watchmaker, I believe
> it's
> > usually called - is that if the complexity of the universe alone
requires
> > the existence of a creator, then the complexity of the creator must
> require
> > its own creator.
>
> In other words you agree its proof of a creator... you just can't place
the
> start of the singularity.
>Clearly there could be none if your argument was correct.
No existence of a singularity? Is that your personal opinion, or one based
on science?
The whole concept of omniscience and omnipresence is an expression of just
such a singularity, and there is nothing in science that refutes the
existence of such. The concept of the watchmaker is valid, and remains so
without your particular ability to comprehend a grand singularity. In
other
words it is suggestive proof of its reality, not a disproof of it.
|
