On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:24:05 -0700 (PDT), bjdowling <bjmosure@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On Apr 1, 6:39 pm, Erwin Hessle <er...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 6:00 pm, The Speaking Clock <harlequin...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 1 Apr, 01:08, Erwin Hessle <er...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mar 31, 3:28 pm, "Tom" <dantPAYATTENTIONo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> > > > One might easily conclude that the
>> > > > claim for the existence of a creator being is implausible, given
the lack of
>> > > > verifiable evidence in its sup****t.
>>
>> > > Not to mention all the verifiable evidence against it, the apparent
>> > > necessity for complex things to arise from simple things in order
to
>> > > avoid stretching the bounds of probability beyond breaking point
being
>> > > the most obvious.
>>
>> > > Erwin Hessle, 8=3
>>
>> > I'm not so sure of the ground as you guys seem to be.
>>
>> There's a real good reason for that.
>>
>> > The creative part of the self is liable to get owned by the ego's
>> > defining it as part of itself, without understanding it. When I draw
>> > and paint, or have *** and have children, I'm damned sure my ego
>> > didn't create the result. If we have a conception of a creator
being,
>> > then isn't it just our ego's wanting to see a big daddy, or mommy in
>> > the sky? That ego wish doesn't mean that there is no aware principle
>> > in the universe. You organise. I organise less well. Animals
>> > organise. Life organises networks. Planets perform to sets of
>> > dynamic rules. Do these patterns or currents we can divine on the
>> > surfeit of life available to our senses, suggest nothing but a grand
>> > coincidence.
>>
>> Your problem is you don't have the tools to deal with the question.
>> The evidence suggests very strongly that complex things both can and
>> must arise from simple things, which suggests the existence of an
>> extremely complex creator as the first thing in the universe is
>> highly, highly unlikely; so unlikely, in fact, as to warrant
>> discarding the idea out of hand.
>>
>> Nothing in your whimsical speculations based on the order you see in
>> the universe changes that. You just don't appear to have the ability
>> to arrive at a valid conclusion based on the evidence to hand, so your
>> conclusions are unreliable no matter how much you think they make
>> sense to you. You want to say that the order you observe implies an
>> "aware principle" in the universe, but the fact is it just doesn't.
>> There are far, far better explanations for what you observe than this
>> idea.
>>
>> There was a time where the argument from design looked like a real
>> good argument, almost incontrovertible, right up until the time when
>> Darwin gave people the ability to see what a fantastically stupid and
>> completely ass-backwards argument it actually is. In the same way, you
>> think that observed order suggests the existence of an aware principle
>> because you simply don't yet possess the ability to conceive of a
>> sensible alternative. That's why you're "not so sure." When you do
>> develop that ability, you'll see that that alternative is not just
>> sensible, but far, far more sensible.
>>
>> If you approach this subject unintelligently, then you're going to
>> come to some very stupid conclusions. I know that's not a very
>> politically correct thing to say, but that's the way it is. Everybody
>> wants their opinions to be correct, but only a minority of people can
>> manage to fulfill that desire.
>>
>> Erwin Hessle, 8=3- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Why is it that those who claim to know the answers to things man has
>thought on and debated for thousands of years come across so
>ignorantly, that's right, because they're still being debated and
>discussed. Unless god reveals himself in some major way, we cannot
>all believe in him,
And that would cause major changes in everything. Those who
disbelieve can't appreciate the significance of that.
>so the debate continues.
|
