FighterAndLover Wrote:All I was saying is that Creation "THEORY" (yes, theory) is no less-believable than the theory of evolution.
Learn about the Scientific Method.
Quote:No one has disproved evolution, no one's proved it either. No one's proved or disproved creation either.
What are you waiting for? Go learn about the Scientific Method! It will help you avoid sounding so foolish in the future. :lol:
"All I was saying is that Creation "THEORY" (yes, theory) is no less-believable than the theory of evolution. No one has disproved evolution, no one's proved it either. No one's proved or disproved creation either."
Other than the Bible and various cultures creation myths, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the creation myth. The dogma of creationism does not rise to the level of theory, it remains an article of faith and therefore, by definition, has no evidence to support it.
To try and lower the theory of Evolution and try and put it on equal footing as creationism is a common agenda of the religous.
Gov'tMule Wrote:To try and lower the theory of Evolution and try and put it on equal footing as creationism is a common agenda of the religous.
It's an interesting agenda, I think. Not so much the effort to lower the theory of evolution to the status of a "hypothesis of evolution" or "fuzzy-headed notion of evolution" as the attempt to create a "theory of creation."
Evolution is a theory, which means it involves reason, evidence and argument. Creation, on the other hand, is an article of faith.
Faith is faith, and reason is reason, and never the twain shall meet: proof denies faith.
Argument relies on evidence and reason; argument is proof. So argument denies faith, which means that theory itself is a denial of faith.
So the attempt to create a "theory of Creation" by seeking evidence of the creation myth in the natural world is a denial of faith.
Unless, of course, the effort is insincere, and the theory is circular.
The teleological argument for the existence of God, or, arguement by design:
Premise 1: The universe was intelligently designed,
Premise 2: The universe was not designed by humans.
Premise 3: The only beings capable of intelligent design are humans (who exist) or God (who may or may not exist).
From (3): The only beings capable of designing the universe in particular are humans (who exist) and God (who may or may not exist).
Recall (2): that the universe was not designed by humans.
If God doesn't exist, then the universe was also not designed by God.
Thus if God doesn't exist, then none of the conceivable beings capable of designing the universe designed the universe, in which case the universe was not designed at all.
Since God not existing therefore results in a contradiction of (1), God must exist if (1) is true.
As to (1): Almost all biologists support the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. We reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the complexity of life but a better explanation. Thus we tend to view the teleological argument as a poor argument for the existence of a god.
As to (2) Accepted.
As to (3):
Premise 1: The teleological argument is sound (assumption for reductio), therefore: An intelligent designer exists.
Premise 2: The teleological argument applies to the intelligent designer, for the designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object, therefore: An intelligent designer of the intelligent designer exists.
Similarly: An infinite chain of intelligent designers exists.
Premise 3: An infinite chain of intelligent designers does not exist, for this is absurd.
Conclusion: one of the three premises is false.
REDUCTO AD ABSURDUM
Ah, but God
is an infinite chain of intelligent designers. This is the very definition of God. Begotten, not made, and all that.
Ya just can't argue with faith.
I've never really bothered with intelligent design in detail, but since the first premise (that complex things do not happen by accident) is teleological, I'd say it's circular.
The only logical conclusion we can draw from the failure of theory to account for all the facts is that the universe remains unexplained.
Now, just for fun, let's try to reconcile free will with the existence of an omniscient deity.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Now, just for fun, let's try to reconcile free will with the existence of an omniscient deity.
No, let's not.
In my opinion, there is no such thing as 'free will', just as there is no such thing as an 'omniscient diety'.
Oh, you want an explanation? Alright:
Not one person who has
ever walked this earth
chose to 'exist'. Thus, every act, every concept,
every conscious thought is constrained to this mortal 'state of being' - this random 'realm of existance' (i.e. "life on earth"), which no man ever asked to become part of.
While
most of us 'earthly beings' do have something I refer to as "independent function and utility" and the "curse of consciousness", individual "will" is limited only to the resources at our immediate disposal, and restricted to those acts which are conducive to survival, else we cease to 'exist'.
A mere technicality? Perhaps, but the more we are able to shed our innate egocentricism, the more sense this makes. (Besides, I'm sure some philosopher has taken this much deeper than I have here.....)
The Horrible Esthete Wrote:skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Now, just for fun, let's try to reconcile free will with the existence of an omniscient deity.
Not one person who has ever walked this earth chose to 'exist'. Thus, every act, every concept, every conscious thought is constrained to this mortal 'state of being' - this random 'realm of existance' (i.e. "life on earth"), which no man ever asked to become part of.
This is why suicide is the only real question left in philosophy. Is it the only act of free will left to us?
The Horrible Esthete Wrote:skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Now, just for fun, let's try to reconcile free will with the existence of an omniscient deity.
No, let's not.
How about we try to reconcile the ideas that God is omniscient and God is omnipotent? No?
You are no fun at all.
I guess we'll just have to discuss whether weak-minded pussies have free will, and the rest of us don't. Because recent research has shown that only weak-minded pussies commit suicide. Free will is therefore a sign of weakness. That's why an omnipotent God has no free will.
Er...