Here we have the same understanding of the impossibility of the problem, you'll excuse me if i relate my statements to heavily to the human perspective ("a time before time.") but people usually don't understand the arguments otherwise. basically I agree, that such knowledge is unobtainable under the current conditions of human perspective. My disagreement it purely in the speculative outcome of the problem. You follow atheistic thoughts, I'm more influenced by themes such as Pascal's wager and behe's mousetrap. Not to mention i believe my personal view of the universe leads me along the past of deism. We must in this situation agree to disagree.
Pascal's wager is complete poppycock. Here we have an individual who is feigning belief in god for the sake of reward, but surely an omniscient being would be able to see through that?
Also, Pascal's Wager presents another false dichotomy: either god exists and requires belief, or god does not exist. There are, however, more than these two options. It can just as easily be argued that god exists and rewards skepticism; either argument can be demonstrated as equally true.
Then we have Michael Behe's mousetrap. It is simply a re-vamp of the telelogical argument, most famously put forth by Thomas Aquinas and then again by William Paley in his Watchmaker analogy. This is wrong on a number of levels. First, we again have an infinite regress built right in. Second, complexity does not necessarily infer design; evolution has shown that. Third, it ignores documented exaptation. Fourth, it is another argument from ignorance. Fifth, at best it would imply that the development of the world has been guided, and says nothing about the degree of the designer's perfection nor if he is infinite nor that he has made matter from nothing. Sixth, there is completely broken logic in the idea of comparing a designed item against nature, which you are also claiming to be designed. If both the designed item and the natural item were designed, then there exists no distinction to be made between the designed artifact and the natural artifact.
Have you read or seen Ken Miller's rebuttal of irreducible complexity?
Not really, just logical arguements from a subjective perspective. 1 by 1..
1. If evolution makes sense apart from a higher being, how? If there is no answer to negate my assumption I am justified in believing the statement true, however i should continue to question the validity of the argument.
How did you possibly arrive at that conclusion? It is basically impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, so we never say "Because you can't prove it to be wrong, it must be true". You must put forth a logical argument as to why evolution only makes sense if it is controlled by a higher being.
2. again same reasoning... Give me a logical reason to believe otherwise. I am choosing not to believe evolution makes sense uninfluenced by the same reasoning you are choosing to believe god exists, yet my assumption is reinforced (if not proven) everywhere i look in the universe (known universe.)
So your argument is that you think you see design. Please read above.
3. Things weather, decay and die until they are in the simplest form. this is observable everywhere you look literally EVERYWHERE. life without regard to subjective consciousness, simply pro-longs the process, goes against the current, litterally fights the forces the universe is putting on it. For what purpose? It's perfectly logical to say that the desire to maintain life is seeded in consciousness, but how did life develop to that level? What drove the first living organism to eat?
You are engaging in a lot of hyperbole and appeal to emotion. It seems you are arguing that consciousness is the only thing that gives anything in life a reason to live. If so, I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.
Perhaps nothing at all "drove" the first living organism to eat. Again, please understand that being unable to understand how life began (or any particular idea) does not equate to demonstrating that evolution (or life) is driven by a god.
Sure maybe life has no purpose but it seems to, the universe is like a play-pen to the conscious mind. how ironic that the world as it exists can offer a conscious being no certainty whatsoever, "the only thing you cannot doubt, is that you may doubt everything." it's a torturous, conflicting existence that shouldn't happen. It would be more favorable for a being to never exist.
On what basis did you arrive at the position that it is an existence that shouldn't happen? That is the nature of perception. Certainly we are infants in our understanding of the universe, and absolutely there are many things which can and should be doubted (yet here you are certain of god's existence). We can, however, acquire a degree of operative certainty. Again, you are completely engaging in hyperbole (we shouldn't a conscious being exist?).
