Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="newusername" data-source="post: 6147838" data-attributes="member: 562064">Pascal&#039;s wager is complete poppycock.&nbsp; 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&#039;s Wager presents another false dichotomy: either god exists and requires belief, or god does not exist.&nbsp; There are, however, more than these two options.&nbsp; 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&#039;s mousetrap.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; This is wrong on a number of levels.&nbsp; First, we again have an infinite regress built right in.&nbsp; Second, complexity does not necessarily infer design; evolution has shown that.&nbsp; Third, it ignores documented exaptation.&nbsp; Fourth, it is another argument from ignorance.&nbsp; Fifth, at best it would imply that the development of the world has been guided, and says nothing about the degree of the designer&#039;s perfection nor if he is infinite nor that he has made matter from nothing.&nbsp; Sixth, there is completely broken logic in the idea of comparing a designed item against nature, which you are also claiming to be designed.&nbsp; 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&#039;s rebuttal of irreducible complexity?How did you possibly arrive at that conclusion?&nbsp; It is basically impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, so we never say &quot;Because you can&#039;t prove it to be wrong, it must be true&quot;.&nbsp; You must put forth a logical argument as to why evolution only makes sense if it is controlled by a higher being.So your argument is that you think you see design.&nbsp; Please read above.You are engaging in a lot of hyperbole and appeal to emotion.&nbsp; It seems you are arguing that consciousness is the only thing that gives anything in life a reason to live.&nbsp; If so, I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.Perhaps nothing at all &quot;drove&quot; the first living organism to eat.&nbsp; 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.On what basis did you arrive at the position that it is an existence that shouldn&#039;t happen?&nbsp; That is the nature of perception.&nbsp; 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&#039;s existence).&nbsp; We can, however, acquire a degree of operative certainty.&nbsp; Again, you are completely engaging in hyperbole (we shouldn&#039;t a conscious being exist?).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="newusername, post: 6147838, member: 562064"] 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? 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. So your argument is that you think you see design. Please read above. 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. 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?). [/QUOTE]

Verification