Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="newusername" data-source="post: 6155721" data-attributes="member: 562064">I guess you completely missed the meaning of my criticism.  The false dichotomy is this:1) God exists and rewards belief in "it"2) God does not existAs a counter-example, consider the Atheist's Wager (which also uses a false dichotomy, but demonstrates part of why Pascal's Wager is wrong):1) God exists and rewards skeptical or rational reasoning2) God does not exist.My point is that Pascal's Wager assumes a payout for believing in god; this is an unfounded assumption, unless you presume religious dogma to be accurate (which I do not, given the great deal of internal and external contradictions).You have assumed that not believing will result in our "destruction", as you put it.Actually it is.  They all boil down to the same argument: things are so complex that they must have had a designer, and that designer must be god.  I can only assume that you have not read the works of Aquinas or Paley.The point about the infinite regress is to demonstrate that the argument for gods existence is no stronger than any other argument for what began.  There we agree.  The difference is that the god you propose ONLY exists in that infinite regression, whereas we have evidence of "natural causes" everywhere.Similarly, I am willing to acknowledge that I do not know what came before (and in fact believe talking about what came before is basically non-sensical).  You, on the other hand, assert that a god must be the answer, yet god also falls into the infinite regress from which you are trying to rescue yourself.You're comparing a computer game specifically programmed by us to behave in that manner to a natural universe that we do not know if it was programmed at all.  That is hardly a valid comparison.The rise of a more complex structure can be the result of a series of simpler structures evolving to co-operate and serve a new function.  You are again making bald assertions; certainly many mutations do not have fitness benefits, but that doesn't mean that over millions and millions of years that there would be no mutations that would produce fitness benefits, and thus be more likely to survive.The point is that the distinction made originally (designed vs natural) is, according to creationists, non-existent, so there is no basis on which to put forth a designed vs natural argument.  If it is only a question of the designer's abilities, how do you decide whether one artifact is "more designed" than the other?So you're aware, then, that every example Behe has given as "irreducibly complex" (including the eye, the bacteria flagellum, and the immune system) have been demonstrated as NOT irreducibly complex?  Have you read any information in Kitzmiller vs Dover?Certainly we are in a state of epistemological darkness.  Nothing can be completely known.  But my point is that it is stupid to make a statement with no supporting argument, then say "Prove my statement is wrong or else it is true."  I presume you believe in the celestial teapot, since it has not been proven wrong?Again, you are making a bald assertion that life should not be the way it is.  I look at life and I see energy coming in from the sun that, given the composition of the Earth, gives rise to continuing life.  The life itself appears to give rise to more life.  The evidence says the exact opposite of what you are asserting.Can you explain to me how gravity opposes life?</blockquote>

Verification

Top

What's new

Forum list