Killing the Watchmaker (Origins)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 22:55 (4713 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: Well, some criticism still stands: Why does the eye only see one band of light, when there would definitely be an advantage if humans could also see IR? Lets remember that atheists are railing against essentially "special creation" that man is intrinsically special to the universe by our high and almighty creator, who is omnipotent etc. etc. It DOES stand to reason that if we were supposed to be superior, that we would have been blessed with stronger spines, IR eyesight, any of a number of different advantages that would actually stand to make us "superior." (I deeply question whether or not we really are "smarter" than most other animals just because we write plays... intelligence alone doesn't make us "superior...")
> 
> ...Cars would be better if they used no harmful fuels, never broke down, never rusted, had built-in accident avoiders...Does all that prove they weren't consciously designed? The question is not whether something could have been better, but whether you can or can't believe that such complex organs are the products of a mechanism which...ah, well, you know the rest.
> -Cars eh? Ah... you already forgot Hume!!! I'm stepping outside of the typical debate here and just asking some probing questions. Remember, chance vs. design isn't a compelling question for me. We're a long way from being able to answer it. I was asking the question that does criticize special creation. We're not particularly favored, if you look upon this planet, for reasons you state later. (Being outlived by bacteria, for just one example.) -> I agree with you on the subject of "superiority". I can quite understand why theists believe we are special, since as far as we know, we are the only creatures with the intelligence to recognize or dispute the existence of a maker. ...
> -I recognize that we clearly have some extraordinary gifts... I guess I'm playing the "hippie" by asking, "Why all the hate?" Did you listen to that podcast in its entirety? There's another one a few seasons later that explores a Bonobo raised among humans and I wonder what Adler would have thought if he had been aware of these modern experiments. She was able to combine words to create new meanings! -> MATT: I will never forget when I voluntarily withdrew from alt.atheism some years ago. I had an... argument, where someone claiming to be the physicist Michael Gray. I was challenging him on several philosophical points, most notably that I thought saying "God does not exist" really IS an expression of faith, if we're to be epistemically accurate. Because its entirely within reason that "Everything man has ever thought about God is false except that it exists."
> 
> You were met with a series of vitriolic ad hominems. This is typical of fundamentalists. You cannot reason with them, although they firmly believe that reason is on their side!
> -But what made that particularly... hurtful, was that it was (supposedly) coming from a man of science... I could have had this guy as a professor, and... seriously, the venom coming from this man (who did not know me) was... yes, only matched by what I had received by some Christian fundamentalists, but you don't EVER expect this from "freethinkers." -> "The statement 'God does not exist' is falsifiable."
> 
> What is that supposed to prove? It would be falsifiable if God appeared to us. But if he never appears to us, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. The statement "life originated by chance" would also be falsifiable, if God appeared and showed us how he did it. So? How long are you prepared to wait?-My question is simply the efficient "Why make the claim at all?" But truthfully, if someone claims that God exists, it IS up to that individual to do the work; so really, the fact that the statement is falsifiable certainly means one is willing to change. (The evidence must simply be "extraordinary.") -> 
> *******
> 
> Hubble, Hubble,
> Toil and trouble,
> Let us burst
> The Hubble Bubble.-That made me laugh! I needed that!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"