Lost marbles (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, October 24, 2009, 03:45 (5301 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Saturday, October 24, 2009, 03:55


> > When you take an argument that says "Life is so complex, it must have been designed," you make a series of assumptions to unanswered philosophical questions.
> 
> I don't know what the 'unanswered questions'are. What are they? 
> > 
> > First and foremost, you have to assume that a designer exists. You HAVE to assume it because there is no way to independently verify the existence of a designer.
> 
> I still stick to my simplistic belief I have stated before. If we find that initial true life is so complex,then the odds against its appearance will become so enormous that chance is negated, and we will have a default form of proof. Absolulte proof is impossible.
> -David, help me out here. This belief you talk of...
Alright, from my perspective you're saying that chance can be negated. But chance can ONLY be negated if you find positive evidence for a creator; something more than an inference or an implication. Since nearly all scientific arguments are essentially normalized to exclude chance in the first place, this places you in difficult water. -> 
> >
> > Thirdly, you make an assumption that the creator is natural. 
> 
> No I think he is supernatural. And finally, as I read George and you, Matt, I think you both have an element of philosophic truth.-Again, the supernatural assertion means that it is separated from nature. Otherwise, the word "supernatural" wouldn't exist. God is supernatural or he's not.-You mentioned recently (at least I think you did) that god and we ARE the universe? (Certainly sounds panentheistic.) If that is true, it recreates the philosophical dilemma I discussed before about the pointlessness of a god that is inseparable from everything else. -In the final part, you mention abiogenesis again. The problem I have with the assertion that "it must be complex," is that you are used to seeing the end product of all that biochemistry. You can't think simple because simple's never existed inside of the world you know and understand. At least in my case, I don't feel like hedging my bets when I know the bloodhounds are still on the trail.-[EDIT]
As usual I didn't tie the two sections together. -Proving that we were designed means that you have to find positive proof that we were created. You say you're a panentheist, which to me means that the universe lies "within" God, crudely stated. However, for our purposes, the only way we could find positive proof of this is to... what?

--
\"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.\"