Re: and who made god?
From: Anthony Cerrato (tcerrato_at_optonline.net)
Date: 01/23/05
- Next message: Ioannis: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Previous message: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: article on schools of foundations of mathematics"
- In reply to: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: and who made god?"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: and who made god?"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: and who made god?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:47:14 -0500
"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in
message
news:5fxId.70218$W33.2162687@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:d462v0doacm9nrncetsadass63n8drkjdo@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:26:18 -0500, "Allan C Cybulskie"
> > <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote:
..snip..
> > > And, in fact, the argument from
> > >design relies entirely on empirical observation,
> >
> > Name One. Bet he won't answer.
>
> One that I found interesting is the fact that most
liquids, when they
> freeze, are heavier than their liquid forms and so would
sink to the bottom
> when frozen. One notable exception is water, which gets
lighter when frozen
> and so floats on the top of the liquid form -- a quality
that is totally
> necessary for -- at least -- aquatic life.
>
> Yes, it could happen at random and if it hadn't we just
wouldn't have
> aquatic life ... but it is an empirical result that
appears designed.
Ridiculous. It happens because matter and energy obey the
known laws of physics--which were ingrained in our universe
at the time of its coming into existence (as you would
understand if you knew any pertinent science at all, i.e.,
chemistry and physics, and how they work in specific cases.)
It is quite a leap (of faith) to conclude from that that it
is a "result that appears designed!" Logic dictates that
there need be no connection between such a result and the
necessity for a designer...the laws of the universe could
have indeed been generated by chance--the only reason we
live in such a universe is that its properties allow life
like us to evolve and exist; if they _had been_ different we
would not be here to argue the question, but this does not
imply they were created specifically for this reason! It
only implies that there are likely other universes where the
same laws do not hold, and life does not exist. That is the
true meaning of the anthropic principle. It takes an
enormously egotistical mind to draw the conclusion that it i
s all about _him_ or _her_. ...tonyC
>
> >
> > > and not on the Bible at
> > >all. It's only at the end of the argument that anyone
can point to the
> > >entity given in the Bible and say "This guy looks likea
good candidate
> for
> > >that intelligent designer."
> >
> > That's why its Bible Babble. Its all one can point to.
>
> The problem is that you do not need to point at the Bible
to hold the
> argument.
>
>
- Next message: Ioannis: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Previous message: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: article on schools of foundations of mathematics"
- In reply to: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: and who made god?"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: and who made god?"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: and who made god?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
