IT Employment

Our forums are currently in maintenance mode and the ability to post is disabled. We will be back up and running as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience!

General discussion



By zealot144 ·
Why Can't you see it? Drop the ad hominem BS for just a moment, and ask yourself "Why am I a Doubter". Conversely, "Why am I so Sure"?

The question posed for more than two millennium is not whether their is a creator, but whether you can see him (it/her). Naturalists wish to believe that EVERYTHING can be seen, and that which cannot be seen does not exist. To assume that everything can be seen is the apex of narcissism, yet this is the motor that drives science and naturalism. Science is beneficial. Naturalism is faith. It is necessary to define what the character of "natural" is, to exclude which is most difficult to see, or that which seems least likely, in order to be a "naturalist". That which is extremely improbable or empirically invisible must not exist. But, that is essentially the description of our known cosmos.

When brilliant mathematicians like Roger Penrose calculate the odds of our observable universe being so coincidentally appropriate to life as ten to the tenth to the negative one hundred fiftieth, a number close to the number of all particles in the known universe taken to the power of all the known particles in the universe, the word "coincidence" loses all meaning. Penrose was not yet considering biochemical complexities, only the coincidences of physics deployed in the big bang. Is this extremely unlikely? Is it more unlikely than "unnatural" or "supernatural"?

The key argument for atheism has lately become evolution. One learned discourse I recently encountered in Uncommon Dissent was the "logical" claim that the universe not only created itself but also programmed itself to be perfect for life. This is an attempt to find a middle ground between teleology and naturalism. It walks around questions about primacy and information theory, not to mention probability and statistics. Which was, amazingly, the focus of the argument, that being that the cosmos is full of nonphysical realities like law, justice, truth, mathematics (philosophers wonder how everything seems so amenable to description by such a precise mechanism as ordered numbers), and a number of other abstract realities that don't easily fall to scientific scrutiny, i. e., things that are real, but not scientific. Evolution has chosen to embrace such things and declare them the result of natural selection. The question of origins (biologically, at least) has been determined by Darwinism, so everything else logically must be the result of the same unimaginable cosmic coincidence.

Darwinists view poor design, like Dodo birds or elephants, as evidence there was no designer. Yet, if evolution is driven by natural selection, the survival of the fittest, why did poor designs survive? Either they are not poor designs, or the concept of the quality of the design as driving force is suspect. The same reasoning applies to "vestigial" organs, assumed to be leftovers, but which may actually be useful. If they are leftovers, why wasn't the design deleted long ago? Excess genetic baggage and excess tissue differentiation cannot be viewed as "naturalistically selected". If they are not the result of natural selection, the assumption that "if there was a designer, then the designer is stupid" is even more stupid, as we cannot know the goals of the designer, and design of such complexity is truly beyond our wildest imagining.

Even if we, as humans, can eventually engineer a living organism, it is only because we are emulating existing design paradigms within a cosmos already fortuitously amenable to the physics of life, environmentally, chemically, and astronomically.

To look at a house and not know who it's designer was is not only feasible, it is likely. I look at houses every day without any hint of who designed or built them. But, to look at a house and lack the mental capacity to realize that it WAS designed, that it was built, is inconceivable, regardless of intelligence. A monkey may see it as no more remarkable than a cave or a tree, but I don't know any way any human capable of speech could fail to recognize design. And, the most complex structure ever made by man is less than a sandcastle compared to the convenient and interactive universe we live in. We are living inside a miracle. WE are a miracle.

The question is not properly "What is SCIENTIFIC"? The proper question is "What is REAL"?

MUST all of reality bend to the scientific method? If not, then is it not possible that not all of reality is comprehensible, since not all of what is "real" may be directly observable and quantifiable? Is it not POSSIBLE that some portion of REALITY may only be concluded by implication? Is it possible that there is SOMETHING outside our cosmos, something NOT constrained by time or the logic of primacy and causality? Is it POSSIBLE?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I'll show you my lumps,

by CharlieSpencer In reply to You 'just thought'??

if you'll show me yours :-)

Collapse -

you should get

by maecuff In reply to I'll show you my lumps,

extra slaps. Come on, really? You can't do better than THAT?? It's Valentine's Day. At least be more explicit!! :)

Collapse -

Dearest Mae

by CharlieSpencer In reply to I'll show you my lumps,

My feelings grow for you with each passing minute; and they're not all. I know not how to demonstrate my emotion; but the little blue pill sure helps. Mere text does not adequately convey my yearnings; especially since I'm typing with one hand while the other is occupied.

"Respect you in the morning? I don't respect you now."

Collapse -

odd conjunction here

by Jaqui In reply to I'll show you my lumps,

Valentines day is on ... HUMP day.
doesn't it just seem.. so right? ]:)

Collapse -

Well, you had me

by maecuff In reply to I'll show you my lumps,

right up to the 'respect' part. Like I recently told JD. I think you suck and I hope you die horribly.

But I mean that in the nicest possible way. See, Mambo? I am too nice.

Collapse -


by neilb@uk In reply to Possibility

Your post is littered with prejudice!

"The key argument for atheism has lately become evolution." Only amongst that select band of Christian and Muslim zealots who see their Holy Book under threat. The last Pope had no problem with evolution.

Your understanding of Darwin and natural selection is flawed. It is simply an explanation of the mechanism whereby we arrived at the species we have today. It says NOTHING about the first life or the beginning of the universe. Its success as a theory is simply because it is consistent and constrained. To declare that the success of this theory in explaining and predicting things that have, do and will happen in the biological sciences somehow part of a "plot" to deny the existence of God or Allah is ludicrous. "so everything else logically must be the result of the same unimaginable cosmic coincidence" is meaningless drivel trotted out from the fundamental deists' fear that one iota of their precious book might be under threat. People who say things like that are SCARED.

Those with an open mind are perfectly capable of embracing God or Allah (but NEVER both) and evolution without difficulty.

The Dodo survived simply because it could. It only failed to survive when its environment changed with the coming of Man and Rat.

"Even if we, as humans, can eventually engineer a living organism," Oops! That would screw you up a bit, wouldn't it?

"MUST all of reality bend to the scientific method?" Fear speaking again.

"There must be something more than this life"

"I am so small"

"Please help me"

Collapse -

I stand in awe.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Assumptions

Not of the quality or content of your response (which I frankly didn't read), but that you went to the effort to wade through the original post and form apparently coherent replies.

Collapse -

Shock and Awe

by neilb@uk In reply to I stand in awe.

I'm in the midddle of a "new SAN" project which involves creating and transferring the data on several hundred disks. This involves an awful lot of watching files go by...

To keep from going insane with boredom, I do things that are completely stupid so that I suddenly get a rush of adrenalin - WHAT ARE YOU DOING? - that wakes me briefly.

Reading MrMiamiGeobubIs2BadCozHesAFuckwit's posts and attempting to answer them rationally is one of those.

I even answered a question from a newb about the IF function in Excel without being in the slightest sarcastic. It was only after submitting the answer that I stapled my thumb to the desk as punishment.

Tomorrow, I will have to ramp up the adrenalin buzz and - maybe - see if I can get enough nerve to get Mae really mad at me. Now THAT can get the adrenalin flowing almost as much as the black gear and dark red lippy mental picture...!


Collapse -

He's back..

by maecuff In reply to Shock and Awe

dunno if you saw this one yet. It's kind of pathetic. He's kind of like a scab, you know, you can't help yourself from picking at it.

Collapse -

I wondered about that IF function answer.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Shock and Awe

I did wonder why you just didn't tell him to F1 for functions.

If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day.
If you teach him to fish, he spends all his money on accessories for the boat...

Related Discussions

Related Forums