IT Employment

General discussion

Locked

Possibility

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 agree, DMambo's remark is much funnier than yours!

by Absolutely In reply to Works for me.

"Please expound on this!"

I get a 10-minute workout for my stomach muscles every time I load this page!!!

Collapse -

Perhaps I am a figment

by maecuff In reply to Actually, you're all figm ...

But I'm a good one.

Collapse -

I'm so glad I asked.

by Absolutely In reply to Actually, you're all figm ...

That was helpful, Nick, thanks a lot.

Collapse -

Knock, knock, serious question.

by Absolutely In reply to Possibility

How does Roger Penrose treat human existence as a probability to calculate instead of as an axiom?

Collapse -

Can you disprove the existence of a teapot in orbit about the Sun?

by Absolutely In reply to Possibility

Does your inability to disprove that teapot logically require the existence of that teapot?

OF COURSE NOT!

Does your inability to disprove that teapot logically permit agnosticism of the non-existence of such a teapot?

OF COURSE NOT!

If You expect Your imaginary friend to hold higher status in My Hierarchy of Values than an imaginary teapot, CHECK YOUR ASSUMPTIONS.

Collapse -

re: "The key argument for atheism has lately become evolution." UNTRUE!

by Absolutely In reply to Possibility

Nobody has BARGED INTO YOUR CHURCHES screaming that you may not believe in your imaginary friend, because Darwin noticed that evolution from simpler forms to more complex, and selection based on advantageous adaptations offer a valid, logically consistent explanation of his observations. But, now that religious extremists have asserted the right to teach religion in public schools, it is high time to put an end to the insanity.

The burden of proof is not on atheists to disprove the existence of celestial teapots!

http://ffrf.org/events/2006/audio/harris.php

Collapse -

Waste of time I know but,

by computerccu In reply to re: "The key argument fo ...

Your assumption is wrong. People have barged into our children's live and forced them to learn something we don't believe, and you can't prove. I never make some believe in GOD. The world makes my children learn about life without GOD, unhealthy sex, and many other things. I don't care how you live or what you think, if you don't bother me, I won't bother you. Kill each other and give up the gift of life. If you ask, I will tell you a better way. I feel sorry that your unbelief will hurt you and your children though. Even if I were wrong, I have had a good life. If I am right, I have a great future. Hope you can say the same.

Collapse -

Okaay...

by NickNielsen In reply to Waste of time I know but,

People have barged into our children's live and forced them to learn something we don't believe, and you can't prove.

What don't you believe? Has somebody been teaching the wrong intelligent design to your children? What are you implying? Specifics?

I feel sorry that your unbelief will hurt you and your children though.

Don't you mean your unbelief? After all, it's obvious, since we believe differently, that you are wrong and are going to that other place.

Edit: To see where I'm coming from, visit this link with the understanding that I find it funny...http://tinyurl.com/2zap5x

Collapse -

You're wrong.

by Absolutely In reply to Waste of time I know but,

"The world makes my children learn about life without GOD, unhealthy sex, and many other things."

What they learn, versus what they merely observe and reject, depends on the example you set. The responsibility to provide an adequate role model for your children is yours, nobody else's. Scapegoating to evade your personal responsibilities is pathetic.

Collapse -

Ah, Absolutely, that's

by rob mekel In reply to re: "The key argument fo ...

the problem.

"The burden of proof is not on atheists to disprove the existence of celestial teapots"
To prove that something you believe in is true ... can't call it believing if there is prove can you :)
so the minute the non-atheists "prove" they are right ... they're wrong, that's the paradox.

Rob

Related Discussions

Related Forums