On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 22:07:09 +0100, d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:
>EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
>> David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote:
>>
>> > EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >>Is it any
>> >>more reasonable to assume the entire universe is the product
>> >>of blind chance, than to postulate an unimaginably complex
>> >>intelligence as the prime cause?
>> >
>> >
>> > Of course it is, if you follow Darwinian theory, because it makes the
>> > existence of this "unimaginably complex intelligence" too improbable.
>>
>> I think you are confusing "opinion" with "incontrovertible
>> proof", here.
>
>Not at all. Re-read what I wrote. It's too improbable. That is not the
>same as saying it's _not_ the case, because as with my piece of green
>cheese, there's no way of proving it didn't create the universe.
>
>> (I don't say you're not right, just that no
>> way of proving either assertion exists.) "Too improbable
>> to present-day human minds", is what you are really saying,
>> but how many "scientifically impossible" things (like rocks
>> falling from the sky) turned out to be not only possible,
>> but true, as human knowledge increased?
>
>Progress in scientific understanding doesn't tend to improve the odds
>for there being a higher being.
>
>> Religion states
>> "God created" (followed by primitive man's attempt to
>> explain the creation process). Darwinian "theory" simply
>> provides a more scientifically based HOW
>
>Not really. Darwinian theory does not attempt to explain how everything
>was created to begin with. That's more in the realm of physics.
>Darwinian theory shows that more complex forms of intelligence develop
>as a result of natural selection, and over massive stretches of time.
>That's why, if you accept that, one can reject the notion that
>everything was created by a God. Because if God exists, how did she
>develop. And why one God? Why not a whole multitude of them, as of
>course some religions portray.
>
>> - and of course our
>> knowledge of that continues to expand. I have never seen
>> any reason the two sould be mutually exclusive, so long as
>> people are willing to broaden their definitions (and their
>> minds) to accept the available facts.
>
>The available facts show no evidence of God exisiting.
Other than everything we know about started from nothing.
--
Martin
|