Ghazzali
-115
24
Ghazzali has not written any posts yet.
Your extreme example of evidence in a creator is a valid point, but only to a certain limit. Maybe the grand creator does not want to make things that obvious? Maybe he puts just enough evidence in the universe for people of sincerity for the truth to be lead to the conclusion of design, and not an inch more? The point is we dont know, and the fact that God is not coming down from heaven and telling us he exists is NOT rational evidence that he does not exist and is not the designer of the universe.
As to those Christians who believe in evolution, they have... (read more)
My point is that you can argue rationally about whether there is design in the universe, but you cannot argue whether the design is good or bad. The later is incoherent. Maybe the Grand Designer does want to make things confusing? Maybe he has put evidence of design in the universe, but not absolute evidence for whatever reason He wants? You can make the point that the design is good or bad, but that point has no real consequence to the question about whether there is design in the first place. Thats my point.
Another interesting point;
Do you agree that design does indeed exist anywhere in the universe? Lets say in the form of human design? If you do believe that humans actually do design, and it seems like you do because you are judging the design in nature based on human experience of design, then you have to come up with an explanation of how purely mechanical/physical beings produced this design to begin with?
Not quite what I am saying.
I do believe in the truth of empirically reproducible results. However, other than stating facts I do not see how these results force me to believe in anything. It is my belief system or personal philosophy that makes me conclude a interpretation of those facts.
For example:
Evolution is seen by many people through the lens of materialism/atheism. That means that while studying evolution these people ASSUME the world has no creator and and is purely physical and closed system, free from anything super-natural....and so on.
In that way, any discovery in biology is treated in this interpretation and millions of dollars of... (read more)
Mathematically you have the same problem whether you believe in God or you don't. If you say that there is no God you must still account for these two questions:
And if you say 2. you still have to go back to one.
The same mysteries are there whether you believe in God or not. It is your world-view, your faith that leads... (read more)
To claim that the world is not designed because, based on your knowledge of design, it is not a good design is a very weak argument. If the world was designed by a supreme being, your knowledge and His knowledge would be like comparing the intelligence of a rock to a human being. It simply does not compare. All the supposed weaknesses you claim in the design of the cosmos comes from your extremely limited knowledge of reality and cannot compare to the wisdom behind the design of the Creator. Now, this is all the case only if you concede there is a grand designer. If you... (read more)
You have to at least recognize that you are looking at science using a world-view (philosophy). In this case you see the amazing complexity of life as a product of chance/random events and not because of some genius unseen designer. The beautiful world you are describing could be interpreted as being the product of either, and the science itself would not change. You have chosen to see it through a particular lens. Both lenses are fundamentally not scientific in nature, they are belief structures.
Lets say that the evidence seems to point towards design in the universe. Should we ignore that because we think a chance-world view would bring us more scientific achievement? If we do such a thing, would there be a good chance that what we call scientific achievement today would turn out to be delusion in the future because it is based on a forced world-view?
I think that is where we differ, it is in the macro-micro evolutionary distinction. That mathematical model does not hold any water if you distinguish between species.
Also, I would say that the word 'random' is in essence a philosophical term, not scientific. It is a term of interpretation.
I don't think you can assume that all critics of evolution believe all animals lived alongside one another. I doubt they are all evangelical Christians.
You are correct that a hit on a chance-favoring theory could be a support for another chance-favoring theory, but that is only if there are other chance-favoring theories competing with eacother in at least some way. When you have a theory as monolithic in nature as evolution, it is for all intents and purposes THE chance-favoring theory. Things could change in the future though, and maybe another chance-favoring theory could at least get some foothold. However, as long as we are in... (read more)
Biology textbooks reflect the belief that "The world is purely physical/material in nature" by not even entertaining the possibility that there could be a super natural cause for anything. Any natural activity is assumed to have a physical/material cause. This is philosophy, so it may not be physically written out that way in the biology textbooks, but everything in the textbooks points to this major world assumption.
Same with the issue of free will. Any act by a species is seen in a way that needs to be explained in chemical/biological/mechanical manner. There is no room for this mysterious/other-worldly notion called free will.
Same with the... (read more)