[geocentrism] Re: Invitation
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 09:49:11 +1000
Jack I know you wrote it to Paul, but, taking it personally, your arguments
are typical of those that could never swing me towards a belief in God. It was
the standard argument used by the Catholic Church, and even as it was to the 14
year old that I was, it is still today without logic. It is what I would call
"primitive logic" suited to non technical natural peasants. And I say this, St
thomas Aquinas, and Aristotle, nothwithstanding. I was a true seeker. But I was
then and am still today too knowledgeable for Aristotle.
There is nothing to be ashamed of in Aristotelian philosophy, but it is
severely limited in scope. The problem is akin to a great musician trying to
explain music to a motor mechanic. Or in reverse, Aristotle who worships a
stone god in a temple, trying to explain his belief to a radio technician.
To clarify, I need to interject just a couple of negations that seem obvious to
me, and a repeat of what I said to Paul, which you seemed to avoid, within your
text below .
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 8:31 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Invitation
[
Dear Paul,
Anyone who believes that something came out of nothing without an un-caused
first cause, [ can't you see how rediculously contradictory that phrase is?
Science would say "It is." God says "I am"
and that lifeless chemicals can randomly order themselves into the highly
complex organisms without any intelligent or energetic input must be the height
of irrationality. [ I can forgive that insult to science by a person who has an
incomplete knowledge of science. And that is a weakness in all of science, that
it is far from complete. But we can extend from what is already well
established, and draw logical conclusions without resorting to the mythology of
primitives. e.g. Chemicals, though they may randomly mix, do not randomly act.
Just as Pi or 22/7 is pure logic, and can never be any other way, without a
mythical creator, so likewise hydrogen must make water if it burns in oxygen.
Nothing in logic can preclude this simple reaction being followed by any number
of extremely complex forms, just as numbers can and do. ]
Everything about life screams of an intelligent origin. [Ah now that
"screams" shows your weakness. Logic has no need to scream. Failure of
comprehension of the complexity and possibilities of science known and unknown
is the cause of that reaction]
The only argument that can be put against it isn't an argument but a belief.
[ Is the pot calling the kettle black here?] I believe a creator makes far more
sense than without one.[So you believe! On what scientific reason do you base
the belief?] Nobody in their right senses would believe that a computer could
evolve itself. [ Who does? Are you not being irrational here? How can you
compare natural law or action with un-natural action]
Just because people cannot understand or explain the creator does not make
its existence unlikely or invalid. [ Quite so! AS also the converse. Just
because people cannot understand or explain the universe does not make the
existence of a Creator likely or valid.] If it makes you feel better don't call
it God call it - a creative intelligence or something like that, but please
don't insult our intelligence, [ how can one insult that which appears to be
missing absent or nonexistent] by saying that it all happened randomly and
undirected. It just isn't possible. [ thats faith not reason again] No
scientist, with all of modern technology at their disposal, has ever been able
to duplicate life in the way that they would like to. [modern technology is
modern on the day it started thousands of years ago, it may have a long way to
go yet, and still be nowhere near the final answer, but still advances. I knew
people who said that rocketing into space was never possible.]
You ought to read up on Dawkins 'Methinks it is like a weasle' and his
'biomorphs' arguments for achieving order out of randomness. Its so pathetic as
to be embarrassing because he couldn't see the obvious flaw in his logic. [
I'm having difficulty finding the flaw you are talking about. Is it faith? ]
Jack
Jack, faith and belief in God can only be based upon Revelation, and such
exists, and this revelation is the only physical proof that is logical. Your
primitive aristotleian logic is unreasonable as an argument at any level of
science. You would do far better copying and using the arguments of John Mackay
International Director of Creation Research... He is far more logical, and a
scientist as well.
Philip
Knowledge is a dangerous thing for the soul......did anyone say say that?
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 1:57 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Invitation
Philip M
Once again you delight me. Very nicely reasoned. I am especially
sympathetic here.
From philip madsen Fri Sep 7 23:00:08 2007
I look forward to his response but don't hold your breath. He know s he
will get creamed! He has no time for people who say 'God did it' but has plenty
of time for those who say 'first there was nothing then it exploded and then
against all the odds out came life miraculously' Jack..
But Jack from outside the discussion, and allowing for no bias either
way, I can see that both points of view, are equally frustrating. But the
rationalist has the greater case. To a person who sees GOD as nothing, and we
cannot substantiate Him as being anything but "spirit", which to a physicist is
"nothing", then his, the rationalists, view of the universe as being
unexplainable by anything other than some strange and complex mechanism has to
be more realistic and more rational than it being designed and made out of
nothing by a fairy, even a super duper omnipotent fairy.
Philosophcally, having no bias, I can see, "God created it." and "'first
there was nothing then it exploded and then against all the odds out came life
"
as equal value statements... But as a physicist, I see it as imcompatible
opposites.
However, without having ever read Dawkins, I can bet you are
oversimplifying the evolutionist position as regards the big bang. The universe
did not come out of nothing. It was/is/will be always there in some form, which
in physics could be some form of energy cycling process. This is a quite
rational view. At least it has to a rationalist , more substance than our
resorting to a spiritual Supreme being, based upon no evidence whatsoever, and
on faith alone to explain existence. If you kept throwing God at me in support
of creation as opposed to the rationalist explanation I proposed for existence,
I would be justly excused for being annoyed. You would be and are being
un-scientific.
Your correct approach would be to offe a separate discussion on "Is there
a Supreme Intelligence called God." To which Dawkins or any other rationalist
has the right to decline, or if he has the grace to seek, accept.
We cannot rationally mix the two subjects together..
Philip.
Paul D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get
it now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.10/995 - Release Date: 8/09/2007
1:24 PM
Other related posts:
