[geocentrism] Re: Invitation
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 23:31:45 +0100
Dear Paul,
Anyone who believes that something came out of nothing without an un-caused
first cause, 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. Everything about life screams of an intelligent
origin. The only argument that can be put against it isn't and argument but a
belief. I believe a creator makes far more sense than without one. Nobody in
their right senses would believe that a computer could evolve itself. Just
because people cannot understand or explain the creator does not make its
existence unlikely or invalid. 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, by saying that it all happened randomly and
undirected. It just isn't possible. 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.
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.
Jack
----- 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.
Other related posts:
