[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.

  ----- 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 

    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 

    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 

    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.. 


  Paul D

  Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it 

Other related posts: