[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, 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. 


  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 

      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 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: