after reading a lot of your posts thom, i at least think that there is some kind of paradox in what you are saying. now, i haven.t been very alert lately, but i seem to think that you aren't following your own logic.
in the quoted post, you say, and i agree, that we are far more complex than a computer, and that it is an impossibility for a computer to be made out of its components (like carbon ans silicon) by pure utter chance. it implies design. and since we are by far more complicated than a computer, we would imply design.
as i have said before, intelligence spawns intelligence, complex spawns complex, and for a random occurence that has no trigger to do such things is impossible. i think you would consider us as intelligent, right? our self awareness and phylosophical thoughts show intelligence as we know it. and such intelligence, unless we ourselves are eternal, must have come from an intelligent design, as such random change from bacteria to ourselves cannot produce it.
so so far we agree i think, that we imply a design. but then you say that God is a figment of our imagination. i don't follow you from here. if he truely is a just a concept in our mind, then how do you explain a very obvious design in our being? i understand that Gods presence and his concept resides in our mind, but does that make it an invention on our behalf? or is it genetic, since all humans grasp the supernatural and can comprehend a God on our limited human knowledge? because so far, if we are the product of evolution or such a natural occurence, what need be to have a superior being? and i do not believe that God serves only as a moral compass, because many people can show kindness without any kind of God.
i think i will post this, from st anslem:
''Therefore, Lord, you who give knowledge of the faith, give me as much knowledge as you know to be fitting for me, because you are as we believe and that which we believe. And indeed we believe you are something greater than which cannot be thought. Or is there no such kind of thing, for 'the fool said in his heart, 'there is no God'' (Ps. 13:1, 52:1)? But certainly that same fool, having heard what I just said, 'something greater than which cannot be thought,' understands what he heard, and what he understands is in his thought, even if he does not think it exists. For it is one thing for something to exist in a person's thought and quite another for the person to think that thing exists. For when a painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that picture in his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has not done it yet. Once he has painted it he has it in his thought and thinks it exists because he has done it. Thus even the fool is compelled to grant that something greater than which cannot be thought exists in thought, because he understands what he hears, and whatever is understood exists in thought. And certainly that greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of as existing in reality as well, which is greater. If, therefore, that than which greater cannot be thought exists in thought alone, then that than which greater cannot be thought turns out to be that than which something greater actually can be thought, but that is obviously impossible. Therefore something than which greater cannot be thought undoubtedly exists both in thought and in reality.''
-St. Anselm
this i think makes a good case for our mind not creating a God. because if he doesn't exist, why would we have a concept of him, if we are just animals on the same scale as all others? and this is basicaly saying that a God, which is greater than anything, cannot be greater then anything if he does not exist in reality. this does not mean that santa claus exists becausse we can imagine him. for him to be real he has to have some impact on the world. and since God is greater then everything, he must exist to be the greatest thing ever. coupled with the obvious signs of design, this shows he has an influence on the world and therefore is the greates possible thing.
i do not know how logical my premises have been. and for the originator of the thread, when i say "if" in a question, most often it is rhetorical, and implies that it is true, or untrue, according to the context.
so thom i am just wondering about wether youa re following your own logic to its conclusion, many times such paths or argument and logical conclusion have brought many a philospher to faith in a God (most recently a leading man in atheistic philosophy, forget his name.), and rarely the other way.
as for fossil evidence of a link between man and apes, there is only evidence when interpreted throught the evolutionnary link lens. same for the birds and dinosaur thing. rarely, if you look closely, does it actually point in the evolutionnary way, take this for example, i have quoted it before:
Birds
A bird’s wings are made of feathers. A feather is a marvel of light weight engineering. Though light, it is very wind-resistant. This is because there is a clever system of barbs and barbules. Each barb of a feather is visible to the naked eye and comes off the main stem. What is not generally realized is that on either side of the barb are further tiny barbules which can only be seen under a microscope. These are of different types, depending on whether they are coming from one side of the barb or the other. On one side of the barb, ridged barbules will emerge, while on the other side, the barbules will have hooks. Thus, the hooks coming out of one barb will connect with ridges reaching in the opposite direction from a neighboring barb. The hooks and ridges act like “velcro,� but go one stage further, since the ridges allow a sliding joint, and there is thus an ingenious mechanism for keeping the surface flexible and yet in-tact.
The next time you see a flight feather on the ground, remem ber it is a marvel of lightweight, flexible, aerodynamic engineering. Reptile scales have no hint of such complicated machinery. Stahl has freely admitted, “No fossil structure transitional between scale and feather is known, and recent investigators are unwilling to found a theory on pure speculation.�
There is no genetic information within reptile scales to allow such a unique device as the sliding joint of a feather to be made. The tortuous route suggested by some of small “advantaged mutations� to scales leads to clumsy structures which are, in fact, a disadvantage to the creature. Not until all the hook and ridge structure is in place is there any advantage, even as a vane for catching insects! Unless one invokes some “thinking ahead� planning, [Mommy Nature making selections?] there is no way that chance mutations could produce the “idea� of the cross- linking of the barbules to make a connecting lattice. Even if the chance mutation of a ridge/hook occurs in two of the barbules, there is no mechanism for translating this “advantage� to the rest of the structure. This is a classic case of irreducible complexity which is not consistent with slow evolutionary changes, but quite consistent with the notion of design.
But that is not all. Even if one had the feather, the delicate lattice structure would soon become frayed, unless there was also oil to lubricate the sliding joint made by the hooked and ridged barbules. Most of us realize that once the barbs of a feather have been separated, it is difficult to make them come back together.The feather becomes easily frayed in the absence of oil, which a bird provides from its preening gland at the base of its spine. Some of this oil is put on its beak and spread throughout the feathers, which for a water bird also gives waterproofing of its surface (thus, water slides off a duck’s back). Without the oil the feathers are useless, so even if a supposed land-dwelling dinosaur got as far as wafting a wing, it would be no use after a few hours!
As one might expect, however, the story does not end there either, for a bird can fly only because it also has an exceedingly light bone structure, which is achieved by the bones being hollow. Many birds maintain skeleton strength by cross members within the hol low bones. Such an arrangement began to be used in the middle of this century for aircraft wings and is termed the “Warren’s truss arrangement.� Large birds, such as an eagle or a vulture, would sim ply break into pieces in midair if there were some supposed halfway stage in their skeletal development where they had not yet “developed� such cross members in their bones.
i blieve there is plenty of proof for a bible God, a Creator God. and that seems to follow apples logic, up to the invention of God, which his "invention" really just proof of his existence, like you have said thom, over and over...
don't know if this helps, but hey.
- Patty
*NS Skateboarders* Vas y il l'a cassé!
the previous might have been pure genious, but it wasn't my intention. sorry. that's why i put in all those typos...
