When faced with two competing ideas, one should measure both of them and compare their relative merits. The idea of "blind watchmaker" is the one that most scientists seem to have settled upon as the working model of reality.
But why is that idea more acceptable than the intelligent designer? The evidence for a designed universe seems more reasonable. The evidence for free will seems overwhelming. And the supposition that we are momentary neural impulses seems futile. Physics still has no evidence that consciousness is possible, except for the very experience of consciousness itself. Yet, while I hear people deny that free will exists, they cannot of course deny that consciousness exists. But--- suggest an Intelligent Designer of the Cosmos, and all of a sufdden, there is some level of ridicule, even hostility. As if there were something absurd about the idea itself. ---------------------------------- On May 1, 2:28 pm, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > It is not a bad idea at all. > Another good idea is to revert gravity, entropy, time travel, also to > stop the oil spill with my mind. > There are a lot of good ideas, and there are a lot of bad ideas. And > there are even ideas which are neither good or bad, and also ideas on > which people disagree if they are good or bad. > > So we come to the point that there are a lot of ideas good and bad. > You are a good writer, and I say.. so? > > Talking about literature you brought The Bible to the table, a master > piece like The Iliad, also Thousand Nights and One Night. > The triple monster divinity Father, Son and Ghost is fantastic. > I confess I also liked "Matrix" the most, and lately "Avatar" as well. > > Fiction is a serious part of our lives, but be aware, it is fiction > > On 1 maio, 14:11, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Few ideas are so readily ridiculed among materialist scientists than > > the suggestion that the universe is intelligently designed by a > > supreme being. > > > In order to understand why this is so, we must take a look at history, > > and in particular, Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding. > > Today we accept Hubble's expansion with little doubt. But at the time > > of its announcement, there was a great controversy. Why? > > > Because up until then, the steady state theory had prevailed. In the > > steady state view, there was no beginning, no moment of creation. > > > Now why, you might ask, was the idea of a Beginning, a Moment of > > Creation, so unwelcome among scientists? > > > It was because the Steady State Theory was directly contrary to the > > opening words of the Bible. "In the beginning, God created..." The > > Bible said there was a beginning. The steady state theory strongly > > suggested that there was not. Could the scientists bear to admit that > > they had been wrong, and that the Bible had been right? Perish the > > thought! > > > Scientists claim to be open to any theory, even a Theory of God. Just > > present the evidence, they say, and conform to the scientific method. > > If your evidence passes muster, then we have no objection to admitting > > your theory into the science text books. > > > But scientists are not always quite the pristine seekers after truth > > that they are reputed to be. They are as concerned with personal gain > > as anyone else is, and by personal gain, we must include egotistical > > and ideological factors as well. > > > The Hubble announcement caused somewhat of a panic among scientists > > who should have celebrated the discovery. Not only did the universe > > have a sudden beginning, but for a few tense moments, it also appeared > > that WE are at the center of the universe. > > > A sigh of relief could all but be heard when the centerless universe > > was restored by curvature of space theory. And after a time, the idea > > of a moment of creation settled in, as the primordial point particle > > seemed safely agnostic once more. > > > With M theory, we have once again reverted to the comfort zone of a > > meta-steady-state theory, so to speak. We have unending sequences of > > Big Bangs, not moments of creation, but rather, collisions between > > membranes that manufacture multiple universes. In this mega-verse of > > universes, we have safely retreated back into the underlying > > philosophy that has dominated physics for the last few centuries, the > > philosophy called by various names, mostly including the word, > > material or matter. > > > But there is a problem. > > > According to the materialist view of nature, we are condemned forever > > to think only inside the box, or at least, into an infinite > > progression of boxes. Everything inside the box of nature can--- and > > must--- be explained only in terms of what is already inside the box. > > > We are not allowed to go too far in terms of questioning what might be > > outside the box. As soon as one suggests that there MUST be an > > outside, the immediate challenge is to redefine outside as inside. > > > Thus, if someone says that the box is best explained by an external > > reality called God, the first response is to say that we must measure > > God by the standards of the INSIDE of the box. > > > If we say that God is the uncreated Creator, then the materialist > > places upon God the requirement that He, too, must have been created. > > You see, the universe can be uncreated, a self-existent reality with > > no beginning. But God cannot be uncreated and self-existent. It is > > not allowed. Because then, there might be a God. > > > Which is why scientists scoff at the idea of intelligent design. Why, > > just because the universe SEEMS to be organized, that does not mean > > that it really is. It could all be randomness. And even if the > > universe IS organized, that could be purely by chance, there need be > > no organizer, not even an ultimate principle that requires > > organization. > > > And so in the end, you find that the materialists really do have their > > own, sort of, god. Like the big G God, the little g god is uncreated, > > self-existent. But after that, the differences become major. > > > The little g god is not an intelligent designer, although nature can > > produce intelligent designers. > > The little g god has no purpose, although it can produce purposeful > > creatures. > > Materialist nature has no independent free will, and therefore, > > neither do its creatures, because everything has to proceed according > > to the dictates of natural law, not the dictates of sovereign > > individuals. > > > Which of course means that if you disagree with me, it is because you > > MUST do so, because you do not choose to disagree, you are compelled. > > > Indeed, in the materialist view, there is no real science, because > > there is no truly independent inquiry. The scientist believes not > > what the evidence states, but rather, what the laws of physics dictate > > what he must believe. > > > If we must scoff at an idea that seems ridiculous, why don't we scoff > > at that, instead of intelligent design? > > > Why Is Intelligent Design such a bad idea? > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Epistemology" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
