On Feb 17, 12:57 pm, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 a Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > if comp is true, no God is needed. It's just an arithmetic machine. > > Even if it's not true God is STILL not needed, that is to say the God > hypothesis is of no help whatsoever in understanding anything; it makes no > attempt at explaining HOW God does things nor does it explain how and why > God came to be.
How and why did evolution or physics or statistical laws come to be? How is that really different from the God hypothesis? > All it does is kick everything we don't understand upstairs > and say further investigations into these matters are off limits. And physics does the same by kicking everything downstairs to simple mechanisms. > No > explanation at all is preferable to a explanation that just makes things > worse and adds a pointless layer of complication. There is no disgrace in > saying in a loud clear voice "I don't know", but counterproductive > pseudo-explanations are a disgrace. Quantum physics and computationalism may be doing exactly that right now. Our chasing ever more insubstantial chains of logical causality may be entirely misguided. At some point it may be necessary to realize that the universe cannot be understood by relying exclusively on the knowable, but we may have no choice but to investigate choice itself. We may know and not know it. It may seem like we don't know, but in a sense, we already know. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" 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/everything-list?hl=en.
