On Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:54:03 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote: > > > A two year old can understand what God is supposed to be. >> > > A two year old can't understand how something simple can know everything > and neither can I; >
Nor can they understand how something simple like 'probability' or 'determinism' can account for everything. > and there is a reason the word "simple" is often used as a synonym for > "stupid". And the Bible just says that God made animals but it doesn't say > how, but Darwin didn't just say Evolution made animals he explained how it > did it. > Right, because evolution is complex and counter-intuitive. God concepts are an inescapable feature of all known human cultures (for better or worse, obviously). > Saying "animals exist because of God" is no more helpful than saying > "animals exist because of flobkneegrab". > > > The position that I am arguing is knock down that unsupported balloon >> that you tried to float about science being better than religion because >> science always means that complex things are explained by simple things. >> > > That is not what science means that is what a explanation means; a theory > (like the God theory) that explains the existence of something unlikely > (like us) by postulating the existence of something even more unlikely > (like God) is worse than useless. > A universe from invisible, intangible laws that pop into 'existence' from nowhere seems likely? > > > Your straw man of me arguing that God is not important didn't work. >> > > Good, now I don't have to find a verse in the Bible proving that it > teaches that God is grand. > I didn't say that God is not seen as grand, only that the concept of God is not a grand concept. See (use-mention distinction). > > > This is something that science and religion have in common, not which >> sets them apart. >> > > But you aren't exactly a expert on science, you admitted that to you most > scientific papers are just a huge amount of mumbo jumbo, so your readers > might be wise to take your views on the value of science with a grain of > salt. > Argument from authority. Does that mean I'm wrong about science and religion having simple causation to complexity in common? No, it does not. Craig > > John K Clark > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/jzP8Up4M_ngJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
