On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:08:14 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg <[email protected] <javascript:>>wrote: > > > evolution is complex and counter-intuitive. >> > > The basic idea behind Evolution is not complex but it is counter-intuitive > because the human mind tends to endow intentionality to nearly everything. > That's why Darwin's ideas, although simpler than Newton's, too longer to > find. >
Funny thing that. In a universe devoid of intention, the human mind is overflowing with the illusion of intention. > > > A universe from invisible, intangible laws that pop into 'existence' >> from nowhere seems likely? >> > > Darwin can't explain why there is something rather than nothing and > neither can anybody else, > I can, and I have. There is no 'nothing'. Nothing is an idea that a participant in something has about the absence of everything. least of all the invisible man in the sky dingbats. Darwin can't even > explain how life first came to be on this planet, but once bacteria came to > be he can explain how humans evolved from them, and that's a pretty good > accomplishment. > It is an extraordinary accomplishment. Not knocking Darwin. > Science can explain a lot but it hasn't explained everything, but religion > hasn't explained anything. Zip zero nada goose egg. > Religion is not about explaining what is useful, it is about explaining what seems important. Judging religion as a competitor to science is like judging your head as a competitor to the rest of your body. Again, you make it about winning winners who win, proving the non-winners to be LOSERS. This is not the attitude of science, or philosophy, or theology, it is wrestling. > > 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). >> > > I am quite familiar with the use-mention distinction and that ain't it. > If God is grand so is the concept. > Uh, no. The US Federal Tax Code is grand. The concept of a nation having a tax code is not grand. The God concept is incredibly primitive and compelling (as attested to by anthropological universality). It is basically this. A child understands: I can know things and do things. Grownups know more things and can do more things than I can do - they are wiser, stronger, more aware, and have been around longer. "Who can do and know more things than grownups?" There must be grand-grownups who know and do more than anyone. There must be someone who knows and does everything. Our Father, who art in heaven... That's it. Big Daddy = God. Not complex. > >> 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. >> > > Despite its many faults the argument from authority beats the hell out of > argument from ignorance; and Craig let's face reality, you know next to no > science and the really depressing thing is that you're not even trying to > learn more. > When the first fallacy fails, move on to the Ad Hominem. You must have forgotten to defend your reasoning though. Let's face reality John, you can't stand losing. Craig > > John K Clark > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
