On 1/24/2013 11:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:08:14 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com
> 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
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
> 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.
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.