A typical exchange goes like this:
Me: I post a blog poking some holes in atheism or showing some evidence (not proof) of G-d’s existence.
Atheist reader: Yeah. But you don’t understand science well enough. If you did, you’d be less marveled.
Me: Like what?
A.R.: “The world spins because of angular momentum.” “Pattern is in the world because it came along to fit the already present world. It’s called ‘anthropic principle.’”
Me: Okay. But how did the material get here? How does it keep going? How does it reproduce itself? How does all of this work so perfectly together.
At this point, they disappear! Or, perhaps, I’ll be told that science will someday explain that too. And they criticize people for having blind faith!
Listen, my dear atheist friends, please hear this. Before you can dazzle me with your great mastery of science, please allow common sense to pervade a small fraction of your brain. This world is an unbelievable marvel and a freakish wonder. There is no atom that doesn’t have mystery in it. The antenna of a moth, the eyelid of a skunk, the stamin of a lily, etc. There is nothing in this world that doesn’t contain unfathomable wisdom in its construction. Accident! And you think I’m stupid! Wake up.
I’m very convinced, as I’ve written before, that you are more turned off by bad religion than anything else. Maybe most relgious people are fools. Whatever. But, let’s start this conversation with a willingness to strip ourselves of our preconceived notions. The existence of some being far more intelligent, powerful, and larger than anything we can conceive is at work here. Let’s stop pretending that science is our god. I’m a huge fan of science, but it is here to be a supplement to my common sense and intellect – not replace it.
Chris Lawrence said
‘The existence of some being far more intelligent, powerful, and larger than anything we can conceive is at work here’: well, I guess an atheist would start by saying that’s not necessarily ‘common sense’ but the assertion of a theory which requires evidence to support it. It’s not enough to say the evidence is all around us in the natural world, because what’s being postulated is something that created it, not the fact that the natural world is there – because we know that. It is not self-evident that just because something is extremely beautiful &/or complex (&/or cruel &/or wasteful) that it must have been created.
It’s OK to postulate a creator god though, despite lack of evidence, as a theory as to why the natural world is how it is. But if it’s supposed to be an explanatory theory it does encounter the problem that the origin of the creator god itself needs explanation. If the complexity of the natural world needs explanation by postulating a creator god, then so does the complexity & power of the creator god itself…
Emil Aragundi said
It always gets me when people think that atheist have sort of a blind faith in science, as if empirical inquiry and observable experiments were some sort of rituals or something.
Yes, wondering how material and sentient beings sprung into life is a meritorious question. The problem is when people rush to assume what the answers are before having all the facts laid out. Not one reasonable individual should. If you have a question about life and your immediate answer is ‘God did it’, then you’re doing something in the likes of hammering a square peg into a round hole.
After all what’s the difference between someone that claims that God made man out of sand and another one that claims that Thor causes lighting with his hammer? They are both arguing from ignorance.
Yes, the world is a marvelous complexity but if you are already set to belief in an answer rather than having it, then it is likely to hinder your search for truth. In science, one views facts and draws a conclusion from it, creationists do the opposite.
clarityman said
Chris,
Thank you for taking the time and responding with an intelligent and non-insulting response.
Of course it’s self evident that things with pattern and purpose have a creator. Read my post on how I see it that way.
http://ejew.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/evidence-for-g-d/
What is being posited is that there is something outside of science. I don’t wish to confuse this point. Science is a study of the finite world. Religion/theology is a study of the infinite (and sometimes finite). I don’t claim proof; I claim evidence. There is evidence everywhere of a being incomparably bigger and smarter than us. I don’t claim to know Him, understand Him, or have a unique approach to relate to Him. (At least, not on these posts.)
I don’t posit G-d as an explanatory theory as to why a day is approximately 24 hours or why roosters usually make noise in the morning. For that, we use science. Just as people are quick to assume that talk of G-d will automatically lead to religion, people seem to think that belief in G-d will be followed by a destruction of science. That would be a terrible tragedy. Science is a great tool.
clarityman said
Emil,
Thank you for reading and commenting. It’s always nice to have your words considered.
You wrote:
It always gets me when people think that atheist have sort of a blind faith in science, as if empirical inquiry and observable experiments were some sort of rituals or something.
I wrote about science as a blind faith in a very specific way. When people claim that science will some day explain “that,” it strikes me as queer. Science takes on a life of a perfect being. It either has explained everything or it will eventually. That seems to be a blind faith, no?
You wrote:
Yes, wondering how material and sentient beings sprung into life is a meritorious question. The problem is when people rush to assume what the answers are before having all the facts laid out. Not one reasonable individual should. If you have a question about life and your immediate answer is ‘God did it’, then you’re doing something in the likes of hammering a square peg into a round hole.
You make a mistake here. I didn’t rush to assume diddly squat, and we can never have all of the facts laid out. If you wait to have all of the facts laid out, you’ll die from hunger waiting for everything to come before you. I believe that you are confusing me with other “religious” people that you’ve met or heard of. I’m not sitting around, ignoring as many facts as possible and cowering with a “G-d did it” answer to help me feel better.
At the risk of sounding haughty, I can say that between the friends that I keep, the intelligence tests that I’ve taken, and my accomplishments in the world of academia, I have above average intelligence. Fear of hell is hardly a whiff of inspiration in my life. I don’t want to convert you to my specific approach to spirituality. I think that atheism is a weak approach that ignores some very basic questions, and I dare to present some of that here.
You wrote:
After all what’s the difference between someone that claims that God made man out of sand and another one that claims that Thor causes lighting with his hammer? They are both arguing from ignorance.
I don’t like the name calling, but you are the one arguing from ignorance. Thor was a physical creature of paganism. With all of these gods, the question of where did he/she/it come from must be addressed. The G-d that I speak of is beyond time – He created time/space. He has always been here. You want evidence? I present some on this blog. Great thinkers throughout the years present much evidence to this as well.
I am not (yet?) dealing with any of the “therefore’s” of G-d’s existence. Do we need to care? Are there rules? What’s with all of the religions? I’m just bold enough to challenge atheism despite (or maybe because of) the angry responses that I often get. Read more of what I’ve written about G-d and atheism and please find the holes in my arguments. I want to get life right, and I appreciate anyone who can help me do it.
You wrote:
Yes, the world is a marvelous complexity but if you are already set to belief in an answer rather than having it, then it is likely to hinder your search for truth. In science, one views facts and draws a conclusion from it, creationists do the opposite.
I argue that you are equally set in your beliefs as to what you imagine I am. The term creationist doesn’t technically apply to me, as I don’t study the Bible in English and draw conclusions form that. I study it in Hebrew with commentaries in Hebrew. I’m not a creationist as that term is generally understood. Thanks again for the comments.
Emil Aragundi said
It isn’t blind faith when the very purpose of science is specifically to explain life through objective facts. It isn’t far-fetched to think it eventually will, though certainly not in our lifetime. Probably not even on this era.
That’s why I don’t expect to have all the facts laid out for me either so I just go with what I have, and what I have so far is that there is no reason to believe in (a) God, other than my possible personal willingness to believe in one.
Now, I know you’re not ignorant. In fact I chose to reply to this post when I saw that you weren’t from the “Hitler was an atheist” crowd. But to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, it is not that I think of you as ignorant, but that you know a lot of things that really aren’t so. (Apologies in advance if you find this offensive).
You’d be right, nobody pretends that atheism is perfect, just probably more rational than what is available. You are right about how atheism ignores basic questions, but that’s because there are no answers to them. Is there a reason to pretend we have them?
From your Jewish perspective obviously. You have the advantage of being backed by years of like-minded intellectuals pondering ways to dress up God in order to fit their current philosophical trends, Thor and Zeus didn’t have that luck. That’s why yesterday’s religions are now considered “mythologies”. I’m sure any intelligent being can reason the existence of Quetzalcoatl or Anubis if they have enough time and patience. Believe me, I’ve seen people rationalizing Star Wars spirituality so I wouldn’t be impressed.
By the way, I wasn’t name calling when I called argument from ignorance on you. It is a logical fallacy often cited in philosophy. Blame the people who named it that.
Take care.
clarityman said
Okay. It seems that I am not the “Hitler was an atheist” type, and you’re not the “religious people are all brainless” type. I appreciate that you are both thoughtful and polite. I have a weird pleasure from taunting brainless fools (whether or not they believe in G-d).
The blind faith is that when faced with some of the difficult questions, some atheists don’t opt for your answer of “I don’t know.” Instead they say, “We’ll know someday.” It may not be a blind faith in you, but it is for a lot of atheists. Similarly, my belief in G-d and the scripture that I believe to be holy is not of the “Well, you just have to believe” variety. I’ll mock that as quickly as the atheists variety. There are theological questions. I admit, scientifically speaking, that the answer could be that there is no Creator. However, it is not a scientific question. I am informed by both, and believe it or not, I have a hard time thinking of a place where they contradict each other. It is not clear to me, according to my spiritual sources, that the world is around 5800 years old. I have sources that nail it closer to 15 billion years. Shhh! Don’t tell too many Creationists.
Right. So going with what you have leads you believe that there is no reason to believe in G-d. No reason? Come on. Two questions. One – what do you make of my post on Evidence of G-d? Two – are you sure that you’re not focusing on your certainty that there is no Christian G-d. This is a dangerous thing for me to write, for I don’t want to offend Christians who love to say that we (Jews and Christians) believe in the same G-d. We do and we don’t. It’s a big can of worms, but I digress. I’ve met so many people who depart from some branch of Christianity convinced that there is no G-d.
You won’t surprise me if you have answers to both of these that are satisfying. This is not meant as a psychological ploy to attempt to manipulate you (I hate stuff like that), but I push for the answer because I don’t only believe in G-d. I know He exists. I can’t write about the personal, subjective knowledge here because it’s completely irrelevant to my attempt to stay with evidence and knowledge. However, I am 100% convinced that G-d is reality. So, for me, denial is either an intellectual lapse of a moral one. I am not trying to accuse you of either. I only want to challenge you to consider if one of these might be an internal bribe that you respond to. ? ? ? Does this make sense?
So, I guess in your quoting of Reagan (which certainly endears you to me), you are saying the same thing to me. You are convinced that I am wrong. I don’t find it offensive; I hope that you feel the same way. I’ve gained very little in life through insulting people (a short lived feeling of having let off steam).
Your thoughts on Thos and co. are endearing to me. My studies in undergraduate 101 classes (I claim zero expertise) brought me to similar conclusions. I am fascinated by the development of humanity’s desire to explain the world. From my prospective – the little Jew guy – these other gods rose, fell, rose, fell. We lift our cup of wine, study every question that we can find, attempt to better our connections to G-d, self, others.
I didn’t grow up with it. Me? Played in a rock band (nothing famous and not that good), went to university, inhaled way too much (if you’re not American, you may not get the reference – forgive me if not), and looked for my path. Ended up in Jerusalem and haven’t found a reason to leave (metaphorically) in the last 18+ years.
I’ve heard about the spirituality in Star Wars and, ready for this, basketball. For my money, baseball is far closer to perfection than basketball, but that would take a long time to explain.
I hope to write enough to keep you thinking and challenging me and yourself to think, grow, and improve this beautiful world. I hope you won’t be insulted if I end by wishing you the ability to find G-d and completion in your life.
Thanks again and keep in touch.
Emil Aragundi said
Yeah, I read your “Evidence of G-d” and, sorry to say this, I didn’t find it quite compelling. There are two main flaws in your argument:
1. You are putting inanimate objects in the same context as living biological organisms. Sure I should expect a paper clip to have been designed by someone else, but I shouldn’t expect it to learn, develop and grow to become a steel column by its own means. It’s an apples and oranges argument really.
2. You -like most theists I’ve argued in the past- seem to be under the impression that the atheist dictum states that everything is the product of slapstick crazy and accidental chance. Maybe some do, but not a single sane person believes that. Anyone who understands evolution knows that chance is merely a part of the whole process. Everything that happens needs to follow some sort of probability, the problem with the theist argument is that it suggests that there’s some supernatural force orchestrating this process and there’s no evidence to that.
Probably I focus more on the Christian God because is the one I know most about, most atheist critique does. However, the act of believing in Krishna or Ahura Mazda follows the same premise as believing the God of Abraham. Whether one God is better than the other is the kind of argument I’d leave to a caged fight, not a blog or forum.
My point about the Star Wars spirituality was about how someone intelligent and dedicated enough can rationalize what they are passionate about, even if it’s totally made up. I think theology sort of works that way.
clarityman said
Emil,
Wow. I read what you write and I give my head a proverbial scratch. You have completely missed points on both of the points that you challenge me with.
1. The point you make is an argument for G-d’s existence. If the paper clip could learn, develop, and grow into a steel column it would be millions of times more evident that it was created. Frankly, and I’m sorry if this insults you, but you are not thinking about this clearly. You are either hiding from something or regurgitating somebody else’s argument without thinking about what you’re saying. I used to call myself an atheist. I have seriously considered the argument from both sides. You are missing the ability to think about what I’m saying.
2. You haven’t thought, either, about the idea of randomness versus “createdness.” If it wasn’t created, than it is random. If the pattern came from the natural selection of some very big guy named Fred living in another galaxy somewhere, I don’t care. Where did Fred come from? Where did the selection come from? How did this pattern get here. It is here. Is there a Creator? Did it just get here? Wouldn’t that be the same as, “Didn’t it just, randomly, get here?” No? Then, who or what made (or created) that pattern?
I am not interested in a contest with anyone about whose G-d is bigger or stronger. I am quite simply making a darned good argument (I smile knowing that I’m teasing myself – please accept that as humor and not pride) about there being a Creator. My point about Christianity is that I agree with you that the G-d of Christianity does not exist. That is not what I’m arguing for. No crosses. No death for sins. No sins. No reward or punishment. Most atheists with whom I’ve conversed are stuck on being certain that the G-d of Christianity is false. They, therefore, have a hard time listening and reconsidering their position. I hear that loud and clear. But . . . what can I say? Think about what I’ve read, try not to take it personally, and please let me know again with more specificity where my argument is flawed. Maybe I’m confused. I’d appreciate the chance to clarify my position.
Be well.
Emil Aragundi said
1. The point was to demonstrate how your analogy is inconsistent. Biological entities are not created, they develop by their own means. We both grew up by the will of our own biology through a series of events we met in our lives, there’s no evidence to suggest that someone else conducted this development by decree. Inanimate objects that cannot develop require someone else to develop them.
I’ve heard this argument of “everything needs to be created” before and my answer is: find an analogy that at least can relate to your point.
2. I’ve never understood why people relate absolute randomness to disbelief. If you believe a supernatural being created nature and orchestrates its development, you have to believe that improbable randomness does take place in the universe because it’s not ruled by its own development and probability but rather by the decree of this superior beings. Therefore totally random and improbable things (read: miracles) are bound to happen in this universe.
Moreover, you’re again pushing a square peg through a round hole by asking how these things came from as if lack of evidence serves as evidence for a supernatural creator.
As a final note, I’d like to thank you for inspiring two new ideas for my future blog posts
Take care.
clarityman said
Emil,
I’m lost as to what to say. You have not stumped me with logic. You have stumped me with willing blindness. The starting point is not that biological entities are created. The starting point is that they are freakishly more complex. We recognize as a basic point of reality that designer goes with designer. The more pattern/design, the more obvious the “patterner”/designer. The conclusion is Designer. First cause! It is impossible to get the analogy to be more accurate because G-d’s intelligence is so far above ours. Our imagination can’t even truly grasp this.
I read point 2 three times. I did not merit to understand you.
Square peg/round hole does not equal an argument that you misunderstand. Design of enormous complexity = Evidence of Designer of Enormous intelligence. Why does that strike you as difficult? It’s quite simple and straight forward.
It’s my pleasure to inspire. I wonder if that is a good thing or not? ( ;
Emil Aragundi said
I don’t really know how much more I can stretch this, biological entities are complex, yes, but they developed this complexity by their own means and there’s no evidence to suggest otherwise. You are using the example of an object unable to do this. That’s why your analogy is flawed, it’s apples and oranges.
Evidence suggests that beings develop this complexity according to their means of survival. If you want to proof that this intelligent designer exists, you have to present proof for the existence of this being rather than associating it with something you want to believe is product of God.
It’s really no different than the times when someone survives a natural catastrophe and believes that God saved them. It’s wishful thinking.
clarityman said
Honestly, you vacillate in between being an intelligent person and a person who doesn’t think outside of the box.
I understand very clearly that “they developed this complexity by their own means.” Don’t you get that their own means includes this vast complexity. It’s there. It’s complex. Science suggests a big bang. It wasn’t there one day. It was the next. It either is massively complex or it contains the ability to become massively complex. If it happens in a microsecond or over the course of 15 billion years doesn’t change my argument. It is not apples and oranges to the disadvantage of my argument. (Actually, it is not apples and oranges at all. It’s actually an “a fortiori” argument.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_fortiori_argument
As for the wishful thinking, guess again. On this ground we are equals, though atheists ignore this. You claim that I wish to have heaven, so I create G-d. I claim that you wish to do whatever you want (particularly in the privacy of a bedroom), so you create a G-dless universe.
If you insist on a last word, have it (unless I can’t control myself). My last word to you is that you have failed to consider my argument. You have biases of disdain for organized religion (an assumption that may be incorrect) and a fear of a moral imperative (again an assumption). You pretend that humans can be computers, divorcing themselves from all feelings, but it isn’t possible and you, therefore, deceive yourself into thinking that between the two of us, only you are capable of making a rational decision.
You have bought into a paradigm that religious people are all brainwashed, hopeful for salvation and willing to trade that hope for a little analytical thought. But you fail to consider your own biases. You fail to stop and truly consider the fallaciousness of your argument. Design/complexity/pattern. I can’t help anymore. There are things for you to consider more seriously than you are presently.
Emil Aragundi said
You know, if things were as simple as “more complexity means more intelligent design” then the whole Evolution vs. ID debate would have been settled long ago. I don’t argue complexity, I argue that developed complexity doesn’t involve design.
Now, call me arrogant and close-minded, but “thinking outside the box” is an euphemism for “buying into freaking anything”. I don’t consider your argument because I find flaws in it. That’s basically it.
I’ve also read your post on how atheists don’t want to believe in God for the sake of sexual freedom. That should come as surprising to the bunch of theist girls I knew in high school and wound up knocked up despite of claiming to believe in that abstinence only crap. You are free to make whatever assumptions you like, but I guess that from this point we’re fairly done with this discussion, at least on this particular comments section. My only plight would be that if there are people questioning your arguments, that you consider the idea of improving them, we’re learning beings after all our intelligence didn’t land magically
clarityman said
Emil,
Your comments truly show the greatness of G-d. He has created a world that is obvious to those who truly look, yet hidden from those who don’t care to see. His greatness includes this incredible balace of free will that we have. You get to believe that I fool myself, and I get to see you ignore clear evidence in the hope that you can “be free.”
Greater design most certainly does mean more greatness in the one who designs. Little could be more obvious to a child or to an honest scientist. The argument between ID and Evolution? What argument? No one listens to the other side. ID folks don’t listen because they live with the answer. Evolution people don’t listen because they’re only advance monkies. Why should they pay attention to obvious evidence. They want another banana.
Thinking outside of the box means stepping outside of what you previously thought. Throw it back on me if you dare, but I bought into the silly insanity of liberalism and atheism (not necessarily connected but usually are). I got outside of “buying into freaking anything” including mentally retarded ideas like G-dlessness.
For your grand finale you twist logic as atheists must do. That many atheists use claims of G-dlessness to find privacy from G-d in the bedroom has NOTHING to do with the fact that religious people will sometimes stumble. You talk about apples and oranges. I can certainly improve my arguments, but you failed to poke a hole in the major point.
Teeny design (2 year old’s drawing) = teeny intelligence (relatively speaking).
Bigger design (paper clip, bicycle, steering wheels) = bigger intelligence
Freaked out design (elephants’ trunk, an apple, the moon) = freaked out intelliegence
You can try to make life more complicated when it isn’t, but you are forever invited to drop your stubborn insistence on clinging to a groundless attack on an obvious and clear observation and to wake up to a very great G-d that created even you and your currently confused free will.
Retardo said
So your argument is the generation of any sort of complexity requires intelligence? And your evidence for this claim is human technological and cultural artifacts? Firstly to apply this reasoning to life or the universe as a whole is a tenuous induction and circular. Also when you claim that a two year old’s drawing is “teeny design”, what is your baseline criteria? Can you point to us something which displays no design whatsoever.
clarityman said
I generally start a response with your name, but I’ll have a hard time calling you Retardo. I can already tell that you think that you’re not very retarded.
Try, please, to explain what you mean by tenuous induction and circular.
As for my “teeny design” comment, you see I’m not a logic professor at an Ivy League school, but I’ve got more common sense that most of them. My baseline criteria is that I do better than average on intelligence tests. I can recognize pattern. I have a brain that is capable of observation without attaching fancy terms to it.
As for something which displays no design, I’d put a monkey (or a 1 year old human) at a keyboard and claim that there is virtually no design to speak of from what would emerge. By the way, the “no design” concept is yours. I don’t need to go there.
Please tell me. Do you believe that there is no G-d? Again, I’ll be clear. I’m not asking you if you believe in any rules from this Being. Do you believe that the world just got here by luck? Or was there some guidance or creation?
Retardo said
“ I generally start a response with your name, but I’ll have a hard time calling you Retardo. I can already tell that you think that you’re not very retarded.”
Thank you. I am not being sarcastic when I say I am quite flattered.
“Try, please, to explain what you mean by tenuous induction and circular.”
You take one class of complex objects which we know for certain are created and designed by intelligences (human intelligence) and infer from that everything else from life to the universe itself must be designed by an intelligence because it shows complexity. So it is in tenuous in the sense that that it jumps from a very small number of accountable observations in the human domain to a explain a vast body of (ultimately) unaccountable natural observations. This is implausible and incredibly shaky. And it is circular in the way that all arguments by analogy are. We are quite certain that human artifacts, like cars, are designed. But do we really know that stars, planets and living organisms are designed by a similarly intelligent agents? You can only appeal to humanly designed artifacts to justify the intelligent design hypothesis of life and the universe as a whole if you assume a priori that the latter have been designed as well.
“As for my “teeny design” comment, you see I’m not a logic professor at an Ivy League school, but I’ve got more common sense that most of them. My baseline criteria is that I do better than average on intelligence tests.”
I understand. But that isn’t really any sort of rigorous, objective criteria. In the past “common sense facts” about the world have often turned out out be woefully mistaken. If you want to persuade the skeptics then you’ll have to bring something more substantial than common sense intuition otherwise you’d just be preaching to the converted.
“As for something which displays no design, I’d put a monkey (or a 1 year old human) at a keyboard and claim that there is virtually no design to speak of from what would emerge. By the way, the “no design” concept is yours. I don’t need to go there.”
But is that really design? Are you not confusing codes, language and messages (the conveying of information) with design? I contend they are not exactly the same. You can tear a paper out of an encyclopedia and present it to the aboriginals of the Andaman Islands and it wouldn’t make much sense to them. They may even think its gibberish without any significane. Language in that respect is arbitrary and subjective, it relies on intersubjective agreement among people about the meanings ascribed to its symbols and sounds. But the aboriginals may have an inkling of awareness that the paper itself and the groups of symbols printed on it, regardless of whether it conveys meaningful information or not, may have been the products of some intelligent consideration and design. This is what I was trying to get at. What property of the printed paper may prompt them to suppose intelligent design? Also you may feel that my request to you to present examples of nondesign is irrelevant to your argument but my intention was to get you to reveal and explain your personal criteria for design. Any meritable criteria should, at the minimum, be able to give concrete examples of non-design. Otherwise we are left in a tautological situation where everything is designed and without the ability to absolutely differentiate between degrees of design.
“Please tell me. Do you believe that there is no G-d?”
I have honestly no idea. I have seen no argument that conclusively demonstrates the existence or non-existence of God.
“ Again, I’ll be clear. I’m not asking you if you believe in any rules from this Being. Do you believe that the world just got here by luck? Or was there some guidance or creation?”
I am not sure if the world was created. Nothing in modern cosmology informs us of any sort of initial creation event, not even the big bang theory. You mistaken claim that science suggests that the universe “wasn’t there one day. It was the next”. It doesn’t suggest any such thing, according to our current understanding time itself is an intrinsic property of the universe. As Stephen Hawking put it, asking questions like what happened before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole.
Saying that I realise the existence of the universe, many people feel, demands a satisfying explantion. But just because we psychological crave for ultimate meaning and explanation it doesn’t mean that our attempts at explantion are correct or even that we possess the faculties to arrive at and comprehend the truth (the increasingly esoteric nature of modern physics attests to this). Rather, we should learn to be satisfied with the most banal of truths – something simply exists. And that thing is the universe (and it is the job of scientists to determine what the universe actually is). Philosophically, its the most defendable of positions.
clarityman said
What should I call you? Mr. R? I’m smiling, but I just can’t call you Retardo.
I’m going to step outside of this argument for a second to address something that you said that puts on me on my turf.
You write: “If you want to persuade the skeptics then you’ll have to bring something more substantial than common sense intuition otherwise you’d just be preaching to the converted.”
I’m not so sure that my audience is the skeptic. I would divide the readers into three groups. Believers whose faith has been shaken by atheists. To them I say, “Atheists aren’t as brilliant as you think they are.” Group 2: The skeptics who are truly looking. To them I write primarily. Group 3: The skeptics who would respond to a Divine revelation with a joke, a shrug and an explanation that would allow them to continue with their G-dless life unfettered by the truth.
I’ll come back to the “atheists aren’t as brilliant as you think” comment in a second. The point that I want to make – I’ve made as an aside and in other comments but need to write a separate post for – is that atheists are quick to ridicule believers as having created G-d to feel better about themselves. (I agree that many do, by the way.) What few atheists see is that, if G-d exists, He has created a world with free choice and His existence being beyond time/space is not provable as we normally consider the word. It seems to weaken my argument and I hesitate to write it, but it is almost never a purely objective “decision” to believe in G-d. It has a lot of objective information (or at least it did/does for me), but it ultimately involves not a leap of faith but a paradigm shift that at least allows one to truly consider the “what if” of G-d.
I understand what you mean when you say that you have no idea, but please understand that I literally have no doubt as to G-d’s existence. This is not meant as a proof or anything that would remotely affect you. It’s just that I’m not in the business of laying out concrete proof that would hold up in a laboratory. You (not you literally) are not likely to have a relationship with a Judeo/Christian G-d if you want to have sex with dogs, men, or a sister. You’ll create a world view that will allow you to ignore G-d. If you don’t have that ability to ignore G-d, morality quickly becomes meaningless and humanism rules.
Now. Back to your questions/challenges. My argument is not as implausible or incredibly shaky as you claim. The argument has nothing to do with moving from one class to another. I understand the challenge, but it misses the point. The point is from less complex to more complex. More complex indicates higher intelligence. Quite simple. It can be developed and played with (it’s kinda fun for me), but it’s not challenged by your retort – it’s strengthened by it. Does it “prove” anything? No. Does it suggest a freaky level of intelligence way beyond you, me, Einstein, and even Hawkins? Certainly. All that I assume a priori is that pattern, complexity, and purpose strongly suggests guiding intelligence.
You wrote:
I understand. But that isn’t really any sort of rigorous, objective criteria. In the past “common sense facts” about the world have often turned out out be woefully mistaken. If you want to persuade the skeptics then you’ll have to bring something more substantial than common sense intuition otherwise you’d just be preaching to the converted.
Of course, you don’t mean to suggest that science hasn’t produced woeful mistakes? Also, science doesn’t always start from fact. It often starts from observation and hypothesis, which leads to testing and gathering of fact. I, too, begin from observation and hypothesis. I’ve been gathering facts for 20+ years and have yet to disprove my thesis.
A commitment limits me from responding further now. I find you to be a fair and non-retardo type of a person. I’ll gladly continue this and answer any of the points that you made later if we get there. For now. Be well. And a big “thanks” for reading and responding and helping me to continue to sharpen my points.