T
tonyrey
Guest
Indeed. Do you or the members of your family even appear to be freaks of nature?
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
And the converse applies. The development of the eye is not adequately explained by natural causes any more than our ability to use our power of reason is an accident. It is ironic that sceptics like Steven Weinberg use reason to conclude that existence is pointless. A Nobel Prize in physics doesnât guarantee expertise in metaphysics. In fact it is often a disadvantage because the trees appear to be more important than the wood. The details seem more significant than anything else even though atomism is an outdated hypothesisâŚ
B
Bradski
Guest
That is a nonsensical statement born of ignorance and the classic example of why evolution is a banned topic on this forum. The level of knowledge of the subject is shockingly shallow.
Making such comments only serves to cast serious doubts on anything else you might say on the basis that if you are so monstrously wrong on this matter you are more likely to be talking nonsense on other matters as well.
You do yourself no favours, Tony.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Unsupported assertions are worthless, Brad. The onus is on you to produce** one example** of a scientific invention equivalent to the power and beauty of one human eye - without even bringing evolution into the discussion. What we are concerned with is **the present **not the past - unlike politicians who often blame the other party for the current state of the economy and other illsâŚ
The fact - that you have overlooked - is the inconsistency of sceptics like Steven Weinberg who use reason to conclude that existence is irrational. A Nobel Prize in physics doesnât guarantee expertise in metaphysics. It is often a disadvantage because the trees appear to be more important than the wood. The details seem more significant than anything else even though atomism is an outdated hypothesisâŚ
W
Wesrock
Guest
Not precisely the track of arguments I would use. The universe is certainly amazing, but⌠ah well.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I agree if beauty is used in a broader sense than physical appearance and includes beauty of character, personality and personal relationships.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You need to justify your assertions. OtherwiseâŚNot precisely the track of arguments I would use. The universe is certainly amazing, but⌠ah well.
W
Wesrock
Guest
The impression Iâve gotten from the last few posts is that there must be a God because the existence of everything in the universe as it is (for example, the eye) is improbable. Incredibly improbable. The chances are minute! And that does have a certain persuasiveness about it. The issue is that, to the skeptic, you havenât ruled out the fact that chance could explain it. So⌠itâs one in a google in a google chance (or a google times less!)? Does the fact that that chance happened necessarily prove God? Especially in a universe as incredibly massive as ours? (No, it doesnât. Maybe itâs persuasive, but it doesnât make God necessary.) It suggests that if the universe or the eye had come about by chance, then whether it is ânaturalâ or from God makes no difference to how it turned out or the fact that it still exists, complex as it is.
If thatâs not what the arguments have been saying, I apologize. But if thatâs what I caught, Iâm assuming thatâs what most atheists would get from it, too. And thatâs unpersuasive to atheists, or has been in any online discussion Iâve seen.
If thatâs not what the arguments have been saying, I apologize. But if thatâs what I caught, Iâm assuming thatâs what most atheists would get from it, too. And thatâs unpersuasive to atheists, or has been in any online discussion Iâve seen.
I
IWantGod
Guest
I personally have not ruled out chance or natural evolution. I have simply made that completely irrelevant by pointing out the meaningful relationship between things, environment and organism. I understand natural selection. What i am pointing out is the striking goal directed link between the fact that there is such a thing as an environment which can be sensed and the coming into being and evolution of something that can sense it, the eye. The relationship between these two factors imply goal direction because they rationally and meaningfully relate to each other in precisely that way. I am not saying that the âactualisationâ of these particular things cannot be explained naturally, but rather the â]relationshipâ between these things cannot be summed up as a coincidence without asserting that the ontological relationship between things is coincidental. There is no rational foundation for that assertion.
Some things cannot meaningfully be explained by chance. For example, its not a coincidence or chance that I need a brain or central nervous system or something to that effect to sense and process information in a physical universe, its just a fact. The evolution of the brain however can certainly be explained naturally, or at least its possible.
I
inocente
Guest
Itâs very easy to be fooled by probabilities, because everything looks like a coincidence when we only look back at the past.
Richard Fenyman gave an example of walking down the street and seeing a car license plate. With all the millions of license plates in the world, the chances of seeing that particular one are tiny. But we all know thereâs nothing amazing about it, because every car has a different plate. It would only be amazing if we had earlier made a prediction of which plate we would see next, and turned out to be correct. Only then it would be amazing.
Likewise, arguments for God based on supposed coincidences are actually among the worst because they only prove how easy it is to be fooled by probabilities.
W
Wesrock
Guest
" between these things cannot be summed up as a coincidence without asserting that the ontological relationship between things is coincidental. There is no rational foundation for that assertion.
Some things cannot meaningfully be explained by chance. For example, its not a coincidence or chance that I need a brain or central nervous system or something to that effect to sense and process information in a physical universe, its just a fact. The evolution of the brain however can certainly be explained naturally, or at least its possible.
I agree that biological organs, biological systems, and even just systems in general have a goal-directness to them. Even beyond that, the âlaws of nature,â whether theyâve changed or not, and the fact that certain events produce certain effects, etc⌠all imply a goal-directedness, too. And that this goal-directedness does require explanation and require a necessary being for that direction (I discussed the fifth way earlier in this topic) and cannot simply be explained by efficient causation.
Still, as amazing as the eye is, and as goal-directed as it is, I suppose the profundity of it, at least for consideration in a discussion with a skeptic, is going over my head. Not that the teleological argument isnât profound or awe inspiring, mind, but I feel like recent posts might be taken as simply waxing lyrical.
I donât intend to be antagonistic, but Iâm hoping my posts might help bear fruit and help better explain our position to the skeptic.
S
Solmyr
Guest
Everyone needs to justify their assertions⌠except you?You need to justify your assertions. OtherwiseâŚ
T
tonyrey
Guest
You need to justify your assertion that I donât justify my assertions.
Please give an exampleâŚ
T
tonyrey
Guest
The assumption that an immense period of time **alone **can achieve anything that is logically possible needs justification. How could it possibly be verified?
W
Wesrock
Guest
Can is sufficent for the skeptic, though. We have to justify that it cannot.The assumption that an immense period of time **alone **can achieve anything that is logically possible needs justification. How could it possibly be verified?
A
Aloysium
Guest
We do?
A true skeptic would not accept such an assumption.
Those self-defined skepticswho believe that the various forms of being emerged randomly and that all is explicable by theories that are of a similar nature to those held by modern science, they will not accept any justification which lies outside their fundamental belief system. A waste of time.
It is up to each of us whether or not we seek the truth.
The ultimate truth is to be found within oneâs relationship with God.
What can you do other than assert that it is all true and show them the means to getting there.
Those who are willing, will have granted to them the means of doing so.
S
Solmyr
Guest
Really? I have to bring up an example of something that DID NOT HAPPEN?You need to justify your assertion that I donât justify my assertions.
Please give an exampleâŚ
I suggest you read this excerpt from Hellerâs âCatch 22â:
Do you see how absurd it is to ask an example of something that NEVER HAPPENED? I guess notâŚ
B
Bradski
Guest
There is no onus on me whatsoever. You made a statement which is completely and utterly wrong and have been called on it.
And in passingâŚyou have to be kidding me. To tritely imply that the eye is a miracle of design is, again, showing a limited knowledge of the matter. It is, at the very best, simply suitable for what is required of it. That is, to see well enough to be able to find food and well enough to prevent being food. Thatâs it. No more. To imply that it couldnât be better designed is laughable.
It has a fixed focal length, limited peripheral vision, can only see a small proportion of the electronic spectrum, is very easily damaged and degenerates over a very small time frame, can only focus on a very small area at any time (almost everything is out of focus), constantly misinterprets (via the brain) what it sees, has a not insignificant blind spot, cannot accurately record what it sees, operates within a container that is full of dead material, has limited resolution over short distances, is easily damaged by the very light it is meant to capture, the retina is wired backwards (not the case with cephalopods), cannot operate independently, has no micro vision beyond a very limited range, cannot see anything in low light conditionsâŚetc etc etc.
Couldnât design anything better? Ye gods, a frog has better vision than we do.
I
inocente
Guest
I suggest you speak to Catholics working in the life sciences, as understanding the effect of numerous, successive, slight modifications over time can be key in areas such as ecology, disease control, understanding genetic disorders, etc. We must not discuss it here of course due to the ban.The assumption that an immense period of time **alone **can achieve anything that is logically possible needs justification. How could it possibly be verified?
A
Aloysium
Guest
You provided a perfect example of something that never happened.
Your quote is from a novel.
That conversation never happened.
I guess I missed your point.
- Status