|
|
Posted by The Natural Philosopher on 12/20/07 12:41
Steve wrote:
> "Erwin Moller"
> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in
> message news:4769595c$0$85795$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> ???? ??? ?????? wrote:
>>> Excuse me!!
>>> Would you stop for a moment?!
>>> O...man...Haven't you thought-one day- about yourself ?
>>> Who has made it?
>>> Have you seen a design which hasn't a designer ?!
>> Good question, ???? ??? ??????!
>> Who made your designer?
>> .....
>> Well??
>
> well, obviously since nothing complex that we've every experienced has begun
> as something more simple,
Actually, science assumes the reverse is the case.
That the total complexity of life is in fact based on simple rules.
The way that a simple 5 lines of code can produce the mandelbrot set.
God is probably just an amoeba.
> the most reasonable answer would be...something
> more complex than the designer. begging the same question ad-nauseum of each
> increasingly more complex creator.
>
> lest we forget, gawd is a 'special' case and being omni* does not require
> something more complex to create him/her/it/them.
>
Well that's just a copout logically speaking.
I MUCH perfer the Buddhist lexcicon.
The 'Tao is that which exists through itself'
No personalization, no worship, no god bothering: A nice simple
philosophic statement of naming the unnameable..
The confusion arises from the Western mindset,where causality is imbued
in our language, and the way we interpret reality.
Naturally that leads to a Prime Cause,. and the need to invent one.
The answer is to reject Causalitu as a univverals principle, and simpley
state in plain English.
"Some things just ARE".
At a stroke, the logical underpinnings such as they are of god bothering
collapse and are seen for the house of carsds that they really are.
"Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"
There is no need to introduce any more supernatural entities than that
one statement
"Some things just ARE"
> erwin, on the notion of irreducibly complex...has the proponent of that
> argument *ever* been able to show something that was? and that's forgiving
> the man-made, relative notions of complexity, order, randomness, etc..
>
>
The information contained in the universe has been shown to require a
computer..as large as the universe..to hold it..
;-)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|