|
|
Posted by Steve on 12/20/07 14:28
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1198154467.74006.0@iris.uk.clara.net...
> 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.
i know, you're the second person that missed the sarcasm. i thought begging
the logical delimma after that statement would have made it clear that i was
being intentional. :)
> 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.
less...he is the pennacle of man's imagination and the apex of his laziness.
>> the most reasonable answer would be...something more complex than the
>> designer. begging the same question ad-nauseum of each increasingly more
>> complex creator.
there's the indicator that i was being sarcastic.
>> 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.
exactly. sad that people actually think that's a good answer.
> I MUCH perfer the Buddhist lexcicon.
>
> The 'Tao is that which exists through itself'
which is quite illogical speaking in descartian terms. tao can only know
that it exists (though NOT via 'thinking == am'), else it wouldn't care to
ask whether or not it did. 'through' is an activity that requires 3rd party
verification. it is objective. and, since one cannot be certain that
anything is real, beyond the 'first case' - i exist - then one has no
reliable means to verify *how* one exists, i.e. 'through itself'.
btw, afaikr, that's 'taoism' and has very little to do with buddhism. in
most cases, taoism and buddhism have very differing opinions on things.
> No personalization, no worship, no god bothering: A nice simple
> philosophic statement of naming the unnameable..
but equally subjective as any other religion.
> The confusion arises from the Western mindset,where causality is imbued in
> our language, and the way we interpret reality.
same thing applies to eastern religions...perhaps moreso. asian peoples are
more comfortable mixing statements of reality and the metaphysical, and
speaking of them both at the same time as if all are objective experiences.
the confusion sets in because all religion is *subjective*. not surprising
since no religion can provide objective proof for it's truthfulness.
> Naturally that leads to a Prime Cause,. and the need to invent one.
i don't think that's where it starts. i think man, being a toolmaker and
being highly inventive, saw from his beginning that each tool had a purpose.
he most logically extended that range of thought to all things he observed.
god is simply the ulitimate, eventual answer/notion for people who didn't
have the knowledge or means to learn how the natural world works. plus, who
wants to toil to survive and not get some kind of reach-around after dying?
> The answer is to reject Causalitu as a univverals principle, and simpley
> state in plain English.
>
> "Some things just ARE".
good point. i love to hear people argue stats when it comes to probability
of things being the way they are. and, that if one single tiny thing were
different, the universe wouldn't exist as it is. it's funny because the stem
from the same assumption...that what we see has all been an eventuality. the
simple answer is, yes, if the universe were different, the universe would be
different. a moot point. :)
> 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..
good analogy. :)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|