Heretic

The thing is that for a particular individual that this is being sold to, it might well be the "one true religion" for them.

I'm not arguing against that, but if a certain specific religion helps them I say that's good enough. It's why I'm not bothered by Christian or Muslim clergy working in the prisons to turn the prisoners' lives around.

Precisely....

__________________
"Enough!!" -so rang Barack Obama's voice off the walls of Mile High Stadium

Environment Man

I am a thumper not a thimper. Please. I am going to post my position. You can post yours. But stop whining about HOW I post my position. I believe what I believe and will state it forcefully. You do not seem to be commited to your position. I hate it when thumpers knock on my door too. And we have a nice discussion. Mostly those are Jehovah's Witnesses. I tell them they piss more people off than they help because nobody wants an unexpected knock on their door.

Heretic

"But," says man, "the Bable Fish proves you exist, for how can a random thing come about and be so univerally useful?"

"OOH! I hadn't thought of that." and god promptyly disappeared in a puff of logic.

Man later went on to prove black is white and was killed at the next zebra crossing.

__________________
"Enough!!" -so rang Barack Obama's voice off the walls of Mile High Stadium

Environment Man

It is not MY belief system. My information is from God and Jesus. It is their system and I believe in it.


Animals cannot have morals. That is ridiculous. Humans were made in God's image with higher functions and purspose, such as morals. Animals were given animal instincts and lower animal emotions. Animals are also generally stamped with their certain type of personality (dog, cat, ape) whereas each human is unique and like no other entity in all of existence.

LeisureChrist

Sorry, Monica, no cigar. Gravity and electromagnetism are proof of gravity and electromagnetism, nothing more.If one had never seen anything remotely resembling a clock, thus having no idea what a clock was, the discovery of a clock would not necessarily serve as evidence of a clockmaker. NOPE. just evidence of the atom and the cosmos. Not proof of Odin, Zeus, the Easter Beagle, or even the God you choose to believe in.LIGERS AND TIGON AND MULES, OH MY!!

LeisureChrist

Limitless proof of the Tooth Fairy. Teeth are gone and money is there in its place.

nroberts

It is worthy of note that the laws of physics are pretty much exactly what is necessary for the formation of life. If any of the "constants" were off by just the slightest bit there would be no us.

I can understand the logical mishap that causes people to think this means God exists. Looking at the world as it is...it is hard not to see it as having these properties SO THAT we would come into being. This implies a plan, and planning implies intent, and intent implies intelligence.

I like to tell a story, a true story that took place in my life, to show what is going on here. A few years ago I was hit by another driver on the way home from the video store...one of those five minute drives. Now, here are all the things that resulted in that crash: It was winter and the roads were icy; the roads were also covered with gravel for "traction"; some bitch was riding my ass so I decided to leave her in the dust instead of slowing way down like I usually do (this put me at the place at the time of the other driver's arrival); the other driver was going too fast and slipped on the gravel; he was a piss poor driver that didn't know how to pull out of a skid.

It must be said that the likelihood of that crash happening at that time, and in the way it happened, is next to nothing. The event was a statistical impossibility. ALL of these things had to conspire to cause it and if any one had not occurred exactly as it did, the crash might not have happened, or one or both of us could have gotten killed.

Now. Should I blame the gravel for being there so that the other driver would loose traction? Did God ordain that gravel to be there SO THAT me and this careless kid would come inches from death? SO THAT my parents would get a call from a friend telling them I was on the way to the hospital? SO THAT this kid, who didn't have insurance, would have 10 grand to pay back?

There is actually a "theory" that supposedly proves God's existence that is based upon this. It's called the anthropic principle. Basically it just says that any description of the universe must account for our existence since we do, in fact, exist. However, some have taken it to be a "law" that states that the laws in the universe were formed SO THAT we would exist. I think of the whole thing as a reversal of causality in the mind that so thinks, but Dennett has something else to say. He thinks this is caused by some language problems involving the word "must". This stems from a formulation of the anthropic principle, "We are here, therefore the laws of the universe must be such that we would come to exist." He mentions the following to point out the fallacy that occurs when people misunderstand "must" in that context: John is a bachelor. Therefor, John must be single. Poor John, he can never get married!

It does seem to need an explanation though. That the laws in our universe are such that we would come to exist. Could there be other laws? It stands to reason that there could but if that were the case then we wouldn't be here. So why these laws? There are theories and I know of two:

1. There is an eternity in which universes can form and they form with random laws. In THIS universe the laws are such that life can come into being. Since there is an infinity of time for this to occur, it was bound to sometime.

2. (and this one is pretty wild). An evolutionary theory of universes complete with natural selection. Universes in which Large stars can form create black holes. Inside of these black holes universes much like the parent universe, with "mutations" are created. Those that have laws in which stars can form have more black hole universe children...with an infinity in both directions.

The problem with all of this is that it's probably not testable. I gather the person who came up with the second gave some ideas about how to disprove it though; something we all know is important for any viable theory.

I think number two kind of begs the question though. Where did the first universe come from? It had to evolve from something that didn't work that way.

Yeah, that silly argument necessarily feeds on our inability to imagine never having seen a clock. What amazes me about that argument is that it's so commonly employed when it's what, 200 years old now?