> On Apr 1, 6:00 pm, The Speaking Clock live.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On 1 Apr, 01:08, Erwin Hessle erwinhessle.com> wrote:

>

>>> On Mar 31, 3:28 pm, "Tom" comcast.net> wrote:

>

>>>> One might easily conclude that the
>>>> claim for the existence of a creator being is implausible, given the lack of
>>>> verifiable evidence in its support.

>

>>> Not to mention all the verifiable evidence against it, the apparent
>>> necessity for complex things to arise from simple things in order to
>>> avoid stretching the bounds of probability beyond breaking point being
>>> the most obvious.

>

>>> Erwin Hessle, 8=3

>

>> I'm not so sure of the ground as you guys seem to be.

>
> There's a real good reason for that.
>

>> The creative part of the self is liable to get owned by the ego's
>> defining it as part of itself, without understanding it.  When I draw
>> and paint, or have sex and have children, I'm damned sure my ego
>> didn't create the result.  If we have a conception of a creator being,
>> then isn't it just our ego's wanting to see a big daddy, or mommy in
>> the sky?  That ego wish doesn't mean that there is no aware principle
>> in the universe.  You organise.  I organise less well.  Animals
>> organise.  Life organises networks.  Planets perform to sets of
>> dynamic rules.  Do these patterns or currents we can divine on the
>> surfeit of life available to our senses, suggest nothing but a grand
>> coincidence.

>
> Your problem is you don't have the tools to deal with the question.
> The evidence suggests very strongly that complex things both can and
> must arise from simple things, which suggests the existence of an
> extremely complex creator as the first thing in the universe is
> highly, highly unlikely; so unlikely, in fact, as to warrant
> discarding the idea out of hand.
>
> Nothing in your whimsical speculations based on the order you see in
> the universe changes that. You just don't appear to have the ability
> to arrive at a valid conclusion based on the evidence to hand, so your
> conclusions are unreliable no matter how much you think they make
> sense to you. You want to say that the order you observe implies an
> "aware principle" in the universe, but the fact is it just doesn't.
> There are far, far better explanations for what you observe than this
> idea.
>
> There was a time where the argument from design looked like a real
> good argument, almost incontrovertible, right up until the time when
> Darwin gave people the ability to see what a fantastically stupid and
> completely ass-backwards argument it actually is. In the same way, you
> think that observed order suggests the existence of an aware principle
> because you simply don't yet possess the ability to conceive of a
> sensible alternative. That's why you're "not so sure." When you do
> develop that ability, you'll see that that alternative is not just
> sensible, but far, far more sensible.
>
> If you approach this subject unintelligently, then you're going to
> come to some very stupid conclusions. I know that's not a very
> politically correct thing to say, but that's the way it is. Everybody
> wants their opinions to be correct, but only a minority of people can
> manage to fulfill that desire.
>
> Erwin Hessle, 8=3- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -