0
   

It is more reasonable....

 
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jan, 2006 10:48 pm
No wait I cannot do it. Alas I will be destroyed, unless I make an argument based on faith, not only of which I don't have, but is indefensible if I adhere to your initial rational premise. You would have to word your opening gambit in more ambiguous terms in order for me to perhaps have a counter argument.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jan, 2006 10:49 pm
aktorist wrote:
Quote:
And you think this because? You think you are right and I am wrong? It's foolish of me? I don't gamble.


You are gambling by believing in God.


...and you are gambling by not.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jan, 2006 10:51 pm
Doktor S,

I brought it up because you essentially were calling Intrepid a hypocrite. You have made it very clear you think me a non-thinking fool.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jan, 2006 10:56 pm
Re: It is more reasonable....
Chumly wrote:
Doktor S wrote:
It is more reasonable to believe there is a man hiding in the bushes outside your house than to believe in a deity
-
Can't argue with the facts, it would be fun to try though, so I might on that basis, if you don't mind? I might start by asking you if a watch implies a watch maker.


I would have to say the distinction is in our experience and knowledge of watchmakers and watchmaking.
Anyway..wow..William Paley's argument to design
.... an oldie but a..well..it's an oldie all right.
That argument fails off the blocks, as that the universe exists does not imply a designer, there are no other 'universes' with which to compare, and it rests on an argument for biological complexity that is undermined by darwins natural selection.
Also, ireducable complexity has been utterly smashed by the scientific community at large.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jan, 2006 11:05 pm
Yeah I know I changed my mind as I posted above
Chumly wrote:
Alas I will be destroyed, unless I make an argument based on faith, not only of which I don't have, but is indefensible if I adhere to your initial rational premise. You would have to word your opening gambit in more ambiguous terms in order for me to perhaps have a counter argument.
I like the way Asimov said it
Quote:
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jan, 2006 11:22 pm
I missed your second post somehow.
Oh well..I was hoping you'd have some sort of new angle on intelligent design. It is very rare hearing someone of intelligence make a case for it!
0 Replies
 
aktorist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 01:26 pm
Quote:
...and you are gambling by not.


No, I just suspend belief. The absence of belief is not a belief itself.

Say, angel, why don't you believe that there is an invisible fairy on your head knitting invisible socks?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 03:51:10