Re: OT: Richard Dawkins Article in the Times
- From: Andrew <thecroft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:46:25 +0100
On 2009-08-29 09:35:40 +0100, "Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wilson2004nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
"Andrew" <thecroft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2009082900102050073-thecroft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Who made "Nature" ??
The difference is, there's no need to invoke anyone to make nature; it
is by its, ahem, nature self-creating and self-sustaining.
You do realise don't you, Phil, that if you admit of a concept that is
"self creating and self-sustaining" then it could also be called "God",
don't you? If so, then there is no need to invoke a 'separate creative
force'
Isn't that a rather tautalogical argument?
Humans are so complicated which proves they must have had a creator. That
creator is God and he must be far more complicated than human. But he didn't
need a creator.
How does that work?
It's not tautologous in itself, no. You are, in fact, introducing a whole different argument. The argument from complexity (which, in any case, is unconvincing) is based on a very particular usage of the word "complex" - a system composed of a large number of unique parts, all of which have to be in place for the system to function is said to be complex. The difficulty with the argument is that one's inability to see how that system could have come about by undirected processes does not mean that it did not.
.
- References:
- Re: OT: Richard Dawkins Article in the Times
- From: pbowles@xxxxxxx
- Re: OT: Richard Dawkins Article in the Times
- From: Andrew
- Re: OT: Richard Dawkins Article in the Times
- From: Stephen Wilson
- Re: OT: Richard Dawkins Article in the Times
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Richard Dawkins Article in the Times
- Next by Date: Re: Rumours about new TARDIS set
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Richard Dawkins Article in the Times
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Richard Dawkins Article in the Times
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading