God proving his existence
Achilles achillesz@usa.net
Mon, 15 Feb 1999 22:48:57 -0500 (00919158537, 03475842116224@unifour.com)
On 15 Feb 99, at 10:22, Thomas Dervartanian wrote:
> TOM:
> Each syllogism would be different for each argument. How about the
> following two (based on a previous post):
>
> 1. Nothing comes from nothing.
> 2. The universe is something.
> 3. All things that begin to exist come from something.
> 4. The universe began to exist.
>
> Therefore: Something brought the unverse into existence. By nature that
> something must be timeless (to bring time into existence), all powerful
> (to be able to do so), changeless (to invoke physical law), intelligent
> (to fine tune the aspects of the big bang, etc...
Achilles
But why is it any more reasonable to postulate an omnimax being here than an
inanimate force? All this argument, even if granted, leads to is a demiurge.
No?
> 1. Irreducibly complex things require a designer.
> 2. The cell is irreducibly complex.
>
> Therefore; The cell was designed.
Achilles
"Irreducibly" - unfortunately for your argument, is a word which refers to our
ability to analyze, and whose meaning changes as our technology changes.
Unless you are willing to argue that atoms were "irreducibly complex" and thus
required a designer, but only until protons neutrons and electrons were
discovered? Which themselves were then evidence for a designer, but only until
QP came along...?
I am not at all sure that DNA is NOT the product of design, btw, just so you
are clear. But this argument is not convincing IMHOP.
> As with all syllogisms the premises are debatable. The arguments are
> valid.
Agreed. It is good to see that.
/Achilles achillesz@usa.net
All rights reserved.
Random thought for the moment:
I've never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick
the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way
to run a universe.
-- Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land