Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwin’s Sad Legacy (evolution invented to give death and suffering a positive explanation?)
AiG ^ | April 14, 2009 | Dr. Tommy Mitchell

Posted on 04/15/2009 10:52:09 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

The common thread throughout Darwin’s life was his continual struggle with the issue of death and suffering. He was never able to reconcile the existence of death, disease, and struggle with the character of a loving God:

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.[1]

Darwin was unable to understand why a loving Creator God would allow the horrible things he witnessed in nature and everyday life. Animals fed on one another; creatures ripped each other apart; women died in childbirth, etc. The world seemed heartless and cruel. Darwin’s eventual expansion of the concept of evolution seemed to provide a somewhat positive purpose for the suffering and death he could not explain.

Two of Darwin’s biographers went so far as to imply that...

(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: answersingenesis; creation; darwin; evolution; goodgodimnutz; happiness; intelligentdesign; joy; moralabsolutes; oldearthspeculation; purpose; religionofatheism; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-345 next last
To: Filo
"There is no assumption, only reality. A reality which you are incapable of understanding."

Yes, there is an assumption. Science assumes the philosophical naturalism is reality when it cannot show that it is without engaging in fallacy. This is a reality which you are incapable of understanding.

"As I've said before, I will not recognize fiction as truth no matter how strongly you or your ilk assert it and regardless of the pseudo-intellectual terms you bring to bear. There is no fallacy."

As I've said before, you accept fiction as truth without question. This is the very pseudo-intellectualism that you claim to avoid. You invoke fallacy time after time.

"There simply is no non-naturlalistic reality. My request for "proof" was proof enough."

This is your belief and I understand that. What you need to understand is that it is impossible to prove that there is no non-naturalistic reality and it is impossible to prove that there is one. Your request for 'proof' was another fallacy, that of the appeal to negative proof and I pointed that out to you.

"As with the rest of your argument you've got that ass-backwards. What I asked is for you to prove that your assertions are true. Hell, even proof that they may be true would be entertaining."

Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that I could ask you for proof that philosophical naturalism is the totality of reality and you could not prove that either. Your reference to 'entertaining' shows how completely you have accepted the assumption of philosophical naturalism into your belief paradigm. You are incapable of thinking outside the box you have built for your mind.

"Except that science does just that every single day."

Except that you seem incapable of understanding that science cannot prove philosophical naturalism without entering into the fallacy of equivocation.

"Funny that."

Indeed.

121 posted on 04/22/2009 11:07:45 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Filo; GourmetDan
“There simply is no non-naturlalistic reality.” [excerpt]
Can you describe the naturalistic process that resulted in the creation of the laws of physics by which nature operates?

122 posted on 04/22/2009 1:08:39 PM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
Can you describe the naturalistic process that resulted in the creation of the laws of physics by which nature operates?

Clearly some great sky being waved his hands and created them.

Duh!

(May you be touched by his Noodly Appendage)

If we're asking stupid origins questions how about this one: Who created God*?
123 posted on 04/22/2009 1:48:35 PM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Filo
“Clearly some great sky being waved his hands and created them.” [excerpt]
That directly contradicts your previous assertion that There simply is no non-naturlalistic reality.

I understood your previous assertion to mean that everything is naturalistic, but perhaps I misunderstood?

You now appear to be asserting that certain origins are supernatural.
124 posted on 04/22/2009 2:27:32 PM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
That directly contradicts your previous assertion that There simply is no non-naturlalistic reality.

I'm sorry - that was sarcasm. I didn't think it needed the /sarc tag. . .

I understood your previous assertion to mean that everything is naturalistic, but perhaps I misunderstood?

You just missed the sarcasm. While we don't yet know the naturalistic explanation for all questions the fact that we've never seen a non-naturalistic answer lends substantial credibility to the assertion that all questions will have such an answer, if and when that answer is found.

In some instances, of course, since the events are in the past (evolution, origins of the universe, etc.) we'll be drawing conclusions based on reason and evidence rather than direct observation. . .

You now appear to be asserting that certain origins are supernatural.

I've seen absolutely no support for any such assertion. ;)




125 posted on 04/22/2009 2:56:54 PM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Filo
“I'm sorry - that was sarcasm. I didn't think it needed the /sarc tag. . . ” [excerpt]
And I was ribbing you for giving a flippant and vulgar answer to a serious question.

“While we don't yet know the naturalistic explanation for all questions the fact that we've never seen a non-naturalistic answer …” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]
Seems rather presumptuous.

It would be more accurate to say that ‘you've never seen an answer that you acknowledged as non-naturalistic’.

“… lends substantial credibility to the assertion that all questions will have such an answer, if and when that answer is found.” [excerpt]
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

“In some instances, of course, since the events are in the past (evolution, origins of the universe, etc.) we'll be drawing conclusions based on reason and evidence rather than direct observation. . .” [excerpt]
Are you saying that philosophical naturalism is scientifically useless for drawing conclusions about the unobservable?
126 posted on 04/22/2009 3:56:51 PM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
Seems rather presumptuous.



I prefer "enlightened."

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Which has nothing to do with nothing in this case. There is proof for all naturalistic assertions and none for religious ones. There isn't even any logic or reason behind the latter.

Are you saying that philosophical naturalism is scientifically useless for drawing conclusions about the unobservable?

Quite the opposite, in fact.

It is more than capable of drawing conclusions when there is evidence and intelligent, logical analysts.
127 posted on 04/22/2009 7:36:54 PM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Filo
“… the fact that we've never seen a non-naturalistic answer …” [excerpt]
Seems rather presumptuous.
“I prefer "enlightened."” [excerpt]
Does being ‘enlightened’ make you an omnipresent, omnipotent, all knowing being that reads minds?

Didn't think so.

“Which has nothing to do with nothing in this case.” [excerpt]
Is that like an inside out mobius strip?

“There is proof for all naturalistic assertions and none for religious ones.” [excerpt]
You have committed the logical fallacy of asserting the non-existence of something.

Are you saying that philosophical naturalism is scientifically useless for drawing conclusions about the unobservable?
“Quite the opposite, in fact.

It is more than capable of drawing conclusions when there is evidence and intelligent, logical analysts.”
[excerpt]
Excellent.

Why don't you give the naturalistic conclusion of the process by which the laws of physics must have come into existence.

I mean, the laws are right here and we can test them, so there is the evidence part.

And I'm assuming that you can give me an intelligent logical analysis.
128 posted on 04/22/2009 8:13:52 PM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
Seems rather presumptuous.

And yet 100% correct!

Does being ‘enlightened’ make you an omnipresent, omnipotent, all knowing being that reads minds?

No, it literally means "seen the light." I.e. knows the truth.

Is that like an inside out mobius strip?

Pretty much exactly, which is also a great description of your position to date.

You have committed the logical fallacy of asserting the non-existence of something.

Sorry, but there is no such logical fallacy. While proving the non-existence of something might be an issue, knowing that some things don't exist is quite easy and, in most cases, very logical.

Why don't you give the naturalistic conclusion of the process by which the laws of physics must have come into existence.

Because no such conclusion has been drawn yet. But you knew that.

The part that you aren't getting (and never will) is that we will have an answer for that someday, assuming we don't make ourselves extinct, because the answer is actually out there waiting to be discovered.

We have theories for how this may have happened and various experiments and observations that we are or can conduct to validate aspects of those theories.

In short, as we learn more we get closer to answering those very questions.

Contrast that with the fact that as we learn more the concepts of religion become that much more ridiculous.

Hundreds of years ago you and your ilk insisted that the earth was the center of the universe.

Stupid questions and assertions, just like yours above, were put forth by the faithful to challenge the learned when they were able to prove otherwise.

In the end the faithful looked foolish for their unsubstantiated beliefs while the educated went forth to improve the world.

And they didn't fall off the edge as your type insisted they would.

That pattern appears to be one of the naturalistic laws of the universe. The stupid rely on faith while the intelligent seek proof.

Guess which ones advance the species?
129 posted on 04/23/2009 7:11:29 AM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Filo
Does being ‘enlightened’ make you an omnipresent, omnipotent, all knowing being that reads minds?
“No, it literally means "seen the light." I.e. knows the truth.” [excerpt]
Except you are claiming to have knowledge that you could only have if you were an omnipresent, omnipotent, all knowing being that reads minds.

“Which has nothing to do with nothing in this case.” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]
Is that like an inside out mobius strip?
“Pretty much exactly, which is also a great description of your position to date.” [excerpt]
Hey, your the one who used a double negative.

Interestingly, it is your position that we have been discussing.

Perhaps you are projecting a bit?

You have committed the logical fallacy of asserting the non-existence of something.
“Sorry, but there is no such logical fallacy. While proving the non-existence of something might be an issue, knowing that some things don't exist is quite easy and, in most cases, very logical.” [excerpt]
So, its not a logical fallacy for me to assert that you don't exist, but trying to prove you don't exist might be an issue?

But hey, I say you don't exist and I just looked around the room and didn't find you, so I just proved that you don't exist.

Seriously, I'm starting to think you know nothing about logic.

Why don't you give the naturalistic conclusion of the process by which the laws of physics must have come into existence.
“Because no such conclusion has been drawn yet. But you knew that.

The part that you aren't getting (and never will) is that we will have an answer for that someday, assuming we don't make ourselves extinct, because the answer is actually out there waiting to be discovered.”
[excerpt]
Well, using your style of logic, the answer does not exist.

You, nor anyone, will ever find it.

You will never understand why.

“Contrast that with the fact that as we learn more the concepts of religion become that much more ridiculous.” [excerpt]
Do you think that scientists should try to eliminate religion?

“Hundreds of years ago you and your ilk insisted that the earth was the center of the universe.” [excerpt]
Prove that its not in the center 1% of the entire universe.

“Stupid questions and assertions, just like yours above, were put forth by the faithful to challenge the learned when they were able to prove otherwise.” [excerpt]
Are you saying that religious people are stupid and unlearned?

“In the end the faithful looked foolish for their unsubstantiated beliefs while the educated went forth to improve the world.” [excerpt]
By educated do you mean people who reject God and subscribe to philosophical naturalism?

“And they didn't fall off the edge as your type insisted they would.” [excerpt]
Exactly what is my type?

“That pattern appears to be one of the naturalistic laws of the universe. The stupid rely on faith while the intelligent seek proof.” [excerpt]
Interestingly, many, if not most, of your arguments have been arguments of faith and are far from testable. (or falsifiable)

The fact is, an origin of the laws of physics is by definition a super-natural origin that was not governed by the natural laws of physics because at the point when the aforementioned laws came into existence, there were no natural laws of physics in which a naturalistic process capable of creating the natural laws of physics could have operated.

Kinda like you.

No action you took caused you to come into existence.

None.

To suggest otherwise is patently absurd.
130 posted on 04/23/2009 12:11:34 PM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
Except you are claiming to have knowledge that you could only have if you were an omnipresent, omnipotent, all knowing being that reads minds.

Nope. It's knowledge I have because I am capable of thinking and because I am open to it.

Hey, your the one who used a double negative.

Actually just a vernacular expression.

Interestingly, it is your position that we have been discussing.

Come now, don't be coy. We wouldn't be having this discussion if you agreed with my position. As such yours is perfectly clear.

Seriously, I'm starting to think you know nothing about logic.

I know more than enough to know that people like you can play games with it in the guise of being thoughtful when, in fact, there is no thought involved.

Do you think that scientists should try to eliminate religion?

Religion has nothing to do with science. It's not up to them to "eliminate" it. While it's true that scientific knowledge, by its very nature, effectively crowds out ignorance it shouldn't really be a stated goal to eliminate specific forms of ignorance.

Prove that its not in the center 1% of the entire universe.

Prove that it is.

Meanwhile, we've already documented quite thoroughly that we are on a fairly insignificant speck of damp dust circling a common star far from the center of a galaxy filled with tens of billions of other stars in a local group of a dozen or so such galaxies in a universe filled with billions of other such groups and galaxies.

If that doesn't put us well away from the center of it all I don't know what does.

Are you saying that religious people are stupid and unlearned?

Effectively, yes.

Which isn't to say that learning and religion are inherently incompatible, but if the indoctrination into religion weren't started at a young age most people with brains and learning would never come to the conclusion after being properly educated (i.e. with facts, not dogma.) By educated do you mean people who reject God and subscribe to philosophical naturalism?

By educated I mean people who learn facts and not dogma, as stated above.

Exactly what is my type?

Science rejecting 'thumpers.

The fact is, an origin of the laws of physics is by definition a super-natural origin that was not governed by the natural laws of physics because at the point when the aforementioned laws came into existence, there were no natural laws of physics in which a naturalistic process capable of creating the natural laws of physics could have operated.

Nonsense circular reasoning.

Either the laws always existed or they came into being because of other laws.

Some theorize that the laws were set during the earliest parts of the Big Bang, others think the Big Bang was governed by extant laws.

Regardless, Science will, someday, answer those questions credibly. Religion never will, or can.

Religion is nothing short of the ultimate cop out.
131 posted on 04/23/2009 1:59:44 PM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Filo

***There is proof for all naturalistic assertions and none for religious ones. There isn’t even any logic or reason behind the latter.***

Have you ever read “Summa Theologica” by St. Thomas Aquinas?


132 posted on 04/23/2009 2:12:40 PM PDT by nanetteclaret (Unreconstructed Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Filo; Fichori
"Clearly some great sky being waved his hands and created them. Duh! (May you be touched by his Noodly Appendage)"

As opposed to them just appearing out of nowhere for no reason and to no purpose?

"If we're asking stupid origins questions how about this one: Who created God*?"

Not a stupid question at all, but one that assumes philosophical naturalism 'a priori'. Some think it a great 'gotcha' question because they assume that 'God' would be subject to the constraints of philosophical naturalism and they lack the critical-thinking skills to reason this out for themselves. The question really goes to the heart of the philosophical naturalist's belief-system and shows that they really cannot conceive anything outside that belief-system. However, to the creationist the answer is simple. I will explain.

The *only* reason that God could be constrained to a point of 'creation' is if He is subject to the dimension of time (i.e., the 4th dimension). This demonstrates that the philosophical naturalist cannot conceive of anything that is *not* constrained by time.

Dimensional models teach us that what is impossible in a lower dimension is unlimited in a higher dimension. For example, in 1 dimension no 2 points can occupy the same x coordinate on a line. It is impossible. In 2 dimensions, it is easy, xy1 and xy2. In 2 dimensions, no 2 planes can occupy the same xy coordinates of a plane. It is impossible. In 3 dimensions, it is easy xyz1 and xyz2. In 3 dimensions no object can occupy the same xyz coordinate at the same time. It is impossible. In 4 dimensions, it is easy. xyz at 1:00 p.m. and xyz at 1:01 p.m..

In the same manner, the constraint of 'who/what/when created God' is invalid in 4+ dimensions because, as we have seen in all lower dimensions, all that is needed to remove the constraint is 1 additional dimension. Since God is infinite, anything created by God is not of unlimited dimensions, it must by definition exist in fewer dimensions than God does; 4 observable dimensions in the case of the universe.

Note that this works even if the universe turns out to consist of 12 or any number of dimensions short of an infinite number of dimensions. Since any finite number of dimensions is less than God's existence in an infinite number of dimensions, the question of 'who/what/when was God created' turns out to be valid only if you assume philosophical naturalism 'a priori'.

But that's the 'a priori' assumption that we have with science in the first place and therefore it offers no support to your position.

133 posted on 04/23/2009 2:14:15 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Some think it a great 'gotcha' question because they assume that 'God' would be subject to the constraints of philosophical naturalism and they lack the critical-thinking skills to reason this out for themselves. [...]

ROFLMAO.

What a self-serving, steaming pile of contrived and utterly worthless BS.

If that's the alternative I'm sticking with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
134 posted on 04/23/2009 2:39:40 PM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: nanetteclaret
Have you ever read “Summa Theologica” by St. Thomas Aquinas?

Not in its entirety, no. I've read excerpts and summaries.

It, too, falls under the heading of self-serving "proof" that, like "intelligent design" and most other religion-based proofs, is built with the answer firmly in mind beforehand.

That alone is reason to reject it without consideration.
135 posted on 04/23/2009 2:42:08 PM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Filo
Except you are claiming to have knowledge that you could only have if you were an omnipresent, omnipotent, all knowing being that reads minds.
“Nope. It's knowledge I have because I am capable of thinking and because I am open to it.” [excerpt]
When you said we've never seen a non-naturalistic answer … you used the word we not I

You cannot say what we haven't seen.

“Come now, don't be coy. We wouldn't be having this discussion if you agreed with my position. As such yours is perfectly clear.” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]
Specifically (and only) that my position doesn't agree with yours.

Which is a non-issue.

Seriously, I'm starting to think you know nothing about logic.
“I know more than enough to know that people like you can play games with it in the guise of being thoughtful when, in fact, there is no thought involved.” [excerpt]
Unfortunately that hasn't stopped you from making one logical blunder after another.

Are you saying that religious people are stupid and unlearned?
“Effectively, yes.” [excerpt]
Do you believe that science would be further advanced and better off if religious people couldn't interfere?

Exactly what is my type?
“Science rejecting 'thumpers.” [excerpt]
Was Karl Popper a ‘science rejecting 'thumper’?

“Nonsense circular reasoning.” [excerpt]
Hehe, you might want to reconsider...

“Either the laws always existed or they came into being because of other laws.” [excerpt]
IOW, they didn't self create, which is exactly the point I was making. (A point you called ‘Nonsense circular reasoning’)

However, you are up against a problem here.

If the natural laws of physics were created by other laws that were not exactly identical to the ones we have now, then the current ones have a non-naturalistic origin, because naturalistic is defined by the laws of nature as they exist now.

This also brings up the possibility that the ‘other laws’ that may have brought into being our current ones, may in fact be the very essence of God himself.

“Some theorize that the laws were set during the earliest parts of the Big Bang, others think the Big Bang was governed by extant laws.” [excerpt]
The Big Bang is a super-natural event because it violates several known natural laws.

“Regardless, Science will, someday, answer those questions credibly. Religion never will, or can.” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]
The way you authoritatively speak of what will and won't happen, I can't help but wonder, are you now a prophet?

“Religion is nothing short of the ultimate cop out.” [excerpt]
Do you think religion interferes with science and should be disallowed from influencing it?
136 posted on 04/23/2009 3:12:51 PM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Filo

If you didn’t read the whole thing, then you’ve got your own “answer firmly in mind beforehand.” Based on your own argument, I think I’ll reject your reasoning “without consideration.”


137 posted on 04/23/2009 3:30:33 PM PDT by nanetteclaret (Unreconstructed Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
You cannot say what we haven't seen.

Actually, I can. That whole gift of a brain thing. . .

Unfortunately that hasn't stopped you from making one logical blunder after another.

I haven't made any.

Following the facts lends itself to that kind of error-free existence.

Do you believe that science would be further advanced and better off if religious people couldn't interfere?

Another silly trap type question.

I believe that people's minds are inherently more open in the absence of religion and, therefore, scientific advancement is far more likely.

IOW, they didn't self create, which is exactly the point I was making. (A point you called ‘Nonsense circular reasoning’)

It's possible they did self-create in some sense, but not as you imply.

Regardless there is a reasoned, scientifically provable/acceptable explanation for them out there waiting to be discovered.

Neither God* nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster had anything to do with it.

If the natural laws of physics were created by other laws that were not exactly identical to the ones we have now, then the current ones have a non-naturalistic origin, because naturalistic is defined by the laws of nature as they exist now.

Untrue. Naturalistic explanations exist because laws exist but the specific configuration of those is irrelevant. If we find more or different laws then science will adapt.

The Big Bang is a super-natural event because it violates several known natural laws.

Known being the operative word. Nobody is willing to say that we know all that is knowable.

The difference between you and I is that you're willing to say "let's stop seeking and explain the rest as God*"

I see that as the cop-out it is. The way you authoritatively speak of what will and won't happen, I can't help but wonder, are you now a prophet?

Funny. Stupid, but funny.

Do you think religion interferes with science and should be disallowed from influencing it?

Religion interferes with intelligence and reason and should be disallowed period.

We should never pollute our minds with known drivel.
138 posted on 04/23/2009 3:34:06 PM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: nanetteclaret
If you didn’t read the whole thing, then you’ve got your own “answer firmly in mind beforehand.” Based on your own argument, I think I’ll reject your reasoning “without consideration.”

You're free to do so, but your conclusion was not based on reason. Mine was.

The fact that I was able to determine the uselessness of the work from excerpts is a testament to my reasoning skills.

The fact that you'd require a complete reading to judge either way is a testament to yours.

Where I see a pile of poo, quickly determine what it is and avoid it, you'd require an exhaustive analysis to determine that the brown stuff was, in fact, poo.

Bully for you!
139 posted on 04/23/2009 3:37:08 PM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Filo
You cannot say what we haven't seen.
“Actually, I can. That whole gift of a brain thing. . .” [excerpt]
Well, if you were my other personality, then you could.

But since you are not, you have no way to know what I have or haven't seen.

Unfortunately that hasn't stopped you from making one logical blunder after another.
“I haven't made any.

Following the facts lends itself to that kind of error-free existence.”
[excerpt]
One of your primary errors is in believing that you have not made any.

“Another silly trap type question.

I believe that people's minds are inherently more open in the absence of religion and, therefore, scientific advancement is far more likely.”
[excerpt]
But religion does not hinder scientific advancement?

“It's possible they did self-create in some sense, but not as you imply.

Regardless there is a reasoned, scientifically provable/acceptable explanation for them out there waiting to be discovered.

Neither God* nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster had anything to do with it.”
[excerpt]
But you cannot prove that.

“Untrue. Naturalistic explanations exist because laws exist but the specific configuration of those is irrelevant. If we find more or different laws then science will adapt.” [excerpt]
What if you find the laws of God?

“Known being the operative word. Nobody is willing to say that we know all that is knowable.” [excerpt]
Does this apply to God as well?

“The difference between you and I is that you're willing to say "let's stop seeking and explain the rest as God*"” [excerpt]
You are a lousy mind reader/prophet.

And your pants are on fire.

“Funny. Stupid, but funny.” [excerpt]
Well, you act like a prophet, so what other conclusion do you expect me to come to?

Religion interferes with intelligence and reason and should be disallowed period. [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]

Thats tageline material...

“We should never pollute our minds with known drivel.” [excerpt]
Naturalism is known drivel.


BTW, you didn't answer my question about Popper.
140 posted on 04/23/2009 4:00:35 PM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-345 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson