Replies

Let's analyze this statement.

From past experience you're already in way over your head.

We just know "there is a naturalistic explanation," even though we have not a shred of objective evidence for believing this.

Actually we have millions of pages of evidence supporting just that assertion.

It's called science. You should look into it.

(Filo has provided none so far.)

I am not conducting a class here. If you want to learn go and do it. Don't blame me for not spoon-feeding you hundreds of years of scientific discovery on a political forum.

People have been saying "there is a naturalistic explanation" for well over two centuries by now. Two-hundred-plus years to work on the problem, and science still has no answer, let alone any practical idea about how to advance this question. But don't worry: The proof WILL COME some day! This eschaton WILL be immanentized!

Which question are you talking about now? The origins of the universe? You expect that to be figured out in 200 years?

Man, if that is not a faith statement, I don't know what is.

It is, but it's a different type of faith. I have faith that Mankind will find the answers. Not all of us, obviously (some are too brainwashed by silly notions) but we, as a species, will discover these answers.

The odd thing is this faith statement is being undermined by science itself these days. Advances in information theory and complexity theory have demonstrated the extreme statistical unlikelihood of matter generating natural systems having greater algorithmic complexity than itself. Matter alone cannot account for the astonishing algorithmic and morphological complexity that we see in the biosphere. [...]

ROFL.

Using big words to make stupid statements won't make you appear any smarter.

Filo, may I dare to suggest that your "faith" appears to be on extremely shaky epistemological footing?

You can say it, but you'll be wrong. That, it seems, is turning into a really bad habit.

Whereas the Christian faith in the Creator God is eminently reasonable, and gives a rational account of what we perceive in nature, in the hearts of men, and in history and society? It's explanatory coverage and power is truly universal.

None of the above.

It is, but it's a different type of faith. I have faith that Mankind will find the answers. Not all of us, obviously (some are too brainwashed by silly notions) but we, as a species, will discover these answers.

So you ascribe to the supposition that "Man is the measure of all things." Okay. But what "standard" is man using in his measurements? His own convenience? His own preferences? His own desires?

Without absolutes, everything is "relative." So one man's opinion is as good as any other's. In the end, it doesn't make any difference what men believe. I say the sky is blue and you say it's red. We're both right if man is "the measure."

But if this technique makes us both right, then how can we formulate any objective statement about what and how the universe really is? How can we come to consensus on anything? What would be the basis of meaningful human communication? How far do you think science would get, if it really were to take your prescription to heart?

And just what has mankind done to warrant such devotion? You have faith that mankind is going to find the *truth* and the *answers* with the likes of the Obama administration in office?

If your faith is in mankind, the answer has already been found. It's 42. What's the question?