Replies

Boris, I so much appreciate your thought and posts. As I know you are aware, scientific thought is dependent upon logical thinking and reasoning. That is why I addressed all these issues with such civility, and will continue to do so.

Let us not jump to conclusions with each other. I'm simply seeking to pursue a line of speculation based upon some commonly accepted premises. Clearly we all share a somewhat different set of assumptions. But isn't that is why we talk about things?

I do not ***assume*** that the development of intelligent life is subject to chance or to conflicting powers.

The scenario you assumed as my view, is not, in fact, my view.

In fact, I am attempting to ***simply*** suggest is that what most people take as a serious element of existence and call ‘God’ is the agency responsible for the current seeming isolation of our planet. Such a suggestion may very well seem beneath the notice of many in the media or science today, but this is a very recent development, as I'm sure you're aware.

Please don't so quickly dismiss me. It seems reasonable to me, given the order of issues upon which we are discussing, to at least entertain, for a moment, the idea.

So as to not leave to vaguaries yet another post:
By ‘God’ I mean a mind of, over, and greater in scope than the entire universe. This may sound irrational to a (simply) materialistic evolutionist, but what if ***even*** the broader principles of evolution, centered upon the idea of the ‘survival of the ***fittest***’ taken to their ultimate conclusion, militate that, given the existence of time, in the end, such a being must exist and most importantly:

***Dominate***?

Normally, perhaps, such a suggestion may make one libel to the charge of obscuring the issue. However, I, in all sincerity do not feel that in issues regarding the development of life itself or the interplanetary interaction or non-intereaction of ‘intelligent’ species, such speculation is dimissively silly.

I do not assume darwinian evolution, but I will take the time to entertain any assumption for the cause of rational and civil discouse, without which, there would be no science, or theology, or any academic field.

Boris, is the love of learning anything other than the love of the play of ideas? The science, discipline, or even mind that believes that it already has all the answers, is dead.

I'm not trained as a scientist first, but, like Newton, perhaps even Einstein, as a thinker. So I approach most issues from the ‘outside’. While that may make one seem the fool, I'm no more interested in mere appearances than I am sure you are.

God is defined (in this argument) as "A being greater than which no other can exist."

Even an athiest can conceive of such a being.

So God exists--at least in the imagination.

But I can conceive of a still greater being. This being is not limited to existing only in the imagination. Among His attributes is existence in reality. Surely a being who cannot exist in reality is not greater than one who can.

Therefore one of the attributes of God--a being greater than which no other can exist--is existence in reality.

What is the flaw in this argument?

Hint: I got an "A" in my Philosophy 101 exam, so I know the answer.

I believe in God. But man has constructed myriads of fallacious "proofs" of His existence.

--Boris