Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (1688)	10/14/2000 7:04:16 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

A design does not necessarily need a designer- at least not in the way you imagine it. Systems can design themselves. That is what evolution theory seems to be (imo). Lots of things are thought to be "irreducibly complex" before they are figured out. Essentially the black boxes have gotten smaller- they haven't disappeared. You have put up a very long article, by someone with an axe to grind. Take away the axe and you realize the only thing left is mystery. It does not prove or disprove the existence of God. It only proves there are questions. You would like to jump in and say GOD is the answer. But you're still leaping. So leap. But don't try to put a rational face on it. You wish to believe. Everything you see buttresses your belief because you wish everything to buttress your belief. It proves nothing. Which is fine. But you seem confused over that. You seem to think that the fact that you are convinced means others should be convinced. If what you had was logic other people would be able to follow it Greg. You could lay it out with no missing steps in the equation- but you have missing steps, and you fill in those steps with belief. Again, that's fine- but it's not evidence for your position. It's merely comforting for you.

To: Greg or e who wrote (1688)	10/15/2000 11:02:40 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 28931

This is of course a very old argument, and I can sum up my position simply by saying that I see no convincing reason why complexity should require conscious design. If you prefer to assume conscious design, in fact, you open up a host of other long-debated complexities, such as the old question of how a perfect and omnipotent creator could come up with a creation in which chaos and evil are such prominent features. Questions beget explanations, and pretty soon we have Satan, and original sin, and virgin birth, and redemption through crucifixion, etc., none of which seem very probable to me.