THE CREATOR HAS NO BEGINNING AND NO END
| Posted On: 07/25/08 11:21:33 PM |
Age 64, OH |
For a person who claims to know what philosophy is you sure are not very good at it. You say that science coming to a conclusion that an arrowhead has a intelligent maker is valid but for science to make the same conclusion about the universe is not valid science. The universe and the arrowhead are both in the physical world and both can be observed and studied. Science can make valid conclusions about the arrowhead and can also make valid conclusions about the universe. The evidence that the arrowhead has a maker is MUCH less than the evidence that the universe has an intelligent Creator. Anyone who would really study and not just comment in ignorance could see this fact. It is no more philosophy to conclude the universe has a Creator than the arrowhead. There is much more evidence that the universe has a Creator. There are so many things that are true for life to be on this earth and the chances of these things being true so remote that a intelligent Creator is the only intelligent conclusion. Even Anthony Flew came to this conclusion when faced with the facts. But God did not need anyone to prove His existence. He is willing and able to prove that He is, to anyone who will seek the truth.- You imply that matter and God have the same abilities, which is such a childish conclusion that it is hard to even take you seriously after that. You imply that if this physical matter could not create itself then God could not create Himself either. That is the same as saying that matter and God have the same abilities. A 5 year old can see the lack of valid reasoning in that. We now know that the universe had a beginning just as Genesis says. If it had a beginning it had a Creator or 1st cause. No one has ever shown one scrap of evidence that God had a beginning, therefore He always existed just as Genesis states. If God had no beginning then he always was, is, and always will be. Lou
|
So then..
| Posted On: 07/25/08 05:18:24 PM |
Age 20, MN |
..if I am I reading your points correctly, it comes down to either faith in the existance of an eternal God or faith in the existance of eternal matter. Unless ones argues that nothing produced...though I think that would probably botch science and philosophy. :) Have a great day!
|
Who designed the designer?
| Posted On: 07/25/08 10:59:26 AM |
Age 36, MO |
Mr. McDowell is absolutely right when he argues that all of science would come to a standstill if every scientific explanation required another explanation in order to be satisfactory. (Scientists can explain an event by reference to certain laws of physics, even though we have no idea why the laws of physics are what they are.)
But I find it surprising that someone with as much training in philosophy as Mr. McDowell is apparently unaware of the difference between science and philosophy. (Dawkin's ignorance of the difference is equally surprising.) Science is limited to the empirical study of the natural world. So concluding that an arrowhead or stone tool was created by someone is perfectly scientific. But inquiring about who/what created the universe takes us out of the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy, where the rules are not the same.
It is in this philosophical context that the "Who designed the designer?" argument arises, and it amazes me that Mr. McDowell, with all his philosophical training, has apparently failed to grasp it. Here we want an ultimate explanation (which may or may not be possible) for the appearance of design, not just another link on the explanatory chain. If the world, universe, multiverse, physical reality, whatever you want to call it, was designed and conceived in the mind of God, then God's mind, and so God himself, would have to have been designed as well, because it is a basic tenet of the design argument that anything that orderly and complex requires a designer.
If the theist changes his tune at this point and argues that God can exist without a designer, by happenstance or necessity, then the same could just as plausibly be said for the universe, physical reality, etc. Thus, God becomes a superfluous link in the chain of explanations, and there is no reason to bring him into the picture in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
