Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: No Doubt I Am

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on January 12, 2002 16:09:01 UTC

Mario,

***So, since both of us are making what amounts to probabalistic statements, we are both "right" in the context of our argument: we're both making the exact same argument, only attacking it from different angles. To you, the glass is half full, to me it's half empty. You aim for the area of hope that God exists, I aim for the evidence against.***

I see this discussion in a different light. For me, every position one holds should be justified. That means if someone says ontological knowledge is not possible, then that position must be justified as much as someone who says ontological knowledge is justifiable. Each view must state its case and supporting arguments. Half full glasses or half empty glasses are only pertinent discussions if someone also gives their reason as to why the glass is half full or half empty. In other words, without an attempt to explain the odd situation of millions of mathematical equations working out 'just so' in order to produce a universe(s), then I think such an argument falls flat.

***But I still sense a good deal of assumption with you. You start off with a great foundation for your belief in a Cosmic Order, but then slide down into the deep end and make assumptions about God's plan for this universe and his love of intelligent life, which are just guesses (and, as far as I can tell, guesses with little or no grounding in evidence, for that matter.) Why even bother with belief?***

I would be glad to discuss why I think I'm justified in giving preference to intelligence as part of a divine plan, or why I think consciousness is a little higher on the priority list than non-conscious existence, etc. The question I have: is this your main beef with my argument? What subject do you wish to discuss that is in any way different than the one that Alex and I have been discussing?

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins