RE: The argument against God
January 23, 2009 at 2:28 pm
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2009 at 2:29 pm by lilphil1989.)
(January 23, 2009 at 1:56 pm)CoxRox Wrote: If you expanded your statement to say for example: 'Invisible pink unicorns exist BECAUSE I detect an intelligence in the laws of mathematics/physics and indeed the intelligence behind the origins of life', then I would agree that your 'detections' are noteworthy
I don't see how adding that phrase to the statement makes any difference.
Just because I say I've "detected" (I'd certainly be interested to hear about this method of detection) an "intelligence" as you put it, doesn't mean I have!
My point was that my scrap of paper was in no way, shape or form evidence of anything (expect perhaps the usefulness of scraps of paper
). Saying that something is evidence for something else does not make it so.
I suppose that what I'm trying to get at is that I don't reject the evidence for a god, an intelligent designer or, for that matter, invisible pink unicorns.
Instead, I say that what is being put forward as evidence is definitively NOT evidence.
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
