RE: Has Science done away with a need for God?
July 27, 2015 at 1:02 pm
(This post was last modified: July 27, 2015 at 1:03 pm by Alex K.)
(July 27, 2015 at 12:57 pm)lkingpinl Wrote:If you know the first thing about evolution by natural selection, you won't. You'll first examine the object and ask yourself whether it is of a type that can undergo a Darwinian process. If yes, you won't jump to the conclusion that a mind had to be involved. If no, you'll be more curious, but will still have to demonstrate that a mind is necessary.(July 27, 2015 at 12:48 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: You are assuming that the internal combustion engine (or any humanly designed artifact) is relevantly analogous to the universe. You haven't even begun to justify that leap.
What I am showing is that we see something with complexity, function and purpose and we immediately assume a mind behind it.
Quote: Do you not look at something as simple as a letter and assume someone with a mind produced it?yes, but because see above, the comparison is not valid.
Quote:I find it fascinating how we can take something simple as the internal combustion engine and assume there was a mind behind it, but see something infinitely more complex as the universe and say its pure chance with no need for an intelligence behind it? I don't find that logic very convincing.Again, see above.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
