RE: The Watchmaker: my fav argument
March 25, 2021 at 5:04 pm
(This post was last modified: March 25, 2021 at 5:12 pm by R00tKiT.)
(March 25, 2021 at 1:30 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: So I guess no Freud or Jung then? Your loss.
Seriously man, I think you are too smart to be denying evolution. Not all Christians deny evolution. Not all Christians posit design. Design is a very bad argument now that we've been able to examine the fossil history. And I'm one of the people who thinks it was a very GOOD argument when William Paley made it back in the day. But since we've had a good look at fossils and the cosmic microwave background-- no. Terrible argument.
What exactly are your credentials in philosophy to denigrate the teleological argument without bothering to explain why? Let's say we have a theory A which superseeds evolution, and which completely explains existence and all aspects of beauty in nature... so what.. you stupid fools ? Is explaining the workings and the evolution of an object somewhat dispenses with the possibility of a creator?
Let's say you fully understand the workings of your car engine... and thousands of years from now, they found you car engine's fossils and assembled a fossil history.. Would they then be entitled to say : oh it looks like we understand better how engines evolved.. no need for manufacturing companies!
(March 25, 2021 at 1:30 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: I think you are an honest person, Breezy, but design is not an argument that is pushed by honest people (nowadays, anyway, in the post-Paley era).
Modern philosophers like Swinburne and Lennox defend this same argument... They're not honest enough.. maybe? In any case, where is your essay responding to their defenses?
