(February 14, 2012 at 3:48 pm)Undeceived Wrote:(February 13, 2012 at 11:35 pm)Ziploc Surprise Wrote: But if you could set your belief aside (which, I recognize might be too difficult for you, no offense) and look at the situation objectively would it stand up to scrutiny?This assumes that knowledge only comes from the hard sciences, which is a faulty definition of the word 'objective.' The real argument is about who gets to decide what we can know. Postmoderns and naturalists believe it can only be gained directly through the senses. But we know there are also personal ways to gain knowledge. Say you punch me in the face. Someone else might say "He is really angry." But suppose I hold out on interpreting your action. Suppose I look for a naturalistic reason for the motion of your hand. Maybe the moon was too close or there is some kind of wave we haven't discovered yet. Using this logic I would never get to the root of the matter--which is, that your motion was intelligently designed with the intent of harming me, maybe because of your dislike of people with a different view than yourself. So, too, should we consider an intelligent designer when a structure looks designed. Irreducibly complex setups like mousetraps have the same scientifically-observed mark of design as we see elsewhere in nature. You don't have to trust what other people tell you about God. Investigate it for yourself. If you don't try to feel God out he won't reveal himself. Naturalistic points of view rule out God automatically, and it's no wonder why people have trouble finding him.
And since this argument has been considered and rejected, i.e. neither any design is irreducibly complex, nor is there a sign of intelligence behind the design, we can safely reject the "god" explanation.