RE: When Faith and Science Clash
September 20, 2012 at 8:50 am
(This post was last modified: September 20, 2012 at 9:06 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Yes Jeff, the word "true" is an arbitrary grouping of letters cobbled together by human beings -to describe a concept-. One could impeach our senses (the apparatus we use to assess things and assign this descriptive word) from multiple angles all day long and would still be no closer to an argument against atheism (or for god) than they were when they began. Amusingly, if you're going to argue against the reliability (in any measure, any amount) of our senses you are not arguing against atheism but all of human experience - including any god that humans may believe they have experienced. You are also in the unfortunate position of arguing against logic (how do you think we do the whole logic bit - in the absence of our senses?) by means of logic.
The bit about the rocks is meh, you should have stuck with
"but if, instead, we were intelligently designed to be able to distinguish what is true - blah blah blah"
Not that this would have helped you, because you'd still be stuck demonstrating that we were, in fact, intelligently designed. You might also want to provide some explanation as to why you feel that being able to ascertain what is "true" does not confer a survival advantage (assuming that our senses evolved for survival that does't preclude them from being able to ascertain what is "true", even if they aren't perfectly suited for doing so- something we are already well aware of), and as per all of the above, you might want to explain why (if our senses were designed as opposed to evolved, and they were designed with the purpose of ascertaining what is "true") we seem to be so horribly inept on that count in so many areas. We aren't in a very flattering position with regards to a design or designer and "truth" (and yes, I know we like to think of ourselves as some sort of pinnacle of this or that, but having better sensory apparatus than a slug does not qualify as "quality design").
Then, at the end of all of this, you do realize that "assume intelligent design" followed by a a knockdown demonstration of said design (which has never been presented..not by you...not by anyone), does not lead to "therefore god". All this design shit is an exercise in extreme futility.
(I have no idea why you didn't just link this argument and then weigh in with your own personal thoughts on the matter - I'm cutting you some slack, I don't always get a clean chord progression when I play my guitar either - this was a performance...right?)
The bit about the rocks is meh, you should have stuck with
"but if, instead, we were intelligently designed to be able to distinguish what is true - blah blah blah"
Not that this would have helped you, because you'd still be stuck demonstrating that we were, in fact, intelligently designed. You might also want to provide some explanation as to why you feel that being able to ascertain what is "true" does not confer a survival advantage (assuming that our senses evolved for survival that does't preclude them from being able to ascertain what is "true", even if they aren't perfectly suited for doing so- something we are already well aware of), and as per all of the above, you might want to explain why (if our senses were designed as opposed to evolved, and they were designed with the purpose of ascertaining what is "true") we seem to be so horribly inept on that count in so many areas. We aren't in a very flattering position with regards to a design or designer and "truth" (and yes, I know we like to think of ourselves as some sort of pinnacle of this or that, but having better sensory apparatus than a slug does not qualify as "quality design").
Then, at the end of all of this, you do realize that "assume intelligent design" followed by a a knockdown demonstration of said design (which has never been presented..not by you...not by anyone), does not lead to "therefore god". All this design shit is an exercise in extreme futility.
(I have no idea why you didn't just link this argument and then weigh in with your own personal thoughts on the matter - I'm cutting you some slack, I don't always get a clean chord progression when I play my guitar either - this was a performance...right?)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
