RE: Evolution as evidence for atheism
August 31, 2010 at 4:39 pm
(This post was last modified: August 31, 2010 at 4:40 pm by The Omnissiunt One.)
(August 26, 2010 at 4:32 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: When I heard Dawkins propose this argument, one question immediately popped in my head:
"What do you base that on?"
His assumption was that "Complexity of Designer > Complexity of Thing Designed" and this formula always holds. But is this true? Don't we design things bigger and more complex than us all the time? I suppose it depends on how you define "complexity".
That argument of Dawkins' is pretty rubbish, as it presupposes that God is material. Nevertheless, I hardly see how it helps to invoke something so far from our experience as to be inherently improbable: a timeless being who is a disembodied mind and yet somehow acts in the material universe. Besides, most design arguments are just arguments from incredulity. They are intuitively appealing, I'll admit, but not good evidence.
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
