Quote:
Quote by: Thanatos  Logical error: if Dawkins is misinterpreting Aquinas's proofs then a link to an unDawkinsafied version of Aquinas's proof would be helpful.
I say this because if Aquinas's proofs are rendered accurately the man was a moron. Yes, there had to be a prime mover unless everything is some sort of infinite closed loop (an idea I hate). Who said this prime mover is the one in Christian mythology? Who says it was even intelligent and not some mindless fractal process? I'm watching this and coming to the same conclusions as Dawkins one step ahead of his voice.
Moving on, next thing before Dawkins analyzes it for me is that because something exists in our heads does not make it real. I can make a moral judgment based on a hypothetical society where everybody follows an example I am trying to decide upon. Is a city full of nothing but evil people or good people necessary in the real world for my mental computations? Do you need imaginary numbers to break codes with them? Hello? This is dumb.
Dawkins agrees with me and gives a slightly ruder yet shorter version of the same argument. Moving on to the last one...
Oh my mathematics, I've actually heard people use this one. Snowflakes look designed. I can make food coloring combines with milk and dish detergent do things that look pretty artistic too. Fighter jets or computer code built by evolutionary AIs look very much like they were designed by an intelligence without actually being so. This is just empirically not true.
Dawkins produces the same criticism in wordier language.
In other words, unless there is a misrepresentation in the proofs themselves Dawkins is not wrong in my opinion. |
You base your opinon on human perception as the rule maker. A bird might think it's nest is a beautiful work or art, we might think it is ugly looking. We might approve of a rose flower but disslike weeds with little yellow flowers. What is artistic can be random or intended by an artist.
A design can happen by random chance or created by intelligent intent.
We have evidence of this because people can do it on purpose and we can do it by accident. This proves nothing ether way.
A lot of snowflakes with individual designs can melt into drops of water and merge to loose all individual indentity as a river or ocean. If a drop of water is lifted as fog up to become a cloud and then rains again on the mountain such that the drop becomes frozen as a designer snowflake would design be the same, I do not think so. So the temperature designed the snowflake not some intelligent being. But the reason that can happen is because drops of water are tiny globes of water, circular in shape, and the circle is the "design" as well as the journey that water can take. Circular motion as well as global shapes have an intellingent purpose that is both simple and likewise has it complexities. But it would appear that it becomes intelligently done by the activity it'self rather then by an outside factor manipulating that activity. However a computer can geneate such things on it's own but human intelligence made that activity possible by creating the computer.
Hawking via physics claimed that beyond the Big Bang would be another universe identical to this one. "Cloned Universes" because at point zero the numbers would flow outwardly in all directions in the same order, producing two or more universes. Example: 4321-0-1234. For a perfectionist a design is created from the center outwardly and the center would be the orgin. Thusly, each exsteam would have the same measurment form that center. That kind of design cannot be done if we drop something on the ground and expect the paint to scatter equally in all directions upon impact, for one thing the round might not be flat. But also because gravity pulls the paint towards the center instead of it coming from the center and expanding where nothing else can cause an impact to reorganized the final shape as being difined as random.
So here is the queston: If unobstructed a perfect design is possible but if obsturcted then randomness can ocur. Right?
Here in lies the problem. The Bible is true because the Bible said so, that is called circular reasoning. But if that circle is broken by an obstruction, namely science, then you end up with a random mess of unlogical scriptures that loose their intelligent design and therefore their purpose. Only faith would allow it to flow in an unobstructed way to create te perfect design which would then be our perception.
Aha, figure that one out!
Therefore all teenage girls should marry me because if they marry a bunch of different people we will have a random mess in the gene pool that can result in too much diversity rather then uniformity which is a important designership manifesto.
eh? Just kidding.