reece said:
Where is the evidence disproving the existence of a god? How is imperfect design and creative intelligence mutually exclusive? To me, imperfect design (if done by a god) only proves an imperfect designer.
Personally, I've been moving towards God is an aggregate of all life force. I have trouble with the conscious being sitting in judgment of whether we sin or don't. I think religion is a way we have devised to bring it all down to our level. But, being human we cling more to the religion (the tool) than the purpose of it. Hence, "my WAY is the true WAY."
There is no evidence disproving the concept of gods. That is irrelevant. You may only look for positive evidence in constructing a valid theory, not negative evidence.
To find how absurd such a statement is, I think I should refer to Bertrand Russel's Celestial Teapot:
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
I don't particularly understand by what you mean "life force". We are just an aggregate of chemical reactions, so does that make the oxidation of iron alive? I'm confused...
"How is imperfect design and creative intelligence mutually exclusive? To me, imperfect design (if done by a god) only proves an imperfect designer."
This is a good point. I was alluding to an omniscient creator (which is logically impossible) as most people's concept of a god (or gods) have this trait. There is one point of disconcertion that I have with your statement and that is: "Imperfect design... only proves an imperfect designer."
Again, on what basis do you have to make such a claim? We certainly do not have the knowledge of the universe to be so certain as to say that there needs to be a "designer" and that apparent design "proves" a designer.
Look at biological life here on Earth. Eyes look designed, however, we know that they were the result of random mutations and selective pressures by unconscious (and sometimes conscious biotic) forces. There is no inherent design, rather, atoms and molecules bonding and reacting with other atoms and molecules in their vicinity.
To extrapolate subjective desires and prejudices onto the plot (without solid objective evidence) is a precarious way of determining truth, no?
Man, but I hate when I get so involved in a post. It's like I'm writing for a class. But I love to debate. I love to understand where others are coming from, whether we agree or not.
