The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

So my close christian friend lends me a book, because I've always been bugging her and questioning christianity, and she told me it'd answer most of my questions.

So I start reading the book and the very first chapter talks about this.

Say you are walking down a field, and you see a wooden chair in middle of no where. Now you know someone must have made that chair, because chair's don't just "happen". You've never witnessed the builder of the chair working on the chair, but you could only assume that someone out there, made the chair and placed it there for whatever reason.

Now if something as simple as a wooden chair can't just "happen" the book argues that something as complicated as humans, cell structures, plants, animals, countless laws of physics that govern the universe could not have just "happened". Somebody must have created us. If you think a wooden chair could not exist with out a builder, consider how infinately more complex body structures we humans have.

And I think the reasoning is fairly solid. I do now think that it is silly to imagine things like mitosis, DNA, human eyes could have appeared by random chance.

The book also goes into absolute lack of evidence in macro-evolution (aka missing links) and how the scientists were still unable to create life out of chemical reactions as they proclaim.

But I do not want to get into the macro evolution/ biogenesis theory stuff, but just would like a discussion on use of logic in the chair anology.

thanks.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

God is infinitely more complex and even less likely to have happened by random chance. Gods don't just "happen." So what created God?

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
The book also goes into absolute lack of evidence in macro-evolution (aka missing links) . . .

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like an extremely uninformed book.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The book also goes into absolute lack of evidence in macro-evolution (aka missing links) . . .

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like an extremely uninformed book.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay it may be a biased book, but I don't really intend to start another creation vs evolution thing going here...because they always end up in some ridiculous 20 page flame fest.

As for question of "who created god", god is supposed to exist outside time and space, so those things do not bind him. ... a reasonable anology I think is.. assuming we are like ants kept in a 2 dimensional container, we will never understand the world of 3-dimensions. And since time is the 4th dimension, and if god could exist outside much higher dimensions, we will never understand wth is going on there.

could you two PM me any arguements so I could keep topic I want to discuss alone with others that would be intersted in discussing them?

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now if something as simple as a wooden chair can't just "happen" the book argues that something as complicated as humans, cell structures, plants, animals, countless laws of physics that govern the universe could not have just "happened".

[/ QUOTE ]
We already know how chairs are made: people craft them out of wood using various tools and stuff.

We also already know how plants are formed. They grow from seeds. Nobody crafts them using any tools or anything.

If we didn't already know these things -- if we truly came across a chair in a desert and we had never seen a chair before and had no clue as to how they were made -- then we would be foolish to conclude that it was crafted by a designer. Maybe it was, or maybe it was formed more like a plant: it somehow grew from a seed. Or maybe there's some other possibility.

So the analogy fails. You can't say "chairs are made by people, therefore plants are made by people." Plants are not made by people.

The fact is that there are several different ways things can end up looking "designed." One is for them to actually have been designed (like a chair). Another is for them to have biologically evolved (like a plant). And importantly, there is no foolproof way of looking at an object we've never seen before and knowing whether it was designed or evolved (or something else).

(There are certain traits we can look for, however, that will give hints. Forms that have biologically evolved are often "designed" rather stupidly in certain ways due to their peculiar evolutionary history. Thus we see whales with remnants of hind limbs, humans with remnants of tail bones, fish that live in pitch-black caves that have non-functioning eyes, etc. A designer would be unlikely to include such useless features, although we can't rule out the possibility that the designer was just really stupid. So as I said, there's no foolproof way for distinguishing between evolved entities and designed entities.)

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
So my close christian friend lends me a book, because I've always been bugging her and questioning christianity, and she told me it'd answer most of my questions.

So I start reading the book and the very first chapter talks about this.

Say you are walking down a field, and you see a wooden chair in middle of no where. Now you know someone must have made that chair, because chair's don't just "happen". You've never witnessed the builder of the chair working on the chair, but you could only assume that someone out there, made the chair and placed it there for whatever reason.

Now if something as simple as a wooden chair can't just "happen" the book argues that something as complicated as humans, cell structures, plants, animals, countless laws of physics that govern the universe could not have just "happened". Somebody must have created us. If you think a wooden chair could not exist with out a builder, consider how infinately more complex body structures we humans have.

And I think the reasoning is fairly solid. I do now think that it is silly to imagine things like mitosis, DNA, human eyes could have appeared by random chance.

The book also goes into absolute lack of evidence in macro-evolution (aka missing links) and how the scientists were still unable to create life out of chemical reactions as they proclaim.

But I do not want to get into the macro evolution/ biogenesis theory stuff, but just would like a discussion on use of logic in the chair anology.

thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now talk to a freind with some science background. ask him for some books on science. Read up some explanations of how what you see could have arisen from the laws of physics as we understand them. Then decide having seen both sides of the story. The reality of existance is far more intersting and beautiful than "I don't understand so it must be a God that that made it all". Read up some science stuff..it will really blow your mind:)

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]

Say you are walking down a field, and you see a wooden chair in middle of no where. Now you know someone must have made that chair, because chair's don't just "happen". You've never witnessed the builder of the chair working on the chair, but you could only assume that someone out there, made the chair and placed it there for whatever reason.


[/ QUOTE ]


Very unthinking. I would say that if you walked the tropical forests on a daily basis, you would find an enormous number of arrangements formed by fallen branches and trunks that look like chairs of all types.

In the evolutionary process there may be millions and millions of changes all in different directions and all random, only one of them may provide a better fit or a survival advantage.

Much more likely than (Un)intelligent Design fantasy (please lets not call it a scientific theory, it is nothing of the sort). Again, like all of those peddlers of beliefs, they will take examples that don't even serve their purposes. The eye is a case in point and an excellent example of bad design. It is far from optimal, has structural faults that are related to its evolutionary origin. Please do a search on the net. It is very basic scientific information. Just ignore the peddlers of ignorance (usually anything to do with theism).

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
So my close christian friend lends me a book, because I've always been bugging her and questioning christianity, and she told me it'd answer most of my questions.

So I start reading the book and the very first chapter talks about this.

Say you are walking down a field, and you see a wooden chair in middle of no where. Now you know someone must have made that chair, because chair's don't just "happen". You've never witnessed the builder of the chair working on the chair, but you could only assume that someone out there, made the chair and placed it there for whatever reason.

Now if something as simple as a wooden chair can't just "happen" the book argues that something as complicated as humans, cell structures, plants, animals, countless laws of physics that govern the universe could not have just "happened". Somebody must have created us. If you think a wooden chair could not exist with out a builder, consider how infinately more complex body structures we humans have.

And I think the reasoning is fairly solid. I do now think that it is silly to imagine things like mitosis, DNA, human eyes could have appeared by random chance.

The book also goes into absolute lack of evidence in macro-evolution (aka missing links) and how the scientists were still unable to create life out of chemical reactions as they proclaim.

But I do not want to get into the macro evolution/ biogenesis theory stuff, but just would like a discussion on use of logic in the chair anology.

thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddy - you really need to read <u>The Blind Watchmaker</u> by Richard Dawkins. He has done enough to refute this simplistic argument.

Also, why do you say a chair is more "simple" than the biochemical reactions of life. (For instance, unless you switch to an anaerobic metabolism (like when you run and your muscles don't get enough oxygen), your body's chemistry is the same as buring wood.) What the Christian author did was frame the issue in manner that seems convincing, but the way he framed the issue was incorrect.

A chair is more complex that biochemical reactions when you look at the issue in this manner.

Biochemical reactions, all of them without question, simply follow the laws of thermodynamics. In other words the molecules behave the way they are supposed to behave (i.e., reactions that increase the amount entropy in the Universe). The chair on the other hand, was created by matter being forced to something it would not do on its own. Trees had to be cut, shaped and sanded.

The aetheist version on the origins of life is simply that "life" is the result of a mixture on chemicals (namely aromatic-carbon rings with nitrogen) behaving in full accord with the laws of thermodynamics.

Now, are you thinking that some one had to create the laws of thermodynamics? That to me is a better argument that a stinking chair? But still wrong, IMO. If we take for a <u>given</u> that the Universe exists, then everything in it has to behave in a predictable and certain fashion (i.e., the laws of thermodynamics). If it didn't, then you couldn't get drive to work because it would be a crap shoot as to whether or not gasoline felt like cumbusting with oxygen on that particular day. So if we exist, then there has to be a set of underlying rules. The two are inseparable, so why does there have to be a god because we have both.

Incidentally, it seems to me that "miracles" are supposed instances where the laws of thermodynamics or physics were supposedly violated in the presence of humans. So if a miracle (or violation of the laws of physics or thermodynamics) is proof of god, then how can nature acting as it should also be proof of god.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

Morph,

Sorry to interrupt. I never saw the underline instant UBB code before you just used it. I have needed it on several occasions. Is it new to the list of codes here? If it has always been there, then I need new glasses.

RJT

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
Morph,

Sorry to interrupt. I never saw the underline instant UBB code before you just used it. I have needed it on several occasions. Is it new to the list of codes here? If it has always been there, then I need new glasses.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

It's in the Instant UBB code, at least on mine.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
So my close christian friend lends me a book, because I've always been bugging her and questioning christianity, and she told me it'd answer most of my questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is another book you should read in order to get a balanced amount of input from opposing views, so that you may be more objective, and less biased:

[b]The Blind Watchmaker[b]: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design

[/ QUOTE ]
The whole book is available online for free: LINK.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

OT- Back several years, one of my teachers put up the arguement "do you think our face was arranged this way by chance? that our eyes are where they are by chance? there has to be a creator..."
I raised my hand and said "Well wouldn't you be saying the same thing if we had one eye on our backs?"

Shut him up for a week or so.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design

[/ QUOTE ]
The whole book is available online for free: LINK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome! Thanks for the link. I'd buy the book, myself (if I didn't already own it)... I still like to have the paper. But, for the e-reading-inclined, this PDF is awesome! Kudos.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

Kip,

You do realize that morphball already recommended the book. But, glad you did too as maurile provided a link to it free.

Thanks all, been looking for some Dawkins to read.

RJT

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Morph,

Sorry to interrupt. I never saw the underline instant UBB code before you just used it. I have needed it on several occasions. Is it new to the list of codes here? If it has always been there, then I need new glasses.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

It's in the Instant UBB code, at least on mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I see it now. Never saw it before and I looked before. Thanks.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
Kip,

You do realize that morphball already recommended the book. But, glad you did too as maurile provided a link to it free.

Thanks all, been looking for some Dawkins to read.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
The Ancestor's Tale is a cracking read. Top marks for the selfish gene as well. Plus the often forgotten Blind Watchmaker.

chez

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
Kip,

You do realize that morphball already recommended the book. But, glad you did too as maurile provided a link to it free.

Thanks all, been looking for some Dawkins to read.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I saw that after I responded. But, now the OP has two links. One to buy the book, and one to read it for free! Hopefully he'll read it to get a more balanced view of Evolution.

I'm reading "The Selfish Gene" right now. And I also have "Unweaving the Rainbow" on my shelf to read.

Here's a quote from the back of the book:

[ QUOTE ]
Did Newton "unweave the rainbow" by reducing it to its prismatic colors, as Keats contended? Did he, in other words, diminish beauty? Far from it, says acclaimed scientist Richard Dawkins: Newton's unweaving is the key to much of modern astronomy and to the breathtaking poetry of modern cosmology. Mysteries don't lose their poetry because they are solved: the solution often is more beautiful than the puzzle, uncovering deeper mysteries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

cool thanks for the pdf. I'll read up on that

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

It's probably a mutation [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

Ok guys, I need a quick answer.

Let me preface this by telling you that I like Dawkins. He seems a charming chap. And I will read him when I have more time. (Doing Soren K presently.) But I read the preface to <u>The Watchmaker</u> and the first sentence was this:


[ QUOTE ]
This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I skimmed ahead and he talks of the absurdity (my word not his) of going with a Creator. Then what he says about the origin of life is SPG spontaneous generation probability and leaves it at that (from I found with my brief skimming the book) . Tell me he has more than that for the origin life. Otherwise why the quoted first sentence?


RJT

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
OT- Back several years, one of my teachers put up the arguement "do you think our face was arranged this way by chance? that our eyes are where they are by chance? there has to be a creator..."
I raised my hand and said "Well wouldn't you be saying the same thing if we had one eye on our backs?"

Shut him up for a week or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooooooh, that's a good one. I like it! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Ten points and a gold star

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

I think one substantial flaw in the design analogy is this. Part of the reason that you suspect the chair in the middle of the glade is designed is because it is an instance of an artifact that IS designed and manufactured by humans. So in this case, it's an excellent assumption to believe that it was designed and put there, because you have lots of previous evidence about chairs being manufactured. But you don't have any kind of evidence like that for mitochondria, Gila monsters or the eye. So assuming that they must have been designed isn't as safe an assumption.

EDIT: Now that I've actually read the rest of the thread, I see maurile made this point as well.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
So I skimmed ahead and he talks of the absurdity (my word not his) of going with a Creator.

[/ QUOTE ]
He doesn't write about the absurdity of "going with" a Creator. He refutes a particular argument for a Creator -- namely, the watchmaker argument. He refutes it because it's a fallacious argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Then what he says about the origin of life is SPG spontaneous generation probability and leaves it at that (from I found with my brief skimming the book).

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what part of the book you're referring to. Dawkins never wrote anything positive about "spontaneous generation." He has given a couple of plausible conjectures -- one in The Selfish Gene, and another in The Blind Watchmaker -- for how things may have gotten started. But he cautions that they are just conjectures. And spontaneous generation is not among them.

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me he has more than that for the origin life. Otherwise why the quoted first sentence?

[/ QUOTE ]
He's not referring to the origin of life (i.e., replicators) in the first quoted sentence. He's referring to the existence of complex organisms and biological features.

We don't know how the first replicators came into existence (though we can speculate about a few of the possibilities). But once those replicators did come into existence, their evolution into complex biological features such as the human eye is well understood. It is "a mystery no longer because it is solved."

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

maurile,

I should have just quoted him directly. I was going to but couldn’t find what I read (plus one can‘t cut and paste from Adobe - I couldn‘t anyway). I kind of misrepresented what he said. But my point is still the same.

Page 141:

[ QUOTE ]
To explain the origin of DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like ‘God was always there’, and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might just say ‘DNA was always there’, or ‘Life was always there’, and be done with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn’t refute The Blind Watchmaker at all. He simply dismisses it as not necessary. (page 147 and on). Then he goes on to say “We are here concerned with the kind of solution that must be found…”, (to figure out the origin of life).

This is why I think we will never understand each other (atheist and belivers). You guys seem to think he is saying something. I mean he is and he is interesting and the science must be fascinating. But, he doesn’t say anything of the origin of life. There is nothing in his methodology that leads one to a conclusion that God won’t be at the end of the tunnel. Perhaps not the God we all talk about. But, in simply dismissing the Watchmaker he says nothing. And in simply talking about how to find the solution he says nothing again.

I guess what I am really trying to say is that we believers and atheists (who read stuff like this) are really talking about the same thing. We just speak different languages is all.

RJT

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
He doesn’t refute The Blind Watchmaker at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course not. He wrote it. He does, however, refute the watchmaker argument for design. It's the point of his whole book, and he is strikingly successful.

[ QUOTE ]
He simply dismisses it as not necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]
He shows with convincing argument that it is not necessary. That's a lot different from "simply dismissing it."

[ QUOTE ]
But, he doesn’t say anything of the origin of life. There is nothing in his methodology that leads one to a conclusion that God won’t be at the end of the tunnel.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Why would he?

The Blind Watchmaker isn't an argument for atheism. It's a refutation of a specific argument for theism.

If you say it must be raining in Cleveland because the Packers just scored a touchdown, I will refute your argument by showing that just because the Packers scored a touchdown doesn't mean that it must be raining in Cleveland. In doing so, however, I would not be arguing that it's not raining in Cleveland. It may be, for all I know. But I've still refuted your reason for thinking that it is.

Similarly, Dawkins persuasively refutes the notion that just because a human eye looks designed, God must exist. Maybe He does, maybe He doesn't. Maybe it's raining in Cleveland. But the watchmaker argument is refuted.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

Maurile,

[ QUOTE ]
He shows with convincing argument that it is not necessary. That's a lot different from "simply dismissing it."

[/ QUOTE ]

But he does not refute it is my point You had said:

[ QUOTE ]
He refutes it because it's a fallacious argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant to type “the Watchmaker” (not include the word Blind) which I think is the analogy to a creator then. Right? Again, I read this briefly.

RJT

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
But, he doesn’t say anything of the origin of life. There is nothing in his methodology that leads one to a conclusion that God won’t be at the end of the tunnel.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Why would he?

The Blind Watchmaker isn't an argument for atheism. It's a refutation of a specific argument for theism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misread what I wrote. Without the double negatives, I’ll re-write. His methodology does not eliminate a god at the end of the tunnel. That a god is/or is not the source of life. Or do I need to continue reading? What I gathered was on page 164 and the probabilities of life is what he talks about.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
His methodology does not eliminate a god at the end of the tunnel.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right. He doesn't refute the idea that Bush's tax cuts were wise, either. That's not the point.

As I said in my last post, he refutes the watchmaker argument -- i.e., the idea that since the eye looks designed, therefore God must exist.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His methodology does not eliminate a god at the end of the tunnel.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right. He doesn't refute the idea that Bush's tax cuts were wise, either. That's not the point.

As I said in my last post, he refutes the watchmaker argument -- i.e., the idea that since the eye looks designed, therefore God must exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maurile,

Yeah, that‘s fine.

I really am concerned (now that we are on the same page with the other stuff) with his opening statement.

[ QUOTE ]
This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t see him fulfilling the promise his all.

RJT

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His methodology does not eliminate a god at the end of the tunnel.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right. He doesn't refute the idea that Bush's tax cuts were wise, either. That's not the point.

As I said in my last post, he refutes the watchmaker argument -- i.e., the idea that since the eye looks designed, therefore God must exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maurile,

Yeah, that‘s fine.

I really am concerned (now that we are on the same page with the other stuff) with his opening statement.

[ QUOTE ]
This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t see him fulfilling the promise his all.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
He does fulfill it. You're just reading it wrong. You seem to be reading it as if he's promising to prove that God doesn't exist. That's not what he's promising, and it's not what he does. What he does is show how evolution can ape conscious design by increasing complexity over succeeding generations. It can make stuff like mammalian eyes that appear to have been designed. In doing so, he refutes the idea that just because the eye looks designed, God must exist.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved.

[/ QUOTE ]



I don’t see him fulfilling the promise his all.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

He's referring to evolution and fulfills the promise by writing the rest of the book.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

Right, I get all that. I got that with Darwin and the Leakeys. He solves no mysteries is all I am saying. He tells a good detailed version of evolution is all and ways to solve things going back further in time up to the point of where our knowledge now begins.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved.

[/ QUOTE ]



I don’t see him fulfilling the promise his all.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

He's referring to evolution and fulfills the promise by writing the rest of the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes sense, Stat.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
He solves no mysteries is all I am saying.

[/ QUOTE ]
He solves the mystery William Paley used as the basis for his Watchmaker argument. (Actually, Dawkins doesn't solve it. Darwin and Wallace solved it. Dawkins describes the solution.)

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved.

[/ QUOTE ]



I don’t see him fulfilling the promise his all.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

He's referring to evolution and fulfills the promise by writing the rest of the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet, if he is writing to the believer of evolution; I don’t see his need (in the preface) to make his own case as an apologist for evolution. If he is writing also to the believer in a creator God (not necessarily one who buys into ID) he changes nothing. Those believers who can live in both worlds (creator God and evolution) have a greater understanding of evolution. Those who can’t, I am not sure that he says anything since he talks nothing of actual origin of life.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He solves no mysteries is all I am saying.

[/ QUOTE ]
He solves the mystery William Paley used as the basis for his Watchmaker argument. (Actually, Dawkins doesn't solve it. Darwin and Wallace solved it. Dawkins describes the solution.)

[/ QUOTE ]

So this text needs a context to understand his reason for writing it? His preface is misleading (to me) is basically what I am getting at.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

RJT, you should just read the book. I don't see how it's possible for you to be so misled by it, and to so misunderstand his point, if you read it. It's written very clearly.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved.

[/ QUOTE ]



I don’t see him fulfilling the promise his all.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

He's referring to evolution and fulfills the promise by writing the rest of the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet, if he is writing to the believer of evolution; I don’t see his need (in the preface) to make his own case as an apologist for evolution. If he is writing also to the believer in a creator God (not necessarily one who buys into ID) he changes nothing. Those believers who can live in both worlds (creator God and evolution) have a greater understanding of evolution. Those who can’t, I am not sure that he says anything since he talks nothing of actual origin of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is not putting the reader into any type of class. He doesn't care if the reader is an atheist, a theist, or a numerologist. He simply presents the case for how Darwin's Theory of Evolution can beautifully explain what was once unexplainable (except for an intelligent designer).

You're going wrong in thinking he has some hidden agenda to promote atheism. He does not.

Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
 

[ QUOTE ]
RJT, you should just read the book. I don't see how it's possible for you to be so misled by it, and to so misunderstand his point, if you read it. It's written very clearly.

[/ QUOTE ]


Maurile,

I am not mislead by the book, only the preface.

Someday, I might read the book. I really don’t have the time to read about evolution in detail. It is interesting, but not something I care to learn the details about. It does not conflict with my beliefs so I have no “problem” with it.

Let me put it this way. We are reading Soren K. in the book club here on the forum as you know. It is good to know that Soren is really basically talking to Hegel. But one does not need to know that to follow his book. (If one can follow it - lol.) I think without this knowledge that you and Stat posted that his preface is not clear. If you have time, re-read the preface from my point of view and see if I missed something/misread it or if I am correct.

RJT