The arguement that recently convinced me of god's existence

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I will do a thread some day on the objections to the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see this.
There are actual debates on this that have nothing to do with the travesty of intelligent design and Behe's utter crap.
If everyone could get past the God question it might start an actual scienctific debate in this forum rather than what we normally have.

I agree with your preference of thinking of other biological means to explain things. I don't interpret Behe in the way you have described though.
On the Newtonian Physics - it does have limitations. There was a period of time where people realized it had problems explaining certain things. They didnt just say anything that challenges any part of accepted Newtonian physics is a bunch of crap (if they did they were wrong). As a result of examining some of the limitations of Newtonian physics in explaining things, some breakthroughs were made (Relativity). And when we got done we are not throwing out Newton, nor do we have to throw out Darwin.
I'm not quite sure whether we will end up with small tweeks to our theories of evolution or big adjustments. But big adjustments are not outside the realm of my thinking.

A good response to Behe comes from a Catholic: Kenneth Miller.

Here's a 20-minute mini-lecture from Miller responding to Behe's irreducible compexity argument:
http://www.meta-library.net/perspevo/preskm-frame.html

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your preference of thinking of other biological means to explain things. I don't interpret Behe in the way you have described though.
On the Newtonian Physics - it does have limitations. There was a period of time where people realized it had problems explaining certain things. They didnt just say anything that challenges any part of accepted Newtonian physics is a bunch of crap (if they did they were wrong). As a result of examining some of the limitations of Newtonian physics in explaining things, some breakthroughs were made (Relativity). And when we got done we are not throwing out Newton, nor do we have to throw out Darwin.
I'm not quite sure whether we will end up with small tweeks to our theories of evolution or big adjustments. But big adjustments are not outside the realm of my thinking.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed the point of my analogy. Go back and re-read my post.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not 100% certain. And, by "Universe", I'm talking about the whole thing. Not just the part we've observed. We are talking about NotReady, here... and his point was that scientific knowleged relies on faith. Again, science doesn't provide certainty. It uses induction. But, that's not "faith". I have no idea what your argument is here.


[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding.

You think I'm talking about knowledge gained through scientific means. I'm not. I'm talking about whether or not the universe is ordered, and how certain we are of it. We know it's ordered. If that knowledge is based on induction, we aren't certain, and therefore we aren't certain that science is completely valid, since it's based on the idea of an ordered universe. However, if that knowledge (universe is ordered) is axiomatic, then we *are* certain, and therefore we *are* certain that scientific methods are valid, even if their conclusions aren't 100% true.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately it's a false analogy


[/ QUOTE ]

No it isn't.

[ QUOTE ]

First it uses nature as the example of chaos


[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't.

[ QUOTE ]

then claims it's perfectly ordered.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because of God's plan.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not 100% certain. And, by "Universe", I'm talking about the whole thing. Not just the part we've observed. We are talking about NotReady, here... and his point was that scientific knowleged relies on faith. Again, science doesn't provide certainty. It uses induction. But, that's not "faith". I have no idea what your argument is here.


[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding.

You think I'm talking about knowledge gained through scientific means. I'm not. I'm talking about whether or not the universe is ordered, and how certain we are of it. We know it's ordered. If that knowledge is based on induction, we aren't certain, and therefore we aren't certain that science is completely valid, since it's based on the idea of an ordered universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. Validity is not the same as certainty.

[ QUOTE ]
However, if that knowledge (universe is ordered) is axiomatic, then we *are* certain, and therefore we *are* certain that scientific methods are valid, even if their conclusions aren't 100% true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is "we"? And who made the axiom? And why does this matter? And... nevermind.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Occam's Razor: "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."


[/ QUOTE ]

Though I don't believe the Razor is any kind of absolute rule, if it was, it would prove the absolute certainty of God's existence, because what simpler explanation is possible than that one entity (God) explains everything?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If you have the time and incentive, please elaborate on this


[/ QUOTE ]

I simply mean that it's impossible to know much, if anything, with certainty, through either our senses or logical reasoning, yet we must act all the time on incomplete evidence. Partly this is due to our finitude. A large reason is because we cut off the source of knowledge when we rebelled against God. But it goes beyond actions of daily life. Everyone has a fundamental opinion about all of reality, a basic worldview. It may not be well articulated, but the seeds are there in everyone, and one's life is spent filling in the details. For the atheist, the most fundamental presupposition is that he (or mankind in general, or certain wise men) has the right to make the final judgment about what's true or false. And this is a matter of faith, a judgment concerning universal truth that not only can't be proved, but has no supporting evidence.