The arguement that recently convinced me of god's existence

[atrifix]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you actually interpret this literally, it would be perhaps the greatest book ever written. Presumably he (or whoever wrote the preface) is using some hyperbole and a bit of literary fluff.

[ QUOTE ]
That's pretty special- you can debunk a man's life work in one paragraph.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, Behe did it himself in one sentence, unless he was misquoted or quoted out of context.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why existence isn't possible in chaos. It would certainly be different from what we're used to, but there's nothing inherently contradictory about chaos. Why not chaos?


[/ QUOTE ]

Life requires very specific conditions be continually met in order for it to continue. That's why life cannot exist in chaos.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's pretty special- you can debunk a man's life work in one paragraph.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, Behe did it himself in one sentence, unless he was misquoted or quoted out of context.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Dover trial on Intelligent Design, in which Behe testified as an expert witness for the defendant school board, is a rich source of material on the emptiness of Behe's views. He was ripped to shreds on cross-examination.

Here's part of the cross examination of Behe.

Ed Brayton's comments on Behe's testimony:

ID Books and Peer Review
Analysis of Behe's Testimony, Part 1: Purpose and Function
Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
Analysis of Behe's Testimony, Part 4: The Sterility of ID
Two of Behe's Reviewers Speak Out
More on Behe's Testimony

I was feeling bad about my quick jump to conclusions regarding Behe and was about to post a milder version of my comment. I read the entire 136 pages cross-examination. That guy is a joke after all. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I am sorry I had never heard of the dude. I don't tend to go to populist or vulgarisation works for imformation. But I won't forget it now. This is one guy to definitely on my ignore list when it comes to science or logic. LOL

[Jeff V]

Care to share an example?

Thanks for the post on Behe's comments in this trial. Behe was not ripped to shreds. He made some excellent points. Among them are:
He encourages students to think critically rather than accept a theory as a fact. Bravo! Exactly the problem with many classes on evolution (and I like the theory of evolution).
His view that statements about "intelligent design" by scientific organizations are political statements is right on the money in my opinion.
The whole discussion of the analogy of intelligent design to archeology ..then SETI...culminating in some poorly worded questions by the cross examiner about cars in his garage was good dialogue from Behe. He is right in his arguments here.
I have a very good friend who does expert witnessing in science (not on this subject). A lawyer has some restrictions but can ask questions that have no basis in fact, they can distort things and twist things. The witness however is under close scrutiny. To see the witness do very well late in the testemony is a sign that he can hold up under fire well. (Sorry I guess I always tend to root for the person thats against the lawyer - I'm like that with whoever is playing the Yankees in baseball too)
I see a lot of comments in this thread tending to dismiss any notion of intelligent design as only an idiot would think such thoughts. Let me just say I respect everyone out there. I usually don't think in terms of trying to make someone else look stupid.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I see a lot of comments in this thread tending to dismiss any notion of intelligent design as only an idiot would think such thoughts. Let me just say I respect everyone out there. I usually don't think in terms of trying to make someone else look stupid.


[/ QUOTE ]
Its not so much thinking they are silly as thinking they are not being very honest. It could be the case that there is a designer but no-one who has has made even the most cursory study of evolution could honestly argue that complexity is evidence of a designer.

chez

[jthegreat]

Chips, I guess you didn't re-read my post.

Statements about ID by scientific organizations are generally *not* political, because most of them state some form of "ID is not science.", which is true. It's not and it can't be.

ID is equivalent to saying that since Newtonian physics can't completely explain motion, ghosts must move things around.

Ah OK I am not stupid just dishonest. I agree with evolution as a general principle but think the theory needs work. I also believe that there are some good arguments that show that complex things may show evidence of design. It is good that they did not give me a polygraph test before I got my PhD in Electrical Engineering/Physics. Maybe I was brainwashed as a kid....
This forum seems anomolous to me. I sympathize a lot with atheism as a philosophy. It might well be right in my view. I've met very very very confident atheists before, just wasnt thinking I'd find so many in a poker forum. There's nothing wrong with being confident you are right though - that's fine. But when you get to the point of thinking anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or dishonest that's an indication that groupthink has taken over for some reason. The reason for that in this particular forum is now what interests me more I think.
Well in any case - best of luck to everyone out there - have a good Thanksgiving all. I dont want to aggrivate anyone really cause I'll listen to anyone's comments on poker. I used to post only in there under a different name a while back but forgot my password.
I suppose I should say that discussing a topic on a forum does show some interest in building one's knowledge so for that kudos to all.