The arguement that recently convinced me of god's existence - Page 4

maurile · #31 11-22-2005, 12:37 AM

[ 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.

Lestat · #32 11-22-2005, 12:42 AM

[ 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.

RJT · #33 11-22-2005, 12:47 AM

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.

RJT · #34 11-22-2005, 12:48 AM

[ 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.

maurile · #35 11-22-2005, 12:56 AM

[ 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.)

RJT · #36 11-22-2005, 01:02 AM

[ 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.

RJT · #37 11-22-2005, 01:04 AM

[ 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.

maurile · #38 11-22-2005, 01:14 AM

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.

Lestat · #39 11-22-2005, 01:19 AM

[ 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.

RJT · #40 11-22-2005, 01:22 AM

[ 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