Comments on: A “Fine-Tuned” Universe as Proof of a God?

By: Jordan Bell

Jordan Bell — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 21:46:07 +0000

Sorry, I kind of combined your posts…

http://augustberkshire.com/2010/03/02/boot-debate-review/comment-page-1/#comment-220

By: abadmin

abadmin — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:04:09 +0000

Actually, I think the quote by Douglas Adams leads to an interesting God dilemma.

Some religious people say that God is philosophically opposed to proving his existence with evidence, that we MUST believe on faith alone. (This is their explanation for why there is no evidence.) It would therefore follow that anything that God would do to PROVE his existence (such as “intelligent design”) would violate this premise.

The proper conclusion to reach is that either “intelligent design” is NOT a proof of God’s existence, or that God is NOT philosophically opposed to proving his existence with evidence.

This puts religious people in a dilemma. They certainly wouldn’t want to let go of anything that could be a proof of God’s existence. But this would mean that God is NOT philosophically opposed to revealing himself through evidence. This then begs the question: “Then why doesn’t God provide indisputable EVIDENCE of his existence?”

So which will you choose: No evidence or more evidence?

By: Jordan Bell

Jordan Bell — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:12:47 +0000

I apologize, let me clarify. This comment was directed primarily toward “S” on using a fictional creature such as a bable fish in any way to argue a position on a theistic deity.

I am not sure if the intro is a DNA quote or merely the poster’s intro to the quote. (See below)

“”Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.”"

Either way, I hardly think the The Hitchhiker’s Guide can/should be used for any theological arguments. Though that is just my humble opinion…

By: abadmin

abadmin — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 16:53:30 +0000

I don’t know what quotes you are referring to in this essay.

By: Jordan Bell

Jordan Bell — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 16:37:36 +0000

Again with these useless quotes. If you are going to quote someone, make it a quote with a good argument that can be clearly discussed.

It is not enough to have a good mind; the main thing is to use it well.
Rene Descartes

Do not merely quote, but use your own mind, theories, and arguments.

By: abadmin

abadmin — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:29:50 +0000

This sounds like something from “A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” by atheist Douglas Adams. Adams also said: “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”

By: S

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:10:35 +0000

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
     The argument goes something like this: “I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
     “But,” says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED”
     “Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-DNA