I might be a Deist (page 4)

Mac

Duh,

I might be a D'ist cuz I like to use da ledder "D" in place of some of dem udder ledders! Den again, maybe not.

The argument from design is fundamentally flawed. What they really mean is "We see the complexity found throughout the known universe and assume or prove that complexity means design, and from this infer a belief in a Designer or God." Such an argument rests on the strength of the correlation between complexity and design.

I don't know if it is flawed....if it is possibly correct. And it is POSSIBLY correct.....true?

Because it is the only KNOWN explanation many people can come up with...is true.

Emotions, love, relationships etc. seem to point me the direction of a God who cares. These are feelings and not material.

Why would a loving God let his creation suffer? Thats the tough one for me and I simply do not understand it?

I was looking at a chart yesterday of a digestive system from the doctor and could not help believe in a designer. It was like a car with all it's parts in order....one part complmenting the other. could time and circumstances produce this kind of complexity?

Edited by - Gumby on 28 June 2002 20:24:32

Farkel

gumby,

: I was looking at a chart yesterday of a digestive system from the doctor and could not help believe in a designer.

I thought the same thing as I was scanning through my buddy's copy of Playboy magazine yesterday.

Farkel

gumby

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmen!!!!!!!!! Farkmeister

garybuss

Deism was a room I passed through on my way to becoming comfortable with objective reality. From Witnessism to reality was a long trip with lots of stops along the way.

If I would have challenged theism first instead of last, it would have saved me lots of time, and reading.

gb

DINKY

Is it just me or does anyone else see the strangeness of this thread?

Why do we feel the need to DEFINE and LABEL our religious beliefs?

Can't we feel secure in our spirituality without a NAME for what we believe?

Dinky

gravedancer

When you are having sex with more than one God it is called "bi-lingual."

Farkel....you "cunning-linguist"...you!!!

JanH

gumby,

I don't know if it is flawed....if it is possibly correct. And it is POSSIBLY correct.....true?

A flawed argument is flawed, period. You can make a flawed argument for something that is still true, but the argument itself remains flawed. So the "design" argument for a creator is flawed. It is irrelevant whether a creator exists or not.That particular argument falls.

Considering that the all known "arguments" supporting a creator are deeply flawed, it is totally irrational to believe in such a being.

You added the "argument from personal incredulity" to the list. Guess what? It's flawed too!

.- Jan

Edited by - JanH on 29 June 2002 0:37:29

gumby

Jan.

I see your point. It could be classified as circular reasoning also;eg.'since everything is started by something...someone had to put something there to start with.....therefore this proves a creator'.

Dinky:

"Is it just me or does anyone else see the strangeness of this thread?

Why do we feel the need to DEFINE and LABEL our religious beliefs?

Can't we feel secure in our spirituality without a NAME for what we believe"?

Because thats how humans communicate....with descriptive words. Its part of language.Why do you need a title for the work you do? So when people ask....you can give them your title....and they know by your title what you do for work. Why dinky....do you need a title for the work you do?

Im not being a smart ass here.....I just don't understand your point I guess.

I might be a Deist

Share this