tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19835303.post116171104164801532..comments2023-08-18T07:04:22.633-07:00Comments on Areté: A challenge to creationistsLifewishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07133804300464048756noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19835303.post-1163941634778914732006-11-19T05:07:00.000-08:002006-11-19T05:07:00.000-08:00Hi John, good to have you posting.I'm undoubtedly ...Hi John, good to have you posting.<BR/><BR/>I'm undoubtedly in agreement with at least some of what you say, and will definitely spend some time reading your site. However, my overall response is the same as my response to creationists. You have a model of the physical universe - consensual reality. If that model is objectively real, what predictions does it make? If it doesn't make predictions then does that mean it's "only" real for individuals who find it personally helpful?<BR/><BR/>Science is fundamentally pragmatic, and I'd tend to agree with that stance. If you have an alternative to the current mainstream approach, you'll need to be able to tell us: where's the beef? What are you achieving with your new approach that we couldn't already achieve with ours? Or is it merely more philosophically satisfying for you?<BR/><BR/>If that's the case then there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that - it's on a par with me setting my watch ten minutes fast to improve my punctuality - but I feel this is something that should be acknowledged.<BR/><BR/><I>And to ask the question "does god exist?" and to try to prove his/hers<BR/>existence is in effect to affirm the negative proposition--god does not exist.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this - are you bothered by the premise that "no" should be the default answer to the question? If so, I'd ask: why should our default response to the question "does God exist" be any different from our default response to the question "do unicorns exist"?Lifewishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07133804300464048756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19835303.post-1163638381451690372006-11-15T16:53:00.000-08:002006-11-15T16:53:00.000-08:00The trouble with "creationists" is that they have ...The trouble with "creationists" is that they have already assumed the essentially reductionist asana of separation from the all pervasive Love-Bliss-Radiance of Real God. <BR/><BR/>And to ask the question "does god exist?" and to try to prove his/hers<BR/>existence is in effect to affirm the negative proposition--god does not exist.<BR/>Also to try to "prove" that the "creaor" god exists by appeals to processes in biology is absurd because all biological forms (including of course humans) disintegrate and die. Where is the "hopefulness" in that immutable fact? It is also a rather childish search for the protective father "god".<BR/><BR/>These 3 related essays provide an Illuminated understanding of the science vs exoteric religion shouting match.<BR/>1. www.dabase.net/creamyth.htm<BR/>2. www.dabase.net/noface.htm<BR/>3. www.dabase.net/rgcbpobk.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com