Mutations & structural modifications ...

Like I said before, I just wanted to show that my viewpoint was as justified as saying "God doesn't exist." This arguement has the best way of showing this assumption that I've found to date.Besides, I sound smart when I use big words.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

quote:

---

While you might object to premise #5, you can’t deny that the possibility of God’s existence is a faith claim. Therefore, it is just as every much a faith claim to say there is no God as it is to say there is a God. It follows that it is just as rational to talk about the origins of life in terms of God, as it is apart from God.

---

The problem I see is this - all this proves is that a god who never acts on the material world could exist.I don't have a problem with that. The minute that somebody starts believing in a god that can take action, has a moral code, and has other properties that would have ramifications in this world, that's the minute that their god can be put under the microscope - that's when their god becomes a falsifiable entity.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-01-2003]

Ontological arguments are v. interesting and all, but they do not really belong in this thread.The topic was last see around post 10 - I think it is currently feeling a bit abandoned. Would one of you like to double back and pick it up?

Well the problem is that you didn't show that it was as justified.All you did was choose one of two assumptions. Without showing any justification for that choice. Dressing it up in the trappings of the Ontological argument makes that less obvious but that is still what you are doing in the end.For instance I could argue that God is an ordered complex entity and therefore a priori unlikely which means I would be more justified in choosing the alternative that God did not exist.

I think your missing my point. Yes I did choose between two EQUALLY JUSTIFIED assumptions. Thats my point. If you want to try to prove that your assumption is more valid than mine, then be my guest. Its my opinion that it can't be done with scientific evidence.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

I leave it to Adminnemooseus, but the obvious refusal to get back on topic suggests this thread needs to be closed.If you want to discuss ontological arguments, open a thread on the Faith and Belief forum. "Being with existence necessarily predicated" knows there is plenty to discuss.

Sounds like a good idea - Once something goes badly off-topic, it seems unlikely to return back to the topic.Perhaps someone would like to start "Mutations & structural modifications ..., Try Two".Adminnemooseus