Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9094 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume: Total: 901,416 Year: 12,528/6,534 Month: 2,021/1,988 Week: 142/460 Day: 142/60 Hour: 8/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is A Materialist View Less Parsimonious?
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1 of 2 (788997)
08-09-2016 7:55 AM


Obviously I can appreciate that, "supernature" is assumed, and has to be taken by faith, as it is implied by the natural creation. I admit that by faith we believe in God.
However the materialistic creation story of atheism, obviously doesn't need to assume a supernatural realm which might make it more parsimonious in that regard which I would concede. However, how many more assumptions/entities/variables, must be assumed in order to accept materialism?
For example, if we believe that the specified complexity, contingency planning, correct materials, in organisms, and so forth, are designed by a designer as is usually the case, into an induction of hundreds of millions of examples and no examples of random design without a designer, then obviously we don't need to assume that millions of transitional species once existed as part of our argument.
What am I saying? I am saying for one part of the materialistic explanation (life's diversity), we would have to invoke millions of transitionals but if an animal kind was created then as creationists we don't have to assume millions of ancestors, so there are far more assumptions to that one part of the story.
But what about the rest of the story? Obviously within the universe there are separate explanations for different things, but nevertheless this is all part of the same story that the universe created itself and then created everything in itself.
So then there are also many more assumptions for abiogenesis, such as a fictional primordial form of life, a common ancestor to all life, and abiogenesis itself must be assumed it seems, with a fictional primordial reduced atmosphere. But with creation, obviously all life is created by design, so again, less assumptions and we can just accept the real fact of an earth-planet without having to argue it used to not be like earth.
Then we have to consider the planets and stars and galaxies. If creation is true, God made the galaxies according to their factual nature, which is a completed state, and the factual nature of the planets is a completed state, but a materialistic explanation means we have to believe that once the earth was a primordial blob, and we have to believe accretion, that the planets made themselves and the stars and galaxies made themselves even though they are all now completed, according to the facts, like animals are completed, without transitionals, according to the facts.
So the picture I am painting is that the materialistic explanation seems to depend on two things;
1. Many, many more assumptions and separate explanations for different things within the universe.
2. The belief that nature and the reality of the universe has drastically changed, but just happens to never show any point of change unless you again make yet another assumption that the present state is also a state of change. (begging-the-question)
It seems that with a creation, all you have to do is go with the true facts of intelligibility and design in the universe, and accept the creation for what it clearly is. We don't need to pretend that a tornado in a junkyard can assemble a 747 jet, nor do we need to assume hundreds of thousands of transitional creatures, etc...we can explain the facts of design, by the simple and obvious truth that design is caused by a designer, which fits will all of the evidence. Each separate thing in the universe, being neatly explained by God's omniscient designer capabilities. This would certainly fit logically, given the field of biomimetics has us stealing those designs on a constant basis, because they are superior in their cleverness, than anything we can create.
An example of that is the aggregate eyeball, the design MATCHES the physics, showing that a neat explanation is that the designer of the eyeball also designed physics. The designer needed to know and understand Abbe's sine's law, the laws of bifringement in crystals, etc... I am rusty on that but another example is the archer fish, the designer has to know that a jet of water leaving water would create a parabolic trajectory. Again God has to know His own laws of physics, and has to give the fish the software to compensate for the change of the angle, it also has to have the ability of the use of kinematic gathering, so the correct force of water hits it's prey, again in accordance with the laws of physics. It makes sense therefore, that the designer both knew and created both the physics, as well as the fish, given He made it to obey those physics, and the fish is riddled with specified complexity, etc..neatly explaining both the fish and the phishics, without depending on a separate explanation for each like with materialism.
CONCLUSION: While we accept faith in God is not provable, the explanation that the universe is created by an intelligent agent, as an argument, seems much more parsimonious at the very least. I fail to see why anyone would pretend otherwise unless they simply didn't want to acknowledge that fact because they know it heavily favours theism.

AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 2 (789023)
08-09-2016 2:39 PM


Thread Copied to Intelligent Design Forum
Thread copied to the Is A Materialist View Less Parsimonious? thread in the Intelligent Design forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022