quote:
I dont think he did do a poor job, personally I think the even lets say, the human brain, is amazing. Thats one good thing. Now think of other good things. (you seem to prefer complaints)
So you think our brain is amazing, but you have no answer to the statement that our skull design constantly endangers it?
quote:
'Yep, I love those photos from space too. What does that have to do with the above?'
'I think they are wonderfully brilliant, too.'
You agree these things are brilliant but give no pointer towards God, yet you mention the bad things and point to God. No offense, but I think I can see where the problem lies.
Watch the
ad hominem there, buddy.
Personal attacks aside, you're oversimplifying to a painful degree. Here are the two arguments you're comparing:
1. The beautiful things we can see in the world do not necessarily imply the existence of a particular divine creator.
2. The sub-optimal designs in the world give us reason to doubt the existence of a perfect creator.
These statements are completely consistent with one another. Rewriting both of them and managing to squeeze in the phrases "pointer to" and "point to" doesn't make their substance different. It only produces a semantic similarity that allows you to claim there is a conflict in reasoning - while it is, in fact, your sentence structure that is in conflict.
Enjoy the false dichotomy while it lasts
[This message has been edited by zephyr, 09-06-2003]