God, fact or fiction -The Sequel. ( Archived) (777)

.
Nah,
but she is a good listner though.

I care, very much.


From "To Beat the Devil" by Kris Kristofferson

"If you waste your time a-talking to the people who don't listen
To the things that you are saying who do you think's going to hear?
And if you should die explaining how the things that they complain about
Are things they could be changing, who d'you think's goin' to care?

There were other lonely singers in a world turned deaf and blind who
Were crucified for what they tried to show,
And their voices have been scattered by the swirling winds of time,
'cause the truth remains that no-one wants to know!

And you still can hear me singing to the people who don't listen
To the things that i am saying, praying someone's going to hear;
And i guess i'll die explaining how the things that they complain about
Are things they could be changing, hoping someone's goin' to care."

Merry Christmas Trish

Hello Charlos, I read over this post previously and wanted to reply to it but was busy following up a different train of thought (a woman) - but now have come back to it.

I do not accept the existence of ‘imperfection’, or that there is from a subjective view-point ‘much left to be desired’ - given the incomprehensible design or rather ‘objective’ of evolution itself, and indeed the environmental adaptability of biological beings and the positive/negative transmutations brought about thereby - as sufficient grounds to refute an ‘intelligent designer’ or a creator/God . . .
Anymore than I accept the existence of suffering and human misery as sufficient grounds amounting to a plausible refutation of ‘God’ [common among Atheist nurses as grounds for their Atheism]. Added to a totality of grounds given as a disproof, I will therefore immediately strike it as a subjective and not objective consideration.
To do so is to claim that if there was no suffering, indeed no imperfection, then there WOULD be sufficient grounds for an intelligent designer. And, indeed, turkeys would fly around ready-roasted.
Sounds human, all too human.
A bit subjective for ‘scientism’ which should be purely objective, surely?
The hand is perfectly evolved to do the tasks it has done and does or is at any rate seemingly ‘designed’ to do. If the human hand was able to move its fingers independently of the accompanying others it would in fact be far less efficient than it is NOW and it seems to me to work in accordance with what it is designed (or WILLED) to do and even BEYOND that to a remarkable degree.
If the fingers were free to move individually, even in a relaxed state we would walk around with our fingers splayed like star-fishes and would in fact have less efficient hands for holding – which is what a hand is used for. Holding. Also, each hand is controlled by the opposing brain hemisphere including the fingers on each hand. They have flexor and extensor muscles and are connected to both the underside and topside of the forearm (a quick squeeze of the wrist will close the hand very suddenly), therefore the relaxed hand is in a constant/fixed state of readiness to clasp or grab hold for clear survival reasons. To restrain a child ASAP from running into the road, in example, or to stop oneself from falling by grabbing a nearby object.
That this is a sufficient refutation of God or intelligent design is . . . hmmm . . . debatable . . . as much as I’d like to see one.

This tiresome (yawn) idea that ‘if there was an intelligent designer’ he/she/it was not a very good designer’ is about as sufficient an aid to a proposed disproof of God (as given or added or subtracted to a sufficient totality of grounds given for OR against God) as a totally subjective naysay in itself.

As for science and scientism being the authority over all other systems of consideration and further explanation or improvement of our human understanding of the mystery and riddle of existence:

‘The intuitive mind is a gift, and the rational mind its faithful servant. The problem is . . . we have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift.’ Albert Einstein (himself an avid reader of philosophy - – notably Spinoza and Schopenhauer whom he read from his youth up).

Hmmm . . . ‘just evolution producing random mutations’ but with an intelligible design brought about BY that evolution . . . ?

A lizard licking its eyeballs is one thing, have you ever seen the genus of frog that freezes over stiff during hibernation and thaws out afterwards from a completely solid, frozen state and then an electrical impulse restarts its heart? Not bad for random mutation, but what intelligent part did evolution itself play in this? Or none?

Is evolution where the intelligence or ‘a semblance of intelligence’ lies in these ‘random mutations’?

Indeed as I have alluded to before in domesticated ducks wings become lighter and feet heavier, and many wild dog’s ears will droop after several generations of domestication . . .

When I look at the existence or non-existence of God, I always look at the existence of evolution itself as an objective consideration, and as what could be called in a very crude way indeed: the chisel and hammer of ‘God’.
Hah!
When one can prove to me that there is no intelligent design or intelligible objective to ‘evolution’ itself, then maybe we can look deeper at a more ground-breaking and better-founded refutation of the existence of God or an intelligent designer than this common drivel.

Hmmm, can't say as there has ever been a problem there. Maybe you just have a bad connection.

Going out to Stone henge to celebrate?

Actually, I wasn't going for a sing a long, just practicing my cut and paste technique to keep up with you.

"God Bless us, every one."