Reply to Why don't you believe in God?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Why don't you believe in God?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote]

Actually, I have been accused of wasting precious time, time that could be spent in a bubble bath instead, and I share the same time limitations as other material beings.  So rather than wait for the series of objections that is sure to come, allow me to point any open-minded DCUMers to a summary of the Infidels blog debate:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/.

This summary contains all of the objections and responses of the past several years.  Of course, the first objection is that DNA is not a code.

I read the thread during a time of doubt.  No one has ever believed because of an argument alone, so nonbelievers need not be afraid that faith will sneak up on them.  But intellectual honesty is something believers and unbelievers can both benefit from.  Enjoy![/quote]

[/quote]
[quote][b]Given that the poster you link to never bothers to link to the actual conversation it can be assumed he has no interest in intellectual honesty.[/b]  I did come across this complete and total evisceration of his argument, though:

http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2008/08/atheists-riddle-oh-no-im-so-scared.html

OP, I'm still waiting for you to answer my two riddles, which have more support than your fallacious DNA guy.[/quote][/quote]

I just noticed this statement, which is patently false.  He provides a link to the original discussion in the same place he offers his summary:

There were six major counter-arguments to information as proof of intelligent design.  You can follow these links for a thorough summary of the discussion threads:
1. The objection that DNA is not a code (it is, by universal definition)
2. The objection that information is not real (it is, because it produces real effects)
3. The objection that information has no objective meaning (it does, because a message produces results that are just as objective and specific as the message itself)
4. The objection that random processes can create information (they can’t)
5. The objection that codes do occur naturally (they don’t)
6. The objection that the nature of the Designer cannot be determined (in very broad terms, it can)
 
(Note: for brevity and because of copyright concerns I have edited and / or paraphrased most of the questions, being careful not to change the intent of the message.  If you wish to read the full discussion you can do so here.  Lest anyone accuse me of re-writing history here on my website, I strongly encourage you to go see the forum for yourself!)

Again, this is just an intriguing discussion I came across.  My faith does not rest on it, and my reason is not quite up to understanding all of it.  But to have a PP misrepresent Marshall's presentation and accuse him of intellectual dishonesty in the process--not cool.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics