Tuesday, 6 January 2015
THE AUSTRALIAN TODAY RE METAXAS - Paul Monk's Salami tactics...
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 10:18 AM
Subject: Paul Monk's Salami tactics and inversion antagonism
Amazing letter that the Oz SHOULD publish but may not because of background factors!
▼ January (16)
Paul Monk's Salami tactics and inversion antagonism
Paul Monk [Why did the almighty create mosquitoes? 5/1] is shameless in the ‘argument via chimera. ’ This is poor inversion of / via tactical salami tactics. Thus he is avoiding answering his question that is posed in sadly admitting that the world is far too complex for evolutionary theory. Or any of the weak post - evolutionary sequels.
Indeed this is the eternal problem that Eric Metaxas posed in the article Monk does not even try to debunk or confront.
Preferring his inelegant inversion methodology. It is not smart. He has the gall to effectively ‘criticise’ God for creating ‘’the odds were overwhelmingly against life...’’ without daring to contemplate how his trite ‘evolved’ mind could even create ‘how now brown cow.’ Why, even the discredited million monkeys theorem of Richard Dawkins resulted in something: monkey excreta.
Moo to you, Paul Monk! And cow - dunk on your houses. Please explain why there are no flying cows......
Did you ever realize that this cow - derivative sound would also be inexplicable with your ? ignis fatuus? http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/ignis%20fatuus
Why not confront your figmented delusions – the fatuous fantasist bubble that you manifestly seek to avoid uncovering?
You see reader: arguments like Monk’s always contain massive distortions. Sad really. They have a difficult ‘narrative’ which they mess up because of classical left – wing over stretch.
13 alston Gr
East St Kilda 3183
03 9525 9299
But even if Metaxas were right about the odds being overwhelmingly against the existence of a “fine-tuned” cosmos and the existence of life elsewhere, we could still not infer the existence of God. As Steven Weinberg, a Nobel-prize winner in the field, put it at the turn of the century, the more plausible, if daunting, hypothesis is that we are part not of a “universe” but of a “multiverse”, in which universes come and go with infinite variations. We just happen to be in one in which things worked out this way.
Posted by Geoff Seidner at 3:12 pm