From: g87
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!
GS
GS
▼
January (16)
- METAXAS - Is science showing there really is a God...
- MONK: Jan 6 2015 Why did the almighty create mosqu...
######################################################################
##########################################################################
From: g87
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 9:59 AM
To: the australian
Subject: Paul Monk's Salami tactics and inversion
antagonism
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.
Geoff Seidner
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.
Metaxas makes no mention of the multiverse hypothesis and
one suspects it is because he is so eager to embrace the old theological answer
to the conundrum of existence. But even if it did make sense to infer the
existence of a designer of the cosmos and a creator of life we would be left
with more questions than we started with. For
example, if God had wanted to create a universe with intelligent life in it, why
would he have created one in which the odds were overwhelmingly against life and
immense stretches of space consisted of superfluous and sterile stars and dark
matter?
Why would
he have made life struggle through billions of years of biological evolution and
had intelligence emerge through the brain of a primate with many flaws, instead
of — like his Biblical avatar Yahweh — just plonking a more ideal form of
intelligent life into an ideally formed biosphere? Why would he, as David Hume
famously asked two centuries ago, have created mosquitoes — or infectious
microbes or ferocious predatory beasts?
No comments:
Post a Comment