Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why is it that every time genetic "information" is brought up to argue in favor of design...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="variant" data-source="post: 71615689" data-attributes="member: 114463"><p>The simple problem here is that a "perfectly intelligent and morally perfect designer" is as far away from our experience as anything gets.</p><p></p><p>Whereas having some experience born trust in our ability to process the world at a basic level is something we live our entire lives steeped in.</p><p></p><p>You are supposing that we need that first supposition to get to the second idea, and you can't even fathom the idea of the first supposition without the second and a few eons of serious thought.</p><p></p><p>It doesn't just magically fix itself. The endpoint of your philosophy can not be necessary to take the first step.</p><p></p><p>Your truth can never be more basic, or more self evident than the experience which derived it, which it in turn tries to justify.</p><p></p><p>No matter how much yarn you wish to spin up in this logical knot of yours, it doesn't become "self evident", otherwise it would be as "self evident" to the first people that could think.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="variant, post: 71615689, member: 114463"] The simple problem here is that a "perfectly intelligent and morally perfect designer" is as far away from our experience as anything gets. Whereas having some experience born trust in our ability to process the world at a basic level is something we live our entire lives steeped in. You are supposing that we need that first supposition to get to the second idea, and you can't even fathom the idea of the first supposition without the second and a few eons of serious thought. It doesn't just magically fix itself. The endpoint of your philosophy can not be necessary to take the first step. Your truth can never be more basic, or more self evident than the experience which derived it, which it in turn tries to justify. No matter how much yarn you wish to spin up in this logical knot of yours, it doesn't become "self evident", otherwise it would be as "self evident" to the first people that could think. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why is it that every time genetic "information" is brought up to argue in favor of design...
Top
Bottom