Re: Re: An Analysis of The God Delusion - Part Three

[neuronstorm]

"if there is a designer.. which he acknowledges the evidence seems to point to"

- that is misrepresentation of his position.

Go back and make another attempt to understand the mount improbable argument rather than assuming it means what you want it to mean.

Mount improbable is climbed by taking small steps up the shallower gradient - not by jumping up a cliff. The improbability of god is that there is only a cliff, but if not, and god came by the shallow slope of evolution - why call it god?

[grahburns777]

The gravitational constant, if it were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after theBig Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur. When you look at that evidence, it is very difficult to adopt the view that this was just chance. But if you are willing to consider the possibility of a designer, this becomes a rather plausible explanation for what is otherwise an exceedingly improbable event--namely, our existence.

[grahburns777]

Quote from DR Francis Collins (head of the human Genome project). I could not fit the citation in the original quote : p I was not referring to evolution. But since you bought it up, the tendancy towards entropy (chaos and breaking down of matter) is opposed by living organisms right down to RNA. Are you proposing that the first RNA life was just mechanical chemistry without the ability to reproduce intentionally??

[grahburns777]

ie: life systems build order around themselves in the midst of inanimate matter. It is not implausible to invoke intent and teleonomy of something greater than us all. (unless ofcourse you where blinkers and ear muffs to that possible perspective) "why call it god?" .... call it what you want. Its intent and the result is us talking here discussing our own origins. Hi.