GDR writes:
There always has to be a why.
I charge you with the task of providing a logically constructed argument for why there must be a why, and you simply reiterate the same assertion? Would you care to try again? This time I would suggest you move beyond Premise A.
GDR writes:
It is my contention that the latter makes more sense of this world than the former.
Your argument from personal incredulity is meaningless. To much of the world's population 3,000 years ago, a flat earth model made more sense.
GDR writes:
Show me the proof.
I want to see the proof...
how does that prove...
...you can't prove it...
The very fact that you are using the words "prove" and "proof" displays your fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. The scientific method is not utilized to proof anything, as it has no means to accomplish such a thing.
When utilizing the scientific method, you are establishing the best explanation for natural phenomena you can, while utilizing all the relevant facts in an unbiased manner. For instance, Newtonian Gravity was later improved upon by Einstein, through his more accurate description of "Gravitation". Does this mean that Gravity somehow changed? No. More the amount of data we had increased, and we needed to update the explanation to suit the facts.
In Chemistry, we see fundamental parts (atoms or even molecules) self assemble through natural laws. For instance the joining of 2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen into water. It is not hard to deduce that our DNA --which is made of components no different than those found in nature-- occurred through a natural chemical reaction that occurred when the correct mixture of elements was present.
GDR writes:
I can go through the same old points about the fine tuning of the universe,
What fine tuning are you referring to? The fact that it takes a thousand billion billion useless stars to have a single solar system with a single planet of the 8 available (You'll be missed Pluto) in order for life to exist? I see just as much fine tuning in the universe for the existence of life, as to how fine tuned a puddle's shape is for the hole it occupies.
GDR writes:
the complexity of life of all kinds
How much more complex is our simple chemical reactions than those that occur within our own sun?
GDR writes:
the fact that we have emotions
As does any Primate, Dog, our house-cat... unless you don't consider fear or affection emotions...
GDR writes:
the fact that we can be altruistic
As can any Primate, Dog, Cat... unless you consider a wild tiger caring for an orphaned orangutan, after it killed it's mother not to be altruistic.
GDR writes:
That's fine but I find that evidence sufficient to maintain that it is more reasonable to assume an intelligent creator than it is to assume a strict materialism
The overarching theme of this "evidence" you have provided is that it is purely subjective. Notice in every response I had to preface it with "Unless you consider". This is necessary as they are all completely subjective. I could consider a human caring for another human child altruistic, but arbitrarily reject the tiger/orangutan example, for no more reason than it disagrees with my pre-conceptions.
This is the exact reason that a discussion with a fundamentalist typically leads nowhere, as they typically utilize subjective terms as if they are objective. They do this without understanding the fundamental flaw in their argument, and why it can arbitrarily be discarded as easily as it was posited in the first place.
Edited by Michamus, : typo
™ Version 4.2
