Re: Proof of God's existence?

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:16:23 +0100, "Jan Pieter Verhey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>
>"John Ings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:23:12 -0600, Keynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Accepting all of science at face value, I think that if there is any
>> >intelligence or consciousness in the cosmos, it couldn't have
>> >begun with homo sapiens.  Our definitions and conceptions
>> >are too humanly biased and pitifully small.
>>
>> I agree with Christian de Duve, who holds that life is a cosmic
>> imperative. That life, and ultimately consciousness, will arise
>> spontaneously wherever conditions are conducive,
>>
>> ## Is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's?
>
>God is dead - Nietzche
>Nietzche is dead - God
>
>Interesting discussion btw. Only a minority of confused people dispute
>evolution. If a few million webcams at strategic places would have recorded
>the events on our planet during the last 4 billion of years, one would not
>expect to see a magic stick from the heavens creating rabbits out of magic
>hats.
>
>That leaves only the question, like you said, how the evolution of
>carbon-based life works. DNA mutations (random ones) and natural selection
>seem to belong to the process. The question if they sufficiently explain the
>complexity of function and structure of all the amazing creatures on this
>planet is a bit remote, though.
>

I think that natural law and evolution explain things fairly well.
Our mistake is to assume that the cosmos is unintelligent and unconscious.
(This even from the uber-materialists who pretend to deny even human
consciousness, and then unconsciously argue their position.)

The anthropic principle is that the initial conditions of the big bang
led directly to the known physical laws that made intelligent life
not only possible, but inevitable.  An attempt at refutation might
be that since we are here to observe and think about it, of course
those initial conditions were what they must be to account for us.

Accepting neither purpose nor purposelessness, we still are here
after all.  And that tells us everything about the miraculous
nature of nature, from quarks to human empires.


>To ask how evolution is possible is perhaps not much different from asking
>how, say, an electron is possible. We take an electron (or any other
>particle/wave pattern that persists over time) for granted and think of them
>as small automatons without some freedom of movement, whilst actually they
>could also be most incredibly complex and ingenious entities or
>'micro-organisms'. Between their size of 10^-17cm (which is the smallest
>known / observed particle, if i'm correct?)  and the Planck-scale of 10^-33
>cm,  their is a whole micro-cosmos possible with complexities in structure
>and function, that if we would ever be able to penetrate into that world...
>the Creationists would again feel the need, I bet, to explain such marvels
>via the Supernatural, as they now do with say the human eye.
>

Sometimes I think that electrons 'want' to circle protons, and that
photons 'love' to flash through space.  Flowers 'desire' to bloom,
and objects 'wish' to fall down.  This would be anthropomorphizing
non-sentient non-human objects.  But the chemical nature of
human minds is not mechanically different -- all are subject to
the same physical laws.  It's humans who aggrandize their
own chemical reactions above all others, because they sense
a 'difference' that may not even exist.