Re: Proof of God's existence?

"Keynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>

How about accepting not the yin/yang of purpose or
purposelessness and chopping wood and drawing
water?