As you know from previous posts I am not a fan of trying to prove God exists. I sent the following reply:
Dear coworker,
This video relies on one simple logical premise. The existence of a watch requires the existence of a watchmaker. We are thereafter asked to accept the premise that all complex systems require a designer.
Let us follow this logic out one more step. This watchmaker seems like a pretty complex entity. Using this same logical premise and no other I ask just one question.
Who made the watchmaker?
His response was that God did not require a creator for the simple fact that he was God. So the logical discussion that he started was quickly turned into a faith discussion as soon as the logic no longer worked in his favor. I attempted to point out the paradox that he was asking me to accept. My belief is simply to stop trying to make the two completely harmonious. By definition my faith should not and can not be proven without it becoming someting else besides faith.
At my brother's suggestion I have also started reading a book on intellegent design. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins. I hope that this book will not fall into the same logical pitfalls and traps that plauge most essays on ID. The author started out as an atheist until his work on the Human Genome Project presented several "evidences" of a creator. I still haven't finished reading what Kermit has to say so It may be a little bit before I can finish this book. I'm really enjoying Before You Leap.
No comments:
Post a Comment