Posted: Jul 25, 2010 3:58 pm
by amused
Rumraket wrote:
But they get to that point from the assumption that the entire universe is also designed. That's the basic assertion that must be disproven first. Nitpicking at anything less is avoiding the bigger question.

No, pure nonsense. They are the ones claiming it is designed, so they are under an obligation to prove it. We are under no oblication to disprove it. Of course, unless you positively assert that it is not designed. But in the absense of evidence for design, you have to remain technically agnostic... this puts the burden of proof on design claimists.


I'm SO glad you said that. I'm an architect. I design things. When I see a good design, I recognize and appreciate the hand of the designer. I see a good design in the universe, which implies a designer.

When it comes to the gods of all the religions, I'm atheist, mainly because those gods are just too dumb. But when it comes to Spinoza's designer, I have to be agnostic. There is the possibility that the universe itself has the mechanism of design built into itself. A type of universal DNA, if you will.

The argument about whether or not there is a god/designer and whether or not the truth claims of a particular religion are valid are two completely different arguments.