ant wrote:

It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can provide sufficient evidence which logically justifies the certainty - T.H. Huxley

....
It's Dawkins that asserted an objective truth with his proposition "there's no such thing as a driving force" (in nature).
It's essentially a proposition which stems from the "logical sin" false dilemma
But we won't give that logical sin too much play time here.

Ant said This is a tired, old counter response to what actually is ancient paganism - much different from theistic belief in ONE God that underlines the fabric of existence and has been theologically scrutinized and interpreted throughout mankind's brief history.

LanDroid wrote:

Ant said This is a tired, old counter response to what actually is ancient paganism - much different from theistic belief in ONE God that underlines the fabric of existence and has been theologically scrutinized and interpreted throughout mankind's brief history.

Heh, no not paganism - all those old ideas exist in the Bible.
So, no objective evidence of a divine or purposeful driving force in nature?

Doesn't Dawkins and every other writer know that when they make a statement, there should be an asterisk next to every sentence saying "an alternative possible explanation is that God did it. We can't disprove that."

LyndaO wrote:Flatfish flounders taste really good, Geo.

Driving force? Staying alive. Most life wants to stay alive and works toward that end. Is that a driving force? It's the 'keep on stepping' rule.


Here's an interesting article:
http://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Simon_Blackburn
Maybe I'll start a thread on Infidels.

I hope everyone has a great New Year!

(though endlessly creative): it's still quite amazing and something whose source I don't begin to understand.

ant wrote:Geo wrote:

Is it "driving force" that allows more round than flat rocks to settle at the bottom of a hill?

Well now, here we have a great comparison being made here:
inanimate matter with Life (as we understand it, of course).

it is logical to conclude that since no intelligence is needed to drive flat rocks to settle at the bottom of a hill, it follows that no driving force is needed for Life (as we understand it, of course).

I love the muscle logic displayed here!

If you are saying what I think you are, that God as a concept is too nebulous, therefore a driving force that is God certainly does not exist, then I'd say that is intellectually pathetic.

On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled. 17 Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. 18 Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the Lord descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain trembled violently. Exodus 19

LanDroid wrote:

On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled. 17 Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. 18 Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the Lord descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain trembled violently. Exodus 19

One example of non-pagan super-nature... Examples of this non-pagan God winning wars are numerous...

I was not posting a red herring, merely showing a line of the "god of the gaps" and asking twice for your objective evidence for a divine or purposeful driving force in nature. Which you ignored.