if there is a watchmaker there must be a human-maker |
Posted by
pancho
(Moderator)
- Tuesday, December 6 2011, 3:46:02 (UTC) from *** - *** Commercial - Windows XP - Mozilla Website: Website title: |
...that's the argument in a nutshell. No need for apriori...posteriori...we don;t need Aquinas or anyone else, not even Einstein, who tells us there must be a god. There "must be a god" is a BELIEF not a fact...some people can't get by with the idea that there is none....but that's their problem...they believe because they want to believe, but realizing that's a bit foolish, they try to invent reasons why there must be a god, or could be....but the question is always the same, why must there be...why should there be? We're told that asking these questions is a sign of a philosophical mind, an intelligent mind, a curious mind...maybe, but only if they stop at ASKING...when they start answering the question too...you can let me off...because I know they DON'T know, and I don't trust people who talk authoritatively about that of which they know nothing. Needless to say that the existence of man-made objects, like watches, already presupposes the existence of a watchmaker...because we know of no other way a man-made object can be made except by a man...so whether you find a watch, a shoe, or a car...you know, already and without philosophy or your posterior, that a man made them.....but man is not man-made...and just because he isn't it doesn;t mean that a god made him...it doesn't mean that anybody had to make him. When you follow the "god made it" argument back far enough you arrive at a point every child understands to ask..."well, then who made god"? At that point the wisest, so-called, deep thinker will say, "he was always here"...exactly. So I say that man was always here, or rather the elements from which he is made have always been here...they've just taken their time combining INTO man. --------------------- |
The full topic: No replies. |
*** |