From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 9:25:40 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B02D37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:25:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56CB43E3B for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:25:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g85GPaGd041687; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:25:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g85GPZNb041684; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:25:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:25:35 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020905005747.1f5964a2.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020905091446.R41451-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > > > It's because if you supply your own definition of "simple", > > > > Occam's razor can be used to prove anything. > > > > > > No, it cannot be used to prove *anything*; only that which may be > > > reduced to definitions and terms consistent with simplicity and > > > complexity, with the former affirmed and the latter rejected. That > > > > A naturalist would insist that "natural" explanations are > > the simplist, no matter how complex the details. On the > > Occam's razor is being used here to refute the cosmological argument; > you're distorting things with this strawman. Nobody has even mentioned the cosmological argument until now, so you are the one invoking a strawman. > > other hand, a supernaturalist would claim the exact opposite, > > although he cannot even begin to explain *how* God does the > > things that he does. > > Actually, the simplist theological argument is that G-d is one; a > trinity is not the most simple theological position. Why do you refer to God as "G-d"? > That being said I > am not inclined to prove my religion with philosophical arguments > because, following the Breslover Rebbe, I believe that philosophy > provides unanswerable questions from the part of the universe that > appears as a void devoid of the devine presence; There is no part of the universe that is devoid of the divine presence. (Psalm 139:7-12) Philosophical arguments are unavoidable. The fact that philosophers have struggled with questions that still remain unsolved is just one more piece of evidence that without God, you can't prove anything. > hence all a religionist > can do in the face of such modes of thought is offer weak answers that > make his intellectual position and level of faith worse rather than > better. (This is not a "blind faith" position, it's important to examine > as far as possible everything with the intellect, which is a better > guide to what's good than the seat of emotions; but a man has got to > know his limitations. :-) ) I think you are operating on a Thomistic notion of "faith". Faith does not take over where reason leaves off. Faith is the foundation of reason. Reasoning would not even be possible without faith. I argue that only *Christian* faith can account for reason, but here I suppose we disagree. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message