Longhorn

Dear friends, would anyone like to rebut this Christian apologist(Tim) in
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona</a>

Look for the thread "Does God exists?".
Below are first couple of paragraphs from Tim Dunkin's post.
======================================

In response to
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/5547" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/5547</a>


Good evening, Mr. Roy,
&gt;
&gt;&gt;[Sajita]
&gt;&gt;OK you do not believe in God and other stuff but believe in science.
&gt;
&gt;My response: Yes that makes the whole point clear :-)
&gt;
Well, I believe in both God and science, and find belief in evolution to be a completely ridiculous waste of otherwise good brain cells. ;-.)
&gt;
&gt;&gt;[Sajita] I am talking about creating from scratch. Life is a mystery to
&gt;&gt;our scientist.
&gt;
&gt;My response: Yes life is a mystery. But Mystery does not mean miracle. &gt;Aaparthib has already pointed out the mystery many times in various
&gt;e-&gt;forums. To briefly phrase his idea, the best known scientific answer &gt; &gt;today in scientific jargon : "Life is a dissipative structure that has &gt; &gt;achieved the threshold of complexity to become an autopoietic system." &gt; &gt;The purpose of life is nothing but to faithfully obey the Second Law &gt;of &gt;Thermodynamics by increasing entropy (Even eating, or even sex are &gt; &gt;dictated by this requirement, although our brain translates it into a &gt; &gt;sense of desire and pleasure for us, hiding the real underlying &gt;purpose &gt;from our conscious mind).&gt;Now how life is formed ? Although a complete answer is not available, &gt;but
&gt;we can .expect to form a logical analysis about the creation of &gt;life &gt;keeping in mind about "http://skepdic.com/occam.html" (Don't &gt;worry this &gt;razor wont hurt you anyway :-)).

[Tim Dunkin]
The version of Occam’s razor which I’ve seen is “Entia non sunt multiplicanda proeter neccesitatum”, entities should not be
multiplied beyond necessity.

Now, rudely applying Occam’s razor, one would think that we should be forced to conclude the existence of a divine being who created
the world and all gave us life. Our choices are:

- A pre-existent God created life

- Life evolved through a complex interaction of non-living chemicals through non-directive processes (which, as we will see below, are
scientifically impossible).

It would seem that the great multiplicity of entities lies in the evolutionist’s corner, and thus, he or she is at greater risk of being cut by Occam’s pigsticker.

However, philosophy aside, let’s deal in facts as yielded by the body of experimental evidence which science has collected and catalogued throughout the centuries and millenia. You will find that I am a very pragmatic person, one who tends to, well, not CARE what philosophers say or propose. After all, philosophers (if given
long enough time) can find a justification for ANY position and ANY belief which they might wish to set their minds to. I’d prefer to let facts speak for themselves, and I note that the facts speak in favour of God, not atheism or evolution.

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Longhorn ]

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Longhorn ]</p>

Longhorn

Forgot to mention that you need to become a member of the group before you can post. You can either email at mukto-mona-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

or email directy the moderator muktomona_moderator@yahoo.com

Philosoft

My goodness this childishness drives me mad! "Unnecessary entities" are not extra subjects and objects in your sentence. Occam's Razor has nothing to do with how many words you use to explain your theory. IMO, this person knows zero about the scientific method and is not worth your effort.