Quote:
Originally posted by kang
Gasp! On the Internet? It must be true! That game goes both ways.
I see nothing really new in this, just a slight variation of the original. In fact, this very article discounts the teleological argument:
All I see that is new is
And you can make the same objections to the temporal teleological argument as the spatial one.
There must be a reason that “Richard Swinburne is one of the few contemporary theistic philosophers attempting to mount a teleological argument” because “historically, there is good reason others hold their peace.”
|
Actually, the difference is they are no longer at odds with the data.
Quote:
|
The world of science is not against theories that have explanatory or predicting power, for theories are the provisional glue that holds various data together in meaningful ways. A theory that does not offer an efficient means of coalescing observed data, however, is dismissed as irrelevant. Therefore, others who have tried to frame teleological arguments have lost credibility because rather than working within the framework of the overwhelming scientific consensus of Darwinian mechanisms, they proposed arguments that were at odds with this data while purporting that their arguments were scientific. By contrast, Swinburne’s argument set forth in The Existence of God is unique in that it seeks to work fully in concert with scientific consensus.
|
__________________
My uncle has a country place, that no one knows about. He said it used to be a farm, before the motor law.
'72 911T 2,2S motor
'76 BMW 2002
|