subscribe to our mailing list:
|
SECTIONS
|
 |
|
|
Letters
[Write a Reply]
[Letters Index]
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| Does not the creationist's argument refute itself? |
Mayer, David |
Jan 04, 2009
|
I understand and accept the argument presented in this article. But could the creationist's argument be refuted at an even earlier stage as following?
When one writes "VALUES THAT SUPPORT LIFE", it gives the impression that the rules of life are somehow independent of the creationist's god.
However, the creationist believes that god designed not only the values but also the laws nature. This means that for ANY values god could have designed laws of nature such that life could exist for those numbers.
So when a creationist arrives to the conclusion that it was god who designed the exact values, I think it supports also the belief that god
designed the laws of nature as well (at least the god of Abrahamic religions certainly did). At that moment the creationist's argument refutes itself, since the conclusion of the argument leads to the argument being meaningless (god designed two things - numbers and laws - and could tweak one or the other, so any numbers would do). Please correct me if this is logically incorrect.
|
| Related Articles: |
The Fine-Tuned Universe -- the insignificance of very small numbers
|
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| Does not the creationist's argument refute itself? |
Frank, Mark |
Jan 07, 2009
|
David
My concern was only with that one specific error.
I guess the creationist is trying to point out a problem with a naturalist model of the universe. So considerations of what an omnipotent deity can achieve are not essential to the (invalid) argument. We all know that once the big G is invoked can be done.
|
| Related Articles: |
The Fine-Tuned Universe -- the insignificance of very small numbers
|
|
|
