Re: [asa] Harvard study

The /cogito/ springs from Augustine, who noted that skepticism is
self-defeating, for the one who claims to doubt his existence by the very
act affirms it. But it is totally consistent with solipsism. Descartes
put it positively and went on to garble matters thoroughly. Properly, it
is not a proof but rather an intuition. It extends only to the self.

Since the universe may be, so far as proof is available to us, no greater
than the intuition of self, your "proof" requires a leap so great that it
requires a Buck Rogers backpack as a minimum.
Dave

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:13:27 -0400 "Don Perrett"
<donperrett@theology-perspectives.net> writes:
> Just food for thought:
> If someone travelled through time to the past and then made some
> change,
> would any of us in the present be aware of th change? NO. So even
> if God
> made some interjection somewhere in history, we would likely not
> perceive
> it. We would still be oblivious to anything other than the random
> occurences we see now looking back into the past. How then can the
> Intellectuals, claim that there is no proof of God in nature, since
> they
> would not be aware of it anyway? And how can the IDers insist that
> proof
> can be found? The fact that there is even an existence which we
> even
> discuss should be sufficient. "I think therefore I am". Let's put
> this
> into a universal sense. "The universe exists therefore there is a
> God".
> And no I'm not trying to be monist.
>
> Don
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On
> Behalf Of Jim Armstrong
> Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 13:55
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Harvard study
>
> Again, it seems like the writer does not register that this says
> nothing
> about God one way or the other (at least without more information on
> the
> project or researcher's perspective).
> This is just akin to the science-disproves-God assertion again.
> Even if he achieves the stated objective (which seems to deal only
> with the
> life origin question), it does not seek to answer the "who" or "why"
>
> questions.
> Consequently it leaves open Howard Van Till's conceptualization
> (for
> example) of a creation sufficiently endowed from the outset to
> achieve God's
> creative purpose through subsequent natural (God-created)
> processes.
>
> This need not be faith-shaking. A non-scientific explanation might
> offer
> that our understanding of creature life, plant development, human
> knowledge,
> solar cycles, etc. seems to be always about becoming, as contrasted
> with
> simply being or doing. We are very familiar with this way of framing
> the
> Christian experience, . . . transformation, . . .
> becoming. It might not then be all that surprising should the whole
> of
> Creation also be shown fairly definitively [within the constraints
> of our
> particular space-time existence] to also be continuously
> developing,
> becoming, unfolding,. . . dare I say, . . . evolving, . . . as
> contrasted
> with being brought into some of finished, completed state of being.
> There is
> nothing compelling that commends a conclusion that a creation that
> is
> complete and "good" has no "mission", . . . no continuing trajectory
> toward
> the future that involves continued change.
> Or so it seemeth to me.
> JimA
>
> burgytwo@juno.com wrote:
>
> >Latest AIG blurb, with which I have some sympathy. Too bad they
> did
> >not identify the yahoo from Harvard whose quote they lifted.
> >
> >Q: Is an Ivy League school really spending millions of dollars to
> prove
> >there's no God?
> >
> >A: These days it seems as though everyone is jumping into the
> >creation/evolution debate. Not wanting to be left out, Harvard
> >announced a new multimillion dollar research project, the "Origins
> of
> >Life in the Universe Initiative." They're setting aside $1 million
> a
> >year to try to prove what they already believe.
> >
> >Listen to what a Harvard professor of chemistry and chemical
> biology
> >told the New York Times about the origin of life: "My expectation
> is
> >that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of
> logical
> >events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."
> >
> >For all the PhDs that Harvard may hand out-and for all the good
> science
> >they may do-none of it is important when it comes to eternity. If
> >they're producing atheists, then what's the point in the long run?
> >
> >As Matthew 16 tells us, "What profit is it to a man if he gains the
>
> >whole world, and loses his own soul?"
> >
> >Burgy
> >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> >"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe
> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Oct 28 18:40:41 2006