The world is full of wonderous things that evoke our admiration. Some authors, accordingly, have used the natural world to argue for the existance of the deity. Is the fact that this is "the best of all possible worlds" a sound basis for a logical argument?
Given that Intelligent Design has no power to explain anything better than simply to say that a thing is not explainable, what would be the point behind promoting I. D.?
What do you feel are the flaws in the use of complex systems as proof of design?
Monday, June 1, 2009
Lecture 7
Mechanical Philosophy is the idea that the universe is a great machine functioning mechanically comprised of matter, its shape, and motion (as a watch is). Mechanical Philosophy implies a divine creator but one that is absent after creation.
A "god of the gaps" is a phrase that refers to a god that exists because of a gap in knowledge. That is, a means to describe something that understanding of natural law does not sufficiently explain. For example, many plagues were considered to be the "Wrath of God", but were later explained by medical science. Thus the gap for God was closed.
Does Mechanical Philosophy create a situation for a god of the gaps or does it limit the opportunities?
Secondly, how would one compare a god of the gaps with deities from "primitive" or natural religions, e.g. Greek or Native American traditions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)