|
 |
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:49:26 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2009 03:19:23 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>
>>> The clockmaker theory, then?
>>
>>Something like, yeah, if I understand correctly.
>
> I don't think so. IIRC the watchmaker argument (if that's what you mean)
> is faulty. Firstly it needs you to recognise that a watch is an
> artefact. Secondly it was created to support a position (God must
> exist). I could go on but people better than I have taken it to bits,
> like an old watch. Even if it were true why should such a god be
> worshiped or even honoured?
Well, assuming it were true, I would agree that worship would be
inappropriate, but marvel/honour of someone who created something that
complex? Some people honour those who create things that demonstrate a
high degree of knowledge or experience, so why not?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
