John I'm afraid the point, such as there was, of my post seems to have escaped you since you have chosen to comment only on the preamble, which was intended simply to sketch an introduction before moving on to the burden of the argument. Unfortunately you don't appear to have addressed yourself to the latter in any way. It may help you if I emphasise that nothing in my remarks has anything whatever to do with religion or god in any sense other than the metaphorical. If you care to read the remainder and find you still wish to make any comment or pose any question I will do my best to accommodate you.
David On 6 Apr 2017 2:07 a.m., "John Clark" <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 7:47 AM, David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> wrote: > > If Darwinism may be said to have shown how the illusion of design may > exist without need of a designer, we have still perhaps lacked an > equivalently powerful form of explication that might show how the illusion > of creativity could exist without need of invoking a creator. > Please explain how the illusion of creativity could exist *WITH* ** a creator. Saying "God did it" doesn't explain anything, it just makes the problem more difficult because now not only do you have to explain HOW God did it you also have to explain why God exists rather than God doesn't exist. > > > It has been claimed in some quarters that QM might provide such an > explanation in that it purportedly allows for "something" to appear where > there had previously been "nothing". > Science can't explain how something came from nothing, but it can explain how a lot came from very little, which is one hell of a lot more than religion has ever been able to do. And science has only been working on this for a few hundred years, religion has been around for over 10 times that long. > > > This view is however open to criticism on the grounds of quibbling about > the meaning of the terms employed. > At one time not very long ago "nothing" meant empty space, but when it started to look like science might be able to explain how something could come from that the religious changed the meaning of "nothing" to a state that doesn't even have the potential of ever becoming something. But what they don't seem to realize is that even God can't create something from that sort of nothing, if He did then by definition it wasn't "nothing". And if God does exist He's asking Himself "why have I always existed rather than always not existed?". And God has no answer. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
