[lbo-talk] The "A" lives, apparently

[C. G. Estabrook]

I think this is a good argument against the intelligent-design line.
Intelligent-Design departs from the classical Christian (and Judaic and
Islamic) notion of creation in favor of a mechanistic argument, which
falls to this objection.

Stephen Hawking (who BTW led the anti-war demonstration in London on 2
November), Lucasian professor of mathematics at the University of
Cambridge (Newton's chair), wrote that after his theoretical labors, "You
still have the question: why does the universe bother to exist?  If you
like, you can define God to be the answer to that question."  That's far
closer to the classic notion than intelligent-design.

For most Abrahamic theists. "God" is the name for whatever accounts for
the fact THAT there is a universe.  HOW the universe is, is of course the
province of science, and terrible muddles (e.g., the Galileo case) have
resulted from confusing those questions.  --CGE

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, John Adams wrote:


> All this is very interesting. Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance here,
> but what is the argument against the idea that, if the physical world
> is too complex to be explained without a creator, then the existence
> of a creator capable of producing such a world is at least as
> inexplicable as the creatorless existence of the world?
>