The Blind Watchmaker[There is no God-- a contradiction]

Feb 27 2007  | Views 1048 |  Comments  (76)
Does GOD play dice with us? or is everything man-made?... Expand

Leave a Comment   Flat Nested


  Dream Pedlar posted 1 year ago


evans,

i like ur definition of fun... was going thru natasha's posts.... interesting...!!



  superficial posted 1 year ago


Fun Link: http://www.geocities.com/evansnf/index.html   ; )



  Dream Pedlar posted 1 year ago



sup,

all i can say is a biig thanks.. but as it seems this discussion remained incomplete..as nargis told ,me... that she was apprehnesive that it might lead to some serious thought conflicts .... she was wary of penning her beliefs... whatever... it was surely worth it...!!!

cheerio
~me



  superficial posted 1 year ago


Sauvik!! STFU!   I think you did an AWESOME job... every step towards the evolution of the EGO (be it a clash) is WORTH it!!!  dont mind my "french!"  I just feel a lot closer to some by the virtue of similar thought patterns....





  Dream Pedlar posted 1 year ago




hi red,

yea the scenario last night was "red hot" ... it went out of any calculations.. watever... coming back to ur point .... yea u r right i was contradicting people's superstitious beliefs about god... the wrong things taught generations after generations... its very sad...

if i was able to inspire to the the very least.. i would be happy....

~regards
me



  Red Strawberry posted 1 year ago

hey dream pedlar,
 
hmm lotsa interesting arguements, but that should not stop you from putting your thots along. This post was very interesting read, as far as intelligent design and teh theory goes u have in your post affirmed it as well by thinking along its side by saying , if there is a watch there should be a watchmaker, yeah. The very same words are said a bit differently as to quote it means " if there is a statue, there has to be its maker, if its a rough stone it could have been there eternally".
 
So then what are you contradicting, God, the existence of God or supersticious belifs. i think its the 3rd one.
 
 



  Dream Pedlar posted 1 year ago




hey nargis ...

i know ... at the end... it really turned out to be very nasty... with ego clashes and all...i have started having a bit of guilty feeling about the thing i wrote!! really i never intended hurt any body's feelings nor impose my beliefs on anybody(basically i am not even any such position close to).

must be GOD's wishes...;-)

~me



  Nargis Natarajan posted 1 year ago

Hi Sauvik, that is what usually happens:-} Very unfortunate! In fact that was the reason I was a little apprehensive about posting any views. Anything controversial has a magnetic charm that attracts undue attention. And I usually try to stay away from them. Pity, because this blog really deserved a healthy discussion.



  Dream Pedlar posted 1 year ago




@Sujatha,

thanks for ur comment.... and yes.. i agree, the discussion stared quite healthy at first, as as debates go, it went off the track, and literally became a bit on the nastier side...

for a change ...

~thanks buddy...
for dropping by
~me





  gangp posted 1 year ago

VC,

    You have accused me of sarcasm but you are yourself indulging in sarcasm when you write that I judge anything by wishful thinking or one paragraph reading. How do you know that? I suggest that you give evidence of your claim. I hope you have not forgotten my criticism of one of Skinner's books recommended by you.

    It is your personal opinion that Skinner's theories are as revolutionary as Darwin's. It might be true that a few hundred people hold this opinion. However, as you have yourself suggested this is a minority view. I have studied quite a bit on the western philosophical position on the human mind and came to the conclusion that they do not have a clue to the nature of human mind and associated consciousness. I also found out that modern western philosophical texts dismiss Skinner's theories in one or two lines.

    You have asked me to study and summarize Skinner's position on introspection. I am afraid that I do not have any inclination to do so. This is mainly because I lost faith in Mr. Skinner's scholarship after reading his book.  However, I will make a comment on Skinner's position, outlined by you,  that introspection will not uncover important things on learning because there is no nerve ending in the brain. I would suggest that any debate about introspection should start with one personally introspecting. Only such direct evidence will decide the case and not speculation about it.
  
   I accused you of blind belief in Skinner's obsolete theories because I have seen you in action and not because I am speculating. I see that you keep repeating Skinner's  ideas about the human mind as if they are the last word on it even when you admit that very few people accept his ideas. I have never seen you express the slightest doubt about Skinner's theory.  It is a fact that no major living western philosopher (Dennet, Chalmers, Penrose and others) of the human mind accepts  Skinner's theory.  How can you be so sure about the veracity of Skinner's theory given that Skinner's behaviorism (there are other versions like Gilbert Ryle's) is not accepted by most people working in this area in the west? That would suggest that you blindly believe in Skinner's theory even when there is no evidence supporting it. If there were any evidence supporting it then I would expect that Skinner's behaviorism would have become the dominant theory by now. Since you accept Skinner's theory without any compelling evidence, then you must be doing it out of blind belief.

Gangp





Leave a comment

Use rich text editor:


Kolkata, Male
Member Since Feb 23 2007
© 1998-2008 Copyright Sulekha.com Connecting Indians Worldwide, All Rights Reserved.