Chris:
>Since the person who makes the claims of free will (especially
>*indeterministic* free will) and design is making positive claims, the
>burden of proof naturally rests with that person.
>I do not deny that there is free will. All I deny is that there is
>*indeterministic* free will.
Bertvan:
Hi Chris,
I've been told that since I have no desire to change anyone's beliefs, I have
no "burden of proof". I'm quite content for you, or anyone else, to believe
free will exists, but indeterministic free will does not. I'm content for
Dawkins to believe his version of Darwinism. I merely argue for the right of
anyone to express contrary beliefs, without fear of ridicule or condemnation.
If we all express our views, it helps others clarify their own beliefs.
Chris:
>I *do* deny that there is any evidence of design in nature. Design is not
>merely order, not merely complexity, not merely structure or function. It
>is these things created by a designer. How do you distinguish between
>naturally occurring order (etc.) and *designed* order? And what would be an
>empirical test for design that non-design could not pass?
Bertvan:
I'm not sure there is any difference between what you call "naturally
occurring order" and what I call "design". You seem to believe it "just
happened", but insist that is not "mystical". I have no idea where
"natural order" or "design" came from, and regard its origin as extremely
mystical -- meaning that I not only don't know where the it came from, but I
doubt anyone will ever know. You don't know the origin of "natural order",
but do claim to know for certain that no theist concepts were involved. I
don't know how "design" originated and therefore can't rule out theism (or
lots of other explanations). Like you, I regard some people's version of
theism as na•ve and simplistic, but more sophisticated versions exist about
which I have no opinion.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 16 2000 - 11:32:43 EDT