The axiom of physico-theological vision
Shalom Rabbi, happy holidays,
Continuing our correspondence..
In the third notebook (which is somewhat fascinating), in the proof from the physico-theological perspective, if I understand correctly, the perspective relies largely on the simple philosophical axiom that it is impossible for a complex creation to be created without a deliberate intelligent agent.
My question is how can one answer an atheist who claims that for him this is not such a simple axiom – how can one show him that he contradicts himself in every way if he chooses not to accept it as an axiom. And as I saw that you yourself have shown, for example, such inconsistency in materialists (in my opinion, this is the best argument when having an argument). I would be happy if you could give some examples of this.
Thank you and Happy Holidays!
In my experience, it is very difficult to argue with atheists in general, and on this topic in particular. Any example you bring from the world and from experience, he will say that it is true within the world of our experience, but not necessarily about the entire universe. In principle, this is the second law of thermodynamics (that in a closed system, without external involvement, there is no increase in order/complexity). But the scientific question has excuses (the accumulation of disorder within a mess is indeed legal). In the end, it remains to be seen and common sense.
A good example I once saw (I think on a Christian website) is from the SETI project (see column 144), precisely because it is not taken from our experience but from other beings and worlds that are unfamiliar to us.
Yosef, your question was answered in my article (which the Rabbi disagrees with), in my opinion many miss the correct understanding of the claim that it simply does not become complex, etc.
See here the first article:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bws0Lni1BgE-bWhxZm8zWURrZVE
And here the second article:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oGDe7oV2YfSMS6wGXzcCHncph9jgjz6O/view
It is long, but I think when you read it about the order you will be convinced.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
