Quote:
|
Originally Posted by archpaladin
Just some rebuttals....
Incorrect. Darwin actually showed that Premise 1 was possibly incorrect, not that it was necessarily incorrect.
Not necessarily. Claims for the existence of God were around long before they were argued against. Those who make extraordinary claims to change the claims of the past (ie. athiest beliefs) are really the ones on whom the burden of proof falls.
|
You're absolutely right about Darwin, that his discoveries do not entirely preclude the possibility of intelligent design - after all, we can see machinery and other things all around us that arise from intelligent design. However, I phrased the premise as "MUST be created by an intelligence", and that was no longer true past Darwin. Complex objects CAN be created by intelligence, but we now know there are other possibilities as well. Darwin does nothing to disprove the existence of God, he merely weakens one proof.
As for your other point, I wasn't talking about historical claims, but in a logical sense you must proceed from only the knowns, rather than the already-assumed.
For instance, although the idea of the existence of dragons predates the present, if I were to claim that such beings existed, your rightful course of action would be to demand proof from me, rather than accept the idea until it is disproven. Regardless of how many have believed in dragons before, it is an extraordinary claim.
Bingle