We often see a discussion between two different views, so how do we decide which view is likely to be more viable. Many will argue that the opposing views are equal possibilities and therefor both should be considered. However this is seldom the case, especially in debates about the supernatural, beyond the reality of the world, obtained through our senses. For example, there any many religious people who have accepted the enormous amount of observed evidence of evolution but insist that this needs an intelligent designer and is not a random development, because life forms are so complex, that the odds are too great to create life by chance.
It is not the purpose of this post to go deeper into this argument, if have done that on my website and in my book, but just to point out why one explanation is obviously stronger than the other. One relies on observation that random mutations are everywhere, that there are more solutions to the same problem. Vision for example, has many varying solutions from very simple to very complex, where one solution would have been sufficient. We observe that life forms are never perfect and most (over 90%) went extinct all evidence of random selection versus proposing a designer out of thin air. Another example is the question of the existence of an afterlife, which requires an ongoing awareness after death. We observe that awareness is a brain function and that awareness deteriorates when the brain does (Alzheimer’s). Conclusion: Brain dead, awareness dead, based on observed facts. That awareness gets somehow restored and continues on, is pure unobserved speculation. So again we have one side supported by facts and another side using speculation. An other example is the God debate. No real observable evidence that there is one, but pure speculation that there is.
We see this kind of debate in many areas where the two sides are not equal so take your pick. Reality or speculation out of thin air, which side is more likely to be correct?
It is not the purpose of this post to go deeper into this argument, if have done that on my website and in my book, but just to point out why one explanation is obviously stronger than the other. One relies on observation that random mutations are everywhere, that there are more solutions to the same problem. Vision for example, has many varying solutions from very simple to very complex, where one solution would have been sufficient. We observe that life forms are never perfect and most (over 90%) went extinct all evidence of random selection versus proposing a designer out of thin air. Another example is the question of the existence of an afterlife, which requires an ongoing awareness after death. We observe that awareness is a brain function and that awareness deteriorates when the brain does (Alzheimer’s). Conclusion: Brain dead, awareness dead, based on observed facts. That awareness gets somehow restored and continues on, is pure unobserved speculation. So again we have one side supported by facts and another side using speculation. An other example is the God debate. No real observable evidence that there is one, but pure speculation that there is.
We see this kind of debate in many areas where the two sides are not equal so take your pick. Reality or speculation out of thin air, which side is more likely to be correct?
RSS Feed