Comments on: Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why The Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up By John Allen Paulos http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/06/18/irreligion-a-mathematician-explains-why-the-arguments-for-god-just-don%e2%80%99t-add-up-by-john-allen-paulos/ Men's Rights Activism, MRA Politics, Analysis, Commentary and Global News Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:12:59 -1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: jjtaup http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/06/18/irreligion-a-mathematician-explains-why-the-arguments-for-god-just-don%e2%80%99t-add-up-by-john-allen-paulos/comment-page-1/#comment-63877 jjtaup Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:23:33 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/?p=80144#comment-63877 "...it is want thing to yearn ..." Indeed it is. As for belief, well, this is what happens when God doesn't keep up with a good PR miracle tour. “…it is want thing to yearn …”

Indeed it is.

As for belief, well, this is what happens when God doesn’t keep up with a good PR miracle tour.

]]> By: rastus http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/06/18/irreligion-a-mathematician-explains-why-the-arguments-for-god-just-don%e2%80%99t-add-up-by-john-allen-paulos/comment-page-1/#comment-63868 rastus Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:11:48 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/?p=80144#comment-63868 "[Paulos] points out that capitalist economies become incredibly complex without being directed from On High and notes the irony that many creationists are “ardent supporters of the free market. These people accept the natural complexity of the market without qualm, yet they insist that the natural complexity of biological phenomena requires a designer.” Specious. He conveniently ignores the fact that the market's complexity WAS designed. It was was created by the collective ingenuity of all those participating in it. To posit the need for a deity is simply a red herring. Paulos would do well to stick to math, IMHO. “[Paulos] points out that capitalist economies become incredibly complex without being directed from On High and notes the irony that many creationists are “ardent supporters of the free market. These people accept the natural complexity of the market without qualm, yet they insist that the natural complexity of biological phenomena requires a designer.”

Specious. He conveniently ignores the fact that the market’s complexity WAS designed. It was was created by the collective ingenuity of all those participating in it. To posit the need for a deity is simply a red herring. Paulos would do well to stick to math, IMHO.

]]> By: DrDamage http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/06/18/irreligion-a-mathematician-explains-why-the-arguments-for-god-just-don%e2%80%99t-add-up-by-john-allen-paulos/comment-page-1/#comment-63860 DrDamage Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:39:10 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/?p=80144#comment-63860 I have no problem with demolishing weak arguments for the existence of god, this is good for Christianity as a whole. The notion, however that the problem of suffering is insoluble is ridiculous. It's called free will. Mankind has chosen our own path and our own way in preference to that of god. That suffering results should surprise no one. I have no problem with demolishing weak arguments for the existence of god, this is good for Christianity as a whole. The notion, however that the problem of suffering is insoluble is ridiculous. It’s called free will. Mankind has chosen our own path and our own way in preference to that of god. That suffering results should surprise no one.

]]> By: amfortas http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/06/18/irreligion-a-mathematician-explains-why-the-arguments-for-god-just-don%e2%80%99t-add-up-by-john-allen-paulos/comment-page-1/#comment-63858 amfortas Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:30:47 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/?p=80144#comment-63858 Paulos asks: "“Why cannot the physical world itself be taken to be the uncaused first cause?” I'll take a number and wait in line for his answer. Ahe gives us this doozy too, "Paulos and many skeptics do, that coincidence is inevitable given the sheer number of personages and events". So waaaaaay back when there were few events and narey a person in sight (well there wouldn't if there were no light) there were no coincidences, which means the creation (or whatever other origination you prefer) could not have been a coincidence either. Better gimme another number and look for the light switch. Hey, he just might lay his hand on it, by coincidence. "Thought Provoking", eh, Denise? Is this damning with faint praise? Paulos asks: ““Why cannot the physical world itself be taken to be the uncaused first cause?”

I’ll take a number and wait in line for his answer.

Ahe gives us this doozy too, “Paulos and many skeptics do, that coincidence is inevitable given the sheer number of personages and events”. So waaaaaay back when there were few events and narey a person in sight (well there wouldn’t if there were no light) there were no coincidences, which means the creation (or whatever other origination you prefer) could not have been a coincidence either.

Better gimme another number and look for the light switch. Hey, he just might lay his hand on it, by coincidence.

“Thought Provoking”, eh, Denise? Is this damning with faint praise?

]]>