_____ is so great it proves there is a Creator

[Easy Going]

This is a post from a different board. It pretty much ended the discussion because it went over everyone’s head, but I was hoping that maybe a theist or two here would be up to the challenge.

quote:Two years ago in Biology, we were going over DNA. My teacher made it a point to tell us that this is the one reason why he believes that there is a God of some sort, and it's because of DNA. When you go into it and look at all the detail that is in DNA, and think about how no one else will ever have that same exact highly detailed genetic code, unless you're an identical twin, that he believed that this much detail put into our genetic makeup could not be natural, but created by a higher knowledge, i.e. a God.

God has less detail than DNA? Was that your teacher’s point? I really don’t mean to sound sarcastic at all. This is a very common argument that is made to point to God. The syllogism if you break it down usually goes something like this:



Something is great.

Great things can’t be natural.

Therefore those great things are designed by God.

There is a bit of a problem when you also have to accept the greatness of God. Is God also created by God? Is God natural? Is God something?

The way Christians usually try to avoid the contradiction is by saying God exists but He exists outside the universe. This concept really just destroys any legitimate meaning of the word universe rather than explain anything. If the universe is universal it includes all of existence including everything that exists. If God is a thing then He has to be included in a category of all things.

The trouble comes when people think of the universe as a place so they conceptualize God as in a different place. This destroys the definition of universe but allows theists to hold the contradiction in their head.

It becomes harder to hold that contradiction when you break it down to Ayn Rand’s fundamental axiom, Existence Exists. Not only can this statement not be contradicted without contradicting yourself, but it solves the location fallacy that facilitates the theistic contradiction. Existence is not a location. The term is universal to all existents including all beings that are both great and detailed as well as whatever Christians could conceive as being natural within their world view. Now you can’t break it down into existents that are evidence of creation and those that are eternal, without contradicting yourself or just making a random assertion.

Now is when it gets a bit complex. The few theists that are able to hold that line of thought consistently in their heads and still refuse to give up on the idea of God are the ones that said “God is infinite”. Many lay Christians take that to mean He is really really good and really really powerful, far beyond our ability to ever comprehend or compete with. That however is not what it means and it is not how they escape the dilemma of the existence of an uncreated great existent whose existence is “proven” by the need of great existents to be created. What they really mean by “God is infinite” is that he has no definition. That is not that we don’t know what His definition is or even that we could never possibly know what that definition is, but that He actually in reality exists without definition. They would then go on to assert that part of the definition of DNA may be that it is necessarily created, but God has no definition so it does not have the same limitation.

The problem with that is Rand’s second axiom, the law of identity. Existence is identity; A is A. To be is to be something. This axiom really is not a derivative of the first; it is just another way of stating it and looking at it. Existence does not have identity; existence is identity. Saying something does not have identity is just another way of saying it does not exist. Saying God is infinite is just an attempt to divorce existence from identity, but they are not two aspects of something that it shares but can be separated. It is the same thing; just two different ways of looking at it.

[Rizzo in a box]

I'm not going to address your whole argument, but in the very begining you make a mistake: you postulate that God isn't natural.

[Easy Going]

No, I am answering the argument made by theists that the greatness and order in the universe cannot be by chance so it has to be created. That assumption undercuts the assertion that God is eternal.

[This message has been edited by Easy Going (edited 01-31-2007).]

[Hare_Geist]

It's just the tired old watchmaker argument. Why waste any time on it?

[Easy Going]

Because identifying the fallacy explicitly shows they argue God exists by defining him as not existing. That is the only way to defend the inconceivable concept. It is all just a play on words and when you pull back all the smoke and mirrors, not only is there no proof of God's existence, there is also no concept of God, and the assertion of Him is a contradiction.

[IanBoyd3]

quote:Originally posted by Easy Going:

Because identifying the fallacy explicitly shows they argue God exists by defining him as not existing. That is the only way to defend the inconceivable concept. It is all just a play on words and when you pull back all the smoke and mirrors, not only is there no proof of God's existence, there is also no concept of God, and the assertion of Him is a contradiction.

As it were, you are correct.

Yet, most people are capable of simply ignoring all this and imagining it in their heads, ignoring all your reasoning. This is why I find it more useful to argue with them in their plane of thought.

It boils down a bit simpler, and deals directly with how most of them think.

X is so great, it requires a greater thing to create it, because great things have to be created.

Yes, this argument sounds completely retarded and I apologize on behalf of the theists who hold it, but that's what it is.

Obviously, if God is the greatest thing ever, how can he not have been created?

If you can't imagine something as infinitely simple (compared to God) existing on its own or through nature, how could it be ok to believe wholeheartedly that something infinitely more complicated then that exists naturally?

But yea, I did appreciate your arguments. I feel enlightened. Erm, I feel like that last sentence was somewhat inappropriate but I'm not changing it.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

It's just the tired old watchmaker argument. Why waste any time on it?

Exactly, and it's already been proven false on so many levels that there's no point in even addressing it any more.

your mom is fantastic

[Real.PUA]

The teacher is obviously knows very little about evolution. The whole point of evolution is that we can get an increase in complexity through natural processes.

Somewhat of a different view on the subject, but how jaded are we that LIFE doesn't amaze us? Basically, life is inherenly illogical and goes against the chaotic drive of the universe. Is it not possible that we are imbued with a "divine spirit" that derives from sources beyond our comprehension? As an agnostic, I honestly think it's possible, but not that it's positively true.

I'd like to hope in the idea of a divine creator, and to understand the inner workings of life and what exactly the mind and existence truly is. Call me an optimist or whatever you want, but that's how I see it.