Take advantage of my years of personal experience in many areas of life; relationships, spirituality and much more. I'm here to serve YOU. Just ask! Be prepared to hear truthful advice.
E-mail: mylordwon@yahoo.com
Gender: Female
Location: USA
Occupation: ~Screenwriter~ * ~Speaker~
Age: 45
Member Since: June 3, 2004
Answers: 190
Last Update: May 10, 2015
Visitors: 29951
Main Categories:
Spirituality
Families
View All
Favorite Columnists
DangerWench
FunnyCide
sewchic9
|
| |
The following questions are not really being asked so that I can be advised about my own beliefs, but rather to (hopefully) stimulate discussion.
Anyway, my first question is this:
Many people believe that God must exist because the universe itself exists. In essence, they believe that the universe was caused by something, and that cause was God. The argument assumes three things. 1. It assumes existence is necessarily caused. 2. It assumes that existence was caused by a conscious, intelligent being.
Now, it seems to me that the idea that the cause is conscious and intelligent, and even a being, is open to question. Maybe the cause is some transcendant FORCE? The first assumption, as well, is questionable. No one is sure if we have every really observed existence being caused. We have seen things change forms, but not pop into existence. Not only that, but theories in quantum physics hold that subatomic particles often appear out of nowhere, with no cause. Many events in the subatomic realm are said to be uncaused. This seems to openly refute the first assumption.
Do you agree or disagree with this? Discuss.
The second argument I'd like to make is in regards to the other big argument for God, that being the argument of design. It basically states that because life is so complex, it couldn't have arisen from chance and it had to be designed.
My objections to this are as follows:
1. If complex life must have been designed by some intelligent force, then the designer (being intelligent) must also have been designed. The designers would have to go back into an infinite regression. This is hardly a plausible idea, because it needlessly multiplies entities without any reason for supposing their existence.
2. The theory of evolution shows how life can evolve from simpler organisms without any intentional design. This is not caused by 'random chance', but by the forces of natural selection, genetic drift, and sexual selection, among others. None of these selection mechanisms are "random". The mutations are random, but the species that survive are not chosen at random.
Is there an adequate way to defend the design theory against these arguments? How would you do so?
Another common argument (this is the last one) is that, given the Big Bang theory, the chances of this specific life-supporting universe originating have such small odds of happening that it seems absurd to say it happened by pure chance.
My objections:
1. Simply because the probability is very low for this given universe doesn't mean that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to form this way by chance.
2. If we were to emphasize the chances of a universe being created that had, say, a lot of big, gaseous planets like jupiter and very few like Earth, this would also be very improbable. The point is that emphasizing life seems arbitrary. Any other possible outcome would be just as improbable.
3. Your own existence is very improbable as well. Think about it. You were composed of a specific sperm out of millions and a specific egg out of thousands. Your parents, grand-parents, and all your other ancestors for however old humans have been around were also subject to this very low probability of being born. If we factor in the chance of each of your relatives meeting and the chances of them having sex at a particular time, the chances become even lower for your own existence. Given all these variables (and there are many more), the chances of your existence are VERY improbable. Does this mean that you weren't created through sexual reproduction (a process of "random" selection among sperm and eggs) but that some being--maybe a stork?--guided you into existence?
Obviously, the fine-tuning argument fails for the reasons the stork argument fails. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
Feel free to pick and choose objects of discussion. Hopefully there will be some interesting responses to give me something to think about! (link)
|
You wrote: Now, it seems to me that the idea that the cause is conscious and intelligent, and even a being, is open to question. Maybe the cause is some transcendant FORCE? The first assumption, as well, is questionable. No one is sure if we have every really observed existence being caused. We have seen things change forms, but not pop into existence. Not only that, but theories in quantum physics hold that subatomic particles often appear out of nowhere, with no cause. Many events in the subatomic realm are said to be uncaused. This seems to openly refute the first assumption.Do you agree or disagree with this? Discuss.
Response: If there is a picture there is a painter, if there is a building there is a builder. Design demands a designer. Theories of something coming from nothing and of the chaotic self-organizing take a lot more faith than recognizing the complexity of creation and coming to the obvious conclusion that there is a designer.
You Wrote: The second argument I'd like to make is in regards to the other big argument for God, that being the argument of design. It basically states that because life is so complex, it couldn't have arisen from chance and it had to be designed.
My objections to this are as follows:
1. If complex life must have been designed by some intelligent force, then the designer (being intelligent) must also have been designed. The designers would have to go back into an infinite regression. This is hardly a plausible idea, because it needlessly multiplies entities without any reason for supposing their existence.
Response: There must be a "first cause" that is not designed. That first cause would need to transcend that which is designed. The complexity of life does demand a designer, thus, the theory of "irreducible complexity" propagated by Michael Behe, the biochemist at Lehigh University. There are also factors that demand a design (and therefore, a designer)inference. William Demski has written extensively about this in his book with the same title.
You Wrote: 2. The theory of evolution shows how life can evolve from simpler organisms without any intentional design. This is not caused by 'random chance', but by the forces of natural selection, genetic drift, and sexual selection, among others. None of these selection mechanisms are "random". The mutations are random, but the species that survive are not chosen at random. Is there an adequate way to defend the design theory against these arguments? How would you do so?
Response: Evolutionary theory is a theory and no more. It offers little explanation for the initiation of life. The mechanisms for change that you have mentioned are wholly inadequate to accomplish new speciation. There is no mechanism in evolutionary theory that can cause genetic information transfer that would allow the diversity seen in the natural world. Intelligent design answers these questions without necessarily identifying the designer. Creationism identifies the designer as the God of the Bible. Evolution was a viable theory 150 years ago when the complexity of micro-chemistry was unknown but is not longer viable.
You Wrote: Another common argument (this is the last one) is that, given the Big Bang theory, the chances of this specific life-supporting universe originating have such small odds of happening that it seems absurd to say it happened by pure chance.
My objections:
1. Simply because the probability is very low for this given universe doesn't mean that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to form this way by chance.
Response: The probability is near zero. You seem to place more faith in impossible odds than in allowing the evidence to lead to rational conclusions. The probability of organic life arising from inorganic life is zero.
You wrote: 2. If we were to emphasize the chances of a universe being created that had, say, a lot of big, gaseous planets like jupiter and very few like Earth, this would also be very improbable. The point is that emphasizing life seems arbitrary.
Response: Any other possible outcome would be just as improbable. You make the case for design, not evolution. The earth is unique in its ability to sustain life. The likelihood of life arising on its own is irrationally impossible. The better paradigm, that fits the evidence is that the earth was specifically designed for life to be sustained.
You Wrote: 3. Your own existence is very improbable as well. Think about it. You were composed of a specific sperm out of millions and a specific egg out of thousands. Your parents, grand-parents, and all your other ancestors for however old humans have been around were also subject to this very low probability of being born. If we factor in the chance of each of your relatives meeting and the chances of them having sex at a particular time, the chances become even lower for your own existence. Given all these variables (and there are many more), the chances of your existence are VERY improbable. Does this mean that you weren't created through sexual reproduction (a process of "random" selection among sperm and eggs) but that some being--maybe a stork?--guided you into existence?
Response: God says that he gave each of us life and birth at a specific point in time and a specific place (Acts 17:26). The chances of things happening that you just mentioned are much better than the chance of evolution being true. They are still improbable but that tends toward an inference of design. There is much research and documentation on this including the books mentioned earlier. You again are making a case that strongly advocates design. Hopefully you really will think about this and not just try to play the intellectual bantering game.
|
|
Rating: 5
| |
I am going to send you a question in more detail than this, but I just thought I'd point out that no one in the scientific community takes Behe or Dembski seriously. Behe, in fact, has admitted that, even if certain organs were irreducibly complex, evolution could still have produced them. I will expand on this, though, in the question. Thanks for the thoughtful response, though! If you don't wish to discuss it, though, feel free to ignore my question.
|
|