Sunday, October 01, 2006

Defending a Creator, Comments 1 & 2

The latest spawn of Beepbeep's imagination: that human beings created an intelligent designer in their minds. This isn't new, of course. That's what atheists have always said: that God is a crutch for the finite minds of humans. So, I shouldn't be surprised. However, the argument goes both ways (atheists actually created the idea that there is no God), and the accusation truly is an insulting, not just to an advocate of Creation, but to any self-respecting human-being. Go to his site, read the argument, and then come back here to read mine.

I didn't have dessert after my last meal, so I'm looking forward to that cookie.

Your argument falls apart on at least five levels.

1.) Look at the nearest building and/or entire city. How do you know there was a builder? Wait, answer the question. Look at the building: how do you know there was a builder? The building is proof that there was a builder.
Now, look at the nearest painting (and try to avoid abstracts. ;)). How do you know there was a painter? Because of the painting.
Examine the computer you are using. Would you dare to risk admission into a mental hospital by claiming that no one made the computer--but it just appeared, over a course of millions of years (of course)? The same goes for your car: perhaps the engine, windows, steering wheel, brakes, tires, brake fluid, axle, frame, body, seats, pedals, radio, muffler, exhaust pipe, spark plugs, windshield wipers, air conditioning, heating, radio speakers, 6-CD changer, and everything else just jumbled together (possibly from an explosion) and created a perfect car? If you believe this, you better also believe that your reputation is going down the drain.
The Swiss watch is a good example. If you took all of the pieces--separately--of a Swiss watch, put them in a plastic bag, and shook them continuously (created a "Big Bang"), how many millennia do you think it would take to get a functioning Swiss watch? Actually, we don't measure those amounts of time in millennia. We call it "infinity" or "eternity."

The fact is: THE CREATION IS PROOF THAT THERE IS A CREATOR. (Romans 1:20) Creation is far, far, far, far, far, far more complex than anything that man creates--especially given the fact that the Creator created from nothing, unlike men, who create with materials FROM the Creator.

THAT is the logical, rational, reasonable way to look at this universe, not the evolutionary, atheistic way.

2.) The second place where your argument falls apart is closely related to the first.

"12. Some human beings even go on to claim that the being created humans in its image instead of the more obvious, where human beings, being intelligent, but not omniscient, created the concept of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god." --Beepbeepitsme

This is as foolish as saying that the builder is made in the image of the building; the painter in the image of the painting; the carmaker in the image of the car; and the computer-engineer in the image of the computer. RIDICULOUS!

3.) The third way in which your argument crumbles is that all religions do not--as you say-- create a designer in humans' image and decide to worship it as a god. Not all religions do this: in fact, most religions don't. The Indians is just one group of people who worshipped the planets. Hindus worship animals, believe in reincarnation, and eventually becoming a part of the nothing-ness of the universe. Buddhists desire to become part of the "Great Force." Muslims do not believe in a personal god. Satanists worship Satan as a god, despite the fact that even they don't think he created the universe. Deists believe--like the Muslims--in an impersonal god. Agnostics don't know if there's a god, and wouldn't know what He's like if there was One. Others worship nature as a whole. Some cults worship demons. Atheists--whether they be Communists, socialists, Fascists, or liberals--often worship the leaders of their causes.

So you see, your argument is accurate to only a certain percentage of people: oh, yes, Christians. How conspicuous.

4.) The fourth place you go wrong is in assuming that there is no chance whatsoever that God actually DID create man in His own image, actually DID reveal this to man, and actually DID inspire the writing of the Bible. This is a big--and inappropriate--assumption. I guess you don't even make any claims to open-mindedness (although, of course, I really appreciate you printing my comments).
The fact is, the Judeo-Christian view of God has existed for six thousand years or more--the longest thriving view of God out there. If any view was credible on God, it would be this one. In fact, in those days it could probably be said that the existence of God was a given, especially to the Jews, since He talked to them, punished them, rewarded them, rescued them, and instructed them.

5.) The fifth and final place in which you even lack authority on this topic is that you don't have a satisfactory replacement theory. The Theory of Evolution is so full of holes. The fact that any educated person believes in it is virtually incomprehensible, unless you explain it with the Bible, that says that men love the darkness rather than the light.

You reject the parachute but you jump anyway. You reject the vest and get shot through the heart. You reject the shield and get sliced and stabbed. You reject the boat but try to swim the sea--when you can't swim.

If you had a good alternate, that would be one thing. But, of course, you couldn't have a good argument, because the "Case for the Creator" (you should read that) is the CASE FOR THE TRUTH. (Genesis 1:1; Romans 1:20; 2 Timothy 3:16,17)

COMMENT NUMBER TWO:



"I have not made a claim for evolution, nor have I made a claim for big bang, multi-verses, string theory or anything else." -Beepbeepitsme

Your website has something that says: "Evolution is FACT. God is just a theory."

You have a recent article that says "Fossil Find is Missing Link in Human Evolution."

You claim to be an atheist.

You have atheistic, evolutionist quotes and resources on your site.
Please, I don't have to see your claim to evolution on this particular post, do I? If I have a straw man, than you made it.

"Because we were all created, therefore there is a creator. That is the first major mistake in the argument and why thousands of gods have been created by numerous societies.
"Instead of the hackneyed, loaded religious question of "Who created us" which presumes a creator, I prefer, as do many other people of reason, a neutral question."--Beepbeepitsme


That neutral question could be, "Where did we come from?" Is that neutral enough? Well, we can tell with our intelligence that we—and everything else in this complex universe--did not come about from a process of chance and did not come from nothing. Therefore, we had to come from a process of design. Design is not a chance process. Therefore, there must have been intelligence behind it. There must have been a designer behind. It must be bigger and stronger than anything in this universe, and must not come from this universe, for it created the universe. If that's as far as you want to take logic for now, fine, but you don't seem to want to go that far.

[note (not in original comment): his claim that thousands of gods were created to explain the origins of the universe is INCORRECT. "Little-g" gods were created to explain many things, like the sun, moon, stars, animals, nature, wind, art, poetry, music, ad infinitum. The invention phenomena of false gods is not simply the ignorant conclusion from the fascination of nature. Much of it derives from trying to ignore the One True God.]

Now, for clarity, let me analyze the entire argument:

Point One: Correct. But humans can only design with what they are supplied with. Agreed?

Point Two: Correct. Ditto first comment. Agreed?

Point Three: Partially Correct. Human beings are intelligent because of the ENTIRE definition of intelligence. Agreed?

Point Four: Correct. Agreed?

Point Five: Incorrect. Human beings did not design the universe because they were not powerful enough, not intelligent enough, they weren't around before the universe was around, human beings cannot create from nothing, and who created humans?

Point Six: Incorrect. A being more intelligent than humans is not assumed, but rather this: the universe could not have been designed from a chance process; humans--nor any other creature--could've designed the universe. THEREFORE, a being more intelligent must have.

You can't possibly be calling points 7 through 12 even so much as the "next-logical-step" argument of believers, can you? If you are, you are gravely mistaken, and I addressed those points in my first comment.
Even points 5 and 6 are not completely representative of the believers' position, as I pointed out.

And just for clarification: My statement "THE CREATION IS PROOF THAT THERE IS A CREATOR" was clearly misunderstood. I'm not saying that the creation argues for a creator, and therefore there is one. I'm not saying that the very word "creation"--as a root--means there must be a "Creator." I'm saying that our very existences--the universe' very existence--our very complexity, our very design, PROVES--illustrates beyond the shadow of a doubt--that there is a Creator.

~Kindom Advancer

4 comments:

Shygetz said...

I'm saying that our very existences--the universe' very existence--our very complexity, our very design, PROVES--illustrates beyond the shadow of a doubt--that there is a Creator.

And the Creator's existence PROVES that there is a Creator's Creator...and the existence of the Creator's Creator PROVES that there is a Creator's Creator's Creator...and eventually, the worm eats its tail. So, your conclusion is silly from a logical standpoint--if every complex thing needs a Creator that is more complex, then there is a neverending string of increasingly complex Creators...unless you arbitrarily decide at some point to make an exception for your favorite deity.

To address your points individually:

1.)We know about self-organizing systems, we have seen the spontaneous arising of complexity, etc., etc. Your buildings, your paitings, etc., cannot reproduce themselves. They cannot pass on changes to a future generation. They are not suitable analogies for evolution. You know there was a builder because we have evidence that builders are required for buildings to appear. We have seen it. We have no such evidence for life. In fact, we have strong evidence that new forms of life can and do evolve from older forms without our intervention.

2.) You make the a priori assumption that there is a Creator, and then conclude that of course there is a Creator. This is circular logic, and most 5th graders can note such a fallacy. If you don't make that assumption, then you can turn the tables...if man created the ideas of god, then it is not surprising that some ideas of god is in his own image. Your "point" proves nothing but your own poor grasp of logic.

3.) It is unsurprising that different cultures do not all have anthropomorphic gods. Not all paitings are portraits, either, but some are.

4.) Sure, I will admit there is some chance you are right...there is also some chance that the world was formed by a giant plate of spaghetti (perhaps with meatballs--that question is still under theological debate). Based solely on the evidence, the two have an equally probable claim to truth--a probability that is so vanishingly small that it can be safely disregarded, based on a lack of evidence (and, in the case of Biblical literalism, a strong presence of evidence pointing to its falsity).

5.) You state that the Theory of Evolution is full of holes, yet you have not published your ground-breaking research demonstrating these holes. The Theory of Evolution (as it is, not your possible mistaken impression of it) is incredibly well-supported. It is not (nor does it claim to be) a Theory of Everything, but it explains its goal with beatiful accuracy, and makes wonderfully accurate predictions.

Finally, if you think the word Creation means there must be a Creator, then I suggest that, for the sake of your logical capacity, you start using the word universe instead. This word has no connotations that would cloud your fragile judgement.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Addressing:
1st paragraph:
Proving that there is a superior entity that was the universe's creator would lead to the supposedly logical conclusion that a creator needed a creator, and so on.
But proving that there is "a" creator is only the first step. After that, as Christians believe, you can come to the conclusion that a creator is The Creator. Think about this:
"Then He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end."" (Revelation 21:6)
" “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”" (Revelation 22:13)

God is the "beginning"--before Him, there was nothing, and He needed no creator of Himself. He is the beginning. He is also the "end," nothing will be after Him, for He is eternal and invincible. Another way to explain this passage would be to say that He began Creation, and He finished it, and will finish the new heavens and the new earth. No one created before Him (no one had to create Him) and no one can truly create BUT Him ("after" Him).

Also note this:
"“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” " (Revelation 1:8)

Re-read those words: "who is and was and who is to come." The universe has not eternally existed, but God has. Yes, this is hard for our minds to grasp, but when you consider that God is not held down by the powers of space and time (He created those), it's not so hard to comprehend after all.

Point 1:
a.)"We know about self-organizing systems, we have seen the spontaneous arising of complexity."

I'm not sure what all you're referring to, so I'm not sure I can agree. However, if you're referencing bacteria or viruses or something like that, it is insufficient evidence for spontaneous generation.

b.)"Your buildings, your paitings, etc., cannot reproduce themselves. "

And when, exactly, did animals' reproductive systems evolve? They had to have evolved first, or species would never have survived: the earth would've been lifeless after one generation of life. And they couldn't have evolved partially ("a piece at a time") for it would've taken far too long a time to become functional: the species would've had died out. Reproductive systems are extremely complex--way too complex to have evolved completely at once. Consider the male's sex organs the female's sex organs, the perfect interaction; the attraction; the womb; the development; the birthing (surely carrying a baby in a womb or laying eggs would never have evolved if creatures could just "spontaneously arise"); and the list goes on and becomes more complex. IF Evolution were true, Evolution would never have been able to develop complex life forms.
So, as a matter of factuality, "my" buildings and paintings ARE suitable analogies for evolution.

c.)"You know there was a builder because we have evidence that builders are required for buildings to appear. We have seen it. We have no such evidence for life."

This is where atheists and evolutionists endorse a double-standard. So, we know that all complex designs come from complex designers, except the thing of highest complexity--nature itself. The evidence claim doesn't necessarily work, either. If you are on a deserted island, and you see a completely new and unusual dwelling place [not a cave or something], and you don't know who built and designed it, you still assume there was a designer/maker/builder. In the same way, if we discover constructed dwelling places of new species of animals, we still would assume that there was an animal builder/maker/designer, wouldn't we?
And, not to mention the common sense factor.

d.)"In fact, we have strong evidence that new forms of life can and do evolve from older forms without our intervention."

Actually, we have strong evidence that animals can evolve only so much as their genetic structural potential will allow (it's called "micro-evolution.") That's what Darwin didn't know about his Galapagos finches. The different types of beaks, for example, were just recessant genes revealing themselves. We have no evidence that one species has ever turned into another: the Bible talks about "everything after its own kind." Nothing has disproved that.

Point 2:
I did not assume a creator and then conclude that there is a creator by evidence of my assumption. However, let me ask you this:
If I were to assume a Creator and then try to prove His existence; and if you were to assume there is no Creator and then try to disprove His existence; would either method be more logical or un-biased then the other? No.
Plus, if you're talking about my referencing of the Bible as God's Word, well, that comes from more than just logical pondering.

Point 3:
Beepbeep was making it sound as though all gods of all religions are run of the mill, a dime a dozen, and made from a standard mold: to try to primitively explain humans' origins. This is not true. All religions' gods are not equal in either legitimacy, history, or "purpose in being derived" (I put this in quotation marks for I know my God not to be derived from man's mind). You sort of repeated my point.

Point 4:
a.)"Sure, I will admit there is some chance you are right..."

Thank you, although I think you severely understate the point. And by the way, that's the first step. I'll pray that you keep walking towards belief in God and the ensuing steps after that.

b.)"...there is also some chance that the world was formed by a giant plate of spaghetti (perhaps with meatballs--that question is still under theological debate)."

Sarcasm has its place, and I appreciate the fact that you try to emphasize/exaggerate your point, but, actually, there's no chance that the world was formed by a giant plate of spaghetti. I know you're giving a statement of comparisons of the legitimacy you give to God, and I've noticed that atheists use one-liners like this a lot, but if you truly believe that these two beliefs (God and the "GPOS Theory") are equal in validity, then the joke is on YOU.

c.)"Based solely on the evidence, the two have an equally probable claim to truth--a probability that is so vanishingly small that it can be safely disregarded, based on a lack of evidence (and, in the case of Biblical literalism, a strong presence of evidence pointing to its falsity)."
Ditto statement b.).
Other than that, the statement doesn't really need to be dignified with a reply as of now.

Point 5:
Well, for starters, since comment spaces aren't fit for book-length comments, look up the Second LAW [not "theory"] of Thermodynamics. Think about how that relates both to the Theory of Evolution in general and to the evolutionists' theorizing that the universe might have existed forever.

Last Paragraph:
"I'm not saying that the very word "creation"--as a root--means there must be a "Creator." "--Kingdom Advancer

Did you miss that line? I was figuring that Beepbeep had misunderstood me, therefore I clarified. Yet you seem to have missed the clarification.
However, since you brought it up, terms like "creation" and "creature" should be thoughtfully pondered. We aren't responsible for creation. We aren't creators of creatures.

Kingdom Advancer said...

"Reproductive systems are extremely complex--way too complex to have evolved completely at once. "

I accidentally understated it. Actually, I would say that it would be impossible for reproductive systems to evolve PERIOD, but that wasn't what I was trying to establish anyway.

beepbeepitsme said...

We have to stop meeting like this. people will begin to talk. ;)