Re: Hello people
Reply #449 - January 15, 2010, 11:45 PM
@ Islame
Here's a summary of my discussions with atheists regarding the lack of evidence for a creator God.
A Living Universe?
Every thing/entity/process was created or initiated by some creator somewhere, so to us (theists) this whole universe must have a creator. Atheists, are quick to counter argue by asking the question who created God?
If you ask me who created God? I'll answer: a greater God. Then you might ask, who created this greater God? My answer will be an even greater God, and we'll keep going until we reach infinity. At the point we reach infinity, we reached God! Everything else was NOT God! That's my idea of God. He's INFINITE. He's not regional, temporal, or with limited powers. Everything about Him is infinite. And once you finally understand and accept this you know you can't ask the question who created God because you can not reach infinity.
So the argument is: every maker must have a maker except if this maker is infinite and beginningless. Some atheists hold the conviction that this universe is also beginningless and infinite (scientists differ on this, btw).
But the counter-argument that the universe that we are already in touch with is a causless cause since it is infinite and beginingless so there's no need to unnecessarily "dream up" an infinite and beginingless God, of whom we have no evidence, cannot stand on its own since there is a strongly evident purposefullness in the physical world around us.
A strong evidence for a creator is that nothing is random. True, some processes seem too complicated for us and cannot be described using deterministic models and thus we describe them in stochastic terms.. But the fact is nothing is random.
The evidence becomes even stronger in the case of meanigful or useful events. Especially when it is exceedingly rare for such an event to happen.
Some atheists, however, cite the Law of (Incredibly) Large Numbers to justify exceedingly rare events.
Let's take our lonely planet Earth as an example and think for a moment.
What are the chances that there exists a planet with a distance from a star like that between the earth and the sun, so that planet is neither a blazing inferno nor an ice cube? Answer: Chances are very slim... but given that there are many planets out there (now we're applying the Law of large numbers, although planets are much much fewer than stars, by the way) then it's not completely impossible to find a planet (other than Earth) with such a condition.
Now, what are the chances that a planet has a lot of iron in its core to create a strong magnetic field, strong enough to dispel solar wind? Again, very small chances, but again since there are plenty of planets out there, then it's not completely impossible (Law of Large numbers).
Simliarly, what are the chances that a planet has a moon large enough to balance its spin ensuring a long enough day? Again, very small chances, but since there are plenty of planets out there, then it's not completely impossible (Law of Large numbers).
I can keep going forever... Now, what are the chances that there is a planet satsifying ALL these life-friendly (yet exceedingly rare) conditions all at the same time? Ans: Infinitely small.
Now by purposefulness I mean that if one rejects God then they must admit that the Universe seems to have a mind of its own... processes were started such that they guarantee a creation of the Earth with its specific distance from the sun and in order to avoid the damage of the solar wind, the earth had lots of iron in its core to create a magneic field strong enough to protect it from solar wind. Also, these processes guaranteed that the atmosphere was thick enough to protect against meteorites, etc etc, etc. So? If there is no God, then the Universe seems to have "decided" to make Earth inhabitable and took every measure to ensure this to be the case.
But this Law of Large numbers can perhaps help explain each one of these events *individually* but not their combination. For example, let's assume, for the sake of argument that:
a- the chances for a planet like planet Earth to be at exactly the right distance from a star like the sun is 10%.
b- the chances for a planet to have so much iron in its core to create a strong magnetic field to protect it from the solar wind is 10%.
c- the chances for a planet to have a thick atmosphere shielding it from meteors is 10%.
Of course the numbers above are very exaggerated (the real numbers are much much smaller, practically nil). Now, what are the chances for a planet to satisfy all 3 conditins above? Ans: 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 = 0.001 = 0.1 % (assuming these conditions are independent). The Law of Large numbers might help explain isolated events but as we combine more and more of such exceedingly rare conditions, the Law of Large numbers fails at explaining away the purposefulness in the physical world around us.
Another example: we all know that DNA is a requirement for life. How many atoms are there in a DNA molecule? Ans: BILLIONS. It is so large that its length (when streched out) is about 4 inches (yet it can fit into the microscopic cell, since it's very curly). So would it be possible to think that such amazing complexity is just a result of the Law of Large numbers?
It's as if the Universe knew that DNA is required for life, so it started this complex process of combining billions and billions of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and phosphor atoms. The Law of Large numbers would say that since there are too many chemical reactions happening all the time, then a chain of chemical reactions that would give us the DNA (which happens to be meaningful, i.e. necessary for life) is not entirely impossible...
But trying to use the law of large numbers to explain the creation of the first strand of DNA is quite a stretch. I am NOT saying that creating the first DNA did not take billions of years... all I'm saying is even billions of years cannot explain how a terribly complex molecule like the DNA could be created and without which life cannot exist. Think about it: it just so happened that after many chemical reactions took place over billions of years, an incredibly complex molecule was created which just so happens to be a requirement for life! I only object to the ridiculous claim that paramountly significant events like these just so happened to be.
It's like saying: I just so happened to have all the ingredients required to make a soup and after spending the required time on the stove, the soup just so happened to be ready. (the creation process of the Earth or the first DNA, etc didn't just so happen to be convenient for life, it was meant to be convenient).
The bottomline is: either the universe has a mind of its own or there is a creator.
Another clear-cut evidence for either the existence of a creator God or the "awareness" of the universe is the NATURAL LAWS... these definitely were either written by a creator God or are part of an aware and intelligent universe.
Summary:
1- of course abiogenesis isn't simply a jump from simple chemicals to bacteria... it took BILLIONS of years for this to happen and there were (naturally) stages for it to happen.... however, the direction this process took to give the final result implies an element of awareness which is odd given that nothing was aware before forming the first cell.
Please, dear atheists, remember that before the first cell, there was NO natural selection (which requires living organisms). So, this means that the direction this process took to form the first DNA, can only be random, which is laughable, especially in light of the monumental importance of DNA for life.
2- Besides, synthesis of the first DNA is NOT the only requirement for life... there are too many highly improbable requirements and the probability of all these being satsified in one planet is infinitely small (looking at the big picture).
3- And what about the elegant natural laws? Now these, obviously, didn't go through any formation processes. They were either a part of an aware universe or they were written for the universe.
4- All the examples I listed require awareness, but why even try this angle when we are living with a ridiculously outrageous fact on a daily basis: us being nothing more than emotional clumps of atoms.
An Imperfect Universe
A well-known argument against the perfection of a creator God is that this universe as magnificent as it is, is nowhere near perfect, so it couldn't have been the work of a perfect God.
Of course, the answer could be that this infinitely perfect God chose for this creation to be imperfect. In fact, according to scripture, God designed it this way (imperfect) on purpose (e.g. it's only a temporary stage before an everlasting perfect state). This life is not perfect. Disease (viruses, bacteria, parasites, cancer, diabetes, etc) is part of the imperfection of this life, so is aging, death, poverty, wars and random suffering.
The Paradox
The other argument many atheists rely on to try to diffuse the argument of purposfulness is that there are many things that seem aimless without any specific use... for example: why all these stars and galaxies? If there were a creator with purpose, why add in these useless fillers?.... this, to them, is evidence for aimlessness with occasional meanigful results thanks to the Law of Large numbers.
In fact, one scientist puts it this way:
"We constitute a one percent bit of pollution--we are completely irrelevant. Why such a universe . . . would be made for us is beyond me."
Unwittingly, this statement of his, reinforces the notion that our existence is so exceedingly improbable, which strongly suggests an element of intent, which is completely the opposite of what he was trying to prove.
Again the paradox is: Life-filled Planet Earth is like a living grain of sand in an endless lifeless desert (the universe), so this whole universe couldn't have just existed so that tiny Earth can exist, YET the very fact that it does exist AGAINST ALL ODDS is by itself a strong evidence pointing to the intent of a creator.
It's like walking for miles and miles in a vast dry desert that has been dead without any rain for ages, and then you spot a magnificent tree laiden with fruits while being surrounded by death everywhere... no law of large numbers can explain this, for this is nothing short of a miracle, so is our lonely planet.
A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
Topic: Hello people