My cousin and I got into A discussion about religion, I warned him that I didn't really want to get into it for fear it would cause a fight, but he insisted. So we started talking about it, and he kept saying how I just needed to see that god really created the world, and there is no other way that could have possibly happened. I told him that he is just using the "I don'y know so god" argument, and he came back with this.

"you always could get me thinking and fighting the hardest. OK let's ask this then and after I go to bed. If a print shop randomly explodes what are the chances of it making a book in the blast? Infinitely low but also on that same fact what are the chances that said book could produce its further copies. Zero. Evolution is a sound theory and in truth I could see it as possible. But the likelihood is so low that I won't follow it. Whereas on the same argument you gave me of "I don't know so God" I see the post of "I don't know so no God" but all I do know is that even if my God is a work of fiction I'm better cause of him so I will change for that reason."

I was baffled, and a little angry, but perhaps I went to far in what I said. Does any one have advice for what I could say in return?

How was god made? What laws does god operate under? Can god defy the laws of physics? If the person answers yes, ask them to jump off a tall building to test their theory that god can defy gravity, and as a true believer they won't fall.

BTW, how does a print shop "randomly" explode? By god's will? Or some other reason explained by science?

The question is, how does a print shop randomly explode without outside energy such as a bomb?

The root of this argument is subjectivity pretending to be objectivity. How likely does something have to be to believe it? Is there some number beyond which something becomes believable? How do you measure likelihood? When you start asking these questions it becomes obvious that the analogy falls apart and was only presented as a weak justification for an unsubstantiated belief.

Further, what is meant by "I am a better person because of him"? This is a comparative claim that is totally unprovable. Better than who? It only serves to elevate the person making the claim into a position of superiority over others or to enslave the person to god because he/she would be a horrible person without god. This is a very damaging self image. Plenty of people make positive contributions to the world and treat their fellow humans with respect and in an ethical manner without any belief in god.

Ask him if he knows what happens when Pascal's wager meets Occams Razor. That is, after all what he is proposing, just that he isn't educated enough to recognize it.

>>>>>>"Ask him if he knows what happens when Pascal's wager meets Occams Razor."

+100

To OP: This is a very intelligent answer to your TBMs cousin's argument. And good to know for future arguments also.

Research both if you're not familiar. I've used this line of reasoning a lot with people that are insistant the belief in God is the simpliest and most logical explanation. It's very effective because it applies straightforward logic to the simpliest explanation theory.

Conversely, if you accept God created the universe, there are 100s of 1000s of gods that have been worshiped throughout history. It would be impossible to worship all of them. How can he objectively know which God created the universe in order to worship him/her?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2014 12:44PM by transylvania.

"Does any one have advice for what I could say in return?"

Not wanting to know the truth is not a valid argument....

...but rather, *if* a God created the world, why are so many things in it so screwed up?

Good Grief! Not the “Print shop” talk by Russell Nelson!

It’s hard to believe that Nelson made this assertion in front of thinking adults. Our critical thinking skills were craftily stunted while inside the bubble and I believe Nelson knows he can play to that kind of crowd.

Inside the LDS bubble fallacy heroes are made by “print shop” talks.

Since he used Nelson’s nonsense for the crux of his argument, give your cuz the list of reasons why the source of his argument falls apart with logic and reason. And let cuz know that this is how the outside world sees it and that Nelson did not provide anything new, inspirational, logical or reasonable in that talk and that many at junior high level (in the world) could see right through it.

So....what the print shop explodes into a book? What is it exactly that he thinks is so well organized? The human body bears every mark of it's descent from other creatures and that is true of all creatures. Every world we've ever found is too hot or too cold to support life. 99.98% of everything that ever lived on earth is extinct including 3 other dictinct kinds if human. In the next few billion years our sun is going to expand and melt down our planet including whatever lives here. In 2 billion years our sun will blow up and the galaxy andromeda will smash into us, whichever happens first will end our galaxy and maybe start a new one. The laws of nature are so new to us that we don't even k ow enough to know what we don't know. Tell your TBM cousin that if he were interested at all in understanding our place in the cosmos then constructing a worldview and grafting science onto it where convenient is the most dishonest way to do it. Ask him in what way he is a better person having the gospel than without it. If he thinks that if Joseph Smith lied to him or Jesus weren't a legitimate savior he would stop giving to charity, stop being nice to his children, stop having compassion and empathy I would say he's already not a good person, doubly so if he's one of those mormons who talks up a storm about charity and doing good and at the end of the year their charity basically amounts to being ordered to help someone move and or tying a few baby blankets I want to know how the church is improving him.

You could always deflect the question to this- why are you straining at gnats when people who God created are starving in your very own town?

There are several variations
If you run clock parts in a clothes dryer, can they come out an assembled clock?
If a tornado passes through a junkyard, can it accidentally assemble a 747?
Well, obviously not, therefore evolution is false and god must be true?
No, that's a blatant fallacy.

I'm not sure I understand. Is he comparing a book shop explosion to the Big Bang Theory? If so, that is not a comparison.

Whatever exploded to create the universe was something so complex and so loaded with such dynamic substances that it could continue to grow, create, and adapt over trillions of years into something magnificent. There are so many facets at play there.

A book shop explosion? Really?

Your cousin's reason is embarrassing because it lacks reason. He is trying to find support for an ill-conceived foregone conclusion.

Here's how I would respond...

Explosions are wonderful tools for creation!

I see your paltry uninformed example of an explosion of a print shop and laugh... It's not even an apples and oranges comparison. If your print shop is an apple, my orange is the solar system.

Let's look at what really happened, shall we?

Billions of years ago, there was a speck, it contained everything. Due to the nature of time and space, it's hard to say where that speck came from, but science is working on it, if you want to go into detail about that, we can, but for the sake of time, let's start with the speck.

In that speck, is everything that ever will be, but it's unstable, there is too much in too little space, it simply can't be contained in that way for long. In a brilliant flash of light, energy and all kinds of exotic particles, the speck explodes. This isn't some print shop, this is the beginning of everything. For the first time ever, time moves forward, even time was contained in the speck.

As the mass of particles moves outward and expands, parts of it gather in large balls of energy, forming the very first stars. The hearts of these early stars become the forges of all the elements of the universe. These stars grow old and expand themselves, spreading more matter across the universe, which too begins to gather, forming new stars and planets. Over and over this repeats, forming new stars and planets all across the galaxy.

On at least one planet in particular, possibly more, the right combination of elements gather in the right environment, creating self replicating molecules, over the next few millions of years, these molecules, taking energy from their local star, become more and more complexe, until one day, they form bodies of cells that work together, eventually forming into bodies that can look at the universe and all that happened prior to their creation and actually work out the question of how and why. We are literally the stuff of stars.

I'll take the majesty and wonder of science over your paltry explanation of an old guy wishing it into existence any day.

Or, just sit him down and make him watch cosmos, it really is a wonderful show.

The chances of a single print shop exploding might have a low chance of creating a book, but considering the practically infinite size of the universe, if billions upon billions of print shops exploded the odds of one of them making a book becomes much higher. Ofcourse the people that found that book would then be amazed at the miracle of creation that their God had given them.

Blow up a Cosmos Shop instead of a Book Shop. To make a "book" from scratch, you must first create the Universe.

Credit to Carl Sagan

The analogy is hopelessly flawed. Books don't inherently replicate themselves with minor changes. Creating something like that spontaneously would be truly astounding. Creating something that replicates itself over billions of years - not so much.

Here's how evolution probably worked. Due to the extreme tidal influence from the moon shortly after it formed, massive tide pools extended hundreds of miles wide around the globe. Within these tide pools certain chemicals began to concentrate as they weren't allowed to leave at the same the rate they were brought in.

Within these pools bubbles began to form. Some bubbles lasted longer than other bubbles, due to their inherently different chemical concentration. In other words, some chemicals allowed certain bubbles to last longer than other bubbles, which over millions of years led to the predominance of those types of bubbles in the tide pools of the Earth. These bubble-friendly chemicals formed the basis for modern lipids, as the process of natural selection caused the lipids to form layers constructed by hydrophilic heads and hydophobic tails.

Different forms of bubbles emerged, though they soon lost their identity of what we would call a bubble, and instead were composed primarily of the organic matter that had given their bubble ancestors advantage. Some of these proto-cells evolved to produce more organic material using carbon dioxide. Some lived off of organics from other organisms, and eventually a form evolved to digest organic material. Some even developed genetic memory, or early forms of DNA, which served as a blueprint for the proteins that increased their chances of survival. These organisms lived in a symbiotic relationship, which continued so long that eventually could no longer be distinguished from one another and would forevermore be recognizable as cells, a synthesis of bacteria, cyanobacteria, and prokaryotes.

Single-cell life continued its course for over half the age of the Earth, becoming increasingly efficient. Billions of years passed. Then, during a period called "Snowball Earth," the entire surface froze in an icy gridlock from pole to pole, covering everything including the equator with solid ice for tens of millions of years. Life clung together in small havens, and where havens weren't available it more often than not died. However, there were a few blips where cells replicated themselves without actually pulling apart. For billions of years these occurrences had never provided any advantage, and instead made it harder for the cells to move around and thrive. However, under Snowball Earth conditions it was extremely helpful, allowed the bunches of connected cells to draw on the warmth of each other to survive the freezing conditions.

When sufficient carbon dioxide had been released by volcanoes to thaw the earth, multi-celled life which had by this time had become so dominant began to flourish. This is when we see the earliest fossils in the Earth's strata. Piecing multiple cells together suddenly offered natural selection a host of new possibilities. Certain communities became plants. Others became animals. One line even turned into a tunnel-boring creature whose habits allowed it to survive a terrible and hot extinction event. This creature was the ancestor of all mammals.

Mammals were completely outdone by the dinosaurs, though, monstrously large creatures at the top of the food chain that crushed everything in their path. Their size would be their own doing, however, when the next major extinction event came. Smaller dinosaurs survived and turned into birds, and mammals were now free to become the next dominants species on the planet. One line of mammals evolved among tall trees and hard-to-reach food, allowing those with long arms and clever minds to have a statistical advantage in survival. These were the primates.

One of these primate groups learned how to use tools, which became such a widespread practice that they stopped using their hands for moving around altogether and learned to efficiently use their feet. With their hands free for creativity, their brains developed an extremely keen sense of creativity as well. They used this creativity for all sorts of things - tools, partnerships, language, religion, and ultimately civilization.

However, as some humans grew more logical and rational, others continued to stubbornly refuse.

My wife has cousins in W. Virginia who are evangelical Christians and their beliefs about creation are pretty cut and dried and narrow too. But it would be waaaay too frustrating to get into a philosophical discussion with them about ancient history because, as far as they are concerned there isn't anything ancient. I imagine all the born again bible thumpers in S. Alberta preach the same $hit too.

Ron Burr

When I was in Seminary my teacher gave us an object lesson along similar lines. He took a box full of puzzle pieces, took the lid off, and threw the pieces at the wall. He then asked us what the odds were that if he did it again, all of the pieces would land on the floor together as a completed puzzle. That, he said, was proof that God had put the universe together. There's no way it could happen by random chance!

Bullshit. These analogies have a major flaw - they presume that one massive event (the Big Bang) suddenly resulted in the universe the way we now know it. That is completely false. People who don't understand the Big Bang think it means there was a massive explosion and our universe popped out. That's so wrong it's laughable.

The Big Bang didn't create life and planets and stars and galaxies. The Big Bang didn't even create atoms. All of those things came later, and it took a very, very long time.

Comparing it to a print shop or a box of puzzle pieces also has another huge (and interesting) flaw - the analogy presumes that the way our universe is now is the END RESULT of something, that our world as we know it is the end of the line, the final conclusion. But the universe is still evolving - it will always be evolving. Who's to say that we're the "book" right now? Who's to say that we're the finished puzzle? We're still transforming.

The analogy works better if the print shop just blows up and makes whatever it makes, and then intelligent life comes along much later and calls the random outcome of that explosion "book."

It reminds me of a quote from Douglas Adams:
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

It also seems that your cousin probably doesn't really understand the principle of natural selection. He sees evolution as a completely random chain of mutations, which is completely false. Mutation itself is random, but WHICH mutations survive and are passed on, and in what quantity, is absolutely not random in the slightest. Natural selection is the key to evolution. It naturally weeds out things that don't work, and improves upon the things that do, eventually crafting the best eyes, the best legs, the best digestive system, etc, to allow a creature maximum probability for survival and mating.

Everyone goes with their best guess based on the evidence available and which they favor. Evolution looks at what can be empirically observed and falsified. Faith looks at emotion and internal, personal experience that can't even really be compared. Muslims and Christians both claim experience with God but come to very different conclusions. I personally am bird in the hand kind person and try to go with what I observe rather than what I hope for.

All that said, his print shop explosion analogy (thank you Russell M. Nelson) is flawed/weak. Why is is that people of faith can allow for all kinds of "miracles"— or things that are hard to explain with current knowledge when it come to God but can't do the same with science. They say, well "we don't understand it all yet" or "God's work is beyond or ability to grasp now" but when scientific ideas challenge their brain they say "how can anyone believe that?" How is the big bang any less incredible than the Judeo-Christian creation story? How is evolution any less believable than the global flood or the tower of babel story? The difference is that for science we have evidence in the world around us— in the rocks, fossils and even on our own DNA. Religion has the word of men who do not even agree amongst themselves and have repeatedly been shown to be wrong (actually does science). The difference again is that science is a process 1) based on what is observable and falsifiable and 2) it welcomes criticism that will improve and further it's quest for truth.

Personally I think the only reason you cousin finds the stories offered by religion more credible is that he has been taught them since birth, while at the same time being taught to question science.

The traditional counter to his argument is "Where did God come from?" -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

If the life on earth is too complex to have come into existence on it's own, how did God come to be? If you suppose that earth life is too complex to have come into existence through evolution, then it is even more illogical to propose that something even more complex came into existence to create it.

Evolution directly contradicts the "printing press blew up" argument - that would be more like God existing out of nowhere. Evolution occurred over billions of years where the thing that was more likely to survive survived - it is the EXACT opposite of an exploding printing press creating a book.

The much more plausible explanation is that God caused evolution to occur - that was God's method of creation - to fight against evolution is completely irrational.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2014 01:09PM by The Oncoming Storm - bc.

I agree. My dad, who is very TBM, has absolutly no probem with evolution. He sees it as one of God's tools which he used to create all life.

I don't personally believe in God. But the way I see it, if mere mortal men can breed wolves into chiwawas in a brief 30,000 years or so, then is it really that hard to imagine that an infinitely wise being could breed bacteria into elephants in three and a half billion years? I just don't understand creationists' objection to evolution.

haha. If the universe were only 6,000 years old then the exploding printing press analogy might be relevant.

So he is saying reality is so complex it is evident that there must be a creator.

Return question:

God would be even more complex than creation. Who then created God?

If God requires no creator, then why would the world?

Equating a print shop explosion creating a book out of falling type pieces with life evoloving over millions of years is just simply ridiculous.....dare I say....STUPID!

** The argument he is using is almost word for word from a russell nelson book that someone gave me on my mission 25 years ago. I think he used a dictionary instead of just a book. I thought it was a good analogy and used it (ONCE!) The other person threw it back in my face that the chances of a print shop exploding, creating a dictionary, and that dictionary creating its subsequent editions was higher than the possibility that there was a single being creating all this at once and then monitoring everything that every creature does and controlling every atom to create the desired outcome. I did not know how to respond to that.

If we're going to use silly analogies, which is more likely:

1) A man assigned with blowing up a book shop 3,000 miles away precisely figures out everything in advance including the precise location of the shop, the winds along every inch of its trajectory, the exact shape of the missile including any imperfections, the exact nature of how the fuel will burn, etc.

2) The man previously mentioned builds a missile that adapts to the variances that will be encountered, adjusting for this, correcting for that, etc.

It makes much more sense to me to believe that everything around us is the product of adaptation and compensation than to believe that it was all amazingly pre-planned.

Best response to stupidity, call it out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtNHuqHWefU

I think the bigger question is why does your cousin care so much whether or not you believe in God? How does your particular opinion or outlook impact his own point of view or life?

"If a print shop randomly explodes what are the chances of it making a book in the blast?"
Oh, is the what the church is now teaching about the origins of the Book of Mormon?