Saw this on FB
"Every atheist should watch this!"
Basic premise, it would be crazy to believe a book could be written by accident and DNA is far more complex than any book, so its even crazier to believe it got here by accident or came from nothing.
So it had to be God, obviously!
It has a clip of Richard Dawkins saying that obviously it didn't come about by accident, or from nothing, and that what we call 'nothing' is actually something.
Everybody laughs and Dawkins says, "Why is that so funny?"
A priest says, "It's just funny hearing somebody trying to define, nothing".
Everybody laughs and it kind of makes Dawkins look stupid.
But in reality, no scientist has ever said that DNA came from Nothing or by accident. It's entirely possible that DNA got here through transpermia, IOW, it could have arrived here frozen in a comet that came from another planet that already had life on it, which got transported here and started all over again.
It's entirely possible that it got here from viruses, which contain DNA and RNA, but are not technically alive, since they're not capable of reproducing on their own and depend upon other organisms to reproduce.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1940105229576351&id=1638334363086774&sfnsn=mo&d=n&vh=



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2019 11:08PM by schrodingerscat.

It's very complex so it required a god. But a god would have to be even more complex and therefore require a creator.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's very complex so it required a god. But a god
> would have to be even more complex and therefore
> require a creator.

I don't believe it did require a god, since Viruses have DNA in them and they're not alive, perhaps the DNA in viruses got here via frozen comet from another part of the universe and started life here on Earth. We don't know what's on the other side of a black hole, but perhaps it's a parallel universe composed of anti-matter or matter going backwards in time.

He's just pointing out that the theistic answer to the complexity of life is a greater stretch than the atheistic one.

I see them as equivalent. "What preceded the the 'Big Bang'" vs. "Where did God come from?"

Choose one:

A: We don't know.
B: We don't know.

"Where did God come from?" is a loaded question which presupposes the existence of a god. It's like saying "do you still beat your wife ?".


And yes, we know where god came from.

Caffiend, Exactly! Neither science nor religion has any good answers concerning ultimate origins. The only honest answer to either question is, as you said, "I don't know." Of course, "I don't know." does not keep or gain a job, attract followers or lead to wealth and power.

Your right! This is a bogus argument that as far as I know can be attributed to Richard Dawkins in his arguments against religion generally and Intelligent Design in particular. Here is a more detailed refutation:

The suggestion that ID raises an even bigger problem as to “who designed the designer” is fallacious. Again, the question is not the metaphysical question of who or what explains the ultimate source of the universe and its laws. The question at hand is about biological complexity, and what is the best explanation for *that* given the facts about such complexity. Moving this question back by inquiring about the origin of the complexity of the “designer” or the origin of the complexity of “natural law” are both beside the point. Dawkins knows this very well. Consider his comments on this subject in The Blind Watchmaker:

“Once we are allowed simply to *postulate* organized complexity, if only the organized complexity of the DNA protein replicating engine, it is relatively easy to invoke it as a generator of yet more organized complexity. That, indeed, is what most of this book is about. But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein replicating machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself. . . To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there.' and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or 'Life was always there', and be done with it. [The Blind Watchmaker, page 141]

You can see here that the trickery of this “who created the designer” argument is exposed by Dawkins’ own statement. Once you place the argument on the ultimate metaphysical level of the nature of “existence” or ultimate origins, NO ARGUMENT IS MEANINGFUL IN THAT NOTHING IS EXPLAINED. You cannot effectively and rationally argue that “God was always there.” But, neither can you effectively and rationally argue that “DNA was always there,” or that “Life was always there.” That is not a problem with ID and God. Nor is it a problem for DNA or Life. It is a metaphysical problem generated by the limitations imposed by human cognition. Yet, we see over and over again, how people have picked up on this nonsense—including people on the Board, in this case DA and LW. This shows the power that Dawkins has in generating and proliferating bad arguments.

I do not think you refuted his point. Exempting the metaphysical from the same arguments is a way of kicking the problem down the road and protecting it. Much of what we know now was at one time presumed to be metaphysical.

I agree that DNA is a bad example since plausible origins involving the properties of the molecules (e.g. polarity or replication properties) makes this potentially explainable in a way that a postulated creator is not.

What is on par with Dawkins' argument in my view is the origin of the big bang or the origin of life (although it seems plausible to me life might someday be explained at a molecular level depending on how it is defined). Since there is nothing definitive about any of them, it makes sense to me that if the universe had a creator, then a more complicated creator would be held to the same reasoning and need a creator. This leads to endless turtles and solves nothing. It creates an extra turtle to introduce an designer. Drawing a line using metaphysical magic for the creator does not invalidate Dawkins' argument in my view.

Tangentially related: I don't see any point in discussing with you since we disagree fundamentally about metaphysical claims in general. I don't agree with needing a ghost in the machine to explain things and cherry picking books by philosophers isn't adequate. The mental causation questions are not convincing for me yet. I'm open on the topic but it has a long way to go. Meanwhile I think Dawkins' argument is not discredited by your comments.

I do not think you refuted his point. Exempting the metaphysical from the same arguments is a way of kicking the problem down the road and protecting it. Much of what we know now was at one time presumed to be metaphysical.

COMMENT: You don't need to get caught-up on "metaphysical," especially since you do not understand what this term means. My refutation was based entirely on Dawkins' own statements in his seminal book, The Blind Watchmaker. He cannot on the one hand, deny the legitimacy of God as being always there, while insisting that the source of the highly complex, and life promoting "laws of nature" that support biological complexity were always there, is legitimate. Both, as he says, is "the lazy way out." If one is "lazy" and illegitimate, so is the other, and that is the end of the matter, and you are back to debating whether *biological* complexity is better explained by natural causes or design. And, incidentally, that is where the best arguments against ID are found. It doesn't help to continually invoke useless and worthless arguments--except for their rhetorical effect. After all, it worked on you!
______________________________________

I agree that DNA is a bad example since plausible origins involving the properties of the molecules (e.g. polarity or replication properties) makes this potentially explainable in a way that a postulated creator is not.

COMMENT: But molecular biology is NOT an ultimate explanation, since it does not address where the laws of biochemistry (oor physics) came from. It is an explanation that gets to the heart of the issues, i.e. the origin of biological complexity! It provides a rational explanation--without metaphysics--as to how biological complexity arose. It does not help, in fact it hurts the argument, if you then needlessly and fallaciously attack the idea of a designer.
__________________________________

What is on par with Dawkins' argument in my view is the origin of the big bang or the origin of life (although it seems plausible to me life might someday be explained at a molecular level depending on how it is defined). Since there is nothing definitive about any of them, it makes sense to me that if the universe had a creator, then a more complicated creator would be held to the same reasoning and need a creator. This leads to endless turtles and solves nothing. It creates an extra turtle to introduce an designer. Drawing a line using metaphysical magic for the creator does not invalidate Dawkins' argument in my view.

COMMENT: But the problem arises regardless of how you try to explain ultimate origins. After all, maybe the "designer" God emerged from natural processes ions of time ago. What is the source of the multiverse? Presumably, it just is. In any event such issues have no place in the ID debate.
_________________________________________

Tangentially related: I don't see any point in discussing with you since we disagree fundamentally about metaphysical claims in general. I don't agree with needing a ghost in the machine to explain things and cherry picking books by philosophers isn't adequate. The mental causation questions are not convincing for me yet. I'm open on the topic but it has a long way to go. Meanwhile I think Dawkins' argument is not discredited by your comments.

COMMENT: Look, if you don't want to debate don't respond to my posts; and in particular don't add ridiculous insults, that only show how little you know about the issues your dismiss. If you have a point of view, and can defend it, do so--in the context of when I, not you, frame my stated point of view!

Metaphysics is mystical bunk.

I don't understand why it's so important to some theists to do the "prove it" debates. Oh, wait, yes I do. Because they want to run my life and take my stuff.

Thing is, I could just lie. I could say, fine, you're right, there's a God, I believe now, we're good. All atheists could do that at once and it still wouldn't change whether there actually is a God or not, nor does it establish that any one human interpretation of the Supreme Being is correct. God could be an A.I., an animistic totem my great cavemother chanted to, Zeus or some form of telepathic sea cucumber living in an ocean three galaxies over. Us getting each other to agree about its existence or non-existence strikes me as an immense waste of time when we could all just agree to do things that benefit humankind regardless of what thoughts they carry around in the approximately 3 lbs of electrified jelly inside their skulls.

The whole argument isn't about establishing facts at all, it's about establishing social dominance, control, and sorting people into classes. That's a lot more consistent with primate behavior than it is with any divine ideal, so there's more evolutionary proof for you.

Don't get me wrong, I am not painting all theists with the same brush. Religious RfMers, I am not saying anything meant to be critical of actual belief/believers. I'm talking about the smug culty types who strut around like they know everything, The ones who will insist you can't criticize them until you've got your doctorate in divinity but can't be bothered to watch a PBS show on quantum physics. These people have an annoying habit of wanting to run people's lives and take their stuff.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2019 12:54AM by ptbarnum.

Christ was emphatic in differentiating between the poseurs and the believers. It's true in all religious systems, and probably true in politics and philosophical "schools" as well. It's called hypocrisy, and is found everywhere.

Consider Jesus' preface to the Disciples' Prayer:*

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matt. 5:6,7 ESV)

*Commonly called "the Lord's Prayer," it's actually a model for His followers.

Very good example of the sort of behavior I mean. Anti-atheist proof sessions strike me as ostentatious piety, the kind this verse counsels against, and if the writer took the time to specifically set that point down to paper in Matthew, one must assume that this very sort of discussion was going on at that time and it was an important dialogue about how to be Christian. Maybe Christians who go out of their way to challenge atheists should re-read that verse.

“The atheist’s delugion is a sea of truth.”

—-Judic West, in his crayon-written missive to James Joyce after a day spent finnigan’s wake-boarding at Zuma Beach

I'm glad I don't know what a deluge is lest I accuse you of bad punning.

God or not, biogenesis happens at some point. Or is the border blurry? And don't forget that Billy Preston said, "nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'"

maybe there never was nothing

Thomas Mann, in his version of the Faust legend, has his protagonist study biology, cosmology and many other things with Mephistopheles. Faustus concludes from this that "life is a species of death," meaning that the universe comprises various inert elements and forces that, occasionally and for brief periods of time spontaneously organize in the form of life and sentience but then revert to the natural state--which is inertion, or death. Life is thus the froth on the waves that are the universe.

The idea sounds blasphemous, perhaps, but it is not altogether alien to the bulk of world religions. Most of Christianity believes that mortal bodies are transitory things and that in the hereafter souls exist in immaterial form. The Indian religions, too, posit that matter is an illusion.

There are also some physical resonances, as in the way in which there can be no absolute vacuum. Particles appear and disappear randomly as matter and anti-matter unions temporarily break. The result is that particles appear from nothing but then, in general, eventually return to it.

Perhaps being is a species of non-being in the same manner that life is a species of death.

That's fascinating. I like it. Thanks.

My pleasure, Don.

DNA can be analyzed. It can even be seen with the right equipment. Show me God. All you theists "Show me GOD!!!!!!!" All these books written by believers, all these testimonials by believers are like anecdotal cancer cures. The theists don't need hallucinogenic drugs they got God.

I have no problem with people who have a strong belief in God, Jesus, or what have you. What I don't understand is why some believers are so threatened by nonbelievers. What's it to them? No one is denying them their beliefs.

For me I rather wonder about non believers, I'm suspicious of them. Many are up to no good. Some I figure are just plain old liars, and others just aren't aware of what's going on. But what scares me the most is what can happen when there are a lot of people who don't respect life (which is the main tenant of people who believe). What happens is that we turn into North Korea or Communist China where they can murder anyone that is different and they (the government hierarchy) aren't Christians.

America is different, yes we have bad people but our government is better for this one reason. Our Senators and president, and Congressmen profess Christianity and respect for life.

Believers see it as the right way of thinking, it's the correct team to be on. Christians for the most part really do care about the atheists because they think they are lost. They don't like seeing them in delusion and unhappy.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But what scares
> me the most is what can happen when there are a
> lot of people who don't respect life (which is the
> main tenant of people who believe).


I find the exact opposite to be true. The strongest believer I know doesn't seem to respect life at all. She has no trouble killing trees she feels are a nuisance to her. Or squashing bugs, etc. She just figures she's sending them home to God.

I hold life to be much more sacred than she does. To me, for billions of years I didn't exist and for billions more, I won't exist again.

This is my time to be here. Every second is precious, even the awful ones. Even for a little bug, it is that bug's time to be here too. I'm always rescuing little creatures because of that. Even spiders and I hate spiders. But it's just trying to live its life, just like any of us.

>>What happens is that we turn into North Korea or Communist China where they can murder anyone that is different and they (the government hierarchy) aren't Christians.

And yet Christianity has had the Inquisition, the Crusades, antisemitism, anti-LBGTQ, etc.

No one is paying me for my non-belief but there are plenty of folks making an handsome income professing their belief. I'm thinking you're suspicious of the wrong group. The saying "follow the money" wouldn't have merit if it didn't represent some truth. I applaud your belief but just remember to keep one hand on your wallet.

Another point, keep an eye on your children so that one of those noble politicians don't end up sending them to war to defend some oil companies business interest.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For me I rather wonder about non believers, I'm
> suspicious of them. Many are up to no good. Some I
> figure are just plain old liars, and others just
> aren't aware of what's going on. But what scares
> me the most is what can happen when there are a
> lot of people who don't respect life (which is the
> main tenant of people who believe). What happens
> is that we turn into North Korea or Communist
> China where they can murder anyone that is
> different and they (the government hierarchy)
> aren't Christians.
>
> America is different, yes we have bad people but
> our government is better for this one reason. Our
> Senators and president, and Congressmen profess
> Christianity and respect for life.

First: TENET. Crack open a dictionary sometime; you might be surprised by what you find there.

Second: You think the people who have made up thousands of versions of their Christian "God", can't agree who's right, have no evidence to support any of their claims, and have systematically bilked billions of people out of huge sums of money...are the trustworthy ones.

"For me I rather wonder about non believers, I'm suspicious of them. Many are up to no good. Some I figure are just plain old liars, and others just aren't aware of what's going on. But what scares me the most is what can happen when there are a lot of people who don't respect life (which is the main tenant of people who believe). What happens is that we turn into North Korea or Communist China where they can murder anyone that is different and they (the government hierarchy) aren't Christians."

COMMENT: You have got it entirely backwards. Your so-called "Christian values" dominant your thinking to the point of placing your such values above the democratic ideals of free thought and representative government as exemplified in a pluralistic society. You would gladly sacrifice a society that is committed to facts and freedom for a theocracy that institutionalizes your so-called Christian values. Worse, you are ready to embrace any scoundrel who, regardless of their personal integrity, fain sincerity while going along with your Christian program.

THAT is what is frightening. You want a North Korea or China modified to impose a state Christian religion, not realizing that in such a scenario the loss of freedom will echo much farther than your worries that "God forbid" someone might be pro-choice. People like you scare the crap out of me, because you have no knowledge, understanding, or appreciation for a point of view that is contrary to your own religious indoctrination, and yet are willing to sacrifice everything to institutionalize it.
_____________________________________________

"America is different, yes we have bad people but our government is better for this one reason. Our Senators and president, and Congressmen profess Christianity and respect for life."

COMMENT: If American is different, it is because of freedom and democracy, however flawed, not because some leader, to secure political power, trumpets "respect for life" as an excuse to terminate such freedoms.

Heh, right, our President and his loyal Senators exemplify Christian values, because they declare respect life in order to trick you into supporting them. Are there any other Christian values you would like to discuss, or does pro-life cover a multitude of Christian sins. How absurd. Your President and his minions want to sacrifice facts, truth, and integrity, so that they can solidify power and impose your "Christian values" on the rest of us. It has little to do with respect for life, if you include actually living people, like immigrants, minority groups, and the poor. It is just so much BS!

Thus arises totalitarianism.

I know. It's almost like they're afraid that our non-belief is contagious. It's weird.

Oooh, ooh, ooh! (Raising/waving my hand fervently) If it can be spread person-to-person, can we get irreverent contagious non-believer nicknames? I call St. Typhoid Mary of Apostasy. Or Patient Zero Point Energy.

Maybe it's not like germs, maybe it spreads by magic. Ooh! Can we have atheist Hogwarts houses?
Sagan'sDoor
AgnosdeGrasse-Tyson
DawkinsPfah
HitchensDin

Ok yeah this is getting silly. Kind of like being afraid of people who don't believe in something, when, generally speaking, most of the trouble in the world originates with people who do believe in something strongly enough to hurt others over it.

For the past few years, I've often said to people that the only real truth is that we just don't know. At least we don't know all of the answers yet, if we ever can.

I was just thinking that human beings seem to have this annoying need to have everyone be on their team. Have you ever been on a kitten webcam when someone tries to come in and argue that we should all be dog people instead of cat people?

I always say, "But I have one of each. Why do I have to be only a cat person or a dog person?"

They can get so heated up about it.

Ah yes the "Irreducible Complexity" argument, brought to you by Michael Behe and the folks at Answers in Genesis.

A fine example of an Argument from Incredulity.

Richard the Bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah yes the "Irreducible Complexity" argument,
> brought to you by Michael Behe and the folks at
> Answers in Genesis.
>
> A fine example of an Argument from Incredulity.


Yep and a pretty lame one at that. Why and how Creationism is still a thing blows my mind.

"The Devil's Delusion" written by David Berlinski is an interesting read. Berlinski,an agnostic himself, wrote in response to "The God Delusion." He is a mathematician and PhD in philosophy from Princeton.