DNA implies design for me. A blueprint.

Why can't man create life?










I think I follow you. I just look at earth, and all the places that life shouldn't exist. Places as harsh and as forbidding for life as in space, and think there is a better explanation.

What I think alot of people do not understand is that I would love to be wrong. I have no personal investment in believing the prevailing science, I would love to live in a world were magic still exist, were someone is looking out for us, the evidence just doesn't point that way for me.

I have no personal investment in evolution or thinking there probably is not a God. If someone could show me otherwise I would grasp onto that with both hands and hold on ti'l the end.

I do not have a desire to turn anyone away from religion, I think religion is a great thing that can be used to unify people and instill a basic moral compass. I do think religion should adapt to modern times because saying things like "evolution is not real" is no longer a winning argument.

Well said, Donnersurvivor.

DNA may be a design, but that doesn't mean there is a designer. Certainly not an omnipotent creator, given the various mistakes (so-called "junk DNA") and vestigial organs and structures in the code.

Why can't man create life? Maybe we can, and just haven't found the right conditions yet. Or maybe we can never replicate those conditions; which wouldn't make it either more or less likely that a god created life.

It's illogical to say that because we can't do or explain something, God must be responsible.

Jim

Donnersurvivor, since I'm up in the middle of the night sipping hot tea, battling this crummy sore throat, I'll give you the 5 key contemporary arguments (apologetics) for the existence of God. Not a Christian God, mind you. These are philosophical apologetics, not theist arguments. Helps take the pressure off you thinking I'm trying to talk anybody into anything. If you are sincere in the ask, then I'll help you sincerely in the answer. Perfectly in line with the summa arguments of the early modern era, where great topics were debated. There have been countless others before us ponding; why? what? when? That sort of big picture stuff.

Please know that these are the arguments of great thinkers, many of whom were atheists. Some where not.

There are 7, but really 5 are used most often.
1. Cosmological: Why does anything exist at all?
"The universe is an extraordinary effect that necessitates an adequate cause, the first and ultimate cause being an intellectual Creator." Plato - Laws X 400'sBC
Similar verbiage and reasoning by his student Aristotle (300'sBC). PrimeMover, Metaphysics VIII.
a. Every effect has a cause, there cannot be infinite regress
b. Every effect depends on a cause for its existence
c. The universe or nature cannot originate itself, therefore there must be a First Cause, and that cause must be God
Kalam - philosopher in the 11th century
a. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence
b. The universe began to exist
c. Therefore the universe has a cause
d. A cause of this magnitude and scope would require a Creator

2. Teleological Argument: What explains the Universe's Amazing Design?
As an example, only in an ordered world would water flow downhill. In a haphazard arrangement, water would flow uphill also.
Whereas the Cosmological argument focuses on existence itself, the teleological focuses on the astonishing complexity of this universe and the organic life. Untold intricate order, both micro and macroscopically order implies a Designer. Natural Theology atheists admit this may be the strongest argument against their view. The apparent purpose, ordering, and design in the Universe necessities an intelligent Creator.

Note there are good recent books on this;
Stephen Meyer, : Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (2013)
Michael Ruse, : Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA" (2008
Dembski, : The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probablities (2006)

3. Anthropological Argument: What makes Us Personal?
The human being is an intelligent, volitional, and emotional being with innate capacities for relationship, language, creativity, ruling, and a sense of eternity. While Neuroscience explains some things about how a brain functions, it explains almost nothing about why a human brain has self-consciousness. Just as water does not flow uphill, the extraordinary characteristics of only humans possessing attributes unseen in other life, reflect a Designer, a superior personal Creator.

4. Moral Argument: Why Do We Have a Sense of Right and Wrong?
Why are there moral feelings? Why do I not feel satisfied when justice is not met? Or a sense of guilt when my wrongs are exposed?
Human conscience, the sense of right and wrong, testifies of a moral Creator.
Immanuel Kant, the devote Prussian (1700's) atheist philosopher upon whose "Kantianism", most modern philosophers have built their work, said that this argument most commanded his respect and that he could not answer it. He said however dark and calloused any person may be, they still always possess morality of right and wrong, of what is life giving, and what is positive. Neitzsche, the high priest of atheism in the 20th century dismissed morality as religious glorification, but Kant never could grasp that as valid. Religion had no say, Kant reasoned, in vast numbers of people and yet they still knew right from wrong - reflecting a Moral Creator.

5. Ontological Argument: What Best Explains Our Highest Ideal?
Anselm, the 12th century theist theologian asked why is the concept of a Being who is greatest of all even conceived by the majority? Human beings have a concept, regardless of culture, that a Being who is perfect - holy - loving and just, is universal therefore that Being must exist, or else that Being would not be perfect. That the real Being is more perfect than an imaginary Being. Anslem asked, "Why does this concept even exist?" Answer, "Because it necessarily does."
This is a priori argument (priority). An argument that argues top to bottom - unlike those that are posteriori, from the bottom up.
Many great philosophers argue that perfection doesn't necessitate existence of a Being however. Descartes, Hegel, Kant, and recently Alvin Plantinga have drawn close to this argument to say it isn't easily dismissed. Plantinga explains why is it that a supermodel's "impressive assets" in our world, may well be 50 pounds overweight in another world, or that she may even be deemed ugly elsewhere. Why is she not here? Perhaps a Designer designed her to be impressive here, he reasons.
A good book; Alvin Plantinga: The Ontological Argument, from St. Anslem to Contemporary Philosophers (1965).

2 other Apologetics are;

6. Universal Religious Experience
The vast majority of humanity has been and is today religious, claiming experience with the supernatural. Still, only 22% are atheists after 300 years of atheistic and communistic rule. 78% are theists. And many are hard pressed to report accurately since Marxists rule in many countries worldwide since 1900. In 1900 only 00.2% of the world was atheistic.
Many argue that the religious experience of mankind should not be easily ignored as to being caused by a Designer.

7. Pascal argued in the 1600's in his "pensees" that given the known options, "Either God is or he is not." Those are the two choices. He assessed that reason cannot decide this question. Infinite chaos separates us from the known truth. At the end of a long discussion a coin may well be tossed and when it comes down heads or tails, we choose. How will one wager? Reason, he argued cannot be proven right or wrong, but you must wager "Is he or not?" All must wager and all do wager. Which is chosen? Yes? No? Pascal philosophized that let's see that when the choice is made what is gain and what is lost? Which offer gives you the least return on your choice is how he framed it.
You have two things to lose: the true and the good, and these to win; reason and your will, your knowledge and happiness. Your nature has two things to avoid; error and wretchedness.
He argued that if you call heads, and there is a God, you win everything. If you call heads and lose, you lose nothing. The rational mind would choose the bet that offers the greatest return and choose heads.
Hey - these guys in the Enlightened Era of the 1600's were deep dudes. Not why a theist chooses I'd say, but this philosopher got one thing correct; if there is a Creator and a Divine plan, there could be eternal consequences.


Anyway, these are the summations of apologetics as they stand with us post-moderns today. There is of course boatloads more on each argument.

In the spirit of TMan expertise and our brotherly love of trapping and all things good and blessed....
Hope these are helpful.

Blessings brother,
I remember now,
I do not care much for sore throats.

Mark

If time is infinite there is no beginning. I wonder if it just goes in a big circle. Like many indians believe.

A black hole is a region of spacetime exhibiting gravitational acceleration so strong that nothing—no particles or even electromagnetic radiation such as light—can escape from it. The boundary of the region from which no escape is possible is called the event horizon.

Black holes of stellar mass are expected to form when very massive stars collapse at the end of their life cycle. After a black hole has formed, it can continue to grow by absorbing mass from its surroundings. By absorbing other stars and merging with other black holes, supermassive black holes of millions of solar masses may form. There is consensus that supermassive black holes exist in the centers of most galaxies.

What IF eventually everything is "swallowed". Over many billions of years. All that energy erupts and once again there is a "big bang".

Blackholes have gone from a purely mathmatical prediction to 11 of them known to exist so far. The galaxy is expanding away from its center, the supermassive blackhole. The math suggests though that many stars exist that will eventually collapse upon theirself. Will everything get absorbed and black holes all merge? Is there a point of critical mass like with a nuclear explosion?

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Stephen Hawking

But Hawking doesn't explain where gravity came from.

Jim

The vestigial organ list is shrinking, and someday will be explained as the things we didn't know what they did.

The appendix is now understood to play a part in the immune system. The "tail bone" has a purpose based on the fact that the coccyx has attachments to various muscles, tendons and ligaments.




It is just as illogical to think that something that happened without guidance, by chance, and is impossible to duplicate, is a rational explanation for the world around us.

We can't even bring to existence the simplest living organism.

Life only comes from life, that is the clear observable proof for all of recorded history.

That points to a life-giver.

I note those like Dr. Carroll who debate Dr. Hawking;
In The Grand Design, Hawking grants a near omnicompetence to the natural sciences and writes: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
But there would be no gravity, indeed there would be nothing at all, were it not created. Still, no explanation of cosmological or biological change, no matter how radically random or contingent such an explanation claims to be, challenges the metaphysical account of creation, that is, of the dependence of the existence of all things upon a Creator as cause. When some thinkers deny creation on the basis of theories in the natural sciences, they misunderstand creation or the natural sciences, or both.

William E. Carroll, Research Fellow in Theology and Science, University of Oxford.

James, we got here somehow unless we're gnostics and all this is a mirage = When I look at bobcat scat, it's really a shadow of the real cat turds in another far away world kind of stuff.
But many reputable physicists and cosmologists challenge Hawking in his in explanations on how are we still being maintained as a created? By chance or by Design and a Designer? In other words, who's hand is on the wheel right now?

Hawking is not strong in this area.

If there is a creator that creator is one cruel twisted up creature, or that creator has no more interest in its creation. Nothing else is possible.

Mark June, your post wasn't addressed at me, but I can't resist taking the bait on your seven arguments for a creator being, ie, God.

1. Cosmological: Why does anything exist at all?

Response: If everything must have a cause, then what was the cause of God?

2. Teleological Argument: What explains the Universe's Amazing Design?

Response: What explains God's amazing design? No; I mean the design of God himself.

Also, a universe without the right operating controls, or rules, like gravity and the gravitational constant, thermodynamics, the value of pi, and so on, would not be a universe that survived.

3. Anthropological Argument: What makes Us Personal?

The fact that humans are self-aware does not mean that God did it. I am saying that it does not mean there is a supernatural, as opposed to natural explanation.

4. Moral Argument: Why Do We Have a Sense of Right and Wrong?

We are taught right and wrong from an early age. All human societies have rules of conduct that separate good behavior from bad. Establishing rules of good versus bad enables us to live together collectively.

There is no such thing as universal morality, anyway. In some cultures, conduct is good that would be bad here, and vice versa. Some people have defective sense of right and wrong. And what about the sociopath?

If a creator instilled a universal moral code in all human beings, then why aren't we all equally good?

5. Ontological Argument: What Best Explains Our Highest Ideal?
...Human beings have a concept, regardless of culture, that a Being who is perfect - holy - loving and just, is universal therefore that Being must exist, or else that Being would not be perfect. That the real Being is more perfect than an imaginary Being.

A priori arguments are logically invalid. It is not true that belief in a perfect Being (God) is universal. There are many major religions, like Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, and the beliefs of the ancient Greeks, which either postulate no god or limited, flawed, petty gods.

6. Universal Religious Experience

It's not true that belief in God is universal, or anywhere near to universal. The fact that a majority of people belief in the supernatural (if true) does not make those supernatural beliefs true. Majorities can be wrong, or deluded.

7. Pascal argued in the 1600's in his "pensees" that given the known options, "Either God is or he is not."

Ah, Pascal's wager. Another exercise in illogic. The consequences of a wager don't make the stakes more or less true, when their existence is in issue.

Pascal also ignores this obvious question: wouldn't an omnipotent God be able to tell the difference between a genuine Christian, one who truly believes in the Resurrection, from a Pascal Christian, one who is only there before the heavenly throne because he fears the outcome of a wager?


Jim

How so?

If you mean the evil of mankind, God isn't micromanaging humans. We have freedom to make our choices. Collectively, and as individuals.

God allowed mankind to eat from the tree He told them not to. Man is still trying to define good and evil apart from His instructions. If you boiled it down to simply love your neighbor as yourself, that would make for a much better world. I could point to you the benefits of family, and other things but I think you get my point.

The world as a whole is the product of man defining right and wrong for himself


If you are referring to eternal h3llfire torture for the wicked, not all Christians interpret the bible that way.

If God is competing for souls for heaven, it would appear He is losing. The bible speaks of more than one ressurection. Ezekiel 37 speaks of a physical resurrection of the people of Israel, and how their hope is/was lost. I understand that points to time after Christ's return, and His kingdom is established on Earth. All who ever lived and never even heard of Christ, will be given their first opportunity for eternal life.

This life is a vapor. The sufferings of this life are nothing compared to what lays ahead.

I don't think we will ever find life in the other planets. I don't believe everything out in space was made to simply be stared at from earth. I think we will take life there. Mankind's original destiny was to rule WITH God on earth. We decided to listen to the snake, even unto this day. By after we have had our fill of doing things our way, God will step in before we destroy ourselves, and the planet with us.

That may sound like fanciful fairy tales to you Danny, and that is fine. I am really not trying to persuade you. I guess I don't want you having the wrong perspective towards God, based on misinformation.

great post

James,

See you moved the goal. I just overviewed great thinkers through the millennia who have debated these topics. I didn't inject God. Some of them do and some do not.
You leave bolded responses in question form but I don't hold the truth? Mine was an overview of where the world is as far as major apologetic themes.

I'm a simple guy. A place faith in "I got nothing." I'm smart enough to know only one thing for certain certain. Well, two... no three.... well four things.

1. I love my family (I don't understand why a world has people who do not love theirs)
2. I can catch animals in traps.
3. Catching coyotes is harder than catching muskrats most days
4. I place trust and faith in what I cant know with certainty but I can know sufficiently

Bout all I got.
Going to church today James?
Doors are open to all us sinners.
That's a blessing
Cause if I was God, in my mortal thinking, I'd only allow certain people in.
Good ones. Ones I like.
That's why I'm not God.
He is.
Blessings from Texas!!

Mark

so then a kid dying of a horrible cancer, that kids parents too, all deserve that? jews in the holocaust deserved their fate? little kids starving to death in somalia are really evil little rascals and starving is to good for them? I could go on but I'm sure you get my drift.

You claim a creator created a world where everyone must worship that creator, or the creator is going to torture them, knowing that when he created them as a flawed being that they wouldn't meet his standard, so he became a man and let other men torture him, so now he can forgive the men their flaws, even though the flaws were created by the creator.

I get it now. What a wonderful loving god

danny, you did not have a good preacher/pastor/teacher growing up brother.

You are sadly not alone.

The Gospel was given to humankind for the saving of souls, but it would seem, not all souls. That's a mystery. And some have used it for their gain. What a shocker.
But it doesn't make the Gospel false. Just means humans sin and our minds can't grasp what we aren't able to grasp.

Evil exists in natural form (earthquakes, storms) and moral form (sin). No doubt about that. Everyday. Everywhere.
Why does God allow evil it when it's probably the single biggest reason folks turn away from God?
That's a fair question but this thread is already pretty long and the evil among discussion would be even longer my friend if we wade into that pool.
I PM'ed you in sincerity and I'll take the time to answer your Q on evil if you are sincere in wanting me to take the time to give you a biblical Christian explanation. There is one.

MJ

I was taught all the stuff your saying Mark but I don't believe it. I believe all religion is created by humans to alleviate fear and explain and answer those questions that ancient hunter pondered while waiting and hoping for something he could feed his family to come along.

Re-read my post. You are impressing your understanding of God, and trying to make sense of the world.

God is going mostly hands off. The bible is a long story of mankind rejecting God. He is letting us have things our way. Christ was subjected to the beating and death so that child with cancer will live again. Regardless of whatever his belief in Christ is.

There is a price for sin.

If wrong my brother, I have spilled blood, taken LIFE from him.

If you don't believe in God because Satan causes suffering to an innocent child you are fallen prey to Satan's tricks.

Satan is the ruler of this world, still limited my God. God is looking for any who will seek him out.

It seems your mind is made up, so I will let it go.

which part of that is not mainstream christian doctrine?

Evil is not easily answered but there is biblical truth to what it is, why we have it, and how it all works out in the end.

I've sat with two families in the same week, different days, who's sons had committed suicide. Dillon was 17. Seth was 18. When you're sitting alongside a mom and dad, and their son is no longer here, and tears flow over what you can't figure out... the fact that it just doesn't make sense, it's real. Doesn't really get any "realer" than that.

Logically, none of us would create this kind of world, right? Therefore, because this isn't how we would put things together, that's how we come to the conclusion there can't be a God, right? Satan smiles. He has dominion at present here on earth, and he likes that thinking. Perhaps he even authored it a bit. Who knows?
Why doesn't a perfect, all powerful God intervene? I would.
Why doesn't a perfect, all powerful God kill Satan? I would.
Why doesn't everyone get to heaven? Everybody. I would

Diests believe God is all-powerful but not entirely good.
Islam comes close to saying God is the author of evil for some.
Irenaeus, an early church father, believed that a certain amount of evil was created for human growth and maturity. Makes one stronger.

Most of us as Western Christians are Augustinian in our theodicy (theodicy = explanation of evil in light of a morally perfect, all-powerful Creator) in that God created finite image bearers being good, and that we are allowed free will to choose. God knew some would chose Him and some would not, thus the possibility of sin (evil), and Genesis 3:15 outlines the consequence for Adam's action in the garden "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed (serpent) and her seed."

That's a very short version of a Christian theology answer danny.

what I don't quite understand is the animosity I seem to "pick up" from some of the non-believers.

If you're so convinced of your choice, WHY do you care what others believe???