A proof against ID and Creationism

As I understand the concepts of IDs and Creationist, they say that life (to include all of the universe, atoms, quarks, etc) is too WONDERFUL and complex to have evolved by itself. Just to provide an easy reference, call this the wonderful theory.One method of testing a theory it to see how it holds up when applied to others subjects. Let’s apply this wonderful theory to god with the assumption that the theory is valid. God is indeed too wonderful and complex to have evolved by itself or his-self if you prefer.Lets make the obvious explicit. According to the wonderful theory, god had to have been helped along by his own god. Well where did that god come from? The answer is that when the wonderful theory is applied to god, it shows that god cannot exist. So something is wrong here?I see two possibilities:1. The wonderful theory is right. This means that god cannot exist because it is not possible for there to be creator of god. That creator would have the same restriction, as would his creator, ad nauseum.2. The wonderful theory is wrong. The basic premise of ID and creationism is wrong. To say that our wonderfulness and complexity imply a god is patently false.So which is it? Are there more possibilities that I have omitted?This message has been edited by Admin, 01-28-2006 11:46 AM

quote:

---

The problem is that the definition of God is that God is the creator and so there can be no creator of the creator.

---

And how did god come to exist?

I read the first reply in the context that the reviewer did not agree with my position and did not care to promote it. I understand your position on not debating here. As you can determine, I am not fond of the creationist point of view. I find their fundamental tennant to be self contradictory and that that contradition should be brought out and discussed.I have been carrying this converstation on with someone close to me (I don't want to publicly engage him until he is willing so "he" will do for now.) and on his end, he ignores my position saying there are some things that just cannot be known. That is a major part of the problem. The fact that he will not even address the question of the origin of god is an indicator that his creationist beliefs have a problem. We can no longer allow people to blithely ignore positions they cannot support.I wish to prosecute this positon. I don't know how else to post this but will think about it and am open to suggestions.

from Crashfrog in another thread:

quote:

---

I'm not sure what response is possible, but I think ID's proponents deserve a chance to respond to what must be the most obvious and commonly-heard refutation of their complexity arguments.

---

After reading the posts from Crash and nwr, I looked up ontological arguments. I have known of ontological arguments, but not by that name.This has given me two surprises, I am not nearly as well read as I had hoped, and my argument has been aired much more than I had suspected.I am reading "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. The book carries many powerful arguments, but after reading a critical review, the author seems to have a hidden agenda. None the less, it is well worth reading.Now I supose we will discover if my thoughts were really worth posting.

quote:

---

I think the deal is that god has always existed and was not created, unlike life, itself.(i mean always existed, not created)

---

Other than you just want it that way, why do you think god has always existed?If you hold that god could have always existed, they why is it not possible for the universe (in some form or another) to have always existed?I you examine all the documents that are claimed to be the literal word of god, all the behaviors in his name, and all the complete lack of notice from him, there is only one answer that makes any logical sense. There is no god.Now if god were to make himself known and say something to mankind, I might have a change of opinion. As the second coming has been imminent for some two thousand years, that's not likely.Your answer kind of falls into the blank stare group. Blank as in the response has no significant content.Can you present a supportable position?This message has been edited by bkelly, 09-23-2005 04:16 PM

quote:

---

quote:

---

Can you present a supportable position?

---

No.

---

I have read some of your posts and I am happy to state that you are more honest and straightforward that many who share your beliefs. Take that as a compliment to you rather than a knock at them.However, it seems as though that answer should bother you. How can people base a major life controlling decision on unsupportable beliefs? To put this in other words, how is it that so many otherwise intelligent people who tend to be skeptical and analytical throw away all logic and reason when it comes to religion?

quote:

---

quote:

---

why do you think god has always existed?

---

​

That's what I was taught.

---

On many occasions I have found that what I have been taught is not always true. In particular, my parents were not always correct. Changing a belief that I have held all my life is rather difficult. But, the courageous person must look the facts in the face and be willing to say, “Oops, that was wrong and therefore I was wrong. I need to change my belief”When you cannot find a solid reason to believe something, then that the belief is due for a re-examination.

quote:

---

Oh well, I was just trying to respond to the question in the OP:

---

You have confused me now. Hmm. Maybe I should eat some crow and change positions. From some of your posts I have read (certainly not all, and some rather rapidly), and from your moniker “Catholic Scientist” I concluded that you were in the ID/Creationist camp and out of the ToE camp. Please give me the short story of your position on ToE, ID, and Creationism.BTW: Does OP mean Other Person?
I edited my post to change the title.This message has been edited by bkelly, 09-23-2005 06:40 PM

quote:

---

Faith. It can even allow someone to blow themself up. I like how System of a Down describes it as 'the most potent element of human existance'. Like, it can give you a lot of strength and taking an unsupported belief is pretty easy compared to other things.

---

Discussing faith is a mine field at best. First, what is faith? While there are more, I start with two categories. If someone has shown me how they behave and live their lives and how they treat me, I may have faith that that will continue to behave in that manner whether I am there or not. For example, my wife loves me and thinks well of me whether we are together or not.Faith is also to believe in something with no evidence to support that belief. Religion not only provides no support, it provides overwhelming evidence to not believe it. I do not mean to insult you, but starting with the Catholics is an ideal choice. How well did faith serve the people that followed the church in the inquisitions? Do you have any idea how many people were tortured and murdered in the name of god? The people of the church were extraordinarily inventive with regards to cause extreme pain and suffering in the name of god. Church leaders forced their people to falsely implicate neighbors and family to avoid torture.Have you read Malleus Malificorum, The Hammer of the Witch? Pope Innocent the 8th is said to have initiated its writings because witches might be giving him problems with his illegitimate children. Some say the end result was that as many as 900,000 people, mostly women, were tortured and murdered for being witches, all in the name of god. Here is one of numerous references: http://www.macha.free-online.co.uk/...lleus-malificorum.htmlTell me, how well did faith serve the people that followed the teaching of the church and its doctrine expressed in Malleus Malificorum? How well did faith server those that were murdered?Let us skip enormous amounts of equally repugnant catholic history and move up to modern times. The pope (and the Catholic religion in general) tells us how homosexuality is a sin. They tell us that those who practice this behavior should not be allowed to attend mass. They must not be absolved of their sins. On the other hand, there are some major contradictions here. What should the church do when a priest is not only a practicing homosexual, but is pedophile predator? (Any male that has sex with boys is by definition a homosexual).I will remind you of what the church does. It says, in effect, “Oh dear, the congregation has discovered that you are a homosexual and have been molesting their young boys. Oh what ever shall we do? Oh, we know, we will move you to another congregation that does not know you and will you have a whole new crop of young boys to molest. And we will ignore the rules we impose on the flock. We will not only allow you to participate in mass, we will allow you to conduct mass.”So tell me, how did faith serve the people that believed in their priests?

quote:

---

Faith. It can even allow someone to blow themself up.

---

You seem to think this is good. My reply is already too long, but I cannot resist responding.What will be your position when some Muslim detonates a nuclear weapon killing tens of thousands and maybe millions because he has faith that his god wants him to destroy the infidels? Will you applaud his faith? Is this something we should eagerly look forward to?There are a significant number of Muslims who are working hard to get their hands on a nuclear weapon and do just that. And some of them have a lot of money.And they are doing it because of, . , FAITH.

While Crash has been doing some rather effective heavy lifting, I really should add in my position.

quote:

---

Really? You mean we should test theories by seeing how they hold up when applied to subjects they were not formulated to explain? Interesting.

---

Not at all. But as Crash has said, the theory is directly applicable. The ID/creationist POV (point of view) says humans are too complex to have developed without external guidance. To question that is god is too complex is a direct, obvious, and valid application.Please re-evaluate.

bkelly writes:
The fact that he (some guy) will not even address the question of the origin of god is an indicator that his creationist beliefs have a problem. We can no longer allow people to blithely ignore positions they cannot support. You are correct, it was written poorly. “We can no longer allow people to blithely ignore facts that contradict their positions?”

quote:

---

Either way, I presume you are living in a democratic society. It sounds like you'd rather live in a dictatorship or something.

---

It very well could look like that, but that is not my intent. When people put forth a position that cannot endure close examination we should not stand by quietly without that examination. To be silent on a topic is to grant implicit agreement. (Assuming of course that there is no duress.)

quote:

---

{tongue in cheek}
It is just horrible to allow people to say or believe whatever they want to, I guess.
{/tongue in cheek}

---

Good point. Valid point. But there is a counter point. Should we truly be allowed to teach people things as fact when the fact cannot be supported? Should the teacher be obligated to fess up to the fact that he believes these things but really has no verifiable reason to do so? The claimant has and should have the right to their position, but with that right goes responsibility. But this is an entirely new thread.

quote:

---

By the way, just how did life come into being? What is your position on that subject? And what empirical evidence do you use to support your position?

---

That is one of the most difficult questions that I have ever considered. I do not have a valid answer and I don’t think science really knows. The organization, complexity and abilities of DNA is just incredible.(1) The idea that life just kind of developed of its own accord, so to speak, is a difficult pill to swallow. And I cannot completely swallow it.That said, there are some mitigating factors. We, that is to say scientists and engineers, do know of complex molecular structures that are self replicating. That is a major first step that I only recently read about. Can we really understand how long one million years is? How large is the ocean and how many billions of tons of unknown types of chemicals and complex molecules were there? How many opportunities were there in a million years?In that first primordial soup, once life got started the first time, there were no predators, there was nothing out to get it. It only had to be successful once. One time in trillions of gallons of chemical soup, millions of years, trillions of lightening bolts, etc, etc.And then there is that old saw about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy must increase. When correctly applied to the surface of the earth, it demands that entropy must decrease. But again, that’s another thread.(1) a footnote that is. Here is one of my pet peeves. I am at a loss for adjectives here. Our society tends to use superlatives with reckless abandon. They are used to the point that they lose their significance. Then we must make up abominations such as humongous and horrific. What to do?

I suspect that ID was indeed not intended to explain the existence of spiritual things. However, there are innumerable inventions and creations that came about because of totally unexpected results in experiments. Many software applications started as mis-use of the original code. If it fits, put it to work.The ID theory is just as applicable to the existance of god as it is to humans and other life. I will indeed apply it. Being hoisted by your own petard can be a good thing.

quote:

---

Pasteur's experiments showed that when you eliminate life from a {broth\whatever} that you do not see the effects of life on the {broth\whatever}.

​

The experiments by Paseur were short lived and did not represent the environment that existed on earth before life, or even before oxygen had become predominant in the environment due to the action of life.

---

To expand a bit on RAZD, what do you think might have happended if Pasteur has done his experiment with a couple of billion gallons of broth for a couple of million years? And if he put chemicals in and took some out over and over? And if he heated it, and warmed it, and simmered it, and chilled it over and over? And if he zapped with with electricity in some places and not others? And as I said elsewhere, how many opportunities are there in a million years? That is a very long time.In the realm of human life and disease, Pasteur's experiments were quite valid. But they do not scale up to an experiment the size of the earth.

CS,
I have read a number of your posts and you are more intelligent than to attempt to bluff this argument with such nonsense. I think (at least I hope) that I have shown enough intelligence that it is obvious I won't accept that rot.Your answer is vacuous, I know it, other people here know it, and so do you. Please try again.

In message 22 of this thread, in response to your statements about how faith is good, I stated: This is a direct result of religious "FAITH." I refresh this question and request that you respond rather than ignore it.

As this thread continues, I see evidence that we are arguing points where neither of us, (well at least me) are certain of the other person's position. My interpertation of some of your posts leads me to contradictory conclusions.Lets go back to message 16 of this thread that you posted:

quote:

---

why do you think god has always existed?

Catholic Scientist writes:

​

That's what I was taught.

---

This says you believe in god. But you give no reason, no justification.

quote:

---

there is only one answer that makes any logical sense. There is no god.

Catholic Scientist writes:

​

Logical? Of course the belief in god is illogical.

---

But you state that your belief is not logical.Let me see if I understand: You believe in god, you know it is illogical, you believe because someone told you to, and you seem to think this is good. This is a life defining philosophy, but with no substantiation.There must be something I am missing.From message 17 I ask: And in 19 you respond: Here is where I draw some conclusions. You have justified your belief with the concept of faith, and in the context of the conversation, this means faith in a religious context; to believe in something without any evidence to do so.This implies that you believe that religious faith is a good thing.From this point I claimed that religious faith is not good, and is indeed quite bad. I listed several instances of people behaving very badly because of heir religious faith. But they were (and are) convinced that:
1. Their behavior is in the best interest of god
2. That god wants them to commit these acts
3. Therefore there really isn’t any choice in the matter
4. Therefore they are obligated to behave in this manner (torture, killing, ect)By virtue of religious faith, there are many Muslims, and not just extremists, that believe all infidels should be killed. (Read the Koran, it is quite clear.) Read Exodus and you will find that Christians should kill all those that are not Christian. It is very explicit and clear.In message 47 you state: Well, yes you did say religious faith is good, implicitly, but clearly. You supported your belief in god by faith. This means that you think faith in god is good.
I have shown a tiny fraction of the evidence that faith in god and faith in god's word (in the form of the bible, the Koran, etc) leads people to truly evil actions.
How is this within the limit of this thread? Creationism and ID are thinly disguised efforts to bring religion into government, for example, public school. (BTW: In my not so humble opinion, both sides of the ID debate know damn well that ID is a religious position, but the IDist continue to pretend that if they deny that position enough times the public will begin to separate ID and religion.) Creationism and ID require, nay, demand a god pulling the strings. I have proposed that their Wonderful Theory is easily falsifiable. (And I am far from alone in this position) Their argument, in some cases, boils down to having faith in god. And now I have presented a very tiny faction of history that shows faith in god is evil.
So, do you support ID or not? If so, why?

Not in the slightest. (to both questions) Regarding the first question, allow me to sumarize and paraphrase the relevant theme:Do you believe in god?
Yes.
Why?
Because I was taught that I should.
Can you support that position?
No. But I believe anyway.
Why?
Religious Faith.
Is that logical?
No, but I believe anyway.(Please note: The above is how I interpret the meaning of previous posts. I do not imply that others said these particular words and my interpertation is subject to error.)

quote:

---

Extreme and horrendous actions are taken by many people.

---

Yes, quite true. But in the context of this thread, so what? That is irrelevant. The point is the evil people do in the name of religious faith.The core question: Is religious faith good or bad?The answer: Religious faith is evil. It is the greatest cause of harm this world has ever known.Maybe some day I will regret that position. But in the meantime can you refute the logic?I again refer to the book "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris.