How would atheists respond to this?

by Knowsnothing 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Shawn10538
    Shawn10538

    It's still an argument with many logical fallacies interwoven into it no matter which way you slice it. It is inductive reasoning for one thing. It is also a false dichotomy (either or thinking like it has to be either intelligent design or not intelligent design as if there were only those two options.) It is a slippery slope. It also incites Occams Razor, opting for non magical explanations before jumping to the magical. It is an asumption, in that God is not known by anybody provably, God is only assumed. God is just one explanation among infinite others, all of them being equally valid. Plus the possiblity that x is just as good an explanation, we just don't know the value or identity of x. Then there is "Which God?" to contend with. Which version? Why the word God? Why intelligent? Intelligent compared to what or whom? What about intelligent plus one? Intelligent plus two? ... on to infinity. What about dog? What about Cataflunk? What about semi - intelligence? What about comparing our reality to some other reality that is either more or less intelligent?

    Intelligence is a judgement we are making, not an identity. So there has to be a scale of "a little intelligent, moderately intelligent, super intelligent...etc." Then all those things need to be compared to a similar God in a similar situation so we can decide which God is more intelligent. Then we can say a is more intelligent than b, so a is this other God in another more intelligent universe, and b is our God, who is comparably less intelligent, though still pretty intelligent.... It just goes on and on like that. There really is no way to prove God unless you meet him face to face... like I did. But then it's only good proof for me, not anyone else. so my experience can't help the debate at all.

  • tec
    tec

    On the other hand, cite where/when/how Christian dogma/religious writ has acted to correct science? Though perhaps someone could state factual areas within the historical portions of some texts as giving science a 'direction' to investigate and confirm or deny - I know of no example where science has had to admit that 'the holy book' was paramount in explaining a problem and solution.

    I'm not certain if this applies fully to your point, but I found it interesting.

    I believe it was in that talk that was posted a while back with Dawkins and that physicist (whose name I do not remember, but I can look it up); one of them stated that scientists stayed away from considering a 'start' to the universe because of the link to the bible. So they were content to state that the universe was eternal (theory or hypothesis, I don't know which)... which of course changed as further evidence presented itself. I just thought it was interesting that the 'big bang' might have been known sooner, or it might have been studied more fully sooner, had there not been a reluctance because it was in the bible.

    Peace

    Tammy

  • tec
    tec

    Also, I have never heard of 'Flew'. It does not matter to me who does or does not believe in God; nor who changes their mind on their deathbed, or not.

    Peace

    tammy

  • Knowsnothing
    Knowsnothing
    Suppose your argument is correct. You can replace "designer" with "the fundamental law of the universe" and your speculation applies equally well. On the other hand, a "fundamental law of the universe" need not have (for instance) a son or emotions like God has (and which is rather strange, how can God have emotions without a brain? How can God have a son without a body?), so it is a simpler hypothesis. Why should i then choose God?

    Why is there a fundamental law of the universe? "That's just the way it is."

    Precisely because the universe contain matter in a non-trivial (ie. non-equilibrium) configuration. You can ask why that is so, and modern cosmology can give you the answer: the universe underwent inflation some 13.7 billion years ago. You can argue that God pulled in the universe and caused it to inflate, but that is another mystery -- why there is information is an answered question.

    There seems to be a giant leap from "universal information" (if you want to call it that) to "DNA information."

    And honestly, are you arguing that DNA does not need "decoding"?
    I dont think anyone argue that...

    No, but doesn't it seem strange to you that it needs decoding? Why does DNA decode?

    The big bang theory is not the theory that there once was nothing and then something. It is a theory which describe the very early stages of the universe, nothing else.
    If you assume "absolutely nothing", our language simply stop working in terms of making any explanations. To me your argument boil down to this:

      Atheists cannot explain why the universe exist without assuming something. Assuming something allways existed is "bad" or "unacceptable" when atheists do it.
      I can explain why something exist if i assume something allways existed. It is not "bad" or "unacceptable" when i assume something allways existed.

    Point taken.

  • Knowsnothing
    Knowsnothing
    So there you have it - Flew giving whole-hearted support to the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses.

    Ugg, I wonder if he was aware of disfellowshipping and blood transfusions. So, what is he accepting here, paradise earth or knocking on doors?

  • Knowsnothing
    Knowsnothing
    At some point, we all say, "that's just the way it is."
    Really? Who are these 'all' you speak of? Generally the real end is the idea that this is just the way god made it. As Cofty already pointed out, a brilliant mind like Newton's was stopped and simply decided this was just the way god did it. Had he pushed passed such a notion, perhaps he would have come up with something valuable there too. So much knowledge stops when the god factor goes up. But does a scientist today say 'that's just the way it is'? I hope not.

    There are axioms upon which we build our arguments. It's just that simple. As we regress further and further, like a child that asks "why, why, why?" we eventually reach an end point.

    Take matter, for instance. I'm almost certain that while we might not have discovered the smallest particle in existence, it's there. We have atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, and then quirks. I think there is one more step after that, but imagine there is more? And yet, I doubt matter is infinitely regressible.

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    Okay, so YOU reach the point where you simply say 'that's just the way it is'. That's not surprising, since you are comfortable ending the search at some point with a god or designer. However science is always asking and looking. I think the discipline has stretched way past such reasoning. They no longer accept such a pass. The questions are difficult---the answers may be very far in the future---but as they unravel the mysteries, they will not stop at the point where 'that's just the way it is'. It's called progress. Knowledge is progressive. Put up that silly little barrier, and knowledge stops growing.

    NC

  • Knowsnothing
    Knowsnothing
    They no longer accept such a pass.

    So, there are no scientific axioms? I'm seriously not against progress. I'm just saying there is eventually an end, unless matter is infinite, which would be mind blowing.

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    We won't know the answer to that if we accept the notion 'that's just the way it is'. That's where everything will stop, and it's silly. We don't know what we don't know, and I have confidence that we will always search. It's what we do. Unless something from the outside makes such a search wrong, or convinces people they have found all the answers. There was a time when the Catholic church pretty much convinced everyone that everything to be known was known. Thank science for the Enlightenment----which got a lot of people in trouble with religion.

    NC

  • Knowsnothing
    Knowsnothing

    I also found this article to be pretty interesting. Bad Designs?

    Bad Design in the Human Eye?

    The vertebrate eye is quite an exceptional organ in terms of its function. Light passes through the cornea, then through the lens where it is focused on the retina, which contains the photoreceptors (rods and cones) for detecting this light (see diagram to right). Each rod and cone that receives light fires a signal to the neural apparatus, which transmits the signal to the optic nerve, which goes to the brain for processing. The brain does some fancy processing, including inverting the image and interpreting what is seen (this is a whole other story that cannot be covered here).

    The invertebrate eye is much simpler and is quite different, especially in the design of its retina. The invertebrate retina is composed of the photoreceptors, which face the incoming light, followed by the neural layer, and the underlying layers that supply nutrients and oxygen through a capillary bed. However, the vertebrate retina is said to be "inverted," since the neural layers face the light and the photoreceptor cells actually face away from the incident light. Evolutionists say that this arrangement was the result of improvised evolution in which obvious errors in "design" were accommodated through successive mutational alterations to make the apparatus work in a functional manner. According to Richard Dawkins, a leading proponent of evolution:

    "Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away, from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called �blind spot�) to join the optic nerve. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually, probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer). I don�t know the exact explanation for this strange state of affairs. The relevant period of evolution is so long ago." 4

    Dawkins doesn't know why the vertebrate retina is designed this way because he doesn't really understand how the eye works. In fact, the retina is designed with slightly suboptimal light gathering abilities so that it will be functional for at least several decades. If it were designed according to Dawkins' "tidy-minded engineer," it would not work at all, as we shall see.

    First, we need a short introduction to the physics of light. The electromagnetic spectrum emitted by the sun is composed of many different wavelengths, a small percentage of which are visible to our eyes (370-730 nanometers). The near-visible wavelengths include the longer wavelengths (infrared) and the shorter wavelengths (ultraviolet). The amount of energy within each wavelength is inversely proportional to the wavelength. Therefore, electromagnetic energy that consists of shorter wavelengths (e.g., ultraviolet light) is more energetic.

    Retina Animation
    Neural
    Layer
    Rods and
    Cones
    RPE
    Choroid
    Click on animation to enlarge
    (444 KB)

    Although the visual apparatus cannot detect the high energy wavelengths, it is still affected by them, since the entire system is exposed to the full spectrum. In contrast, the rest of the body is protected from high energy light by pigment (melanin) in the skin. Even so, a lifetime exposure of the skin cells to this light can result in DNA damage, which may lead to the development of cancers. The eye contains a special layer of cells, the Retinal Pigment Epithelium (RPE), which has complex mechanisms for dealing with toxic molecules and free radicals produced by the action of light. Specific enzymes such as the superoxide dismutases, catalases, and peroxidases are present to eliminate potentially harmful molecules such as superoxide and hydrogen peroxide. Antioxidants such as a-tocopherol (vitamin E) and ascorbic acid (vitamin C) are available to reduce oxidative damage.

    Because of continuous damage caused by light, the discs (along with the photopigments) of the photoreceptor cells are continuously replaced by the RPE. 5, 6 If this were not the case, the photoreceptors would quickly accumulate fatal defects that would prohibit their function. In addition, the RPE cells contain the pigment melanin, which absorbs stray and scattered light to improve visual acuity. The RPE is in contact with the choroid layer, which contains a very large capillary bed, which has the largest blood flow per gram of any tissue in the body. Why is the blood flow so high in the choroid? Since the RPE and photoreceptor cells are in constant regeneration, they require a high rate of exchange of oxygen and nutrients. In addition, it appears that the high rate of blood flow is required to remove heat from the retina to prevent damage resulting from focused light (the old magnifying glass in the Sun phenomenon). 7

    So why is Dawkins' "tidy-minded engineer" design such a bad idea? Dawkins thinks that the neural layer should be under the photoreceptors, putting them between the photoreceptors and the choroid. Where would the RPE (which is required to regenerate the photoreceptors) go? If it were between the neural layer and the choroid, it would be too far away from the photoreceptors to constantly regenerate them. In addition, this design would put another layer between the photoreceptors and their blood supply, reducing the exchange of oxygen and nutrients, and minimizing the effectiveness of the choroid in removing heat from the receptors. Dawkins' idea of "good" evolution would prevent the photoreceptors from being regenerated and would likely lead to heat damage. Such a design would certainly fail within the first year of use. It's a good thing that God does not design the way evolutionists would!

    More information on the design of the eye can be found at the links below. 8-10

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit