The Creator's Creator...

by dorayakii 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • dorayakii
    dorayakii

    I have several ways of stating and demonstrating what is essentially the same point...

    1. JWs often deflected the question, "what is the purpose of life?", by stating that our purpose it is to serve the Creator... but, what is the purpose of the Creator himself? Must we not apply the same criteria to the Creator as we do to ourselves? If the Creators purpose is to just BE, why can our purpose not be to just BE?

    2. In the AuldSoul / AlanF thread it had been mentioned that we humans manifest the earmarks of being designed... does, therefore, our intelligence constitute such an earmark? If so, does not the Creator himself, as an intelligentbeing, manifest the characteristics or earmarks of a designed being?... or is this blasphemy? Why then does the Creator escape such close analysis?

    If our designed minds are contained within a designed bodies, is God's mind contained in a "body" of sorts? (a) If not, are we not then more complex than Him, with a body? (b) If so, does this cosmic body have functions, and do those functions require a Designer... or did He design himself??

    3. What stops us imperfect beings from being the be-all and end-all of the cosmic question?... just as the Creator just"IS" (without need of being created), why can we not also just "BE" (in the same sence of not needing a Creator)?... Why is it not blasphemy to say that the human race as a whole is designed, yet a blasphemy to say that the Creator is not eternal?...

    4. In the WTS's Creation book, it states in the box on page 112, that "life comes only from life, originally created by an intelligent Creator"... but is not the Creator himself a form of life? If the Creator's origins are unknown, it does not solve anything at all.

    Instead of saying that the life of the Creator was the source, we might as well say that life on earth was the source. Why not stop at what we can see and measure (which is what science is, observations and measurements) instead of positing the existence of a whole arbitrary cosmic drama, which we cannot see and cannot prove? If we do chose to accept the existence of that drama, and of that being, is it a taboo to ask questions such as: "How long and where did this Designer exist?"..."How can you prove he exists eternally?", "Does he live outside of the space-time continuum?", "Did he come into existence by a form of cosmic evolution or did he just pop into existence in a 'big-bang'?", "If he just popped into existence, what stops us from having popped into existence?"

    5.

    TopHatsaid:

    If a first living cell had formed without a Creator, the cell would still have had to replace each of its proteins as soon as it wore out. If the cell did not contain the information to correctly turn on and off the production of the replacement proteins, the cell would have died as soon as the first essential protein wore out. This is evidence that there is a Creator who knows how to turn protein production on and off! The proteins that make up cells will not form anywhere in nature except in already living cells. One reason cells can make them is because the directions for making them and for turning their production on and off are already present in the cell’s library of information called DNA. Once made, proteins could not function unless they were properly folded and addressed. Neither making proteins, folding, addressing, nor regulating their production could invent itself, yet no cell could live unless all were in place working together. These brilliant solutions are scientific facts and constitute evidence for a very intelligent Creator who plans ahead.

    If these proteins required a designer, as relatively simple as they are, why does the Creator himself, assumedly an infinitely complex being escape this path of logic? Does being unable to explain something, automatically mean that there is a Creator who "knows" how and why it works? or that there is a Creator who put it into action?

    I hope this has allowed peple to see that complexity doesn't need a designer. and that the designer himself must already be sufficiantly complex enough to be even able to design. Therefore this complexity again needs a designer... a vicious circle that must be stopped somewhere...

    If anyone has any intelligent answers to some of the points, please post.

  • zeroday
    zeroday
    a vicious circle that must be stopped somewhere...

    If there is no God that created us and evolution is why we are consider the odds. IF each galaxy could produce one earth like planet, solar system capable of life thru evolution. That would produce 100 BILLION galaxies with at least ONE life system each.

  • dorayakii
    dorayakii

    Do my questions make sense? or are they illogical?...

    If there is no God that created us and evolution is why we are consider the odds. IF each galaxy could produce one earth like planet, solar system capable of life thru evolution. That would produce 100 BILLION galaxies with at least ONE life system each.

    I'm not sure i understand your arguement ZeroDay... Are you saying that the chances of life on Earth evolving over billions years, and billions of subtle changes and adaptations are less likely than an already-complex Creator just popping into existence and somehow being able to create cool stuff... with his voice?

    What exactly are the odds of a Creator just popping into existence? How can we even *begin* to calculate these odds? ...or did God himself evolve?... or was He created by Someone Else?

  • Dansk
    Dansk

    Dorayakii:

    Your post is excellent. Here's the problem:

    If anyone has any intelligent answers to some of the points, please post.

    I wouldn't guarantee you'll receive the answers you expect

    Ian

  • zeroday
    zeroday
    I hope this has allowed peple to see that complexity doesn't need a designer

    That's where I'm coming from. I don't believe life needs a designer. I believe we are a product of Evolution and if life can evolve here it can elswhere. I might suggest this book: "Rare Earth" by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee.

  • stevenyc
    stevenyc

    Dorayakii, Have you read about the Kalam cosmological argument? If not you may find it interesting. The refined break down is something like this:

    1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
    2) The universe began to exist.
    3) Therefore, the universe had a cause.

    Note: the 'cause' is in the 'cause and effect' sense.

    It is commonly used as proof of the existence of God.

    There have been objections to this, including quantum physics which shows how electrons can 'come into being' in a vacuum.

    Also, there is an argument that says it is absurd to define a state of what happened 'before' the big bang, because if the big bang created space and TIME, then any-TIME BEFORE the big bang didn't exist.

    steve

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Well, as there is no theory of origin for god or the 'original' ID-er/s, I don't expect a great wave of responses from supporters of such hypotheses.

    Having to start off a refutation of the point dorayakil makes with a logical fallacy isn't very appealing.

    "Yes, well, WE obviously need a designer, as complex things need designers, but OUR designer although complex doesn't need its own designer because of BLAH" is an argument using special pleading (the BLAH), i.e. something along the lines of "closed doors need to be opened in order to pass through their doorway, but the first closed door didn't need opening in order to pass through its doorway".

    But believers in creo and ID are honest people. They genuinely believe the special pleadings they use to explain why god/ID-er doesn't need a god/ID-er are valid. Thus when the evo brigade go "huh?" they get all upset as they take it personally... it's not about your personal worth good people, it's about the logical worth of the what you believe in.

  • Dansk
    Dansk

    Hey Gyles, LOL:

    Well, as there is no theory of origin for god or the 'original' ID-er/s, I don't expect a great wave of responses from supporters of such hypotheses.
    Having to start off a refutation of the point dorayakil makes with a logical fallacy isn't very appealing.
    But believers in creo and ID are honest people. They genuinely believe the special pleadings they use to explain why god/ID-er doesn't need a god/ID-er are valid. Thus when the evo brigade go "huh?" they get all upset as they take it personally... it's not about your personal worth good people, it's about the logical worth of the what you believe in.

    If you can't find an IDer or Creationist to argue with, just imagine (using past experience) what they're likely to say. I love it!

    Ian

  • dorayakii
    dorayakii
    Dorayakii, Have you read about the Kalam cosmological argument?

    No i havent read about it under that name stevenyc... but i've seen that line of reasoning before... on page 78 of the WTS'sCreator book...

    One question i'd like to ask is, can it be extended to the Creator himself?

    1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
    2) The Creator began to exist.
    3) Therefore, the Creator had a cause.

    ...of course, creationists would argue that God did not begin to exist, he merely... exists. Therefore, if we can say something like that about God, why can we not say that Life itself... just exists? Why do special rules apply to the Creator, and why does he get out of the logical equation? (and don't just say "because he's the Creator d'uh" coz that doesnt hold water)

    That's where I'm coming from. I don't believe life needs a designer. I believe we are a product of Evolution and if life can evolve here it can elswhere. I might suggest this book: "Rare Earth" by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee.

    Thanks for the clarification zeroday. From your post, i wasnt quite sure where you stood.

  • Butters
    Butters

    If God didn't exist, then man would have no need to invent him... (Butters 36:24:36)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit