The arguement that recently convinced me of god's existence

[Allinlife]

So my close christian friend lends me a book, because I've always been bugging her and questioning christianity, and she told me it'd answer most of my questions.

So I start reading the book and the very first chapter talks about this.

Say you are walking down a field, and you see a wooden chair in middle of no where. Now you know someone must have made that chair, because chair's don't just "happen". You've never witnessed the builder of the chair working on the chair, but you could only assume that someone out there, made the chair and placed it there for whatever reason.

Now if something as simple as a wooden chair can't just "happen" the book argues that something as complicated as humans, cell structures, plants, animals, countless laws of physics that govern the universe could not have just "happened". Somebody must have created us. If you think a wooden chair could not exist with out a builder, consider how infinately more complex body structures we humans have.

And I think the reasoning is fairly solid. I do now think that it is silly to imagine things like mitosis, DNA, human eyes could have appeared by random chance.

The book also goes into absolute lack of evidence in macro-evolution (aka missing links) and how the scientists were still unable to create life out of chemical reactions as they proclaim.

But I do not want to get into the macro evolution/ biogenesis theory stuff, but just would like a discussion on use of logic in the chair anology.

thanks.

[hmkpoker]

God is infinitely more complex and even less likely to have happened by random chance. Gods don't just "happen." So what created God?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
The book also goes into absolute lack of evidence in macro-evolution (aka missing links) . . .

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like an extremely uninformed book.

[Allinlife]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The book also goes into absolute lack of evidence in macro-evolution (aka missing links) . . .

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like an extremely uninformed book.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay it may be a biased book, but I don't really intend to start another creation vs evolution thing going here...because they always end up in some ridiculous 20 page flame fest.

As for question of "who created god", god is supposed to exist outside time and space, so those things do not bind him. ... a reasonable anology I think is.. assuming we are like ants kept in a 2 dimensional container, we will never understand the world of 3-dimensions. And since time is the 4th dimension, and if god could exist outside much higher dimensions, we will never understand wth is going on there.

could you two PM me any arguements so I could keep topic I want to discuss alone with others that would be intersted in discussing them?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Now if something as simple as a wooden chair can't just "happen" the book argues that something as complicated as humans, cell structures, plants, animals, countless laws of physics that govern the universe could not have just "happened".

[/ QUOTE ]
We already know how chairs are made: people craft them out of wood using various tools and stuff.

We also already know how plants are formed. They grow from seeds. Nobody crafts them using any tools or anything.

If we didn't already know these things -- if we truly came across a chair in a desert and we had never seen a chair before and had no clue as to how they were made -- then we would be foolish to conclude that it was crafted by a designer. Maybe it was, or maybe it was formed more like a plant: it somehow grew from a seed. Or maybe there's some other possibility.

So the analogy fails. You can't say "chairs are made by people, therefore plants are made by people." Plants are not made by people.

The fact is that there are several different ways things can end up looking "designed." One is for them to actually have been designed (like a chair). Another is for them to have biologically evolved (like a plant). And importantly, there is no foolproof way of looking at an object we've never seen before and knowing whether it was designed or evolved (or something else).

(There are certain traits we can look for, however, that will give hints. Forms that have biologically evolved are often "designed" rather stupidly in certain ways due to their peculiar evolutionary history. Thus we see whales with remnants of hind limbs, humans with remnants of tail bones, fish that live in pitch-black caves that have non-functioning eyes, etc. A designer would be unlikely to include such useless features, although we can't rule out the possibility that the designer was just really stupid. So as I said, there's no foolproof way for distinguishing between evolved entities and designed entities.)

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
So my close christian friend lends me a book, because I've always been bugging her and questioning christianity, and she told me it'd answer most of my questions.

So I start reading the book and the very first chapter talks about this.

Say you are walking down a field, and you see a wooden chair in middle of no where. Now you know someone must have made that chair, because chair's don't just "happen". You've never witnessed the builder of the chair working on the chair, but you could only assume that someone out there, made the chair and placed it there for whatever reason.

Now if something as simple as a wooden chair can't just "happen" the book argues that something as complicated as humans, cell structures, plants, animals, countless laws of physics that govern the universe could not have just "happened". Somebody must have created us. If you think a wooden chair could not exist with out a builder, consider how infinately more complex body structures we humans have.

And I think the reasoning is fairly solid. I do now think that it is silly to imagine things like mitosis, DNA, human eyes could have appeared by random chance.

The book also goes into absolute lack of evidence in macro-evolution (aka missing links) and how the scientists were still unable to create life out of chemical reactions as they proclaim.

But I do not want to get into the macro evolution/ biogenesis theory stuff, but just would like a discussion on use of logic in the chair anology.

thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now talk to a freind with some science background. ask him for some books on science. Read up some explanations of how what you see could have arisen from the laws of physics as we understand them. Then decide having seen both sides of the story. The reality of existance is far more intersting and beautiful than "I don't understand so it must be a God that that made it all". Read up some science stuff..it will really blow your mind

[ QUOTE ]

Say you are walking down a field, and you see a wooden chair in middle of no where. Now you know someone must have made that chair, because chair's don't just "happen". You've never witnessed the builder of the chair working on the chair, but you could only assume that someone out there, made the chair and placed it there for whatever reason.


[/ QUOTE ]


Very unthinking. I would say that if you walked the tropical forests on a daily basis, you would find an enormous number of arrangements formed by fallen branches and trunks that look like chairs of all types.

In the evolutionary process there may be millions and millions of changes all in different directions and all random, only one of them may provide a better fit or a survival advantage.

Much more likely than (Un)intelligent Design fantasy (please lets not call it a scientific theory, it is nothing of the sort). Again, like all of those peddlers of beliefs, they will take examples that don't even serve their purposes. The eye is a case in point and an excellent example of bad design. It is far from optimal, has structural faults that are related to its evolutionary origin. Please do a search on the net. It is very basic scientific information. Just ignore the peddlers of ignorance (usually anything to do with theism).

[ QUOTE ]
So my close christian friend lends me a book, because I've always been bugging her and questioning christianity, and she told me it'd answer most of my questions.

So I start reading the book and the very first chapter talks about this.

Say you are walking down a field, and you see a wooden chair in middle of no where. Now you know someone must have made that chair, because chair's don't just "happen". You've never witnessed the builder of the chair working on the chair, but you could only assume that someone out there, made the chair and placed it there for whatever reason.

Now if something as simple as a wooden chair can't just "happen" the book argues that something as complicated as humans, cell structures, plants, animals, countless laws of physics that govern the universe could not have just "happened". Somebody must have created us. If you think a wooden chair could not exist with out a builder, consider how infinately more complex body structures we humans have.

And I think the reasoning is fairly solid. I do now think that it is silly to imagine things like mitosis, DNA, human eyes could have appeared by random chance.

The book also goes into absolute lack of evidence in macro-evolution (aka missing links) and how the scientists were still unable to create life out of chemical reactions as they proclaim.

But I do not want to get into the macro evolution/ biogenesis theory stuff, but just would like a discussion on use of logic in the chair anology.

thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddy - you really need to read <u>The Blind Watchmaker</u> by Richard Dawkins. He has done enough to refute this simplistic argument.

Also, why do you say a chair is more "simple" than the biochemical reactions of life. (For instance, unless you switch to an anaerobic metabolism (like when you run and your muscles don't get enough oxygen), your body's chemistry is the same as buring wood.) What the Christian author did was frame the issue in manner that seems convincing, but the way he framed the issue was incorrect.

A chair is more complex that biochemical reactions when you look at the issue in this manner.

Biochemical reactions, all of them without question, simply follow the laws of thermodynamics. In other words the molecules behave the way they are supposed to behave (i.e., reactions that increase the amount entropy in the Universe). The chair on the other hand, was created by matter being forced to something it would not do on its own. Trees had to be cut, shaped and sanded.

The aetheist version on the origins of life is simply that "life" is the result of a mixture on chemicals (namely aromatic-carbon rings with nitrogen) behaving in full accord with the laws of thermodynamics.

Now, are you thinking that some one had to create the laws of thermodynamics? That to me is a better argument that a stinking chair? But still wrong, IMO. If we take for a <u>given</u> that the Universe exists, then everything in it has to behave in a predictable and certain fashion (i.e., the laws of thermodynamics). If it didn't, then you couldn't get drive to work because it would be a crap shoot as to whether or not gasoline felt like cumbusting with oxygen on that particular day. So if we exist, then there has to be a set of underlying rules. The two are inseparable, so why does there have to be a god because we have both.

Incidentally, it seems to me that "miracles" are supposed instances where the laws of thermodynamics or physics were supposedly violated in the presence of humans. So if a miracle (or violation of the laws of physics or thermodynamics) is proof of god, then how can nature acting as it should also be proof of god.

[RJT]

Morph,

Sorry to interrupt. I never saw the underline instant UBB code before you just used it. I have needed it on several occasions. Is it new to the list of codes here? If it has always been there, then I need new glasses.

RJT

[ QUOTE ]
Morph,

Sorry to interrupt. I never saw the underline instant UBB code before you just used it. I have needed it on several occasions. Is it new to the list of codes here? If it has always been there, then I need new glasses.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

It's in the Instant UBB code, at least on mine.