September 2007

I would hardly expect any competent scientist to agree with you regarding the simplicity of the universe. And since you confess inadequacy in biophysics and biochemistry, you may want to prepare yourself better for a discussion of these topics which are at the base of your being able to discourse at all. You may also prosper by reading current literature on newer findings in cladistic and dna studies in evolution. I would imagine it easy to be an atheist if one ignores the deeper unanswered complexities of the universe. It seems impossible for atheists to think of the possibility of a creator without thinking of an old man in white robes on a golden throne in Heaven. They just can’t get it.

My position is that the universe is not so complex that it couldn’t exist without a creator. Is this the position you think no competent scientist would agree with? Or were you referring to something else? Please clarify.

I have a decent layman’s knowledge of biophysics, biochemistry, and cladistics and DNA studies in evolution. All recent studies I’ve read and read of seem to only make it more likely that no creator is necessary. Are you familiar with these topics enough to explain to a layman what in them is evidence for a creator? So far, you have repeatedly said that such evidence exists but have offered none (aside from questioning where in basic elements the properties of life and thought exist, which I maintain is a logically flawed question).

I suppose it is easier to be an atheist if one ignores certain complexities of the universe, just as it is easier to be a theist by claiming a deity as an explanation for anything you don’t understand. I do my best to address these issued head on, and I’m asking you to explain your points as best you can to help me understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately, although I’m sure you have a good argument in here somewhere, your method of discussion (reasserting your points instead of answering objections, asking questions and ignoring responses that don’t help your argument, continually assigning to me opinions I don’t have, and implying that I am just not able to understand your argument, for example) are all hallmarks of someone with an over-complex theory based on the misuse of facts he himself does not understand. Do you really want me left with this opinion? Wouldn’t you rather try to better your explanations and, perhaps, convince me that you are right?

I also feel compelled to repeat that your implication that you are far more knowledgeable on these topics than I is severely undercut but your past use of the “if one monkey evolved, why didn’t all of them?” argument. It is hard for me to trust that you have a good handle on deeper questions in evolutionary biology when you show signs of not even having the basic concepts firmly in hand.

Finally, I will repeat yet again that I am not an atheist who thinks a deity can only be an old man on a throne. I fully admit there are many, many other possibilities. In fact, it is these possibilities that lead me to say that the existence of a deity is possible. You may find it comforting to believe that atheists are narrow minded and only reject manmade religion, but the fact is this is not always the case.

So, please, can we try and turn this into a straight-forward, directed, intelligent discussion of your argument for the existence of a creator? How about we start with this — name one thing in the field of science that cannot possibly be explained without the existence of a creator (and please define any ambiguous terms).

Posted on September 23, 2007 at 4:51 pm by ideclare · Permalink
In: Anti-atheist, Evidence

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments via RSS

  1. Written by Josh
    on July 9, 2008 at 8:57 pm
    Reply · Permalink

    I have stumbled across similar questions about “how can something come from nothing”. I think it would be ignorant of any person to believe that we have come as far as we can technologicaly as a race. I feel that we will find the answer to that question and others with time. The greeks did not have the telescope or forecasting systems to tell them that Earth revolves around the Sun and that hurricanes happen because of the pressure differences in the ocean. When that knoweledge was finally available to the public, it was widely rejected because it went against everything they had learned, and there is no doubt that religious organizations will do the same thing when more discoveries unfold and reveal mysteries of the universe.

  2. Written by Caitlin
    on February 22, 2009 at 8:43 am
    Reply · Permalink

    The original poster argues that a complex universe proves the existence of a creator, and that the moderator oversimplifies the nature of the universe.

    If that were the case, why do the religions of the world have a tendency to cling to simpler natural laws rather than more complex ones? The church violently opposed the idea of many planets developing around their own stars. Many systems is more complex than one system.

    As another example, the church also fought the idea of evolution until recently. It is far more complex to imagine a system of laws that gradually sculpt creatures to fit their niche than a system of laws that, essentially, says, “*Poof* Elephant. *Poof* Turtle. *Poof* Human being.”

    If a complex universe proves the existence of God, the church is actively suppressing proof of the existence of God. Many people, such as the moderator, are willing to join a religion that can offer such proof. If we can agree that the purpose of the church is to bring as many as possible into the flock, fighting such a proof would run counter to its mission.

Subscribe to comments via RSS

Leave a Reply