? to atheist's about the argument from ignorance/incredulity

How can lack of understanding indicate that me cannot conclude design? That would make sense, for example, if someone had taken a hundred random things from the earth and thrown them in a pile. Then looking for understanding would be pointless. But the earth, and the universe, is so complex and so perfect - that the more we delve into it the more we see this. The more we look the more we find. The more complex, and the more perfect our universe becomes. Our lack of understanding just shows our ignorance to the structure and complexity of everything around us.

I dont believe in a "god of the gaps". Because people use that to show that the more we discover the less phenomena there is for theists to use as evidence of god. I see it more of an asymptote. Like, we can forever get closer to understanding everything in our universe, but will never understand everything. And the gap, between our learning curve and the line of infinite understanding, that is what is filled with faith. Faith is something greater. And that isn't ignorance. Ignorace is saying that we humans will one day know everything, and will fill this "gap", in which god now dwells.

 

There is not any relationship between something being complex necessitating a creator or designer. The logic of your argument lacks that step to show how you arrive at your conclusion. Also I am not sure why you say the universe is perfect. It is what it is. Looking around here on Earth, I see many things that not perfect because it could be better.

 

There is clear correlation between complexity and the necessity of a creator if you take into account the functionability of what is created. For example something like a computer, or the human body. Whereas your argument that there is no correlation would be of worth if we we're talking about something such as a pile of rubbish that had been thrown together.

Looking around here on earth, the imperfections are us - humans. But looking around the universe - the more we discover the more perfect it is. The more one part cannot work without another, and the more each part works in conjunction with another. The more we discover about it, the more it become apparent that this is the only way it could be.

If you dont believe in a creator - where did it all begin, what was before and what will be after.

My suggestion is that in this universe there is something greater than ourselves - are you denying that?

 

But again you don't state what or why or how or any evidence as to a connection between complexity and the need for a creator.

I don't know how or why you qualify the universe as perfect. I don't how someone could judge another star system or galaxy and decide what is perfect or not. By human standards, most of the universe is imperfect because we can't live there (no known habitable planets found yet beside Earth). There is lots of imperfect things on Earth besides humans.

What your talking about, that's basically called symbiosis, species working together for mutual benefit.

No beginning, no end.

Is there something greater then humanity, depends on what you mean. In all likelihood, there is probably more advanced, more intelligent alien species out there somewhere.

 

So, if we "take into account" that we were created, then it's obvious we were created? How wonderfully circular.

Seemingly, this starts off as an anology and then goes nowhere.

Is this an argument for or against a creator?

All those questions lie beyond knowledge and best left to folks who like to make shit up.

What does "greater" mean? Bigger? Larger in mass? Will displace more water if put in my bathtub?

 

No. ok exchange the word "created" for "there". There is clear correlation between complexity and the necessity of a creator if you take into account the functionability of what is there.

Does that make it better for you?

OK, again let me expand it for you.

Take for example, all the components in a computer - broken down to the smallest of cells. Throw them up in the air, and let them land. How likely is it that they will all fit into place and build a computer? Of course there is a chance, but how likely is that chance.

It's an argument for a creator.

Exactly, so why deny there could be a creator?

Sorry archimedes, by greater i mean something that lies beyond our boundaries.

Personally i don't believe in a creator as in what the bible teaches, or like a personal god. For me, the universe doesn't need a creator because it was never created. Energy is eternal, it cannot be created or destroyed. The universe is infinite, it has no limits. The only thing that seems limited is life itself. But is it? That's where I think our soul comes into it. The spiritual part of us that is within us in. Our energy. It is eternal.

 

Ozone

EXACTLY, occam agrees 100%.

Structures are created.
The 'stuff' that structures are created from is eternal.
The sum total of mass/energy in reality is constant.
There is NO beginning to reality or time.
Or end.
Creation, exists 'within it' ..only.

There has never been an instance in human history where ANY
mater/energy/space was created.
Or destroyed.

A thermonuclear bomb destroys via the releasing of energy between
atomic particles to make new ones.
Hydrogen into helium. Nothing but structural rearrangement
Earth, beethoven and your coffee cup are structures, no more.

And agree, The dynamic harmony of our biosphere and deterministic
stellar mechanics all point to an exterior organisation.
[to our local observabe universe..A mere facet of the totallity of reality]

God?...No just an entity smarter than us.

Occam

 

Not true, energy is ALWAYS the result of an imbalance and flows until balance is achieved.

Stars grow, stars collapse, the universe expands. In terms of stability this universe is anything but perfect. The only thing perfect and constant are the laws of energy themselves, of which we only understand a small fraction of.

 

No. This theory has been so thoroughly eviscerated, it competes only with the heavenly spheres and alchemy.

It's not circular anymore.

If multi-cellular and system-ed organisms had suddenly just popped into existence, then your analogy would seem appropriate, but, since there is no evidence that this is true, this analogy has a rather fishy smell.

Because it's a useless theory.

Whose boundaries? Where are these boundaries located? What exactly do they bound?

 

2 brief thoughts.

1) I like to think that everything we're discovering about the nature of the universe is true. And god put that into place. God created the universe, and it was such that matter is conducive to forming molecules and thus life.

2) How are we perfect? I'd LOVE to know what's perfect about us.

 

So your admitting that there is something out there that is perfect, something that we only understand a small fraction of? Yet you are unwilling to agree that there might be a God?

 

Dont just say it, prove it.

Ok then look at it like this. You see a computer - and someone says to you how was that made. One person says it was created by an intelligent designer. And the other says - the components where there for it - and an explosion happened and they just so happened to work out that way. I'm not saying it just popped into existance. I'm saying it had to come from somewhere. And I'm offering a solution as the where it came from.

I think the word you are looking for is alternate.

Our boundaries. The boundaries that we - as humans - are bound by. Time, for example. Our whole life is governed by it. See thats the difference between a "god", and "the big bang". The big ban offers no beginning and no end. The god theory doesn't need a beginning or an end. god is eternal, a god is not bound by time like we are - it is timess. And why should something that is eternal have a beginning and an end? They don't. Can you honestly look out into the universe and say there is nothing greater than ourselves? That there is nothing more? See the problem with atheists "disproving" god is that they merely disprove him on a scale that he is not human. How can you judge something greater using a lesser scale? It's like asking what do you need to mutiply 10 by to get to infinte.

 

10 x ( )= infinity does not prove God, it just proves that humans have come up with a concept that has no need for a beginning or an end. Everything we know in the fields of science and religion is man made. Humans just think that we know the answers, but we really don't. I don't go through life thinking that I know that there isn't a God, I don't know, neither does anybody else. However, my money's on No God. I'd rather go through life not knowing, than being hung up on stupid beliefs that get me nowhere.

 

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Just because energy and matter happen to have a natural set of properties doesn't mean that these properties were crafted from a supernatural being. The human notion of God actually goes against the idea of natural properties and the more we learn about them the less likely the existence of God becomes.

The Intel 4040 was a 4 Bit CPU developed in the 70's. It was not designed by or with the help of a Dual Core Intel Prentium 4 processor! Early computers did however help to create more powerful and complex computers but it does not work the other way.


A God would have to be far greater and complex than the universe he creates, especially a God that can supposedly oversee an infinite amount of locations, variables, and souls simultaneously.

The God excuse for the origin of the universe is absolutely illogical! You can not rationally and logically explain a complex universe exists because there is a MORE complex supernatural entity creating it.

It all began with very simple things, a medium or two, an unbalance creating energy with NATURAL properties, not supernatural properties.

 

The analogy between the computer and the universe is weak. The universe is not a machine (a machine obviously has a creator). To suppose that the universe is like a man-made artifact is to presuppose what you are trying to prove.

Rationality does seem to be all around us. Animals living in water have fins and gills, birds have wings, there is an ozone layer that protects us, etc. etc. But, as the Darwinian theory of natural selection shows us, teleology need not imply an intelligent creator. Rather it came through a naturalistic process. Teleology only comes in hindsight.

When life comes about, there had to be a certain environment that was conducive for it to arise. Because of this, we think that it was all planned out.

There surely is something greater than Man, and that is the universe itself. There doesn't need to be a god there.

I'm not sure I know what you mean when you say atheists disprove god on a human scale. Atheists have put out many arguments against an omnipotent, omniscient, etc. god.

 

Look it up. It has zero scientific validity. I could copy and paste a bunch of stuff, but that hardly seems necessary.

Once again, a horrible analogy. Your insistence on it is either out of vapidity or dishonesty.

Alternatively useless.

I'd say this is the dumbest thing that I've ever read, but that wouldn't be true. This is the dumbest thing I've read this week though. Something tells me that you can top it.