• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Featured 100%, absolute, irrefutable proof of God's existence

Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution' started by John Helpher, Mar 26, 2020.

  1. YouAreAwesome

    YouAreAwesome ☝✌

    +959
    Christian
    Married
    Sorry mate, there's a few problems with the watchmaker argument:

    1. Comparing two very different things (bad analogy) e.g. a cat and lion are similar but a cat doesn't necessarily roar because a lion roars
    2. Recognizing that one complex object has a designer does not prove that all complex objects have a designer
    3. Pitting deliberate design and random chance against each other is incorrect because it pretends evolution is random in its consequence (i.e. dismisses natural selection)
    4. If the argument is correct, it proves God was designed
    5. If the argument is correct, it proves many gods (one person designs a watch, another a bike etc)

    As you can see on my profile, I am a believing christian. But bad arguments are bad arguments even if they are attempting to promote the good.
     
  2. John Helpher

    John Helpher John 3:16

    402
    +145
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    I'm comparing parts fit to a functioning whole with purpose. Both a watch and a red blood cell comprise various pieces which work together to preform the functions which makes the whole what it is. But, a red blood cell is many times more complex than a watch.

    It is testable, observable evidence that ordered complexity cannot be what it is without purpose behind its order.

    There's no pretending that evolutionary theory relies on random, dumb-luck chance to be what it is. That is what the theory itself states; no purpose, no intent, no intelligence. What you refer to as "natural selection" is the pretense because the mutations are random. The environments in which these mutations happen are random. If the mutation is beneficial according to the environment, then the organism is more likely to survive long enough to produce offspring. If the mutation is not beneficial, then the organism is more likely to die without producing offspring. This is not selection any more than we'd say a person who picks the correct combination of 6 numbers was selected to win the lottery.

    Nah. It proves we are designed. You don't know what reality is like outside of time/space/matter. What we think of as "create" and "design" could be either completely different or irrelevant in the context of our limited perspective.

    Nah, we're not talking about an intelligence with limitations like we have, where we tend to specialize in only a few areas. You, with the limitations you have, find it difficult to imagine how there could be an intelligence which is able to do so much more than you, so in your mind that necessarily means such an intelligence is ridiculous.
     
  3. YouAreAwesome

    YouAreAwesome ☝✌

    +959
    Christian
    Married
    You see a watch and you know it is designed. Then you compare it to something alive and decide that is also designed. Why? Humans can't design life. So why should we assume because a watch is designed that life is designed? The jump you make here is illogical. It is a mere claim without proper justification, "A red blood cell is many times more complex than a watch" therefore it must be designed. Why? If we assume the source of life at the very beginning point has an unknown origin, then evolution solves all the complexity problems that form the rest of the timeline. No design needed. Ordered complexity without design.

    What's the purpose of hair receding on a mans head?

    Exactly. And this creates order that looks like design. Therefore ordered complexity can be without design.
     
  4. Mountainmanbob

    Mountainmanbob Goat Whisperer Supporter

    +10,038
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    I was expecting much, much more from the video.
    Always looking for something to share with friends.
    This would not work.
    M-Bob
     
  5. John Helpher

    John Helpher John 3:16

    402
    +145
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    The central theme of the video is that God created the earth with deliberate intent, that he has a purpose for us humans, and that we should try to be a part of that purpose. What more were you expecting?
     
  6. John Helpher

    John Helpher John 3:16

    402
    +145
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    You don't need to assume anything. The theory already purports an origin; amino acids formed, by chance, into proteins. Proteins formed, by chance, into cells and there is no explanation for where the genetic code came from.

    I think you probably do not realize just how complex even a single protein is. Even the most simple protein is made up of hundreds of about 20 different amino acids, all strung together in a specific combination and then folded into what is essentially a biological machine which performs specific functions. The chances of these amino acids being all gathered into one place, then positioned into the correct sequence, then binding together, then folding into the finished machine, by chance, would be a 1 with more than a hundred zeros behind it; a number so huge that it essentially becomes meaningless as data. Even with trillions upon trillions of years this would not happen by chance.

    That's for one protein. The simplest cell has hundreds of different proteins all working together, each piece performing a task in conjunction with the others to make the cell what it is. The only way you could continue to believe this kind of thing could happen through random chance is because you want to believe it so. And that is neither science nor sincere.

    It's not an assumption. It's observation, experimentation, and conclusion. The pieces of the watch are fit together with purpose, each piece performing a specified task in conjunction with the other pieces to make the watch what it is. It's the same with a cell, except the pieces of the cell are many times more complex than a simple pocket watch.

    You could try this experiment another way. Take a paragraph of text and use a random number generator to decide which letter in the paragraph you should go to (e.g. if the generator produces "8" then you go to the eighth letter in the paragraph) and then use a random letter generator to change that letter (e.g. if the generator produces a "b" and the eighth letter of the paragraph was a "c" then you replace the c with the b).

    It will not take very long for you to see that the paragraph will not become better or more complex. The opposite is true; it will quickly degrade. The obvious reason for this is because information requires intelligent application to produce ordered results. Even if you changed the letters around (using the above formula) for trillions of years, you'd not get ordered information.

    And yet, that is exactly what we see in a cell; genetic code. It is this code which causes the amino acids to form into proteins for the purpose of working together; without the code, there is no protein.

    There are many methods God uses to communicate to us the impermanence of this physical life.
     
  7. YouAreAwesome

    YouAreAwesome ☝✌

    +959
    Christian
    Married
    @John Helpher

    I find it can be time consuming to reply in a manner that discussions like this deserve. So I won't reply to each point you've made, but rather I'll focus on just the one problem with the watchmaker argument (for now). And if this fails I'll move back to some of the other problems.

    The argument goes like this:
    1. A watch is complex
    2. A watch had a designer
    3. A red blood cell is complex
    4. Therefore a red blood cell had a designer

    The problem is this same argument can be used to make ridiculous statements:
    1. A watch is complex
    2. A watch is for helping us tell the time
    3. A red blood cell is complex
    4. Therefore a red blood cell is for helping us tell the time

    Absurd conclusions abound via this logic no matter what designed object we choose to use.
     
  8. John Helpher

    John Helpher John 3:16

    402
    +145
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    Sure, anyone can use any argument to twist out absurd arguments; people do that with the death of Jesus, saying it's absurd to lay one's life down voluntarily. That does not mean arguments really are absurd just because people argue them that way.

    Except, I did not argue that red blood cells demonstrate the flow of time like a watch does. That's you twisting the argument into something ridiculous, or what is commonly referred to as a strawman in these kinds of debates, where you set up an argument that I've not made and proceed to attack that argument as though you're responding to the original argument.

    Yes. If we can see that something like a watch requires intelligence, then we can also reason that something much more complex would also require intelligence. It may make the issue more clear if you were to think about why a watch requires intelligence. What is it about the watch that would make someone believe it could not be the result of random, dumb-luck chance?

    Let's pretend that someone who has never seen a mechanical pocket watch before suddenly comes across the watch lying on the ground. He picks it up and notices the way the pieces are fit together, the movement of the gears, the shape of the pieces and how they're places to work together to achieve the movement of the hands. He may not understand exactly what the watch is, but he will see that it is something made with intelligence.

    The same is true regarding red blood cells; they are made up of complex moving parts, all of which work together to perform specific functions. The coordination, the shape of the pieces and how they interact with purpose demonstrates that this thing must be the result of intelligence in the same way we come to that conclusion when looking at gears in a watch fit together to turn the hands.

    It is surprising to me that you're so stubborn about this. I would expect it from Atheists and skeptics since that's their thing; they deny intelligence behind their existence.
     
  9. YouAreAwesome

    YouAreAwesome ☝✌

    +959
    Christian
    Married
    The point I'm making is that the argument is bad. It is not a logical argument. It does not matter what the argument is attempting to prove. I'm not arguing against the conclusion. I'm pointing out the problem with how the argument attempts to get there and the problem is in the correlation between complex things. Noticing similarities between things can not be used to infer common or like causation.

    1. My house is white
    2. My house was painted
    3. Clouds are white
    4. Therefore clouds are painted

    I'm showing how the same analogous argument can be used to show something absurd. Or maybe this argument shows the problem more obviously.

    1. My wife's hair is straight
    2. She straightened her hair using a hair straightener
    3. My brothers hair is straight
    4. Did my brother use a hair straightener?

    Using the same method of logic the watchmaker argument uses we should be able to answer yes. But we can't. We do not know if my brother used a device to straighten his hair.

    Make sense?
     
  10. John Helpher

    John Helpher John 3:16

    402
    +145
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    Of course it does. That's how you understand whether an argument is relevant or ridiculous. The argument you're making is something that could be done for any discussion; you can twist any argument.

    My argument is more like this:

    1. My house is white.
    2. My house was painted.
    3. My neighbors house is pink.
    4. My neighbors house was painted.

    What you're doing is twisting that argument into something ridiculous (about clouds being painted) because you do not like the point I'm making.

    So, using your format, here is my argument:

    1. Watches contain interconnected, moving parts which perform specific functions
    2. Watches are designed.
    3. Cells contain interconnected, moving parts which perform specific functions
    4. Cells are designed.

    You could twist that around into something about painting clouds, but that would not be a problem with my argument; it would be an indication that you're reacting to my argument.
     
  11. YouAreAwesome

    YouAreAwesome ☝✌

    +959
    Christian
    Married
    Great. Even this argument is false. Maybe your neighbours house was built of pink bricks. Maybe it was made by some kind of pink looking clay.
     
  12. John Helpher

    John Helpher John 3:16

    402
    +145
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    Maybe we should back up a bit. I'm saying red blood cells are purposefully designed. Are you saying red blood cells are not designed?
     
  13. YouAreAwesome

    YouAreAwesome ☝✌

    +959
    Christian
    Married
    I'm not presenting an argument for or against if red blood cells are designed. I'm critically attacking the logic of the watchmaker argument. How I personally believe red bloods cells came to be is not relevant to whether the logic of the argument is valid.
     
  14. John Helpher

    John Helpher John 3:16

    402
    +145
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    It is relevant. There are two questions here. Do you believe cells are designed. And if so, what argument would you give to defend that position?

    I believe cells are designed. One example I gave for how I know they are designed is by comparing the composition and function of cells to other designed things. If the motor in a boat is designed, then surely the flagallar motor is also designed; it has a rotor, a stator, a rod, bushings, a power exchange, all of which function together as a whole to achieve a specific result; propulsion.

    If you are saying that is an irrational comparison to make, the what argument would you give for saying the flagellar motor is designed?
     
  15. YouAreAwesome

    YouAreAwesome ☝✌

    +959
    Christian
    Married
    Are we leaving the watchmaker argument behind?

    I guess not.

    Are you headed towards the bacterial flagellar motor? I would not give an argument that it is designed. Arguments for its design were given in court literally, and failed. Because the arguments were not scientific.

    If you are asking, "How can one know that something is designed by mankind?" I would say it is because we could figure out how that might be the case. For a boat motor, the material would mostly come from mining and recycling and go through different processes to become the parts of the motor that get put together. We could go and visit a production warehouse and see them putting motors together. But as for life and the universe, this is a different thing entirely.
     
  16. John Helpher

    John Helpher John 3:16

    402
    +145
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    Why? The information panel on your posts suggests you're a Christian. You believe in a creator, right?

    But, we can visit the production warehouse; it's called genetic code. You can't have code without a coder. It's surprising how stubborn you're being about this. As I said earlier, the information listed under your avatar says you're Christian, but your arguments are all from the Atheists point of view. I've chatted with them a lot and they all say exactly the same kind of stuff you're saying here. I dare say that if you do believe yourself to be Christian, the reason why you'd argue their point of view so extensively is because you've become so afraid of the ridicule they heap on intelligent design that you've lost your own perspective for theirs.
     
  17. YouAreAwesome

    YouAreAwesome ☝✌

    +959
    Christian
    Married
    The reason I would not argue that the bacterial flagellar motor is designed is because I can't think of how it could be proven. God hides Himself from the scientific mind and reveals Himself to the heart. We could be the smartest scientific and philosophical thinker ever to live and not navigate our way to God. Intelligence does not lead us there, a pure and humble heart does. And if we think we can prove God exists through tricky arguments, we will be disproven through trickier arguments and so where does our faith reside?

    Yep.

    We're back again to the same problem. I'm not sure these things can be compared so bluntly.

    I completely disagree with this as I've already explained.

    I'm not threatened by atheistic arguments in the slightest. Many are very good arguments that need addressing. I'm not worried by good arguments. My faith is not settled on an argument. As someone wise once said, "If we can be argued in to Christianity, we can be argued out of it".
     
  18. John Helpher

    John Helpher John 3:16

    402
    +145
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    The solution is simple, though; can there be code without a coder? Is it rational to believe that genetic code isn't really code? When speaking of genetic code, do you refer to it as code? If so, what is it about the genetic information that makes you think it should be referred to as code? If you do not think it should be referred to as code, then what other description would you give for it?

    But, this isn't really an issue of faith. It's an issue of rational thinking. If you believe there can be code without a coder, then that kind of thinking is not faith; it is irrational. The creator gives us intelligence so that we can also recognize his intelligence. You've got some argument about not being able to recognize intelligence in God's creation because God hides from you, but you've fundamentally misunderstood what it means for God to hide from us. It is not that God does not want us to discover him, but rather that he wants us to seek him out; to those who diligently search for him he is not hidden. Although he may be beyond our current level of comprehension, that does not mean we will never reach new levels of comprehension; that is the point of seeking him out. As we seek, we find new aspects of truth that were previously hidden from us; that's what all learning is.

    However, you've plopped yourself down square in the middle of all these wonderful atheists arguments that you openly praise and decided, along with them, that there is no explanation for how he works, that we cannot understand or find him because you've decided that he will ever be hidden from you, and you argue that it is foolish for people like me to think we can learn more of him and through that observation attribute intelligence to God's creation.
     
  19. YouAreAwesome

    YouAreAwesome ☝✌

    +959
    Christian
    Married
    Yes, according to the definition of code on, for example dictionary.com:
    to specify the amino acid sequence of a protein by the sequence of nucleotides comprising the gene for that protein: a gene that codes for the production of insulin.

    Yes it is rational to believe it is not code if the definition is something like:
    a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message: Morse code.


    I don't know that much about genetics. I'm certainly no expert, not even close. I assume the experts in the field have called it code for a reason. My assumption is that it is called code because there is information that is hard to understand and those in the field are trying to "crack to the code". Once it is, I imagine it could be understood to represent certain traits in the life form. i.e. "This bit of code translates to red hair. This bit of code represents eye colour. We haven't solved for this trait or this trait, but we're hoping it's all there in the code".

    No, I think it is quite rational to have code come about by way of evolution. Just because we can read the cause/code of a life-form and see it's effect in the natural world does not mean the cause is programmed. We can read the weather and predict it's future happenings, this does not mean the weather is programmed.

    Agree completely.

    Agree completely.

    No, you have just misunderstood my position. He works in the heart. He works in love. We can find Him through humility, purity of heart and searching for Him. We can even search for Him in creation. It just won't usually be because of some scientific proof or argument. It's the still small voice sparked by appreciation and thankfulness.

    No, I only think it is foolish to try and prove a theistic position in a scientific arena by way of logic. God can be postulated, He can be a "maybe", but in science it is yet to be shown He is a certainty. Certainty comes from within. And to be clear, I absolutely think we can learn about God through creation.
     
Loading...