jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (54 posts)

Do you own your body?

  1. 61
    Ack Taneposted 2 years ago

    When you go to sleep at night your body is healed (to as best extent as possible) from all the things you have done to it during the day. Clearly you aren't doing that because you are asleep. So what is doing it?

    The human body is a very sophisticated system. Much more sophisticated than a computer created by humans. But never the less a computer created by humans is a very sophisticated thing that could not have been created without careful deliberate concious decision making and action.

    It would be irrational to assume the human body could have been created in any other way. Yet the sophistication of the human body baffles even the greatest medical minds.

    Therefore the existence of the human body is proof of a divine benevolent creator because even when humans are awake going about their daily business they are for the most part not even thinking about how their bodies work let alone actually doing the work. If you don't even know how your body works then how can you be doing the work?

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      "It would be irrational to assume the human body could have been created in any other way."

      And yet...we know that it WAS created in a different way, thoroughly negating the statement that the human body proves a god.

      If you don't know how a computer works, down to how's and why's of electron flow, how could you post your message?  If you don't know the purpose of every nut and bolt in a car, how can you drive one?  Now apply the answer to your own body.

      1. kess profile image61
        kessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yes indeed the creators of the computers knows exactly how it works while the computer knows no such thing.

        1. Cat333 profile image82
          Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yes!!

      2. bBerean profile image60
        bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Good analogies since the computer and car, although immeasurably simpler, are like our bodies as far as being purposely, thoughtfully engineered things we utilize in spite of perhaps not having any hand in their making or specific knowledge of the details regarding how they work.  I think the OP is simply trying to highlight the utter folly of imagining such complexity was without a designer, let alone creator.  Admittedly, how anyone could genuinely believe such a thought except through self delusion is incomprehensible to me, which is why I tend to agree with the biblical perspective which says they don't.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Boiled down to rock bottom, the OP's statement is merely "we are ignorant of every minute detail of the human body: our ignorance is therefore proof of a god". 

          Sorry, but ignorance is proof of just one thing: ignorance.  Not that there is a god.

          1. bBerean profile image60
            bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Right.  Ignorance is not proof.  If any complex functioning system exists without a designer, mankind is ignorant of it.  Every such system either has a designer, or some of us don't know if it has one or not.  Nobody knows for sure of a complex, functioning system with no designer.  Until proven that any complex functioning system has come to be without a designer, a reasonable person would have to conclude that the premise of a designer is far more likely and therefore the working model we should begin with.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Why?  Why is another universe with a single omnipotent, omniscient entity that designed and constructed this one more likely than nature doing it all by itself?  Why is that the best "working model" when it can never be tested, examined or "worked with"?

              1. bBerean profile image60
                bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Getting a bit ahead of yourself aren't you?

                You fancy yourself as taking a scientific approach, so tell me, if you have two possibilities, one of which is consistent with every instance where an answer is available and the other completely without merit in terms of any quantifiable examples, how could you not choose the first as the working model unless or until something comes along to tip the scales in another direction? 

                You are dismissing a creator/designer because you can't fathom or find it.  How scientific is that?  It remains the most reasoned conclusion based on available data, as outlined in my previous post.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  If the first is based on nothing but ignorance and imagination the only reasonable course is to either show it to be true or forget about it.  Put it on the back burner until evidence IS found.

                  But dismissing a creator?  While I recognize a possibility, I find the probability too low to exert much time on and therefore rely on others to provide the proof that they so earnestly desire.  So far I've not only seen no proof but no evidence of any kind.

                  On the other hand, the big bang satisfies the creation of this universe quite handily.  While we do not understand or know the finest details, we don't know even the coarsest of ones of how a god did it.  It therefore seems by far the more "reasonable" choice as long as subjectivity and desire are eliminated from the equation.

                  1. Cat333 profile image82
                    Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    "Raw materials" are suddenly present and you think this is sufficient to account for how we came to be as we are? That doesn't make sense. There's no more or less of a need for a Creator with or without the "big bang".

                  2. bBerean profile image60
                    bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Your concept of a means by which anything could come into existence or any complex functioning system could be established without a designer / creator is "based on nothing but ignorance and imagination" so "the only reasonable course is to either show it to be true or forget about it.  Put it on the back burner until evidence IS found."  Meanwhile, since every complex functioning system we can account for has a designer, base everything on that premise, as anything else is foolhardy, (basically paraphrasing scripture there, by the way).



                    Yet, as stated above, based on what we do know, a creator remains the most reasonable conclusion.



                    These statements, like the big bang theory itself, are nonsense.  Just as you can't show any support for a system which eliminates the need for a designer creator, neither can you support the premise logically that all matter was compressed into a small dot, the very heart and soul of the big bang.  Although that is the pinnacle of silliness, the rest doesn't stray far from it.  Anyone not ignorant of that myth should be able to see that.

                2. Don W profile image83
                  Don Wposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  That's a bit of intellectual sleight of hand.

                  It can be proven that humans exist. Categorically attributing the design of certain objects to human beings is reasonable because of that knowledge. Without it, that attribution would only be a hypothesis.

                  There is no categorical proof that god exists. That lack of knowledge means that attributing the design of anything to god is merely a hypothesis. Unfortunately the supernatural nature of god (in the Christian tradition) places such a being outside the scope of scientific enquiry. That means the god-designer hypothesis is not falsifiable. Falsifiability is integral to scientific method. The fact that scientific method cannot be applied to the god-designer hypothesis means that the hypothesis is, by definition, unscientific. Presenting an unscientific hypothesis as scientific is, by definition, pseudoscience.

            2. Cat333 profile image82
              Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "Until proven that any complex functioning system has come to be without a designer, a reasonable person would have to conclude that the premise of a designer is far more likely and therefore the working model we should begin with." So well said it was worth a repeat!

      3. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Designed things are proof of a designer.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          That would be correct.  Now all we need is proof that the human body was designed, which pretty much means proof of a designer.  Got any?

      4. 61
        Ack Taneposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Wilderness, when your computer needs mending you go to a technician. When your car needs mending you go to a mechanic.
        You no doubt would respond with "go to a doctor". But your body heals automatically without you giving the healing any thought or action at all.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And that's why no one dies of injuries or disease.

          But your point?

          1. bBerean profile image60
            bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Seems a bit snarky considering the degree of healing was expressed as having limits in the OP.

            Funny thing is doctors and science really don't do any or understand most healing, they only have experimented to discover how to best facilitate the body to heal itself.  They understand what they have provided, but don't really understand under what direction the healing takes place.  Where do the cells get their instructions?  Who wrote the DNA?  How do cells know what to become?  More mysteries than answers, the closer we look. 

            We have done an impressive job figuring out ways to provide materials and environments for the body to work it's "magic", and even ways to supplement systems artificially, making science and medicine wonderful and valuable resources.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              But none of that is proof of a god.  Ignorance, whether admitted or not, never is.

    2. Sed-me profile image84
      Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Because of the Lord’s great love we are not consumed,
      for his compassions never fail.
      They are new every morning;
      great is your faithfulness.

      Lamentations 3:22-23

    3. oceansnsunsets profile image89
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, I think we owe our existence and how we function to something much greater than ourselves.  We can't duplicate it nor begin to even at this point in history.  What would explain all we see?  I think the thing responsible for us, deserves a second glance, or thought!

    4. Cat333 profile image82
      Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Good points!

    5. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Your argument may be summed up as: complex things like computers are designed, humans are complex things, therefore humans must be designed. This is a fallacy of false equivalence. You are comparing a human-made, complex, designed artifact (a computer) with a complex, living organism that exists in nature (a human being). These are not equivalent. By doing this you are failing to make the important distinction between how the complexity may arise in each type of thing. That failure means that your conclusion (humans must be designed) does not necessarily follow on from the premises, which renders your argument logically invalid.

 
working