Do you own your body?
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?"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.Yes indeed the creators of the computers knows exactly how it works while the computer knows no such thing.
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.
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.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.
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"?
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.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."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".
Of course not, but it IS a start to the process which is what I thought was being asked for. Or is it still every minute detail - data that is far better known than the details of how a god did it.
Raw materials AND processes are only the means, and the need for a Creator is exactly the same with or without them, as we have clearly seen throughout our lives that all "complex functioning systems" have been designed.
If there is no more need for a creator with or without raw materials or the big bang, why postulate one at all? It just adds unneeded complexity to the question/answer, without providing any knowledge of creation at all.
For while you may "clearly see" (meaning postulated without evidence or support) that systems have been designed, others have not and understand how nature can do it without a creator at all.Even Dawkins admits to the life and the Universe having the "appearance" of design. Design would need a designer.
And Dawkins can't answer questions like "where does new information come from in genetics" Because the evolutionists don't know how things "evolve" from one thing to another.
"Because the evolutionists don't know how things "evolve" from one thing to another."
Really? It's called "mutation" and there are several ways to accomplish it. Radiation. Chemicals. Incorrect DNA cloning. Even physical force. Coupled with time, isolation, changing habitat and/or a few more things, things evolve. So yes, we understand quite well how species evolve from one thing to another.
"Appearance" does not imply much of anything, as it is a very large part of the observer. That, and in this case, ignorance.
I am surprised you are calling Darwinian evolutionists ignorant.
Why? It can only be ignorance to look at something without knowing but very little about it and decide that it "looks" designed and therefore there has to be a creator.
Who would think that the "creator" of this magnificence was naught but a little water and some wind? The appearance is certainly that of a great sculptor, not simple forces of nature.I am not ignorant, thanks. If something looks designed, it is in my book.
The complex functioning system, which was designed by a creator is the concert of "simple forces", (simple, really?), that you call "nature". The sculpted walls are a by product of those forces in action. Look closer, at every atom, molecule and particle which make up those sculpted walls and again, we see complex design. Look at any life found there including the hiker and we see extremely complex functioning systems.
Tell me again about any complex functioning system you know has no design or creator. I can show you thousands that we know have one, but none that don't. Yet you conclude science's ignorance of "nature's" creator is evidence these complex functioning systems don't have one? You believe that is the most reasonable conclusion? I thought you said ignorance was not evidence?
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins, the Blind Watchmaker
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.And so I have. There is no know cause or means for the big bang - the question is therefore on the back burner as far as I'm concerned, and not answered with an imaginary god that we can't find. As far as every complex functioning system we know of having a designer, not hardly. The sun is exceedingly complex and there was no known creator for it. Just hydrogen, gravity and time.
I'm sorry, but if you MUST go forward with an answer to the cause of creation, postulating another universe with an omnipotent, omniscient entity that made this one just isn't the most reasonable conclusion. That it could happen without such an entity is well established; it is thus the most reasonable answer. Have you ever heard of Occam's razor?
"The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better." "Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occam's Razor" "Ray Solomonoff, the first inventor of some
of the fundamental ideas of Algorithmic InformationTheory, died in December, 2009. His original ideas helped start the thriving research areas of algorithmic information theory and algorithmic inductive inference." (all quotes from Wikipedia)
And yet...we know how gravity works and that it can and will cause a planet like earth to form. No creator, just natural forces at work over vast amounts of time. The ONLY thing we don't know is if there was a cause for the big bang; the pre-eminent cosmologist of our time said "No" and not a single person has provided evidence to dispute that. (Outside of religious myth, of course, if you call that "evidence")
That you don't understand all the energy of the universe in a singularity doesn't have anything whatsoever with it being there. That the world of physics and cosmology all agree that it was there is a very strong indication it was so in spite of your lack of understanding. To be so egocentric that you know it can't happen without having the pre-requisite background knowledge to back up your statement is the pinnacle of silliness, not the idea that it happened.Good to hear the big bang is on the back burner for you as I seem to recall you frequently referring to it as though it were a real, established fact. As for your "not hardly" comment regarding the sun, you have no more proof that it has no creator than you do for any other thing. You know the sun has no creator? "Not hardly".
Who said anything about another universe? Materialistic blinders limit materialist's comprehension, restricting a potential creator to the characteristics of their creation....an assumption. I thought you wanted to cut back on those.
No such thing has ever been established, not even close, (although I have heard you say it repeatedly over the years). You see, even if we did see genuine planets developing, (which we don't), like the canyon you referred to earlier, the forces and materials in play would still require a creator, (at least based on the best knowledge we have since every complex functioning system we can account for has one).
So lets make one assumption, and one only. Like every complex functioning system whose origins we can account for, let's assume all of creation must have a designer / creator. Anything else requires millions of compounded assumptions with no more materialistic support than my single "assumption". That should keep Friar William happy. By the way, I never had figured out how Scientism figures "Occam's Razor" supports their case. Scientism is nothing but assumptions about genuine science extrapolated from and compounded by other assumptions.
Of course, through spirituality believers don't consider a creator to be an assumption at all, but anyone blind to spirituality will consider it nonsense, totally disregarding billions of complex, intelligent, sentient sensors who have weighed in with a positive reading for spirituality from the beginning of recorded time. Please tell me how it is not "egocentric" in the extreme to discount them all as delusional in favor of your equally materialistically unsupportable views regarding our origin.
If by "how gravity works" you mean we understand it you are quite wrong, if you mean we know what gravity does, I would agree.
"Can and will", seriously? You know no such thing. Nobody does. "No creator, just natural forces." Sorry but those need to be accounted for too, and again a creator / designer is the only reasonable conclusion based on what we do actually know. Even your views on "vast amounts of time" are unsupportable assumptions, not facts.
May I add, "not a single person has provided evidence to" exclusively support that, either? Saying no creator is needed, with nothing whatsoever to support that conclusion, remains an empty assumption without merit regardless of it's source. Your pre-eminent cosmologist, (who does, or at least many years ago did, put on an interesting symposium), has never presented any proof exclusively supporting that conclusion. An "if enough monkeys sat at keyboards long enough they would write a novel" atheist friend of mine went with me to hear your cosmologist speak, thinking proof would be provided supporting his scientism, but hours later he had to admit he had nothing but a pile of interesting facts encased in a sea of assumptions. Not one single fact exclusively supporting the "no god required" beliefs. I have often listened to, watched, and read material by the cosmologist you reference, as I find him interesting and appreciate his sense of humor, but have yet to run across the nugget you, (and my friend), wish existed.
The big bang remains utter silliness. Tell you what, if you think there is genuine science proving all matter could fit in a singularity, even the size of the earth, let alone the size of a period on this page as is wildly speculated, let me tell you how you can go a long way to silencing critics. Everything that exists in one "singularity" is an infinitely, (almost literally), taller order than to fit a real, life size aircraft carrier into a 1" square pillbox. Show me how that can be done and although much more feasible than your proposal, I will reconsider the "big bang" based on that evidence.Oh, the big bang happened all right - there is zero doubt of that. What is the back burner is the cause of the event, or if there was a cause. Unlikely, IMO, that we'll know in my lifetime and therefore useless speculation for me.
Two seconds of thought will tell you that no entity could create the space it exists in - the obvious conclusion is another universe (or space or whatever you wish to call it). God could not have existed in this one before it was created and He could not create it until after He existed. He therefore existed in a different (universe, space, place, heaven, whatever) than our universe prior to its creation.
I'll leave you to provide solid evidence to the physicists and cosmologists on this one; you obviously know more than the likes of Hawking and his cohorts that have studied the matter for their whole lives. You might start by proving the sun had a creator (something beyond merely saying "everything does") and proving what/who it is.
No, lets not start with an assumption that what you are trying to prove is true. Logic doesn't work that way.
Ignorance is not a reason to believe in a god without supporting evidence. Inevitably, that's what it comes down to: "I can't understand, and therefore there is a god". And unfortunately not a single one of your billions of sensors have ever come up with any more evidence than their unsupported claim.
Again, I will leave you to provide solid evidence of that to the physicists that all accept the big bang as factual.
I'm not wrong, and we are in agreement.
That you refuse to extrapolate known effects into reasonable conclusions because they interfere with beliefs doesn't mean "we" all take that stance. It's like saying that a dropped may not fall because you haven't seen it do it yet.
I leave you to providing evidence to Hawking to disprove his carefully thought out scenario. Really, bBerean, if you wish to discuss physics/cosmology you really should read up on it some - Hawking is on record as saying no god was necessary for the big bang and not a single physicist has ever disputed it.
Take your aircraft carrier to the surface of a neutron star, or even better a black hole. Now it will fit quite nicely into the 1" square box. (density of the neutron star, under the crust, is about 600,000,000,000,000,000 kg/m^3. A teaspoon full would weigh about 10 billion tons That should tell you what the gravity of a star mass compressed into neutronium will do to your carrier).
But if you have read the tiniest amount about the big bang you will know there was no mass at all in the singularity - only energy. It took quite some time after the big bang before the first mass appeared in our universe.You don't list a single fact, just opinions, conjecture and assumptions. Oddly though, it seems as though you believe you did. Pardon me, I almost dropped my teaspoon and weighing 10 billion tons, I dare not. Your fantasies and assumptions are wild compared to what you perceive to be mine, but you hide behind the premise that science "knows" these things. Deconstruct their massive conjecture, and see if you can find a fact anywhere. Everything between the wild things they purport and the genuine fact you may find buried in there is pure speculation. Spoiler alert, we can't even prove what they call "black holes" are what they want them to be. Not even Hawking or Homer Simpson can.
Makes for great Sci Fi and Science channel fodder though."A teaspoon of neutron star material would weigh about 10 million tons. The gravitational field is intense; the escape velocity is about 0.4 times the speed of light."
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/ … n_star.htm
That you haven't such knowledge doesn't mean no one else does, either.Your confusing belief with knowledge. Since nobody actually knows what a teaspoon of a neutron star material weighs, (or what they are calling a neutron star actually is even), all you can honestly and accurately say is "That you haven't such a belief doesn't mean no one else does either," and to that we could agree. Is it the strength of your indoctrination into scientism or your chosen faith in it that would make you hold it's "holy men" for lack of a better term, in such high regard as to not be able to see the difference?
By the way, I do realize nearly 100% of folks espousing the beliefs of scientism deny they have faith in anything and shun the characterization, but that doesn't change one wit that all their posts drip with those views and perspectives making it fit like a glove.Sounds like you're again trying to say we can never know anything at all because we either didn't see it with our eyes or might have hallucinated when we DID see it. Yes?
There was a forum thread on that concept a while back, and while it is an amusing philosophical attitude it is of little value in the real world. No reason to resurrect it.No, that is not a correct representation of my perspective. I will say there is much many purport to know that they cannot currently know, yet they label as ignorant those who don't share their faith, all the while telling their own egos they are irrefutably right.
As I recall you could not actually refute what I proposed in our previous engagements either, so our discussions ended similarly. Some of scientism's beliefs may some day prove true, but to contend they are facts now is either disengenuous or self deluded.Then why do you doubt the density of neutronium? Because you don't know what it is? You don't know how it is measured? You cannot conceive of such a material? You don't believe the people that figured it out?
Why would YOU doubt the word of those people that profess to understand and know?Why would you or anyone even believe in it's existence as anything beyond conjecture? You do know it is purely theoretical, not proven, right?
(I tried ordering a spec of it on Amazon but couldn't afford the shipping).
Second spoiler alert: Star Trek isn't real or proof.Got it. You don't think anyone knows because you haven't seen it or held it in your hand. Which is what I said in the first place, isn't it?
Not exactly. I would be happy to provide a factual statement about nutroneum though. If both materials were proven to exist and samples provided, I can assure you nutroneum and unicorn horns, pound for pound, would weigh exactly the same! Now that's a fact.
Similar enough for govt. work, IMO. Nothing exists, nothing is known or knowable. That's were we ended up last time, too, as the philosophical concept is both worthless and unknowable.
Do you call a dozen taxis each morning because you don't know if you have a car or not and don't know if the first call actually went through? But why go to work when you don't know if you actually have a job or just thought you did?Your liberal application of absurdium, (found in wishing stars during their rebelling years), is entertaining. My proof of that substance is filed right behind the proof of nutroneum.
I am simply showing, although I never expect you will acknowledge it, that much of what you purport as facts are nothing more than speculation, assumptions and beliefs. Some may prove true, but that is all they are presently. Your entitled to them, as I am to mine.
I consider my beliefs to be more than that because of 1st hand knowledge through spiritual discernment, but do concede that is useless in persuading those who believe the masses who also have such experience and knowledge are making it up or deluded. Interesting though that you demand physical proof for spirituality, (an admittedly non physical thing by definition), when you have none for so much of what you believe.useless for persuading others...because they require a lot more in the way of evidence before acknowledging proof. Evidence you do not require, accepting ignorance and desire as proof instead of actively trying to come to reasonable conclusions.
Funny, because I've shown in this thread how you actually accept "ignorance and desire as proof instead of actively trying to come to reasonable conclusions" in regards to your beliefs. Perhaps you should reread it.
Perhaps YOU should. All you had to say was that YOU didn't know anything. You cannot make the same claim for anyone else, particularly when given accepted facts. That you didn't come up with those facts, that you choose to ignore them, that you decide to believe nothing but your own senses is irrelevant - you still cannot make the claim of anyone but yourself.
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.
"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!
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?
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.And that's why no one dies of injuries or disease.
But your point?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.But none of that is proof of a god. Ignorance, whether admitted or not, never is.
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 3:22-23Yes, 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!
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.
Related Discussions
- 45
What negative effects can not drinking water daily have on the human body?
by Stephanie 11 years ago
What negative effects can not drinking water daily have on the human body?We all know that drinking water can have positive effects on the human body... but what about those who never drink water and drink mostly things like juice and soda pop daily? What are the short term and long term...
- 27
![A PRODIO Thread [engineering the human body]](https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/12606892_f248.jpg)
A PRODIO Thread [engineering the human body]
by Prodio 10 years ago
Some people might think that the engineering involved in the creation of the human body is quite basic and primitive. Well, I must ask: Has anyone ever created a biologically functioning human body from scratch? Because if anyone wants to create a perfect human body - then he/she must have the...
- 41
What If We could Leave & Enter and Enter & Leave a Human Body at Will?
by Aiden 2 years ago
We remain inside a human body for a lifetime. We can not leave that body at will. What if we had the power to enter and leave human bodies at our will?
- 398
You were designed.
by Disappearinghead 14 years ago
When we consider the workings of the human body: the immune system, the continual automatic regulation of its systems, the subconcious workings of the brain, the workings of a cell; does it not seem strange that the body is more intelligent than the person living inside? If there is no God, explain...
- 19
Does the human body really have chakras?
by Gary R. Smith 11 years ago
Does the human body really have chakras?What is your feeling or experience towards the chakras (energy centers) of the body? Have you ever noticed those centers opening or closing? Are you aware of energy imbalances or when your chakras are in harmony?
- 3
how many square inches of skin are on the human body
by hollyoyler 14 years ago
how many square inches of skin are on the human body