NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/atheism/26855

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-23 | 10.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!yohan
From: [e-mail] (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Let's try these proofs
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:53:24 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Lines: 207
Sender: [e-mail] (Jonathan W Newton)
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chester.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>Printed by
>Islamic Teaching Center, P.O. box 38
>Plainfield, Indiana 46168
>Tel. [phone]
>
>How did it happen?
>
>    Would you believe a man if he tells you that there is a
> store which is running smoothly but has no salesman,
>storekeeper or someone to look after it?  Or would you
>believe him if he told you that the chair in front of you
>assumed its present form all by itself?

No, of course not, but attempting to draw a parallel between a store and creation
is very simplistic and inaccurate.

>
>The Rain Tells
>
>    Now, if there is no way to persuade you that an
>ordinary store could run without a storekeeper or a
> salesman, or that a chair could assume its form without a
>carpenter's skill, could you possibly accept the thesis that
> the universe is without a creator or master?  In the
>wonderful scheme of the universe, with countless living
>creatures, the sun, moon, stars, and planets function with
>the utmost precision.  Vapor rises from the oceans and turns
>into clouds/ the winds blow there clouds in the distant
>corners of the earth, then the vapor condenses into water
>and falls on the earth as rain which brings dead soil to
>life and helps the growth of various kinds of grains and
>other crops, and different varieties of fruits and flowers.
>  The fruits have different flavors, thought they grow in
>the same place, using the same water.
>    Now, could any sensible person believe that this vast
>integrated system sprang into existence and runs without a
>master or governor?

I think a number of sensible people could accept that the universe does not need
a creator.  First, it isn't obvious that there is some perfect order to the
universe that can only be the result of a divine concience.  What you're basing
your proof on is about like saying: "The world is so complex, that it boggles my
mind.  If I am overwhelmed by it, then it must be an act of god!"  Not only is
this an ignorant assumption, but it is an arrogant one as well.

First, how in the world does complexity make god a mandatory part of existence?
It doesn't!  This simple-minded reasoning that uses god to explain complexity is
like when a unique number wins the lottery.  Say I win the lottery with the number
123456.  Many a dullard (and strangley enough some bright people also), will say,
"that's a miracle!  What are the odds on the numbers turning out like that!!!"
The answer is that those numbers really aren't special (the million dollar
joackpot is).  The chance of those numbers winning is 1 in a million just like
any other set.  They just seem or "feel" unique.  Imagine the number of variables
that could effect the world we experience.  We are experiencing one possible set
of variables, that seems extremely unique to some people who are then quick to
attribute it to god.  Actually the "set of variables" we are experiencing are
extremely unique, but that doesn't mean god must exist!  The laws of nature have
to be SOMETHING, just like the lottery is going to turn out one, unique set of
numbers.

If this is beyond you, then substitute "this vast integrated system" with the
word "god".  Yes, your silly little proof applies to god.  If something like the
universe can't spring into existence without "a master or governor", then how can
something like a a GOD be????  If we stick with your flawed reasoning, we'll have
an infinite lineage of creators.

>    We do not hesitate to dismiss a person as lunatic who
>consider that a thing as insignificant and small as a chair
>or a piece of cloth came into existence by itself; should we
>then agree with someone who states that the earth sprang
>into existence automatically, the animals came to life by
>themselves and even the most wonderful and complicated of
>the living beings-the human being- came into existence
>without a creator?  Look at the human body and the millions

Why not?  A chair or a piece of cloth is far less likely to occur in nature, than
a planet with life forms.  Given our knowledge of science, and a few billion
years of molding by natural forces could very possibly lead to something as
complex as the planet earth.  It is a very complex theory, but in over 100 years
of debate it still reamains a plausible theory.  As for the chair and cloth, no
natural forces have been found that would lead to such a design.  Therefore, you
could call someone crazy for saying that a chair had no creator and not be a
hypocrit for believing in a universe without god.  One exception would be a
strangely shaped tree or rock structure that looked like a chair; then the person
could be sane.


>of systems and sub-systems working with the most wonderful
>cooperation and packed most efficiently in that small body.
>
>
>The Embryo Witness
>
>    Have you ever pondered how the human fetus forms and
>develops in the tiny workshop of its mother's womb?  At a
>moment of which neither the father nor the mother is aware,
>two small lifegerms unite then in nine months, they develop
>into several organs and part fo the human body in the
>appropriate places.  Every part, large or small is precisely
>where it should be.  Only a person out of his wits could say
>that this wonderful system of life came into being, and has
>continued for countless generations without a Wise, Powerful

Prove your assertions.

> Being possessing vast knowledge and unrivalled powers of
>creation.
>
>Impossibility
>
>    Suppose an earthquake occurs and all the different
>solutions in a lab fall and mix together.  It would be a
>very strange coincidence if such a mixture produces a new
>medicine that cures a certain disease.

Yes it would, but then again, I doubt I need to remind anyone how many inventions
have been the results of accidents.

>    Now let us look at the probability of forming a protein
>molecule assuming that all the elements are already in
>existence.  The Swiss mathematician Charles Eugene Jai
>calculated this probability.  He took the protein molecule
>as his sample, but he simplified the case by considering his
> molecule to contain 2,000 atoms instead of 34,500 and to
>consist of two types of atoms instead of four major ones.
>The value of probability is determined by the size of the
>material necessary for such a reaction to take place and he
> found that the probability of forming that simplified
>protein molecule was approximately 1/2 X 10 to the 321.  The
>size of the material necessary for that almost zero
>probability was a sphere whose diameter was approximately 6
>X 10 to the 176 miles and this sphere is approximately 10 to
>the 63 times the imagined size of the universe.  He found
>also that the tie necessary for such a molecule to form was
>10 to the 243 billion years which is by far greater than the
>hypothesized age of the earth which is only two billion
>years.  So the size and time factor would make it impossible
>even to form one protein molecule.

Yes, spewers of religion always have such "experts" to fall back on and prove
their points.  First, I'd like to see if his work was submitted to any scientific
journals and then accepted.  Furthermore, no scientist with an ounce of
biochemical knowledge ever said that a 2,000 atom protein formed spontaeneously
in the beginning.  What is widely accepted is that amino acids and very simple
proteins (2 or 3 amino acids) can be generated under the conditions of early
earth.  From these basic building blocks, more complex structures came about.
I'd bet what Jai did was calculate the chance of a 2000 atom protein coming from
one single event.

For the sake of arguement, let's say that evolution is an invalid theory.  That
doesn't prove that there is a god, especially one with the outrageous
characteristics listed in the majority of religions.  There is at least an equal
chance of a fully assembled and evolved universe popping into existence as with a
god popping into existence and creating the universe.


>
>The Thinking Process Proves
>
>    As the computer needs a program to run, a human being
>needs previous information to produce a thought.  Who put
>that initial information in a human being's mind?

The human's environment which provides them with sensory input.

>
>One Principal
>
>    Have you ever heard of a school with two principals, or
> a department with two chairpersons, or an army with two
>commanders-in-chief or a country with two presidents?  In
>any event could any institution under a dual control be run
>effectively?  Look at the millions of planets and starts:
>their conduct and movement show extremely strict adherence
>to a certain uniform set of rules and regulations.  Their
>distances and directions in relation to one another are set
> and even the slightest alteration of this scheme will upset
> the whole system and cause chaos.
>    The rules they are abiding by are so uniform that we
>research to find mathematical formulas describing them.  If
>the universe had been governed by several or even two gods,
>its affairs could not possibly have been run so regularly
>and efficiently and we would have seen the chaos stemming
>from contradicting orders and rules.  If even a small school

Why not?  Let's say that both gods are perfect in every way.  Isn't it possible
that they would agree on how the universe should run.  What if one of the many
gods is powerful enough to get his way all the time.  Furthermore, your idea that
everything has some perfect order to it is purely subjective.

> cannot accept two principals at a time, how could the vast
>realms of the heaven be run by more than one Sovereign?
>    Now when God is the sovereign of the universe, is it
>not logical that you submit willingly to His commands and
> model your life according to the way of life He set for
>mankind?  You can find that way of life explained fully in

It depends.  If I will be most happy submitting to god, then sure, it seems
logical.  So far, I've seen no proof pointing in that direction.

>Islam.
>
>******End****

Jon Newton