Question Religion

"Undeniable Proof" of the Existence of God?

Justin September 19, 2009 18:29:56

I was presented with an interesting theory which was claimed to be the ultimate, definitive proof of God. The theory goes like this: The probability of life happening by chance is equivalent to a tornado tearing through a junkyard and perfectly assembling a BOEING 747, thus, we must have had a creator. This is actually a widely utilized argument, presumably first presented by Fred Hoyle, by creationists. I thought about this, researched, and here is what I have to say in response to the “definitive proof of God.”
A) “Chance” is not the logical alternative to Creationism. As a matter of fact, chance contradicts Natural Selection just as much as it contradicts creationism. Natural Selection is a simple, elegant solution to existence which has absolutely nothing to do with chance and everything to do with survival of traits better suited for survival (which is an absolutely logical and sound theory). Traits that are better equipped to survive, survive. Does that have anything to do with chance? No. Thus, chance is NOT the plausible alternative to creationism, and when chance fails, creationism does not win by default.
B) Lets say that there are a billion billion planets out there (actually a modest assumption according to most scientific models) and that the beginning of life on any of these planets actually WAS a highly improbable occurrence. We could say that the chances of a planet having life are a billion to one. This would still allow for life on a billion planets! Furthermore, we would only need the probability of life on a single planet in a billion billion to justify, scientifically, our existence. Now think of this principle (Anthropic Principle) on a molecular level. The possibilities and probabilities are greater than you think.
C) Lastly, if, for the sake of arguments, the occurrence of life WAS as unlikely as a BOEING 747, then the existence of a God complicated enough to transcend realms of time and space, break physical laws, hear all of our prayers simultaneously etc. etc. would be INFINITELY LESS LIKELY than the accidental creation of a BOEING 747. It would be equivalent of the same tornado creating a super computer with all possible knowledge, the ultimate software of the past, present, future, and all other realms and dimensions, all planes of possibility already calculated and saved onto a hard-drive. The computer would also be able to infinitely influence existence because of its immense power. This is extremely unlikely. The probability could be calculated to zero. Thus, God doesn’t exist.
Sorry creationists, try another one.
Yes? Or am I missing something here?
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Comments
  • Death September 22, 2009 20:10:16
    Death

    Yes.

    Good points
  • +1 raves
    Captain Sticky September 19, 2009 23:10:58
    Captain Sticky

    You are missing something...

    Your Captain picked "you are missing something" because we all are missing something.

    The answer is that it doesn't matter. After all, here we are. And no matter where you go; there you are!
    I prefer to believe in a creator and thank Her as our ancient ancestors did. But that's for my convenience. Y'all do as you wish, as long as it harms none.
  • outofth... Captain... September 20, 2009 13:08:29
    outofthisworld
    I totally agree.
  • socokid September 19, 2009 18:49:34
    socokid

    Yes.

    The 747 analogy has been destroyed several times over.

    Dawkins does a thorough job in The God Delusion as well. Forgot which chapter, sorry!
  • +1 raves
    Justin socokid September 20, 2009 20:05:26
    Justin
    This is true, but since Creationists still go back to this, I feel the need to reinstate a response. The chapter in the God Delusion is chapter 4.
  • socokid Justin September 21, 2009 14:24:09
    socokid
    Thank you! I use it as reference from time to time, so thank you for that.

    And, agreed...
  • Truthbeknown September 19, 2009 18:44:27
    Truthbeknown

    Yes.

    In addition to your points, which are correct:

    There is no mechanism for a tornado to assemble a 747. The bonds and welds and rivets and parts required are specific and targeted and in a particular order. Meanwhile with biology, the mechanism is chemistry. The mechanism for chemistry is physics. The mechanism for physics is mathematics. The 747 analogy is not working here.

    Probability is a HORRIBLE argument for the existence of God. The "improbable" happens all the time. There is a first time for most things.

    Trying to ascribe natural mechanisms to gods has been a losing game since the advent of modern science.

    Furthermore, just because they say that gods can break laws of physics and math doesn't mean they actually can. A=A in our universe. If you cannot adhere to that in our universe, then one cannot exist. If (Q v P) is not equal to (P v Q) and one is not deducible from the other, then you are going to have a hell of a time getting 1+1 to equal 2 (or even having addition exist at all) or getting much of anything accomplished in that universe.

    Anything is possible...if they can accept the consequences :)
  • LilHulk88 Truthbe... September 20, 2009 07:29:54
    LilHulk88
    The only thing I would refute is the link of mathematics and physics, mathematics is a way of explaining physics, nothing more, just as Einstein, he was horrible at math.
  • +1 raves
    Truthbe... LilHulk88 September 20, 2009 13:52:55
    Truthbeknown
    I was thinking that as I typed that; physics follows a law according to a certain mathematical relationship, not that math per se is the building block of physics.
  • Fumika September 19, 2009 18:43:39
    Fumika

    Yes.

    Well, for me, I'll still have to see God (or sense him in some sort of way) to believe in him. Besides, as good as religion may be, I'm not really one for it. I live a perfectly happy life without religion and I like to be a good person, not just because I think I'll burn for eternity if I'm bad (as I'm sure there are some retards out there acting good because of that), but because I want to be. At this moment, I just don't have the desire to go out and join a church, mosque, temple, ect.
  • Jester September 19, 2009 18:34:15
    Jester

    You are missing something...

    Try reading Aquinas sometime if the subject interests you.
  • +1 raves
    Justin Jester September 19, 2009 19:23:02
    Justin
    Thomas Aquinas tought mainly the principle of infinite regress. I. E., Aquinas says that since everything is in motion, there must have been an original mover, which is God. The argument does not hold up. God poses more questions than answers. Like, who moved God? Refer to the improbability about the tornado creating the supercomputer and multiply that improbability by infinity. That is the improbability posed by Aquinas' assumption. The classic attitude of, "If it cant be expained, hand it to God" never holds up and breeds ignorance.
  • Jester Justin September 19, 2009 19:27:50
    Jester
    Well the scientific community always put things in far different terms actually. Science can explain "What we are" but not "Why" we are.
  • +1 raves
    Justin Jester September 20, 2009 13:41:41
    Justin
    I am not so certain there has to be a "why". The closest thing to "why" in my mind is natural selection. I dont feel that in order to live a fufilling life, life must have a divine purpose. In fact, presence of a divine purpose may inhibit the experience of life. And actually religion puts things in far different terms, since scientific reasoning is something religion is incompatible with. Either way, Aquinas is absolutely clear on what he means.
  • Jester Justin September 20, 2009 13:43:35
    Jester
or
Cancel