The vast complexity of living things proves that God exists (proof 1)

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

---

The vast complexity of living things proves that God exists

Some claim that it is impossible to prove that God exists. But the word of God declares otherwise.

Okay, look: I'm going to attempt to approach this seriously, because the sheer length of this post kind of disabuses me of the notion that you're a poe, and so it's possible that you're just deeply mistaken here, but starting with circular reasoning isn't going to get you anywhere nice. Come on.

First consider the following. Walk around and point to the objects that people, through intelligence, have made. As you point out each of these objects, tell others that random chance made it - that the wind through random action formed it or that the rain through random chance made it. Tell them that each of these objects evolved from dust or that it just popped into existence. Grab a large book like “War and Peace,” open it up, and say that the words that make up the book just happened by random chance and that no intelligent person wrote it. Go and log onto a computer and view places from around the world. Tell everyone that the computer and the network evolved by themselves and that no intelligent being designed them. Now as you do this, people will think that you are playing a joke on them or acting weird. If it weren’t being done on purpose, they would believe you were totally crazy. And they would be right. Everyone can, almost without thinking, agree that an intelligently designed object was made by an intelligent being.

Do you know how people actually identify design? You seem to think that you just assert it because a given thing is complex, and it is so, but that's not right at all. No, we recognize design through comparison; the only reason we have a concept of design is to differentiate it from things made in a natural way, right? That's the way we identify an object as being designed; we examine its properties and compare it to other things in the world, along with our knowledge of designed/undesigned things, that we have gained through further past comparisons.

We do not, however, just intuit design apropos of nothing; everything we do is through comparison and contrast, because we don't know anything without being taught it externally.

It is interesting that modern science itself agrees with this law. The anthropologist is certain of the past existence of a group of ancient people when a sharpened piece of flint used as a cutting tool is found.

Like here: the reason we know the sharpened flint has been designed is because of the sharpening, something that we do not see in nature. Very good example, that.

The same anthropologist infers that intelligent people made certain paintings in a cave in France.

And again, why do we infer this? Because the figures and pictographs do not occur naturally.

The materials that make up the computers don’t on their own turn themselves into useful hardware and software. These abilities are not inherent in the actual materials. Random processes won’t cause these materials to do so either.

This is the part where I start rolling my eyes, because you clearly are avoiding the difference between living matter and nonliving matter; nobody, at all, claims that nonliving matter can do these things. This is silly.

Now what about things that were not made by mankind? Consider living things. You and I were not created by mankind.

My parents beg to differ, and I bet yours do too.

Yet all living things are way more complex, more ordered, have more information content and show more evidence of design than anything people have made.

And as we've already established, complexity isn't the way that one identifies design.

The DNA code in a person’s cells contains so much information that it would take about 1,000 encyclopedia volumes, each 1,000 pages long, just to write that code. Those are not random letters but are very ordered, functional, and information-rich content quite similar to the letters that make up the text of a large book, but multiplied by a thousand.

Christ, this information idiocy again... Listen: the processes of DNA are entirely natural, chemical things. It's just chemicals functioning in accordance with the laws of physics. This stuff about codes, about letters, about instructions, that's all metaphoric language by human beings in order to abstract a complex chemical phenomena into something a layperson like you or I can understand. DNA code isn't literally information, except in the sense that everything is; right now, the grass in my garden is conveying positional information, for example.

Somebody has conned you with this fraudulent idea, and I'd suggest you look into how DNA actually forms and replicates before you continue with this fallacious argument.

The letters of that code are the instructions to not only reproduce children but to run every aspect of a person’s body, including the operations of every organ and cell.

No, those things are the eventual effects of the chemical processes involved in the creation of DNA.

Yet for all this complexity, a person is miraculously designed and functional.

And there you go begging the question, but I'll get into that later.

In fact, mankind does not yet understand exactly how these cells function in all their details. Scientists have not yet created a living cell from raw chemical material.

Argument from ignorance. "We don't understand it, therefore god."

They can clone one cell from another living cell but not from raw non-living materials. Even if scientists do eventually create a cell from raw materials, it would be the result of intelligent design and not random, unintelligent processes.

Okay, I guess I'll do this now, then: what the hell do you think you're doing? This is the most dishonest part of these idiotic intelligent design arguments; if it's made naturally, you say it's designed. If scientists make it, you say it's designed... anyone familiar with the scientific method already knows where I'm going with this.

Yes, where's the falsifiability? You keep prattling on about science, but a key component of the scientific method is falsifiability, but how do you intend to propose a method of falsification when you label literally every possible permutation of this as designed, sight unseen?

Furthermore, you're begging the question: your premises go a: complex things are designed, b: DNA is complex, c: therefore DNA is designed, but since you've never demonstrated the truth of premise a, it's completely dishonest of you to continue the argument until you do. You're operating under the basal assumption that everything is designed, sans evidence, and from there defining the terms: that's not the way we do things here.

Not a single cell or living thing has been observed to come into existence on its own unless made from a living cell. Nowhere in the entire universe has this been observed to happen. The fact that life comes from life is irrefutable science. The fact that cells come from cells is irrefutable science.

And another argument from ignorance: "I've never seen it done this way, therefore this other way is true." No, that's incorrect, and calling it irrefutable just looks arrogant.

The materials that make up living things never, on their own, form a cell or long DNA strands or large proteins.

How do you know?

In fact, nowhere, throughout the entire universe, for all time, has this ever been observed to happen.

Argument from ignorance.

In fact, it could not even happen by chance.

By fiat assertion: I'll dismiss it out of hand. How do you know?

Even if these materials do begin to join together, the molecules have no inherent way of lining up into very specific functional DNA code sequences or the coding of a specific large protein.

It's called the laws of physics. Look it up.

The information contained in the DNA codes of all species that have ever lived is more than all books that have been produced by mankind. It is not possible that such vast information came into existence without an intelligent Creator, God

How do you know?

It would be ludicrous to think that ink formed itself into the text on the pages of a book, even a very small book. It is not in the nature of ink to do so. Only an intelligent being can do that. A single book proves the existence of the author, and 20 different books how much more so. Yet the information content in the DNA codes and in the proteins of living things is greater than the information in all the books ever written. Therefore it is for certain that God Almighty created all things.

Go back, look over the things I've written, and be embarrassed about how confidently you asserted this.

Since the amount of information in all DNA codes is very large and the number of living cells is very large, it is doubly certain that God Almighty the Creator exists. If a person were to point to all the books ever written and all the things that mankind has ever made and claim that these came about without any intelligent being at all, this would be far less ludicrous than if a person were to look at the workings and information content of all living things, cells, and proteins and claim that it came about without an intelligent Creator. But there is much more to prove that the Creator exists.

Have I mentioned the argument from personal incredulity yet? Because literally your entire post boils down to that.

This all works because of the basic laws of chemistry and physics that govern the operation of the molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles which make up the cells and proteins. In fact, cells, proteins, DNA codes and higher level organisms could not even exist if the laws of nature were not designed so perfectly and so finely tuned as to make life even possible.

You do understand that you're cheating now, right? If you begin from the assumption that everything is designed, of course you're going to come to the conclusion that things are designed, but my question to you is, why are you making that assumption, and how do you justify it?

I am amazed that now you're claiming the laws of physics are designed; this is just kindergarten logic. "DNA must be created, because it's so complex and there's no natural process that can do it!" Actually, there is, it's the laws of physics. "... The laws of physics are designed too!"

Well shit, why not just tar everything with that brush and save yourself the billions of words you've used to obfuscate the basics of your argument, which is simply a demand that everything is designed?

Since the living things discussed so far are extremely large in number, and extremely large in the amount of functionality and information content, and since all these things are interconnected and interrelated in an extremely complex way, it is triply certain that God Almighty the Creator of all things exists. This is an irrefutable proof.

Argument from incredulity, and definitely not irrefutable proof.

Furthermore, since the wisdom for this irrefutable logic is clearly stated in the Holy Bible (Romans 1:19-20), the very Book claimed to be from God Almighty the Creator, the Holy Bible must be the very word of God. No other book matches the Bible in this manner. No other book declares the existence of God Almighty, the Creator of all things, proves it, and truly glorifies Him alone. Therefore, the Holy Bible must be the word of God Almighty, the Creator of all things.

A pile of flat assertions with no proof backing them, but they do bring me to another point: everything you've written, even if it's correct- and it's not- only gets you to a creator, not your god. Not any specific god.

Congratulations: your own argument doesn't even prove your position.

Atheistic origin science (“science falsely so called”)

And what scientific qualifications do you have, incidentally?

Now from the discussion so far, such an incredible creation proves that the Creator of the creation exists. But this Creator must have power and intelligence beyond our comprehension. Since life is intelligently designed, this Creator must be a living and intelligent being who has always existed, that is, God Almighty. To conclude otherwise is, well to put it kindly, foolish.

What's next, in free association theater? I can't wait to find out!

Yet atheistic origin science refuses to accept this obvious conclusion from the facts. “Atheistic origin science” is a false science that excludes God the Creator from the study of origins.

Wrong: science says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of something, and it excludes nothing from investigation. Science simply follows where the evidence leads; your problem is that because the evidence doesn't lead where you want it to, and doesn't serve your purposes, you're wanting to scrap the entire thing. It doesn't work that way.

It is in essence atheism, the belief that there is no God Almighty.

Since more than ten pages of your previous thread has explained to you that this isn't so, I have no compunction in calling you an idiot and a liar for claiming this.

Therefore atheistic origin science has offered a counter explanation, one that tries to explain this incredibly designed universe and all living things as having evolved from nothing and random chance.

Oh look, a strawman. How surprising.

But atheistic origin science has a lot of explaining to do to counter the very obvious and scientific conclusion that God, the Almighty Creator, indeed created all things. A thorough investigation into the facts, the laws of nature, mathematics, and logic will prove that this alternative explanation, of an origin without God, is totally false and contradictory.

Translation: "Science disagrees with my petulant demands that there's a god, and therefore they need to disprove my vague, philosophical ramblings that redefine large swathes of terminology to suit my own ends, or else I'm right!"

It's a shifting of the burden of proof, super genius. You need to demonstrate your claims, science doesn't need to disprove them.

Therefore, a second irrefutable proof of the existence of God Almighty the Creator can be made. Assume indeed that atheistic origin science is correct, and all of the creation can be explained without God by the laws of nature and random chance. As will be shown, this assumed theory will prove to be false. And since the only alternative to a Creator is false, then again the fact that the Creator, God Almighty, exists will have been proven again.

...

I... I just... Did you just... Okay, let me get this straight: your "second irrefutable proof" is that, because the real science is wrong (something you've asserted sans evidence) then god must be true. So, non sequitur, by fiat assertions, made to the end of proving a false dichotomy.

Seriously, please stop reading creationist idiocy and open a real science textbook, educate yourself about this stuff, before you respond.

But, based on your past behaviour, you'll probably just ignore this...

---

The fact that the universe exists, the laws of nature exists, and the complexity, information, order and functionality of living things exists requires the atheist to come up with some plausible explanation.

You will have to explain how all of the universe and all of the DNA codes, cells, and all the species came into existence.

All attempts have and will always fail.

I will be adding a topic to start that discussion tomorrow.