I responded to a thread on Facebook about atheist morality. I expressed that I believe that religious people's belief reflects their morality and not the other way around. I gave Christians as an example, citing biblical teachings that modern Christians don't follow, and a Christian responded by arguing that everything needs a creator.
They said, 'Classic logic can bring one to the conclusion of a single God. We humans are contingent beings, that is, my parents had to make me, your parents had to make you, so on and so forth up the line. If any of that changed, I wouldn't be the same, or you wouldn't be the same. Going back and back it's not as if there can be some loop where two or hundreds or thousands are equally contingent upon each other, it must come back to one being who is not contingent upon any other being. That would be God. Now going from deism to a specific religion requires faith, but monotheistic deism is the logical way.'
This was my response, 'My parents made me using a natural biological process, and yes, their parents in turn made them. However, your logic falls apart at the point when you assume that this means a god must have initiated the process.
You postulate that everything must have a creator, then break your own postulate by saying that the first creator didn't have a creator. If your premise is that all things had a creator, who created god? You can't posit that everything requires a creator, but then say that your line of logic only works if that rule is broken. This leaves us with the postulate that some things require a creator and others do not.
If we follow this line of reasoning, my parents created me, and this extends back to a point where something came about without the need for a creator. Why can't that be the formation of organic chemicals (proteins, amino acids, RNA, and DNA) from inorganic material by chemical processes that we know to exist, and have reproduced in the lab?'
What's your take on this? What would you have responded? Do you agree or disagree with my argument?
They said, 'Classic logic can bring one to the conclusion of a single God. We humans are contingent beings, that is, my parents had to make me, your parents had to make you, so on and so forth up the line. If any of that changed, I wouldn't be the same, or you wouldn't be the same. Going back and back it's not as if there can be some loop where two or hundreds or thousands are equally contingent upon each other, it must come back to one being who is not contingent upon any other being. That would be God. Now going from deism to a specific religion requires faith, but monotheistic deism is the logical way.'
This was my response, 'My parents made me using a natural biological process, and yes, their parents in turn made them. However, your logic falls apart at the point when you assume that this means a god must have initiated the process.
You postulate that everything must have a creator, then break your own postulate by saying that the first creator didn't have a creator. If your premise is that all things had a creator, who created god? You can't posit that everything requires a creator, but then say that your line of logic only works if that rule is broken. This leaves us with the postulate that some things require a creator and others do not.
If we follow this line of reasoning, my parents created me, and this extends back to a point where something came about without the need for a creator. Why can't that be the formation of organic chemicals (proteins, amino acids, RNA, and DNA) from inorganic material by chemical processes that we know to exist, and have reproduced in the lab?'
What's your take on this? What would you have responded? Do you agree or disagree with my argument?
