Christ's birthday

[Violet]

---

I think that humans have the ability to distinguish between things that are formed naturally and things that are made by intelligent beings. While I realize that there may be examples where one could conclude incorrectly, I think my previous sentence is generally applicable. For example, say I am walking through a freshly plowed field and find a flat rock that has a point and then flairs out from the point evenly to two other points. I take this rock to the geology department of my local university to see what the scientists would have to say about this neat looking rock. Does the geologist say: "I will have to come up with a naturalistic model for how this specially shaped rock formed, test this model, and I will get back to you." No, the geologist says: "It is an arrowhead the type used by the indians." If I find a bowl shaped rock or object the story would be the same. If we found a mechanical contraption that we had never seen before we would not conclude that it came about by some naturalistic process, we would quickly (and I think correctly) conclude that something intelligent produced it and left it there. At this point you may be thinking that it is easy for us to recognize these things because humans made them. That may be true. But scientists also think they can recognize signs of intelligent life even when humans are not the source. See "Listening for Alien". If some flying tranport machine not made by humans were to land on the earth, would scientists quickly try to come up with a naturalistic model for how such a thing were formed? I don't think so. Well I think the universe is pretty complex and the simplest life form is a lot more complex that anything made by man, as evidenced by the fact that man still has not been able to reproduce life from simple starting materials. So extrapolating from how humans view simple things like arrowheads and bowls and more complex things like machines and signals to something as complex as the universe and life, I think that just as we conclude the presence of the former things is evidence that something intelligent made them, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the existence of the universe and life is evidence that something superintelligent (God) made them. Were it not for Romans 1:19-22 I would really find it "mysterious" that anyone would even begin to look for a naturalistic explanation for the more complex when they wouldn't for the less complex.

For these reasons, I think the existence of the universe and life is evidence for the existence of God.

---

http://www.stonemakerargument.com/1.html
My answer

The watchmaker argument is just silly, really