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

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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.

I created the Universe.

I am in you, right now.

Disprove.

[Cyberman]

The quote from the Holy Bible was just a lead in to the ensuing discussion.

Proof 1 is only to establish that there must be a Creator, God.

After establishing that God exists, the Holy Bible will be established as His revelation. That part is still to come.

So why not do that first, if you're going to tie your arguments into the book? All these dramatic pronouncements of future wisdom may be impressive to you, but quite frankly I find them tedious in the extreme.

On Dawkins' scale, what number are you?

On Professor Dawkins' scale, does it matter? That's not merely a flip question; why do I require categorisation?

(Oh, and cheers, Kaye, for covering my back! Damn mobile makes it so hard to get that stuff right, keep crashing everytime there's a video on the page..!))

[xpastor]

Yawn. The Argument from Design. William Paley did a better job on it in the 18th century, and with more excuse since the facts telling against design were largely unknown then.

As a young man Charles Darwin believed in the watchmaker argument for a creator. After he had spent about 3 decades piling up a mass of facts, he could see it wouldn't work, and he came up with something much better.

First, it is wrong to say that natural objects never organize themselves. The waves do a very nice job of sorting stones by size on a beach.

Second, living organisms have so many design flaws that it is ludicrous to think they are the product of intelligent design. That was why I finally stopped clinging to pantheism years after I had abandoned Christianity. Just a few examples.

The human eye is very poorly designed. The optic nerve produces a huge blind spot on the retina, which we don't notice because of the software in our brains. It has been said, that an engineer would be fired if he designed a digital camera with a similar flaw. Apparently, the octopus has a much better designed eye. However, what evolution gave us is a lot better than some animals have, and so it gave homo a competitive advantage.

My favorite example is the recurrent laryngeal nerve. It runs from the brain, down into the chest, loops around the aorta, and comes back up to connect with the larynx, which is what it controls. In humans the detour adds 18 inches; in giraffes it adds some 15 feet. The reason for this bizarre arrangement is that evolution produced the larynx from the gills of our fishy ancestors, so the nerve had a short route from the brain to the gills looping in behind one blood vessel, but as we evolved that blood vessel sank way down into the chest.

If anyone is interested, dozens of design flaws in organisms are listed at Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes.

[Ben Davis]

The vast complexity of living things proves that God exists...

No it doesn't. At best, the vast complexity of living things 'proves' that living things can be vastly complex. How you infer a creator out of the rest of the gibberish you posted, only the truly dishonest can know.

My lawyers will be in touch to arrange a small-claim suit for the 10 minutes of my life that you've just wasted.

[Drich]

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.

I created the Universe.

I am in you, right now.

Disprove.

Didn't you say you were a Leo on some other thread?

[Crossless2.0]

So having failed to even establish a compelling case for Deism, the OP's author proposes to show how this not-established entity is actually Yahweh, collector of foreskins.

I can't wait . . . .

[Doubting Thomas]

tl;dr the OP but I could tell from the title that it was one big fallacious argument from design.

---

Proof 1 is only to establish that there must be a Creator, God.

First of all, how do you know it was God that created the entire universe and not some other magical, powerful being?

And who or what created God?

[Chas]

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.

No, it does not require us to do anything at all. Only your infantile requirement for absolute answers to questions requires that.

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.

Our attempts at explaining how the universe works get better all the time.
Humanity is in its cognitive childhood.
Civilization is only a few thousand years old, the Enlightenment a few hundred, and knowledge of evolution only fifteen decades.

We're working on it.

[Brian37]

tl;dr the OP but I could tell from the title that it was one big fallacious argument from design.

---

Proof 1 is only to establish that there must be a Creator, God.

First of all, how do you know it was God that created the entire universe and not some other magical, powerful being?

And who or what created God?

Infinite regress is a clusterfuck to all god claims.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Wow - what a torrent of information that was. Very good effort, almost convincing in parts.

As ever, though, there is a problem or two (well a few more actually) but in order to address those we need to get you to stop sitting back admiring your work and actually read what is being written.

If you do this you will realize that what you have put together - magnificent as it is - is entirely wrong.

We'll take this one step at a time:

Argument number 1:

Let us start with the assumption that there is a designer God. We will further incorporate all the infallible, all knowing stuff.

So we have perfect God making life perfectly in all its profundity.

God made everything - from the smallest amoeba to Humans, from ants to giraffes and so on.

Now as you know a human being is a much more complex creature than an amoeba which would require much less coding from God to make it.

The RNA that codes for Amoeba's is obviously much simpler than that for a human being, right?

Trouble is - the RNA code for an amoeba is 5 times larger than the DNA code for a human being.....

Which either means we have a God learning on the job or there is no God.

But God knows everything - so he can't be learning on the job.

Therefore, there is no God.

I do not believe that that holds.

You are making an assumption about how God created.

It does present a problem for atheistic origin science.
In reality according to AOS, both are descendants of a common ancestor, and that both evolved over the same time from that ancestor.

So why is their DNA code sizes so different?
There is one amoeba with a code 200x the size as that for mankind.

---

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.

Well, first of all, no it doesn't; we're not required to disprove a thing before you give it up. Quite the reverse; if you want to be taken seriously you need to demonstrate your claims, not simply throw your arms wide and say "look at all these things that exist!" as you have so far.

Your accusation here is a shifting of the burden of proof. God is not the neutral position, it's a claim that needs proving, not just asserting.

Second of all, we do have numerous explanations, in the science you deride because it disagrees with your assumed conclusions. Would you be willing to do some research in mainstream science?

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

And these questions are being worked on. Us not having an answer now does not make your answer true just because you took the time to propose it.

All attempts have and will always fail.

Well, just so long as you have an open mind.

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

Could it have actual evidence, when you do?

This topic was to show that there must be an explanation for the complexity of life.

The next topic is to evaluate what is the explanation given by atheistic origin science and can it stand up.

---

Yawn. The Argument from Design. William Paley did a better job on it in the 18th century, and with more excuse since the facts telling against design were largely unknown then.

As a young man Charles Darwin believed in the watchmaker argument for a creator. After he had spent about 3 decades piling up a mass of facts, he could see it wouldn't work, and he came up with something much better.

First, it is wrong to say that natural objects never organize themselves. The waves do a very nice job of sorting stones by size on a beach.

Second, living organisms have so many design flaws that it is ludicrous to think they are the product of intelligent design. That was why I finally stopped clinging to pantheism years after I had abandoned Christianity. Just a few examples.

The human eye is very poorly designed. The optic nerve produces a huge blind spot on the retina, which we don't notice because of the software in our brains. It has been said, that an engineer would be fired if he designed a digital camera with a similar flaw. Apparently, the octopus has a much better designed eye. However, what evolution gave us is a lot better than some animals have, and so it gave homo a competitive advantage.

My favorite example is the recurrent laryngeal nerve. It runs from the brain, down into the chest, loops around the aorta, and comes back up to connect with the larynx, which is what it controls. In humans the detour adds 18 inches; in giraffes it adds some 15 feet. The reason for this bizarre arrangement is that evolution produced the larynx from the gills of our fishy ancestors, so the nerve had a short route from the brain to the gills looping in behind one blood vessel, but as we evolved that blood vessel sank way down into the chest.

If anyone is interested, dozens of design flaws in organisms are listed at Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes.

Or a fallen and cursed creation as the result of the sin of Adam and Eve.

BTW, since the 18th century, the case against atheistic origin science is now even greater because of the discoveries in DNA, RNA, and the workings of the cell.

---

tl;dr the OP but I could tell from the title that it was one big fallacious argument from design.

---

Proof 1 is only to establish that there must be a Creator, God.

First of all, how do you know it was God that created the entire universe and not some other magical, powerful being?

And who or what created God?

When an atheist proposes God as a rebuttal, the atheist has disproved himself.

---

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.

No, it does not require us to do anything at all. Only your infantile requirement for absolute answers to questions requires that.

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.

Our attempts at explaining how the universe works get better all the time.
Humanity is in its cognitive childhood.
Civilization is only a few thousand years old, the Enlightenment a few hundred, and knowledge of evolution only fifteen decades.

We're working on it.

Atheistic origin science has completely failed to explain the universe and life.

How do you know it will ever be able to?