Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

CanadaFreePress ^ | 06/09/2008 | Yomin Postelnik

[Yomin Postelnik]

One of the beautiful aspects of self evident truths is that they can be proven on both the simplest and the most complex of levels. By contrast, to make an argument for what is in fact an illogical fallacy, one must use plenty of skill, sophistry and remain beholden to a dogmatic protection of what is really an illogical position.

Yet even after a detailed case is made for the illogical side of the argument, it can instantly be deflated like a balloon with the simplest poke of clear logic. It can also be attacked piece by piece with even greater skill and logic, stemming from a steadfast pursuit of the truth.

[joeystoy]

ping

[Das Outsider]

The simplest proof (yet one that no atheist has ever been able to counter effectively) is that a universe of this size and magnitude does not somehow build itself, just as a set of encyclopedias doesn’t write itself or form randomly from the spill of a massive inkblot.

Just for fun, I'll throw this one out:

The question presumes that the universe was designed--which we do not know--whereas encyclopedias have been documented as to their design by an intelligent source.

For any that think that I am the least bit sympathetic to atheistic philosophy, I am not. My design, as it were, is to better equip Christians to answer philosophical arguments from skeptics. In that spirit, have at it! ;)

[mnehrling]

Playing devil's advocate here, they have a major logical fallacy:

The simplest proof (yet one that no atheist has ever been able to counter effectively) is that a universe of this size and magnitude does not somehow build itself, just as a set of encyclopedias doesn't write itself or form randomly from the spill of a massive inkblot. ...

Except an atheist could argue that the encyclopedia was created by humans, which are just the result of a random inkblot part of the universe, and thus, a godless(sic) universe is capable of creation. I don't believe this of course, but one needs to be careful of jumping on oversimplified arguments.

[wendy1946]

Ben Stein’s “Expelled” is the definitive answer to the questoin “Is there or can there be such a thing as an idiot with a 180 IQ?” Richard Dawkins comes off looking like a total idiot trying to defend atheist and evoloser positions logically.

[the invisib1e hand]

your premise ignores the documentation of the design by the designer.

But that's OK, 'cause logic doesn't do anything for atheists, either. At least, not sound logic.

[steve-b]

Who made God?

[elmer fudd]

There are only two kinds of people who can say with real certainty whether there is a God or not: those who have personally encountered him and lunatics. The other 99.9% of us can only guess or believe. Atheists take as big a leap of faith as religious believers.

For scientific purposes however the atheists do have an advantage in that they are not tied to any particular set of beliefs other than there being no God. There's no atheist bible or koran that they have to adhere to.

[Jo Nuvark]

[... The question presumes that the universe was designed—which we do not know—whereas encyclopediae have been documented as to their design by an intelligent source...]

Chaos is observable and so is intelligent design.

I like to ask people to look at the complexity of
their own hand. Then ask how they continue to believe
there is no designer behind its intricately exquisite
design, form and function.

[Jo Nuvark]

EVO-LOSER

I’m steeling that.

[donmeaker]

That designer, is he dead? At least he doesn’t write or call me.

[megatherium]

Stein was unfair to Dawkins. When they filmed Expelled, they didn't tell Dawkins what their intent was (they told him that they wanted to make a neutral movie about the intelligent design controversy). Stein asked Dawkins if he could possibly imagine a scenario where life on Earth was designed. Dawkins suggested, off the top of his head, that perhaps aliens did it. What is not clear in the movie is that Dawkins does not believe that at all. (There were other problems with the movie, which made me give it a big thumbs-down.)

[Das Outsider]

your premise ignores the documentation of the design by the designer. But that's OK, 'cause logic doesn't do anything for atheists, either. At least, not sound logic.

I have no need for convincing when it comes to the existence of God, as He surely does exist.

Where atheists would disagree is with regard to the aforementioned documentation.

[Telepathic Intruder]

The article presupposes that the simplest answer is always the correct one, the simplest answer just being “God made it”. There are other preconditions being used: that evolution is random or that it operates one organ at a time, that orbits of planets are inherently unstable, that all things must have come together “in unison” for things to be as they are now. There are valid explanations for all these things apart from divine creation. I prefer to take a different view that doesn’t conflict with science: that God created a self-sustaining universe, just as a watch maker needs to wind up the watch but needn’t control every tick. If we were meant to have physical proof of God, every rock and tree would have “made by God” carved into it.

[Yomin Postelnik]

Interesting how you fail to consider the millions of species that have male and female types, which I guess, according to you, somehow evolved without anyone at the healm. The point wasn’t all animals, it was the magnitude of those that are and need for that to have been organized.

Likewise the planets. The fact that any orbit exists in perfect rotation shows a Creator. Stop spinning (all puns intended).

I think you’re too closed-minded to be hurling insults.

[philly-d-kidder]

Have an aetheist Explain Gravity...or The Human Body!!

[Das Outsider]

I like to ask people to look at the complexity of their own hand. Then ask how they continue to believe there is no designer behind its intricately exquisite design, form and function.

Your opponent would argue that such is merely phenomenological.

[wendy1946]

Dawkins spoke of space aliens as if he was not aware that the space alien hypothesis only kicks the can down the road one block and does not solve the basic problem; Ben Stein did not force him to do that. Aside from that it is clear enough that Dawkins has basically read through bits and pieces of the OT without understanding it and gained nothing from the exercise other than a misconceived hatred for the God of the OT.

Let me give you a simple example. Ancients described events in their own language and interpretation and not in ours, thus there appear several instances in the OT in which God is said to kill somebody directly, e.g.

2SA 6:3 And they set the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah: and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drave the new cart.

2SA 6:4 And they brought it out of the house of Abinadab which was at Gibeah, accompanying the ark of God: and Ahio went before the ark.

2SA 6:5 And David and all the house of Israel played before the LORD on all manner of instruments made of fir wood, even on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals.

2SA 6:6 And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it.

2SA 6:7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.

Now, there are two basic interpretations one could arrive at reading this:

• God (Jehovah) is some sort of an a$$**** (i.e. the conclusion which Dawkins would reach).
• The so-called "Ark of the Covenant" was some sort of a static electrical device which was basically dangerous, Uzzah tried to steady the thing on the wagon, and got electrocuted for his troubles.

Again those people wrote in their language, not ours. Static electricity was part of several antique means of trying to communicate with the spirit world. The pyramids themselves were gigantic lightning rods with golden tips which glowed permanently; the word "pyramid" itself is a Greek word, the root part of which is the same "pyr" (fire) which we oberve in words like "pyrotechnics" or "pyromania".

[YHAOS]

Beep TTT

[ryan71]

“Richard Dawkins comes off looking like a total idiot...”

He sure did. Dawkins suggested aliens planted life on Earth. He can believe that but he can't believe in GOD!

Ben did a great job of letting Dawkins dig himself into a hole but I wish he had asked Dawkins who or what created the aliens.

[Jo Nuvark]

[... Your opponent would argue that such is merely phenomenological...]

Until the judgement, mankind will continue to excuse
themselves from their accounts with their Creator.

For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes, His eternal power and divine nature,
have been clearly seen, being understood through
what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
(Romans 1:20)

[Jo Nuvark]

steel or steal?

[Das Outsider]

Dawkins spoke of space aliens as if he was not aware that the space alien hypothesis only kicks the can down the road one block and does not solve the basic problem

If God is merely a hypothetical entity, then at least he is among good company with extraterrestrial intelligence, though the former makes a much better case. ;)

In any case, intelligent life existed somewhere prior to even microbial life, according to your citation of Dawkins, right?

[Tucker39]

Dear Das:
You may pretend that there is no evidence for DESIGN, and claim it as a type of “grounds” for dissing the Creator and the Salvation He provided through His Son; but when the final judgement comes, your position will crumble. The Scripture below is just one of many that says that ALL who disregard the Creator will be without excuse when they appear before Him at the Last Judgement.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

The evidences of DESIGN are so clear, and so numerous, that anyone with an open mind and a discerning eye cannot help but realize them. One that presents itself with every “Nature” program on television, where they like to show various creatures in the act of copulation: The UNIVERSAL RETRACTABLE PENIS. THINK about it! Such marvelous mechanisms DO NOT happen by chance! Get a clue!

[Das Outsider]

Until the judgement, mankind will continue to excuse themselves from their accounts with their Creator.

Is it that hard for some to understand that one can be "pro-science" without accepting as a worldview materialistic evolution by natural selection (at best, theistic evolution, which is not much) or the idea, to paraphrase Ben Stein, that "science gets people killed?"

[Das Outsider]

You may pretend that there is no evidence for DESIGN, and claim it as a type of “grounds” for dissing the Creator and the Salvation He provided through His Son; but when the final judgement comes, your position will crumble. The Scripture below is just one of many that says that ALL who disregard the Creator will be without excuse when they appear before Him at the Last Judgement.

Apparently you have no idea who I am or what I believe. I neither "diss" God, nor do I for one second attempt to diminish the unthinkable sacrifice that he has provided in Jesus Christ, my Savior and Lord.

[tacticalogic]

The article presupposes that the simplest answer is always the correct one, the simplest answer just being “God made it”.

That is indeed the simplest answer. We could replace every scientific explaination and theory we have with those three words. It'll make for lousy technology, but it should improve the national averages on test scores in science.

[Das Outsider]

The evidences of DESIGN are so clear, and so numerous, that anyone with an open mind and a discerning eye cannot help but realize them. One that presents itself with every “Nature” program on television, where they like to show various creatures in the act of copulation: The UNIVERSAL RETRACTABLE PENIS. THINK about it! Such marvelous mechanisms DO NOT happen by chance! Get a clue!

The evidences of God's design are clear to those who have a mind to apprehend them. Do not confuse science and philosophy with apostasy, my friend. As I stated at the outset, my desire is for Christians to be better equipped to answer objections against God's existence and his Creation.

[Jo Nuvark]

[... Apparently you have no idea who I am or what I believe...]

Yeah, Tucker... you’ve got Das mixed up with someone
else for sure. Das is one of the elect. Sorry for
whatever happened to mislead you and thank you for
your elegant defense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Telepathic Intruder]

Which could explain all those Nobel prizes in physics coming from the state-controlled muslim theocracies.

[Yomin Postelnik]

Theologists describe the need for the Divine Creator to be both higher than physical and spiritual. That's a topic that needs much more discussion, but in short, while having no physical form, we can still tell the detail and precision the Creator put into creating the universe.

Realize that physicality doesn't last and hasn't been around forever, so we're speaking about the Creator of physicality.

[Das Outsider]

Well, thank you, Jo. Any election comes from the grace of God through Jesus, the most true elect. And it’s here that I have outed myself as a non-Calvinist, despite referencing any sort of predestination. We Confessional Lutherans can do that, you know. ;)

[Jo Nuvark]

Sorry to blow your cover. LOL!

[Jo Nuvark]

RETRACTABLE PENIS???

[Das Outsider]

Sorry to blow your cover. LOL!

You mean you outed me as one of those backwoods, bucktoothed, Bible-believing, so-called fundies, Jo? ;)

[Das Outsider]

RETRACTABLE PENIS???

Mrs. Outsider has no comment.

[Jo Nuvark]

You could say we put the “fun” in fundamentalism.

Or you could say we are fundaMENTAL cases.

[Jo Nuvark]

Give Mrs. Outsider a great big hug from me. LOL!

[Das Outsider]

Give Mrs. Outsider a great big hug from me. LOL!

Yes, there is a "Mrs. Outsider" now, and I will duly note your affection, though I'm not clear on how non-marital Catholic/Protestant affections go in that regard. ;)

[Jo Nuvark]

[... I will duly note your affection, though I’m not clear on how non-marital Catholic/Protestant affections go in that regard....]

I can tell you’re working on the Kirk distillation because you sound like Emerson.

BIBLICAL HUG
A time to throw stones and a time to gather stones; A time
to embrace and a time to shun embracing. (Ecclesiastes 3:5)

[Religion Moderator]

you fail to consider

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

Reading the mind of another poster is a form of "making it personal."

Click on my profile page for guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum.

[wendy1946]

In any rational scheme of things, intelligence has to exist FIRST and create biology; the opposite, i.e. having biology arise from dust via a sequence of trillions of zero-probability events by accident (evolution), has been disproven repeatedly.

[dr_lew]

You guys are dreaming. Dawkins did not make a fool of himself, and he “looks like a total idiot” only to those predisposed to see him that way.

[Tunehead54]

Bump! ;=)

[megatherium]

Aside from that it is clear enough that Dawkins has basically read through bits and pieces of the OT without understanding it and gained nothing from the exercise other than a misconceived hatred for the God of the OT.

Again, Dawkins doesn't believe in space aliens, he was asked to speculate on a scenario about intelligent design, and he did so. But you're absolutely correct, Dawkins doesn't know much about the OT. I recently read a critique of the new atheists written by a theologian, who ripped Dawkins apart for ignoring the prophetic tradition, which is of course a huge portion of the OT and where we gain much of our understanding of the goodness of God. (Isaiah chapter 1 comes to mind: God tells the Jews that he doesn't care about burnt offerings and temple worship, he wants justice and compassion. Dawkins fixates on the animal sacrifices, and calls them barbarous, but ignores the fact that God's revelation is only beginning in the early parts of the OT.) Another reviewer of Dawkins noticed that he incorrectly claimed that the OT only obliged Jews to protect Jews and not non-Jews.

[kosta50]

Rubbish. We don’t build things the way nature does. You are comapring apples and oranges. Nothing we made even resembles anything in nature.

[steve-b]

hypothesis only kicks the can down the road one block and does not solve the basic problem

As I noted in my previous message, that's precisely the problem with the "argument" presented in the original post in this thread.

[steve-b]

The fact that any orbit exists in perfect rotation shows a Creator.

Nonsense. It is a straightforward result of inverse-square gravitation. That's fifth-grade general science.