by IronGland 10 Replies latest jw friends
http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030527.shtml
Lets discuss this crappy article and faulty logic. Or perhaps you agree with it. Either way, should be interesting.
I'll start. Quote: quote-"the Big Bang implied a beginning to the universe, and a beginning implies a Creator, something many scientists passionately reject." --uhhhh--for this man to be logically consistent, wouldn't his creator need a creator?
This article had me LMAO He is completely OBSESSED with monkey's typing a Psalm. Its mentioned throughout the whole article as though this is sound reasoning for a Creator. HELLO - am I missing something Anyhoo - my contribution...
In his book God and the Astronomers , Jastrow tells of his surprise when so many fellow astronomers refused to accept the Big Bang hypothesis for the origins of the universe. In fact, Jastrow writes, many astronomers were actually unhappy about it. Why? Because the Big Bang implied a beginning to the universe, and a beginning implies a Creator, something many scientists passionately reject.
What he fails to mention, (even if this statement is true), despite their emotional feelings, the theory has/is still being studied. That's what Scientists do. Besides, I don't recall the "Big Bang" theory being warmly greeted in religious circles. It implies life through an explosion, instead of a creator forming little balls and hanging them in space.
Allright! let's start!
Thomas Huxley ("Darwin's bulldog") is said to have come up with the most famous defense of the atheist belief that life was created by chance, not God.
"The atheist belief" is an oxymoron. Secondly, life was not created by chance. That is not what evolution theory teaches, and to add another thing: not all atheists are evolutionist. The word atheist only defines what such a person is not, or what such a person lacks: a belief in God(s).
In a debate at Oxford, he is reported to have stated that if enough monkeys randomly pressed typewriter keys for a long enough time, sooner or later Psalm 23 would emerge.
With unlimited or just a lot of time, yes why not?
Not all atheists use this argument, but it accurately represents the atheist belief that with enough time and enough solar systems, you'll get you, me, and Bach's cello suites.
Again belief, like it's a religion! With enough time and enough solars systems (???). just out of nowhere? no! again Evolution happens because of chance (randomness) and natural selection (the steering proces)... well let's move on...
This belief has always struck me as implausible.
Gee, I wonder why Sherlock! Maybe it's because that's not what the theory is about?
The argument that infinitely complex intelligence came about by itself, unguided by any intelligence, can only be deemed convincing by those who have a vested interest (intellectual, emotional, psychological) in atheism.
Not by itself! Circular reasoning: you are an atheist because you are an atheist. Besides this argument makes theists per definition atheists because they believe that ' infinitely complex intelligence (God) came about by itself, unguided by any intelligence' and hence must have a 'vested interest (intellectual, emotional, psychological) in atheism'. funny.
I fully acknowledge the great challenge to theism -- the rampant and seemingly random unfairness built into human life.
Explanation? why raise a question without refutation?
But no intellectually honest atheist should deny the great challenge to atheism -- the existence of design and intelligence. The belief that Bach's music randomly evolved from a paramecium should strike anyone as so fantastic as to be absurd, even more absurd than the belief that a monkey could monkey Shakespeare. The finite number of years in the universe's existence and the finite number of planets would not come close to producing a few sentences, let alone Psalm 23 or a Shakespeare play.
That's not so unlikely as you may think. we have a limited number of letters: 26 and oceans of time, and lets not forget: a system that makes good sentences have a higher chance of survival then bad ones.
But a just reported English University experiment has convinced me that the number of monkeys and the amount of time are irrelevant. Psalm 23, let alone Hamlet, would never be written. Why? Because the monkeys probably wouldn't do any typing.
It was a metaphore, sheesh do I really have to explain that? 'The good samaritan' was also fiction, but it illustrated something no? no point in saying: "those apes used the keyboards as latrines and rather spent their time throwing excrement around". The metaphore still stands.
The instructors hastened to note the study was not scientific, given the short duration of time and the small number of monkeys, but some of us find this "study" to be a hilarious vindication of our view of the "enough monkeys for enough time" argument for random creation.
Vindicated by a non-scientific study involving pissing apes.Wow. Vindication afterall. Rejoice!
Nevertheless, I believe that any objective person would have to conclude that the belief that everything came about by itself and that randomness is the creator is infinitely less intellectually sound than the belief in a Creator/Designer.
No, I think that is is equally silly to worship randomness or God as creator. Luckely a lot of people are not as thickheaded as this individual.
Sadly, many people come to doubt God's existence because so many intellectuals are atheists.
*hint* *hint*
In his book God and the Astronomers, Jastrow tells of his surprise when so many fellow astronomers refused to accept the Big Bang hypothesis for the origins of the universe. In fact, Jastrow writes, many astronomers were actually unhappy about it. Why? Because the Big Bang implied a beginning to the universe, and a beginning implies a Creator, something many scientists passionately reject.
No scientist would claim that. I think he needs to read he book again.
This led Jastrow to the sobering conclusion that many scientists have vested, non-scientific interests in some of their beliefs, especially the non-existence of God. For some psychological or emotional reasons, not intellectual ones, many scientists prefer to believe that given enough monkeys, one will type out a psalm.
The first part of this is true, but equally so for theist researchers, both are looking for confirmation for preconceived ideas. That's humanity. No not again! Sod off with yer monkeys!
But neither math nor science argues that all came about randomly, without a Creator. Only a keen desire to deny God explains such a belief, a belief that should be laid to rest beneath a large pile of monkey doo-doo at Plymouth University, England.
A keen desire to deny God? That's offensive! Most people started out as believers but could no longer uphold such beliefs in the face (or actually absence) of evidence for a God. And seriously, some of those beliefs are so nice I wish they were true! But one must not be led by wishfull thinking. How unsoothing this may be....
Greven
This belief has always struck me as implausible. The argument that infinitely complex intelligence came about by itself, unguided by any intelligence, can only be deemed convincing by those who have a vested interest (intellectual, emotional, psychological) in atheism.
I love the fact that it hasn't even occured to him that if you remove ONE LETTER from that paragraph, you make an argument AGAINST theism;
This belief has always struck me as implausible. The argument that infinitely complex intelligence came about by itself, unguided by any intelligence, can only be deemed convincing by those who have a vested interest (intellectual, emotional, psychological) in theism.
You take away the 'a' from atheism, and you have an argument about why the spontaneous appearance of a creator is implausable.
I fully acknowledge the great challenge to theism -- the rampant and seemingly random unfairness built into human life. But no intellectually honest atheist should deny the great challenge to atheism -- the existence of design and intelligence. The belief that Bach's music randomly evolved from a paramecium should strike anyone as so fantastic as to be absurd, even more absurd than the belief that a monkey could monkey Shakespeare.
Great how he talks about intellectual honesty in the same paragraph as making a straw man argument; no one says that "Bach's music randomly evolved from a paramecium", anyone who says that is either lying or misinformed or ignorant.
The finite number of years in the universe's existence and the finite number of planets would not come close to producing a few sentences, let alone Psalm 23 or a Shakespeare play.
But a just reported English University experiment has convinced me that the number of monkeys and the amount of time are irrelevant. Psalm 23, let alone Hamlet, would never be written. Why? Because the monkeys probably wouldn't do any typing.
This was not a serious experiment!!! Read up on it, it's described as 'more like an art installation' by the people who organised it. This was either too much bother for the writer of the article, or he didn't like the fact if he mentioned that he'd not be able to use it to support his 'argument'.
He then fills the rest of the column with a personal comment from an astronomer that he takes as absolute truth, rather than a biased opinion of a theist. ANd again, his arguments are so redundant; rather than arguing from facts, he argues from assertation, without realising that theists are just as open to assertations that their beliefs are influenced by "some psychological or emotional reasons, not intellectual ones".
If someone had given this to me when I edited a student newspaper, I'd have pointed out the weaknesses and asked them to come back with something other than gum rattling. I'd have no problem publishing a theists argument, but I'd like it to be one that wasn't quite so weak - as an atheist I can come up with better arguments for the existence of god than this guy.
Because the Big Bang implied a beginning to the universe, and a beginning implies a Creator, something many scientists passionately reject.
A beginning doesn't necessarily imply a creator, there are much better arguements than that. Though actually, some theories (most that I've read) on the origins of the "big bang" don't or can't explain the catalyst for the expansion. Second problem with this statement, and the more important one, while almost no scientist is a 7 day creationist, there are as many believers as non-believers in the ranks of science. Einstein attributed creation to God. I'm not saying Scientists in general have a specifically Christian or Judeo Christian worldview, only that many do acknowledge a creative force beyond nature.
While I'm neither an atheist nor a theist I found it irritating that he continuously used the phrase "atheistic belief". Atheism is a lack of belief so right off the bat his article sounds flawed. I also love the way he lumps atheists and evolutionists together like they are mutually exclusive.
While I understood both Greven's and Abaddon's posts I think I would need a million years and a couple hundred monkeys with typewriters before I could come up with better refutations than they just did.
~Aztec
Because the Big Bang implied a beginning to the universe, and a beginning implies a Creator, something many scientists passionately reject.
actually on the quantum level causality might not be necessary. therefore its possible that the universe came into existance without a cause.
yeru,
Einstein attributed creation to God.
einstein did not believe in a personal god but rather viewed himself as a pantheist (the universe is god).
since scientists are just humans they have human psychological needs like everyone else. therefore many refuse to accept the ultimate consequences of scientific findings and prefer to believe in a personal god.
since on one hand a personal god does obviously not exist but on the other hand the possibility that the universe has a deeper meaning cannot be strictly ruled out one can only be a week atheist or an agnostic.
Realist,
Not argueing that point with you at all.
yeru,
great!
about the article:
the guy who wrote it uses unclean tactics (like all hard core theists i know).
First he cites huxley (whose statement is 100% correct)....
...than he uses huxley's statement and extands its meaning (by adding that the universe is not old enough for psalm 23 to form, something huxley had never claimed!)...
...than he throws in the monkey study (which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. typing monkeys were just a metaphor)....
...he than continues to throw in absurd numbers (just as a side note, 10e800 is way to high for his example of psalm 23)...
...followed by the idea that scientists didn't like the big bang because of the need for a creator (einstein for instance didn'T care about the creator aspect...he simply didn't like the idea of a changing unstable universe!)....
...and last but not least this gem:
But neither math nor science argues that all came about randomly, without a Creator.
neither huxley nor anybody else claims that all came about randomly! what is claimed is that with the laws as we have them in this universe one doesn't need a creator to get stars, planets and lastly lifeforms!
Actually on the quantum level causality might not be necessary. therefore its possible that the universe came into existance without a cause
IMHO, it cannot be determined either way. No one was there when the big bang happened. So far, scientist’s feel pretty certain that they have a consistent picture that goes back to about 1 second after the big bang during which time the primordial elements of hydrogen, deuterium, helium and lithium, were synthesized. We can go back a step further in big bang model to about 1 microsecond after the big bang, because the essential physics of this state can be described in a model of sub-atomic physics called the Standard Model. But who caused it? No one really knows. Personally, I believe in god. Even Carl Sagan admits that the best he can muster is to be agnostic. It is true that scientists do not see 'God' in the motions of the planets around the Sun, or in the evolution of the stars. But I wonder long and hard at the mystery of how the BIG PICTURE came to pass. Why have the laws of nature, and the choices of the fundamental constants in nature coincided with just those possibilities that allow organic life to form, and sentient life to follow? Why, among all the possibilities that could have emerged from the Big Bang, did a space-time of 4 dimensions, with certain SPECIFIC symmetries emerge? How did order emerge from chaos? Were quantum laws and various invariance principles written into the fabric of the Void? Seemingly so otherwise there would have been no causal events and regularities. But, it’s hard to imagine some intelligence moving about in the background making this all happen. After all, if 'he' was somehow part of space and time, He must have come into existence with the Big Bang itself, which is hardly what we imagine for a true Creator. If, however, God is aloof from time/space, and is actually infinite and can do all things (Why hasn't he made contact; where's his postcard)? Unless, there are things that even God cannot do, which is of course isn't compatible with our idea that He/She/it is all knowing.
B’
