A Linguistic Argument for the Existence of God

konceptual99

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/58/58-4/JETS_58-4_771-86_Baumgardner&Lyon.pdf

My favourite "logical" progression...

We demonstrated that because meaning is non-material, linguistic expressions likewise must be non-material. We further showed that there is no indication that matter can generate non-material meaning-bearing linguistic expressions. Why should we expect that even to be possible, given that matter and meaning are in separate ontological realms? On the other hand, as humans we are immersed in language realities. We associate our own use of language with our own mental faculties. It seems indisputable that the source of our thoughts and other language expressions is our mind. For lack of any other plausible explanation for linguistic phenomena other than a mind like our own, the linguistic coding observed in the DNA of every living organism points to a mind with the capabilities that most people associate with the term God.

I really hope that Cofty has some time to rip into this one....

cofty

the linguistic coding observed in the DNA of every living organism

There is no such thing.

There that didn't take long.

cofty

It is a common misunderstanding that DNA is written in some sort of language or that it contains "information".

It doesn't.

These things are simply metaphors.

The problem is that it is a very apt metaphor and every textbook and web article about genetics will refer to language and/or information.

To take this metaphor literally is to commit the fallacy of reism.

konceptual99

Oh yes there is ;-)

Meaning is encoded by genetic language in the DNA of every living organism in the same manner in which meaning is encoded by any other type of language. Since meaning is abstract and non-material, the meaning conveyed by genetic language, as with any other language, likewise is abstract and non-material. One of the most striking contrasts between genetic language and languages utilized by humans is the complexity of the encoding. Because each DNA letter, or nucleotide, commonly is utilized simultaneously by several overlapping but distinct messages, the amount of meaning or specification conveyed per letter far exceeds that of human languages.

....

Like other examples of formal language, the linguistic elements in DNA responsible for describing the proteins from which these machines are built also involves assignment of meaning to words to form a vocabulary and rules for joining the words together to form more complex linguistic expressions.

Not only that Cofty, but they use the example of a molecular rotary machine to kick any argument against Creation out of the ball park...

One example of these nano-machines is ATP synthase (see Figure 2). ATP synthase is a rotary machine found in all organisms, from bacteria to humans, and plays a crucial role in cellular metabolism. This machine is built from approximately a dozen different proteins and consists of about 90,000 atoms. The details for its astonishing structure, to the level of each individual atom, are specified linguistically in the organism’s DNA. It is the power of linguistic encoding of meaning that makes such detailed specification possible.

Case closed......

.....

....

Unless you can read a book... or use Google....

cofty

I'm not going to join in a copy-paste competition. "oh yes there is" is not evidence for anything.

Language in the context of DNA is nothing more than a useful metaphor.

The complexity of ATP synthase is indeed amazing. How much time and energy have you invested in discovering what is known about the evolution of molecular mechanisms?

Another commonly abused example is bacterial flagellum. It is also a rotary motor. Have you read the evidence for its evolution from simpler mechanisms? It was covered in some depth in Kitzmiller V Dover and has been discussed by Kenneth Miller in online lectures.

If you want to explain your argument in your own words I will happily have a conversation with you.

cofty

My apologies if I have misunderstood.

I think you are playing Devil's advocate?

konceptual99

It is a common misunderstanding that DNA is written in some sort of language or that it contains "information".
It doesn't.
These things are simply metaphors.
The problem is that it is a very apt metaphor and every textbook and web article about genetics will refer to language and/or information.

Given it is such a useful and ubiquitous metaphor, this made me think about how one could successfully explain exactly why the genetic code containing within DNA should not be considered as "information", even less a language.
This provides a good starting point...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html

konceptual99

My apologies if I have misunderstood.
I think you are playing Devil's advocate?

No problem!

I think waking up to the reality of how sound the argument for evolution really is, trumps pretty much every other aspect of my mental exit from da troof.

cofty

There is a bait-and-switch that theists always use in these arguments as well.

They use bad arguments that at the very best might offer support to deism and then they pretend they have made a case for "god".

I prefer to start with the specific and grandiose claims of theism.

Anders Andersen

All I hear with arguments like these is: blablabla we do not have any real evidence so we are making stuff up.

When was the last time someone had to invent the linguistical argument for the existence of New York city?

Also, the argument that meaning and matter are separate is disputable.

All information that exists, is carried by 'matter' (where I include massless particles).

Meaning is only in the mind (which is based on matter) of the beholder.

And if DNA is so linguistical, why did the supposed creator not encode his name, and his holy writings into it? That would be fine evidence, no need for any blarguments.

Humans did that, why not the creator?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium#Watermarks

A Linguistic Argument for the Existence of God

Share this