based on what we know about complex designs and blueprints and laws, it makes infinitely more sense to suppose that the complex, law-bound universe and life must be linked to an Intelligence source. That's *way more reasonable* than the atheist's stupid "self-creating universes" mythology supported by nothing but alchemy.
49 comments
Based on what we know about quantum mechanics, astrophysics, and emergent phenomena, it is way more reasonable to believe in these than in the stupid theists' "grumpy old man in the sky" theory based on nothing but Semitic fables.
Except, see, we've got evidence.
And your words there are evidence that you FAIL.
Complexity does not prove design.
The "laws" of nature are merely observations of the ways that matter tends to behave. In your view, the only universe in which we could exist that wouldn't be proof of God would be one of complete and utter chaos, that was completely inconsistent in its organization and movement, and is also inconsistent in its inconsistency. Yet, then you would just adopt a different argument ("only God could create an existence that can miraculously change in such a fashion!")
Oh, and atheists don't posit a self-creating universe, they posit a universe that came into existence due to the Big Bang, with complete origins being unknown.
Newton was an alchemist, dipshit.
Oh...and no atheist believes that, but I don't expect you people to actually understand atheists and atheism any more than you understand homosexuals and homosexuality.
The argument goes something like this:
1. Everything complex had a more complex, intelligent designer.
2. Cars are complex.
3. Therefore, cars had a more complex, intelligent designer: humans.
4. Therefore, humans had a more complex, intelligent designer: God.
5. Therefore, God had a more complex, intelligent source: ?
Oh, wait. that doesn't work. Scratch that last step.
*5. God doesn't need a designer.
Here's the problem with your logic. If the Universe needs a more complex, intelligent designer, then where did that intelligent designer come from? Either it came from nothing, at which case, why can't the Universe not come from nothing but the super intelligent designer of the Universe can, or the super intelligent designer of the Universe had itself and even high super super intelligent designer? But then where did that one come from? You see the hideous gapping hole in your logic.
Blueprints? Freakin' blueprints are proof of God? Drawings are proof of God? Arrrrrrrgh!
And WTF are these "self-created universes" you refer to? Human observations have detected only one universe and we have formulated "laws" and theories to describe the things we observe. These observations have led us to conclude that the observed universe has operated under the same "laws" since a few milliseconds after the beginning of the Big Bang. Human observations don't go back before the Big Bang, but, that doesn't mean that there was nothing before it. Whatever existed before the Big Bang is simply unexplained.
How committed to ignorance must one be to deny these observations? I don't think it's dependent on I.Q.
I know lots of people, "dumber" than me, who have no problem grasping this concept. And I'm sure there are plenty of people, "smarter" than me (though I've yet to meet one), who refuse to accept the obvious facts.
I can only conclude that these idiots are committed to keeping themselves ignorant out of fear. They are simply afraid that God will smite them if they "eat the fruit of knowledge". What a waste.
We call alchemy chemistry now. And its physics that determines the theory. Its more sensible than yours since it does not suppose the existance of the supernatural.
And from what we know of laws , snowflakes must have a creator!
the first thing a problem solver learns is that complex things are made up of (lots of) simple things.
While a cell couldn't have sprung fully formed from the swamp, accumulations of structures did lead to the point where self-replication began*. The rest is history.
(*Disclaimer according to current theory)
The fact that there are constant, predictable laws of nature speaks against the existence of god because if there were some magic guy in the sky running everything, someone who can create or destroy absolutely anything on a mere whim, we'd see a lot more really weird, unexplainable stuff happening.
Of course, if you're a fundy, you do think you're seeing supernatural stuff happening all the time. Ignorance is bliss ... if you survive the demonic attacks.
Only Alchemy? For shame! You forgot to include divination, astrology, numerology, demonology and black magicks! Just what kind of Fundie are you?!
based on what we know about complex designs and blueprints and laws, it makes infinitely more sense to suppose that the complex, law-bound universe and life must be linked to an Intelligence source.
I'm not sure I could link this post to an intelligent source.
Unless you are talking about the Intelligence Sauce of The FSM?
Pretending for a moment there's a Creator, I feel the only thing that makes sense is for the "intelligence" to be embedded in every mote of Creation. Thus, the original act of creation would not require any more than whatever it took for space to open up, matter to appear, and the clock to start.
Classical Deist, not alchemist.
based on what we know about complex designs and blueprints and laws, it makes infinitely more sense to suppose that the complex, law-bound universe and life must be linked to an Intelligence source. That's *way more reasonable* than the atheist's stupid "self-creating universes" mythology supported by nothing but alchemy.
There's so much raw stupidity here that I think I've actually lost my will to argue.
Quantum physics is alchemy now?
I guess they did do that lead into gold thing a while ago, didn't they.
"supported by nothing but alchemy..."
...and nuclear physics, and evolution, which show us that it's very natural for things to accumulate from basic units, rather than having to be I-dream-of-Jeanied into existence by something infinitely more complex (and therefore infinitely harder to explain)
Yeah, "blowing into dirt" to create humans is far more complex than millions of years of evolution? A supernatural deity(one of thousands in mankind's various civilizations and histories) is "way more reasonable" than a scientifically testable "self-creating universe"? What a dolt you are pretensiousviolin!
Buddha is a disgusting wretch. Why would anyone want to follow such a shabby excuse for a human being? When I see a Buddha statue in front of someone's house, I make a point of kicking it over into the gutter, because that's where Buddha belongs - in the gutter with the rest of the trash.
*draws an alchemist's circle, then clasps her hands together* Hm...there should be one blown-up fundie by now.
Alchemy isn't science, dear, in any world but Ed's. Stop reading your manga and taking it for truth.
“based on what we know about complex designs and blueprints and laws,”
What we know about laws is that they’re made by man. All of them. Traffic, commerce, physics, all man-made.
The universe operates.
In very specific interactions of matter and engery, when we feel confident that we can always predict their behavior, we write a ‘law’ to say we’ve figured it out.
Like, “Objects at rest remain at rest.” and “Objects in motion will come to a rest.”
As our knowledge increased, we tweaked those a bit.
Our laws changed to match out knowledge. The universe’s operation never changed.
Your premise is flawed.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.