Q for athiests?

Question

I just got done reading a fascinating email. Its called, "If you can read this, I can prove God exists." The points that the guy brings up seem valid. Essentially the email says that even if matter and galaxies were formed from unintelligent design, it is impossible for languages (such as DNA) to emerge unless there is some kind of "mind" that designs it. This does make sense in my opinion, seeing as how complex of a language DNA is.

Answer 1

"it is impossible for languages (such as DNA) to emerge unless there is some kind of "mind" that designs it. This does make sense in my opinion, seeing as how complex of a language DNA is"

You're assuming that the most complex things are the product of design. That's false. In fact if you look at the world around us you can't help but notice that the most complex things are the ones that were NOT the product of intentional design processes, but rather of nonintentional natural processes.

What you have there isn't really an argument at all - it's just a restatement of the original false claim.

Answer 2

Everything has a mind of its own. As what is proven by Japanese scientists water has feelings. If water, made up of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atoms and humans made up of water and so many elements inside the periodic table can have feelings, we can conclude that protons, electrons and neutrons that forms the elements have feelings. As everything has feelings, they have a mind of its own and most probably can form a new thing such as an engineer who creates a new gadget. In organic terms, we call it evolution. Somehow they can work together to form a new thing, like your cells who work together to form your organs and those organs form you. Whether God exists or not, there is no proof but Ghosts, there are proof although many are fakes. In my theory, God are the same as us and ghosts. The difference is that we have a physical body and both of them don't. God and ghosts actually exists in the same world as us but in a different dimension. All of us are restricted by the universal law. One of them is Newton's third law. If you did an action there will be a reaction equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. If you push the table you will feel it exerting a force on you (opposite in direction). If you do evil things it will eventually come back to you. As long as you do good, you will live a good life. No one including God or ghosts can help or harm you unless you trigger the reaction yourself.

Answer 3

So, he admits that matter can be unintelligently designed, but not life, owing to the fact that DNA is a kind of "language".

Did he stop to think of something called, um, chemistry?

Matter has a "language" behind it too.

It's really just a rephrasing of a tired argument - intelligent design.

"This is complicated, so a being must have designed it, but that being, even though it must be infinitely more complicated than what it created gets a get-out-of-logic-free card. That being is eternal. I can't explain why the matter can't be eternal instead. It just isn't because my explanation makes me feel better."

Answer 4

Fence-rider here myself:

Interesting point you have there.

I believe what evolutionist are trying to communicate to us'the general public' is that complexity is really formed, from a rare, few basic foundational properties.

The way I make sense of this is:

Everything Physical is made of Hydrogen-atoms; think about this...Hydrogen has the atomic weight of '1' right, and I believe Carbon is '12', right?

1+11 = 12, right, or more complicated (1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = 12, right?), all that Hydrogen-Atom has to choose is to multiply itself one more time ad-infitum, and adventually you get all elements that exist in the universe.

Now how the original Hydrogen-Atom came into existence, that may be one for the Creationist. Great Adam or scientific-atom, you decide...

-sophiaseeker-

Answer 5

It is the same old argument, repackaged. The fundamental flaw with the old argument is:

If something (you choose) is so complex, it must have been "designed", then the "designer" would need to be complex as well, therefore the "designer" would in turn need to have been designed by another "designer"....and so on, and so on.

If you need to postulate that there always was one "designer", you can also postulate that the design was always there, eliminating the middle men (Occam's razor).

So if you believe your god "created" whatever, who created your god? Do you then need to create a rule that your god was always there? If so, why no create a rule that states that whatever was always there as well?

PS: Atheist is spelled with the "e" before the "i".

Answer 6

Did the person who e-mailed you also spell "atheist" incorrectly? If he/she did, that person lost credibility from the get-go. If there is a god, I KNOW it can't be the "God of Abraham." Such a silly invention. It makes more sense to me that if there is a "creator" or "creators" they would be a supremely superior race of aliens who have left us to our own devices. I can't prove that, of course, but the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god can't be, and never will, be proven either. At any rate, either "belief" has as much credibility as the other, i.e., neither has any at all.

Answer 7

DNA is nothing more than the obvious route for anything we would call existence.

You see, the fact that things exist predetermine order, otherwise there is nothing.

Complexity is the necessary route for natural law.

It is, because it HAS to be. No Deity is needed for what we see.

I could go much deeper, psychologically, philosophically, scientifically, etc, but it would take books.

Or you could just go through my Q&A history here, which explains so much.

Answer 8

Then maybe you should be reading science textbooks, instead of emails that try to prove "god" exists, by describing DNA as a "language".

Answer 9

DNA wasn't originally complex. Simple bits of information began uniting and thus evolving into the complex form we have know.

I think. Someone with more expertise on the matter should correct me and/or elaborate

Answer 10

It is an appealing argument, isn't it?

Here's the problem with it: It's like arguing that we should have cars before we figured out the horse and buggy.

The "theory" (fact) of Evolution speaks to this - we don't need DNA appearing out of nowhere. What we have is precursors that act like DNA - like RNA, for example. Similar in functionality, but simpler in structure. And to get RNA, we use simpler and simpler structures.

The only "mind" that's working here is evolution, progress, mutation, improvement, and natural selection to keep it all in check.