Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:
A young man approached me at a seminar and stated,‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him,‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’
The young man looked at me and blurted out,‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.
56 comments
While his statement is fairly sound, it seems to rely on the assumption that the way things exist now is "right" and any other way is "wrong".
I mean, if there was an alternate universe where I decided to eat Corn Flakes for breakfast this morning instead of Cheerios, I honestly don't consider my Corn Flake alter ego as "wrong", just a different process that would have led to a different, yet equally valid outcome.
If things were different, then things would be different. Congratulations, A = A.
I can barely even parse this. Is the argument that because some things are random, everything must be random, or that things that arise out of random events cannot subsequently have order? Either way, it's wrong.
Natural causes can be proven. The supernatural and a pre-existing creative intelligence cannot be proven. So, your belief in the supernatural and a pre-existing creative intelligence is simply based on your wanting to believe in the supernatural and a pre-existing creative intelligence. You wanting to believe in that is no evidence which would sway any thinking person even if it is written in a ancient book of fairy tales.
I was OK for the first sentence, it all went down-hill from there.
It ceased to make any sense whatsoever by the middle of the second paragraph, and the remainder of the post is pure gibberish.
"Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’ "
Science produced the computer you posted this on, so I'm pretty sure scientists thought processes are working correctly. You on the other hand . . .
A young man approached me at a seminar and stated,Well, I still don't believe in the big bang, or that we arrived here by chance random processes. I believe in God.’ I answered him,Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of a God who admits to fudging the evidence to test our faith in Him (Deut. 13:1-3). So you don’t know whether it He created it to discern reality, or even what reality would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’
Fixed.
Right away I can see the logical flaw in this argument.
Just because something came about randomly doesn't mean there were no rules governing the interaction.
Even blind chance (Probabilities) has rules.
So even though chemicals may interact randomly, there are rules of chemistry that control how those chemicals will act.
Same with the human brain. (because while the circumstances that led to it's evolution were random, the process where in it changed to better adapt to those circumstances were not random.)
Of course, then creationists use the old canard "But who set up those rules".
But there's no reason there has to have been anyone setting up those rules. The rules themselves may have been randomly established. But they still would have influenced everything that came after.
The burden of proof is still on those expecting us to believe in an invisible sky daddy.
Just the thing that makes me want to believe in your nonsense. An anecdote that is really just an obvious lie! Gee, how did you know my weakness for a good story.
A few years ago I had to do "sound and lights" for a church service/programme and the Gideon's Bible people came up on stage (or altar or podium or whatever they wish to call it) and told a bunch of stories that were pathetic wishful-thinking type anecdotes. Along with salacious details that were comic insights into their repressions... It was sad to see that people prefer the comfort of a lie that everything is ok, to the comfort of knowing that maybe everything isn't OK, but at least you aren't deliberately deceiving yourself over it.
@Patches:
Excellent response.
So, if his thinking is random, what's the problem?. Moreover, is God a product of random, following your logic?, WTF?
Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions
Even if this statement were true, why wouldn't this same argument apply to a brain created by God?
"Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, were determined God. So you don’t know whether your thoughts are your own or were planted there by God, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions"
Don't use big words when you don't understand them, it only makes you sound stupider, although that's kind of hard considering this pile of word vomit.
And there is no "right" or "wrong" in evolution. Either a random change benefits the species allowing creatures carrying that gene to thrive, or it doesn't and either becomes a slight variation (red/brown hair) or is actually a negative factor.
Example: If we didn't have dentists pulling all our impacted wisdom teeth, people born without wisdom would be at an advantage, because those of us with impacted wisdom teeth would be rolling around in pain until they got infected and we died from them.
As for the young man, Lying for Jesus IS STILL FUCKING LYING!!!
What's so strange about random events? Both sets of my grandparents met by chance, which means it was chance that my parents were even born, let alone later met also by chance. If these events continue up through my family tree, and it's a pretty good bet that they do, that I'm even here to type out these words is like winning the cosmic lottery.
Nirjuana: Evolution isn't "random", it happens for purpose
Thanks for your contribution. Sorry you're so fucking stupid. Evolution != teleology.
This guy is obviously lying, because I've heard this exact same story from that paragon of truth, Kent Hovind, in one of his lectures.
Apologies for all the commas :)
This is like that thing on uncyclopedia. It went something like this:
No one is perfect.
It was amusing, but I would never use it as an actual argument. It amazes me that people can stoop so low as to use something like this as an actual argument.
Hmm, I wonder if this young man is a student of the unnamed professor who teaches unspecified classes at UC Berkeley whom Kent Hovind insists he trounced in a debate they had while sitting next to each other on a plane.
Perhaps His-4-life can ask Jesus for us the next time he makes a guest appearance at her church.
@ Arne
Well! At last a credible figure of authority. I finally realize my belief undercuts its own foundations, and my reasoning destroys my reasoning. I wonder what magical book could that be that was recommended?
Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context.
The results of his thought processes can be compared against what his senses tell him about the real world. Thus he can test if they are “right” or “wrong”.
There was this really sincere street preacher who was always trying to talk to people about God. I then said to him that if God made you just before He died, He could have made your brains to believe that He still exists! He then said: "You are absolutely right and obviously a really brilliant genius!". I never saw him preaching again. Then years later I saw his picture in a news paper. Apparently his name was Richard Dawkins.
"Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence)."
...meanwhile, in Westminster Abbey, central place of worship of the Church of England:
image
They cannot recommend enough "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin, which they welcomed with open arms upon it's first publishing, and which sold more than the Bible at that time.
They accept the Big Bang as fact too. Just ask space scientist and Presbyterian Christian Dr. Buzz Aldrin. Are you going to argue the toss with someone who has a unique perspective on the matter?
Yet, the above two examples still believe in God.
Now, what was that about a supposed 'No. 2'...?!
No, that conversation didn't happen. Good grief, do you think we are all stupid enough to buy that tall tale? And my basic beliefs do not have a place in them for "magic", which is really what you worship when you personify it as "god".
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.
