Open invitation: best arguments for God

[Darth Wong]

I think logic is a property of the universe and doesn't exist indepently. I can't test this as I don't have any other universes I could check to see if this holds true though.

Rather than viewing logic as a property of the universe, it is probably better to view it as an intellectual tool, used to determine whether ideas are self-contradictory or inferences are arbitrary.

If the universe does not obey the dictates of logic, this would mean that it is either arbitrary or inconsistent (yes, I know, there is some overlap between those terms). Yet Christians believe that God is neither arbitrary or inconsistent, which means he can be evaluated through the use of logic.

Attacking the concept of logic itself is actually a pretty clever trick, as nauseating and dishonest as it may be, because it's so completely out of left field that most people are just left dumb-founded by it.

[Samuel]

What would a universe that is inconsistent look like? I am having trouble wrapping my head around how something like that would appear to us and function.

[Simon_Jester]

What would a universe that is inconsistent look like? I am having trouble wrapping my head around how something like that would appear to us and function.

It could look like Wile E. Coyote cartoons, where the laws of physics operate inconsistently: a roadrunner can run up to a painting of a tunnel on a wall and enter the tunnel, but the coyote that painted the tunnel in the first place will smack into the wall.

The fact that real physics isn't like Looney Tunes is a key point to make to people who say it "could" be inconsistent.

[General Anubis]

Interesting thread to say the least, found this forum on a random search for "ISD MK II," lol.

Best one I've seen so far is Perry Marshall's Genetic Code argument
The basic argument goes like this:

P1. The Genetic Code (he shortens this to just DNA) is literally a code.

P2. All codes we currently know of were designed by an intelligent mind.

C. The Genetic Code was designed by an intelligent mind.

This argument has stood against all others on the Infidels forum for more than 4 years.
He's got a pretty good argument here, with the proof and knowledge to back it up... what do you guys think?

[Serafina]

What would a universe that is inconsistent look like? I am having trouble wrapping my head around how something like that would appear to us and function.

It could look like Wile E. Coyote cartoons, where the laws of physics operate inconsistently: a roadrunner can run up to a painting of a tunnel on a wall and enter the tunnel, but the coyote that painted the tunnel in the first place will smack into the wall.

The fact that real physics isn't like Looney Tunes is a key point to make to people who say it "could" be inconsistent.

But don't you see? We do not know if the laws we observe HERE are also true ELSEWHERE...

Of course, we CAN be reasonably sure that they are (since we can observe the effects of gravits etc.), and assuming otherwise is just pointless.

[TheManWithNoName]

Interesting thread to say the least, found this forum on a random search for "ISD MK II," lol.

Best one I've seen so far is Perry Marshall's Genetic Code argument
The basic argument goes like this:

P1. The Genetic Code (he shortens this to just DNA) is literally a code.

P2. All codes we currently know of were designed by an intelligent mind.

C. The Genetic Code was designed by an intelligent mind.

This argument has stood against all others on the Infidels forum for more than 4 years.
He's got a pretty good argument here, with the proof and knowledge to back it up... what do you guys think?

Just out of curiosity, what "proof" and "knowledge" is he touting to back this up? Frankly, this seems very flimsy, and it isn't much different than the common "we HAD to have had a designer to be this complex" arguments I hear so much. It seems that anyone with a basic background in Biology (I'm a Biology major, and am actually currently taking Genetics class) could see right through the sheer idiocy of what this is actually advocating.

I'll type more about this and responses to my post when I have time sometime this weekend.

[Patrick Degan]

Interesting thread to say the least, found this forum on a random search for "ISD MK II," lol.

Best one I've seen so far is Perry Marshall's Genetic Code argument
The basic argument goes like this:

P1. The Genetic Code (he shortens this to just DNA) is literally a code.

P2. All codes we currently know of were designed by an intelligent mind.

C. The Genetic Code was designed by an intelligent mind.

This argument has stood against all others on the Infidels forum for more than 4 years.
He's got a pretty good argument here, with the proof and knowledge to back it up... what do you guys think?

Just a variation of the Watchmaker Argument. Nothing more. And it shares the same defects.

[Serafina]

Interesting thread to say the least, found this forum on a random search for "ISD MK II," lol.

Best one I've seen so far is Perry Marshall's Genetic Code argument
The basic argument goes like this:

P1. The Genetic Code (he shortens this to just DNA) is literally a code.

P2. All codes we currently know of were designed by an intelligent mind.

C. The Genetic Code was designed by an intelligent mind.

This argument has stood against all others on the Infidels forum for more than 4 years.
He's got a pretty good argument here, with the proof and knowledge to back it up... what do you guys think?

Just a variation of the Watchmaker Argument. Nothing more. And it shares the same defects.

To be specific, it fails to adress what constitues design (you know, they never define this), their premise is phony and their conclusion does NOT follow from their premises.

To elaborate on the "design"-thing: What constitues design?
Is it order? Well, crystals are highly ordered but not designed.
Is it functionality? Well, DNA contains a lot of junk (for most species) and is not the most efficient system anyway.
So, what is it then? So far, i have never seen a definition of "design" used by creationists that can not be applied to numerous perfectly natural systems where the origins are perfectly clear (such as beaches, rocks or crystals).

[Formless]

Interesting thread to say the least, found this forum on a random search for "ISD MK II," lol.

Best one I've seen so far is Perry Marshall's Genetic Code argument
The basic argument goes like this:

P1. The Genetic Code (he shortens this to just DNA) is literally a code.

P2. All codes we currently know of were designed by an intelligent mind.

C. The Genetic Code was designed by an intelligent mind.

This argument has stood against all others on the Infidels forum for more than 4 years.
He's got a pretty good argument here, with the proof and knowledge to back it up... what do you guys think?

Its just another version of the gods-damned Argument from Design. Anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry will tell you that it's bullshit. We've known how amino acids form in nature for decades now, and we've even seen them form in space FFS. Biology also disagrees-- is RNA also a code? It uses a slightly different (albeit equivalent) alphabet (one letter different out of four); why the redundancy? Why not just code using RNA? In fact, one theory actually holds that RNA came first and DNA evolved from it because its better for long term storage. How does the apologist account for all the genes which appear to be junk and code for fuck all? Or one's that appear to code for now dead viruses? Its also arbitrary; because the genetic code is read in triplets, there are only 64 possible amino acids but recently we've discovered how to alter the cellular machinery to read them four at a time thus increasing it to 256 possible amino acids-- sounds to me like a much better code than one that has less than half the communication potential!

Basically, the only reason we think of genetics as a code is because its a convenient anthropomorphism. But its a language that doesn't have any meaning whatsoever that we didn't tack on with our language afterwords. What it is is a mechanism by which animals carry on traits and nothing more.

[Darth Wong]

In other words, this argument fails right from the get-go, when it says that the DNA code is "literally" a code. It is actually a metaphorical code; the literal meaning of code is "a system of signals or symbols for communication", and DNA is obviously not that.

It's still worth analyzing from a rhetorical perspective though, because it employs the widely used but highly effective trick of front-loading the bullshit. Put the biggest whopper right at the beginning and hope that no one will notice, and then everything else follows from that.

[Samuel]

This argument has stood against all others on the Infidels forum for more than 4 years.

Can we have a link to where the infidels fail to bring it down? I'm curious because even if they have a tenth the intelligence we have here they should have crushed it in less than five minutes. Unless the report of their defeat is exagerated.

[Skylon]

Personally, the only way I can swallow "God" is by taking the "Watchmaker" argument to the farthest degree, that a deity caused the Big Bang. You can accept everything that is scientifically possible, except for how exactly creation began...was the origin of the Universe a random event or something guided by a deity?

That is honestly as far as I could accept a deity. However, if such a being existed, it surely would have moved on to more interesting things after the dawn of time, and would probably not give two shits about you, or your daily life.

[Samuel]

Or, essentially deism. Really, it is the only one that could be true and doesn't contradict reality- we just reject it because of a complete and total lack of evidence.

[General Anubis]

In other words, this argument fails right from the get-go, when it says that the DNA code is "literally" a code. It is actually a metaphorical code; the literal meaning of code is "a system of signals or symbols for communication", and DNA is obviously not that.

It's still worth analyzing from a rhetorical perspective though, because it employs the widely used but highly effective trick of front-loading the bullshit. Put the biggest whopper right at the beginning and hope that no one will notice, and then everything else follows from that.

Marshall... along with over a hundred years worth of biology textbooks... has pretty soundly destroyed that argument.
Grab any biology textbook you can find and I guarantee you the words code, information, transcription, etc. will not show up as "code", "information", "transcription", etc. These are not metaphors. Marshall breaks it down quite well using Claude Shannon's communication model (Shannon is considered to be one of the fathers of information theory).

Link to Marshall's website - specifically, where he addresses that exact response:
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/dnanotcode.htm

Basically, the only reason we think of genetics as a code is because its a convenient anthropomorphism. But its a language that doesn't have any meaning whatsoever that we didn't tack on with our language afterwords. What it is is a mechanism by which animals carry on traits and nothing more.

Whether or not a DNA molecule can form by natural means is irrelevant. The code it contains is what he is talking about.

No meaning except what we tacked onto it afterwards? So I suppose DNA didn't work until we were able to study it?
AUG codes for Methionine. AUG = Methionine. We didn't have to study DNA and assign those names to those respective parts for this process to occur.

Again - I refer you to the link above.

Just a variation of the Watchmaker Argument. Nothing more. And it shares the same defects.

Please, enlighten me as to how you believe it applies.

To be specific, it fails to adress what constitues design (you know, they never define this), their premise is phony and their conclusion does NOT follow from their premises.

To elaborate on the "design"-thing: What constitues design?
Is it order? Well, crystals are highly ordered but not designed.
Is it functionality? Well, DNA contains a lot of junk (for most species) and is not the most efficient system anyway.
So, what is it then? So far, i have never seen a definition of "design" used by creationists that can not be applied to numerous perfectly natural systems where the origins are perfectly clear (such as beaches, rocks or crystals).

Not really... his argument says that all codes we know of have come from an intelligent source. He then encourages any and all to provide an example of one naturally occurring code (that didn't come from a mind) to derail his proof. As I said, in about 4 1/2 years of time being on the Infidels forum, no one has been able to do so (including people holding PhD's, in case you're wondering)

And "Is it order?" is a very good point - evidence that codes do not arise naturally, but order may.

This argument has stood against all others on the Infidels forum for more than 4 years.

Can we have a link to where the infidels fail to bring it down? I'm curious because even if they have a tenth the intelligence we have here they should have crushed it in less than five minutes. Unless the report of their defeat is exagerated.

Certainly:
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=135497&page=1

And yes, I've read all 50+ pages. Marshall sums up their arguments pretty well on his website (he doesn't leave out the good arguments and exaggerate his experience there, from what I could tell after reading the actual forum).

Like you, I was doubtful of his claim that no one could take it down after such a long time, so I went and read the forum itself. His arguments are sound, his website sums them up nicely, without bias (as much as is possible).

-----------------------

So far everything you've thrown at this argument is giving me déjàvu. All of the arguments given thus far have all been addressed years ago. Marshall's responses he's listed on his website are far better than mine for sure, so if you aren't satisfied with mine, go check out his on his website. This argument is his brainchild, after all, not mine.

[Simon_Jester]

But don't you see? We do not know if the laws we observe HERE are also true ELSEWHERE...

If they are not, then we should observe Looney Tunes physics in space. Since outer space does not resemble Looney Tunes... well you be the judge. If we see the Roadrunner and Coyote drama being enacted between the galaxies, then we will truly know that the laws of physics are inconsistent elsewhere.

[Darth Wong]

Not really... his argument says that all codes we know of have come from an intelligent source. He then encourages any and all to provide an example of one naturally occurring code (that didn't come from a mind) to derail his proof. As I said, in about 4 1/2 years of time being on the Infidels forum, no one has been able to do so (including people holding PhD's, in case you're wondering)

That's got to be bullshit. If you define "code" as anything which can contain information used to configure chemical compounds (which is all that genetic "code" does, broad-ranging ramifications notwithstanding), then it's ridiculously easy to find such "codes" in nature. For example, the electron shell structure of titanium "encodes" information that will cause it to arrange itself into a hexagonal crystal lattice, whereas the electron shell structure of iron "encodes" information that will cause it to arrange itself in a body-centred crystal lattice or face-centred crystal lattice, depending on its temperature.

If no one came up with any naturally occurring "codes" to meet this standard, I can only imagine that he just moves the goalposts every time someone proposes a candidate.

[Channel72]

Not really... his argument says that all codes we know of have come from an intelligent source. He then encourages any and all to provide an example of one naturally occurring code (that didn't come from a mind) to derail his proof. As I said, in about 4 1/2 years of time being on the Infidels forum, no one has been able to do so (including people holding PhD's, in case you're wondering)

This entire argument basically relies on a fallacy of equivocation. The connotation of intelligent planning arises only due to the equivocal usage of "code", which is strongly associated with computer programming. Really, the word "code" as applied to DNA is an understandable misnomer. By definition, a code is used for the purpose of representing or communicating ideas. "Encoding" something is the act of translating an idea into a set of symbols. But when applied to DNA, the word "code" is really just a synonym for the more general phenomenon of "order". For example, why should we consider a sequence of nucleotides connected through hydrogen bonds any more of a "code" than a sequence of inorganic molecules which form a crystal?

Therefore, Marshall's argument reduces to the more general "Argument from Design", which is easily refuted by noting that any Designer would Himself require a higher Designer in order to satisfy the logic of the argument.

[Surlethe]

Logically, the code argument is precisely the same as the design argument: "X has an attribute we previously have observed only to be present in created things. Ergo, X is a created thing." In code terms, it is, "X has a structure precisely the same as a code. We have previously only observed codes to be created things. Ergo, X is a created thing." It's a classic appeal to the appearance of design.

[Rye]

Marshall... along with over a hundred years worth of biology textbooks... has pretty soundly destroyed that argument.
Grab any biology textbook you can find and I guarantee you the words code, information, transcription, etc. will not show up as "code", "information", "transcription", etc. These are not metaphors. Marshall breaks it down quite well using Claude Shannon's communication model (Shannon is considered to be one of the fathers of information theory).

The trouble with it is that such a code is not only naturally occurring due to the ways chemicals behave (like rust or silicates), but we've observed the generation of "new code" in response to man made selective pressures like vancomycin or nylon. White noise contains "information" of a sort, it's something else to claim all that information was intended or artificial.

Whether or not a DNA molecule can form by natural means is irrelevant. The code it contains is what he is talking about.

The "code" isn't a discrete entity, it's a property of accumulated, replicating chemistry.

Again - I refer you to the link above.

Just a variation of the Watchmaker Argument. Nothing more. And it shares the same defects.

Please, enlighten me as to how you believe it applies.

It's covered in the Blind Watchmaker. Long story short, natural selection organises by genetic expression, leaving working codes behind, no intention or skill required in the genetic manipulation; it just happens. Even you will have had around 300 mutations seperating you genetically from your parents when you were born. The fact that your watchmaker is a genetic engineer with a) no logical connection to any gods of mythology, b) no evidence for any machines or other known means of production, and c) obsolete in light of Darwin's methodology means that the argument is so, so failtacular, unoriginal and far from sound.

Not really... his argument says that all codes we know of have come from an intelligent source. He then encourages any and all to provide an example of one naturally occurring code (that didn't come from a mind) to derail his proof. As I said, in about 4 1/2 years of time being on the Infidels forum, no one has been able to do so (including people holding PhD's, in case you're wondering)

Vancomycin resistance in entereococcus and staphylococcus aureus and the code to digest nylon in flavobacteria as products of natural selection, both substances that have only been around within living memory. MRSA is another one. If you're claiming MRSA didn't evolve but was designed by a malign entity, please report them to the police so we can track them down and bring them to justice.

And "Is it order?" is a very good point - evidence that codes do not arise naturally, but order may.

How is DNA any more of a code than the code for creating snowflakes? This is just old apologetics that was refuted by Shelley in "a refutation of deism" (i.e. you can't claim artifice without knowing the means of production) and Darwin in "origin of the species" (i.e. natural selection weeds out heritable unsuccessful traits).

[Channel72]

This is precisely why the "Argument from Design" is indisputably the most intuitively compelling argument for theism. It's so compelling, it keeps reappearing in various different forms even as our scientific understanding of the Universe increases. Apart from the basic "order = intelligent design" argument as presented by Aquinas, Paley, et al., we have various modern permutations of this argument such as: the cosmological fine-tuning argument, Behe's argument from irreducible complexity, the argument from information theory (as presented by Dembski), and now the very similar "Argument from DNA".

While the latter two specifically are nothing but equivocation fallacies, (i.e. they exploit the association with human design carried by the term "information" or "code"), all incarnations of "The Argument from Design" fail for two reasons: firstly, they apply recursively to any cosmic designer, and secondly, they assume (quite anthropocentrically) that any naturally occurring phenomenon which benefits us or enables our existence was instituted teleologically with our existence in mind. This sort of thinking is best refuted by the old joke about how the human nose is perfectly designed for eyeglasses.

[Patrick Degan]

Just a variation of the Watchmaker Argument. Nothing more. And it shares the same defects.

Please, enlighten me as to how you believe it applies.

It hinges upon the same baseless assumptions: that life was deliberately "designed", therefore implies a "designer", therefore "God". It ignores the obvious objection that a designer must also have been "designed" by a higher order "designer" and thus you fall into Infinite Regress.

Beyond that, it glosses over the fact that the very notion of a "code" as a deliberate pattern is an artefact of our own abstract thought-processes and not an objective reality. It's like saying that the universe could never have existed if mathematics had never been devised.

[dworkin]

Interesting thread to say the least, found this forum on a random search for "ISD MK II," lol.

Best one I've seen so far is Perry Marshall's Genetic Code argument
The basic argument goes like this:

P1. The Genetic Code (he shortens this to just DNA) is literally a code.

P2. All codes we currently know of were designed by an intelligent mind.

C. The Genetic Code was designed by an intelligent mind.

This argument has stood against all others on the Infidels forum for more than 4 years.
He's got a pretty good argument here, with the proof and knowledge to back it up... what do you guys think?

Feeble. A classic case of mistaking the model for reality.

The genetic code is a human model to aid us in understading what goes on inside a cell during protien formation. In reality, there is no code. The DNA codon represented by ATC does not bind to a mRNA molecule UAG because of some code. It does so because of favourable hydrogen bonding caused by the complementary geometries of the two molecules. It is chemistry and chemical reactions. We humans use the code because you'll go blind and insane detailing the individual reactions. And that's just one codon for one amino acid.

To claim that the code exists in any higher form is absurd. Of course it was designed by intelligent minds. Their names are Marshall Nirenberg, Har Gobind Khorana and Robert W. Holley who got a Nobel for being so bloody clever.

[Formless]

Basically, the only reason we think of genetics as a code is because its a convenient anthropomorphism. But its a language that doesn't have any meaning whatsoever that we didn't tack on with our language afterwords. What it is is a mechanism by which animals carry on traits and nothing more.

Whether or not a DNA molecule can form by natural means is irrelevant. The code it contains is what he is talking about.

Its not a fucking code. Its a structure. Anything it codes for is arbitrary because its only the mechanisms of the cell that interpret that information and, through chemistry, creates amino acids and proteins. IF the cellular machinery were different, as I showed in one of those links you didn't click on, the "code" would read the same genetic expressions to make completely different amino acids and proteins.

I'm guessing you're one of those idiots who thinks this is a face, too.

No meaning except what we tacked onto it afterwards? So I suppose DNA didn't work until we were able to study it?

The word "dog" means something in the human mind: an animal which we domesticated over several centuries. The "word" ATBCATCBTABACTAB in genetic programming... probably means nothing because so much of the genetic "code" is complete gibberish under your interpretation of the genome as a literal code.

AUG codes for Methionine. AUG = Methionine. We didn't have to study DNA and assign those names to those respective parts for this process to occur.

Again - I refer you to the link above.

The fact that amino acids occur naturally means nothing to you? You are truly stupid, even for an apologist. But then, that's no less than I expected from someone who expects us to buy that no atheist has ever refuted this argument even though its basically just the Intelligent Design bullshit all over again.

[Formless]

This is precisely why the "Argument from Design" is indisputably the most intuitively compelling argument for theism. It's so compelling, it keeps reappearing in various different forms even as our scientific understanding of the Universe increases. Apart from the basic "order = intelligent design" argument as presented by Aquinas, Paley, et al., we have various modern permutations of this argument such as: the cosmological fine-tuning argument, Behe's argument from irreducible complexity, the argument from information theory (as presented by Dembski), and now the very similar "Argument from DNA".

While the latter two specifically are nothing but equivocation fallacies, (i.e. they exploit the association with human design carried by the term "information" or "code"), all incarnations of "The Argument from Design" fail for two reasons: firstly, they apply recursively to any cosmic designer, and secondly, they assume (quite anthropocentrically) that any naturally occurring phenomenon which benefits us or enables our existence was instituted teleologically with our existence in mind. This sort of thinking is best refuted by the old joke about how the human nose is perfectly designed for eyeglasses.

In this case, I'd say the problem is that our language is the stumbling block. We don't have any word for "code" that doesn't imply an intelligence (ditto for many other words/concepts), likely because of our tendency to anthropomorphism. So as a result, even scientists are forced into using imperfect analogies to explain things that leads to this kind of dishonesty. I'm betting that if you showed this proof to a geneticist, they would slap the stupid out of you for misrepresenting their field.

[Darth Wong]

Not really... his argument says that all codes we know of have come from an intelligent source. He then encourages any and all to provide an example of one naturally occurring code (that didn't come from a mind) to derail his proof. As I said, in about 4 1/2 years of time being on the Infidels forum, no one has been able to do so (including people holding PhD's, in case you're wondering)

This entire argument basically relies on a fallacy of equivocation. The connotation of intelligent planning arises only due to the equivocal usage of "code", which is strongly associated with computer programming. Really, the word "code" as applied to DNA is an understandable misnomer. By definition, a code is used for the purpose of representing or communicating ideas. "Encoding" something is the act of translating an idea into a set of symbols. But when applied to DNA, the word "code" is really just a synonym for the more general phenomenon of "order". For example, why should we consider a sequence of nucleotides connected through hydrogen bonds any more of a "code" than a sequence of inorganic molecules which form a crystal?

I'm curious whether this person will try to address my example of titanium/HCP and iron/FCC/BCC electron shell coding, or whether he'll just ignore it or move the goalposts.

The problem with the creationist is that his arguments are not the real reason for his position, so you can shoot down one argument, ten arguments, or a hundred arguments and it makes no difference. Those arguments are nothing more than window-dressing, slapped atop the rotting edifice of Bronze Age superstition and tribal identity neuroses.