Why God??!!

[Kuciwalker]

What law of physics cause DNA to give a coded message that is understood, decoded and translated correctly into actual work within the cell?

What law of physics causes the earth to give a coded message that is understood, decoded, and translated correctly into actual motion by the moon?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lincoln
When you tell me what caused the Big Bang and what caused the material to be present and what was before that then I will answer your question. If you cannot discuss an issue because it leads to a mystery then you have no business postulating anything about the formation of the universe. Both roads lead to a mystery.

Why is it necessary that there be a cause for the universe?

If you say that there must be a cause for the universe, or for life, or whatever, then you must ALSO accept a cause for God. Another God, perhaps? What about a cause for that God? You get an infinite number of creators.

[Lincoln]

Is the information within your computer aware of what it is doing? No. But it is the result of intelligent input. The machine only manipulates the intelligent input. The information within a machine (or within life) only follows the laws of physics. The intelligent input was in the initial programming.

[Lincoln]

Actually I don't accept that there must be a cause for the formation of the Universe or the existence of God. I was simply explaining to you that any theory regarding origins leads to a mystery.

[Kuciwalker]

What's your point?

Where did God's intelligence come from? Another God? Where did that God's intelligence come from? Forever and ever.

Obviously, it must be possible for intelligence to arise from non-intelligence, otherwise intelligence would never arise.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Actually I don't accept that there must be a cause for the formation of the Universe or the existence of God. I was simply explaining to you that any theory regarding origins leads to a mystery.

Thus, the answer is "it just exists". Otherwise, by your logic, you CANNOT DENY the existence of an infinite number of Creators.

[Lincoln]

Maybe there is an infinite number of creators if that is what you need to believe. I am only pointing out that the origin of life sugests an intelligent source for it's existence. You can take that ball and run with it however you want.

[Kuciwalker]

I am only pointing out that the origin of life sugests an intelligent source for it's existence.

And you're wrong, there. Intelligence (or rather, sentience, I assume you mean) obviously does not require an intelligent creator. In any case, sentience is the result of the interaction of natural laws (even with a Creator this is true, tautologically).

Moreover, the type of Creator that is permissible by science is not the one spoken of in the Bible.

[Lincoln]

Other people on this thread are discussing the Bible but I am only pointing out as you said "the creator that is permissible in science". I have my personal beliefs which I discuss some in my book but I try to seperate them from the evidence available to anyone (believer or not)that the origin of life points to intelligent input and not to a purely materialistic solution.

[Kuciwalker]

The creator permissible to science, meaning the one that doesn't violate physical laws, is basically just a "first mover". Occam's Razor takes care of him.

[Boris Godunov]

We've been here before.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48280&perpage=30&pagenumber=15

Lincoln couldn't justify his core premise back then, either.

Have you ever heard of a Creationist who is so incompetent that he can't even answer a single question, Lincoln? Because I certainly have. Who is the intelligent intended receiver for DNA? What is an example of a coded language that has no intelligent intended receiver? I've been waiting for an answer for quite awhile now, Lincoln. An answer would be most welcome.

@ loinburger

[Kuciwalker]

Moreover, even if we do admit a "first mover", what's the point? How do you get from there to, say, a position on abortion? There was a Creator; so what?

[Lincoln]

I guess I am not following you Kucintch. What does my position on abortion have to do with the issue we are discussing?

[Lincoln]

If scientific evidence points to intelligent intervention what do you all do with that evidence? Do you ignore it because you cannot comprehend an intelligent being greater than yourself? Many discoveries in science lead to more unknowns but we cannot simply ignore evidence. Information comes from an intelligent source. The burden of proof is on one who proposes that it can originate without intelligent input.

[Boris Godunov]

This debate will go no further so long as you persist in using a false application of the word "information" to DNA. It is data, and it has no "meaning" beyond that which we, as intelligent people, give it by looking at it. The instructions it gives are not meaningful any more so than an electron moving from one atom to another is meaningful. It's about the laws of physics and property of chemistry, not any sort of "meaning." Your also making a huge leap in logic by assuming that DNA suddenly appeared as it is today, which nobody except Creationist making cartoonish strawmen arguments believe.

Why did you never answer loinburger's question?