UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 1 to Talk Back 77
From "could've" to "must be"?

by JT

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued.


I know you are struggling with the area in between belief and disbelief. In this case you are allowing remote possibilities arising out of questionable assumptions to lead you to a statement of certainty.

Your initial questionable assumption is that it is not possible for an intelligent being to create something with more intelligence than its creator; that is an assumption many proud parents would reject. Also, as computers have played chess better than those who designed the computers and chess programs. Comuters and programs have also developed mathematical proofs beyond human capability. Thus your assumption can be challenged from that viewpoint too.

Nevertheless, from that assumption, you suggest that something more intelligent "could've" created us.

Perhaps so - or perhaps something stupider could've created us. Or perhaps something equally intelligent. Or perhaps nothing at all. We were not "created," we evolved. And evolution is not analogous to making something.

The fact science today cannot explain everything is no excuse for saying "god is the answer." Science is a continuing process, and the appropriate response to those areas of knowledge in which science has not yet provided an answer is "I don't know!" Science will have more answers next year, more in ten years, more in a hundred years, and still more in a thousand years. And those answers will open up more questions to which the answers are initially unknown leading to more research.

Your comparison of the origin of the Universe to an explosion is an unfortunate analogy which comes about from the term "Big Bang." However, igniting a stick of dynamite is a different process from the rapid inflation from singularity to universe in every possible way. Also, a typhoon in a junkyard creating a car has absolutely no relation to evolution. It is an unintelligent straw man argument developed by creationists to hide the emptiness of their thought processes.

If you give the analogy some thought, you will realize a typhoon in a junkyard creating a functional car is much closer to a god creating a fully functional man out of mud. It is nowhere near the process of gradual evolution over hundreds of millions of years.

False assumptions are more likely to lead to false conclusions than correct ones.

Remote possibilities are more likely to lead to false conclusions than correct ones.

False analogies are more likely to lead to false conclusions than correct ones.

Deal with facts, not conjectures, if you want to know the truth.