My goodness, Dumaurier. Do you not *read*
anything I write? And what's with all this condescention? Are you imagining that I am so far more stupid, that my words are not worthy of consideration? So far all you've done is push you own statements again and again, consistently neglecting to respond to any of my challenges!
But I don't get shut off, nor waved aside. You want a pissing war -- you're gonna get one. Here's you own stupendously long and redundant post -- taken apart by me, this time!
<hr>
"...nay, his creator and designer is another than himself."
Just like a painting which has a creator; the painting did not create itself. Just like a loaf of bread; the bread did not create itself; nay, its creator was the baker, and if the loaf could have created itself it would have the potential to create the baker, too!. Just like that keyboard before you which had to have a master craftsman to bring it into visible manifestation for your wise use; the keyboard did not create itself!!!
You are missing a crucial point. The universe is not predisposed to spontaneously creating artificial objects like paintings. It is, however, predisposed to creating life, which then through further evolution gives rise to us. The best you can do (and I am
very sure of that at this point) is claim that the 'baker' created the universe, after which the universe gave rise to us. To which I counter: it doesn't matter what existed first, creator or the universe -- we hit the same infinities either way. And an unintelligent ever-present universe does sound a lot simpler than an intelligent ever-present creator.
"It is certain and indisputable that the creator of man is not like man because a powerless creature cannot create another being. The maker, the creator, has to possess all perfections in order that he may create."
How can this be disputed? Where and when has anyone ever seen a human being create another
human being? And if one presents the arguement that a woman gets pregnant by man and therefore creates another human, i answer that man is powerless to create because everything required to bring forth another human being through the womb of the mother was apriori created by the Creator (air, sun, the lush vegetation, water, etc.). At best what we humans do is combine existing elements to bring forth "creations," but we did not "create" anything! You could not make glass without the sand that the Creator apriori put at our disposition! Sand is powerless but he who makes the glass is all powerful in relation to that sand. However, He who created the craftsman is far more Powerful!
1) Are you claiming that just because humans haven't managed to create a living organism, they cannot in principle do that and will never be able to do that,
ever?! A few centuries ago, the same argument would have shown that the humans will never be able to fly through the air, with the help of machines or not.
2) See my criticism of the previous section. Indeed, you can claim that a creator gave rise to the physical universe. But such a claim is less credible than a claim of perpetual universe with no overarching intelligence -- simply by Occam's razor.
Biologists who tamper with genes (DNA, etc.) work with what God has already created. They strive to understand what God, the Perfect One, has created; and although there's a glimmer of success, they will never be able to create another man for this is beyond their station.
1) There is no basis for a claim that DNA and genes are the creation of a God. Much less an *all-powerful* one, or "the Perfect One".
2) Again, a claim that we will *never* be able to create another man!! Did you just yesterday fall from the moon? (the concussion effects seem rather poignant).
A good teacher makes good students only when he knows his subject thoroughly and knows how to convey this knowledge to his students. This thorough knowledge is a kind of "perfection" relative to the degree of the student's knowledge and without it the teacher could not produce good students. "The
maker, the creator, has to possess all perfections in order that he may create."
1) Evolution created the students. And so far we are not perfect, or even all that good students to begin with. IMHO, evolutionarily we still have a long way to go.
2) Again, the assumption of a maker. Is this getting repetitive, or what?
A piece of bread contains exactly the same ingredients from which it came--and it came from the loaf! Can the breadcrumb contain more than the loaf? Absurd!!! Can a 5-year old child paint a Van Gogh? No! Why? Because he has not acquired the sufficient capacity to fully grasp the art of painting. The drawings of a child reflect his capacity, his abilities, and his limitations. Thus, a masterpiece is created by a master painter otherwise it cannot be a masterpiece! How can a masterpiece be created by a painter who is imperfect in his art?
1) yet another argument based on the assumption of creator. Yawn.
2) Even if you assume a Creator of the universe, how can you be sure that the Creator itself does not exist within its 'higner' universe, and in that case -- who created the higher universe, and isn't the 'perfection' of a Creator such only relative to us (and even that only for the time being...)
"Moreover, the picture cannot be like the painter; otherwise, the painting would have created itself. However perfect the picture may be, in comparison with the painter it is in the utmost degree of imperfection."
The sound reasoning of this paragraph speaks for itself for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
But not for those who have minds to think. (Btw. what's with the largesse, preaching language?)
Sound reasoning? Hardly! According to your previous statements, the 'sand' in our universe had to come from somewhere. So, where do you suppose the Creator got it? Pulled it out of his behind? (excuse me for the crude humor)
It's been mathematically proven that a machine of any complexity is capable of precisely replicating itself, given an input of energy and raw materials. Life itself is a shining empirical testament to that. So indeed, the painting *can* be as perfect as the painter; in fact, the painting can be a precise copy!
"The contingent world is the source of imperfections: God is the origin of perfections. The imperfections of the contingent world are in themselves a proof of the perfections of God."
Because there must be someone who possesses the qualities he injects into his creation otherwise, if the creator didn't have these qualities, he couldn't possibly inject them into his creation--he simply doesn't have them!
1) The assumption of a creator. (Oh-hum..)
2) The origins of 'perfections', as you call them, are traced to the physical laws of our universe. Furthermore, it can easily be argued that the presently 'perfect' universe is primitive in comparison to what will be in a few more billion years. That includes the life-forms of Earth, and oh yes, our remote descendants.
"For example, when you look at man, you see that he is weak. This very weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of the Eternal Almighty One, because, if there were no power, weakness could not be imagined."
Self evident.
"Again, in the contingent world there is poverty; then necessarily wealth exists, since poverty is apparent in the world. In the contingent world there is ignorance; necessarily knowledge exists, because ignorance is found; for if there were no knowledge, neither would there be ignorance. Ignorance is the nonexistence of knowledge, and if there were no existence, nonexistence could not be realized."
No one in their right minds can argue this point. But it takes a degree of refined detachment from intellectual arrogance to understand these subtle points here.
This time, could you
please go back and read my previous post? It's a bit lengthy to duplicate here.
Intellectual arrogance? How about pseudo-intellectual arrogance? Or religious blindness, perhaps? Or inability/unwillingness/cowardice to actually read or respond to previously posted criticisms? Should we go on with this particular line? (because I am kinda starting to like it.) Refined detachment...
"It is certain that the whole contingent world is subjected to a law and rule which it can never disobey; even man is forced to submit to death, to sleep and to other conditions--that is to say, man in certain particulars is governed, and necessarily this
state of being governed implies the existence of a governor. Because a characteristic of contingent beings is dependency, and this dependency is an essential necessity, therefore, there must be an independent being whose independence is essential."
"In the same way it is understood from the man who is sick that there must be one who is in health; for if there were no health, his sickness could not be proved."
No matter how much a blindman tries to convince us that he sees, he will only be fooling himself! We could never know the meaning of "cold" if there were no "warmth". Thousands of other examples abound.
Read the previous paragraphs I wrote in these posts. Additionally, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I have cited a few
counterexamples to your theory in my previous post, in a vain hope that you'd pay attention! (silly me...) But to reproduce just one of them, take color. Complete this sentence: "we couldn't perceive the color red, if we couldn't perceive (?????)"
Let me draw your attention to the fact that while countless examples may *confirm* a theory, only ONE counterexample is sufficient to *disprove* the theory! In case I am not abundantly clear enough, CONSIDER YOUR BANANA THEORY AXED.
"Therefore, it becomes evident that there is an Eternal Almighty One, Who is the possessor of all perfections, because unless He possessed all perfections He would be like His creation."
And if He were like His creation, he would cease to be a Creator!
Circular argument. A Creator created the universe, 'Therefore it becomes evident that there is an Eternal Almighty One'. I am curious, Dumaurier: have you ever had any training in the art of argument-making? (I would imagine you should, since you are so fond of Socrates. But so far, you deeply disappoint me.)
"Throughout the world of existence it is the same; the smallest created thing proves that there is a creator. For instance, this piece of bread proves that it has a maker."
Objections anyone?
And along the same lines, the piece of bread also proves that the maker was a cake. Give me a break! (and pay attention to the previous arguments I have delineated for you).
"Praise be to God! the least change produced in the form of the smallest thing proves the existence of a creator: then can this great universe, which is endless, be self-created and come into existence from the action of matter and the elements? How self-evidently wrong is such a supposition!"
It is self-evident that some will object to any evidence proving the existence of an Almighty Creator for their sole interest is not to search for truth, but to put forth and defend their own ideas, no matter how confusing these may be.
My sole interest is not to search for truth, eh? (no comment...) But tell you what -- the Creator isn't going to help you bake your bread. I'm afraid you are going to have to learn that confusing recipe after all, if you want to stay fed.
But concerning the universe arising form the elements -- wrong! It is the elements that arose from the universe. Modern science does not, and perheps never will, know where the *universe* came from. However, whatever the source, it indeed encoded all the physical laws of our universe -- which makes it sound a lot more to me like a hyper-physical inanimate medium than a supernatural sentient being.
There were once two scientists. One was a believer and the other was a non-believer. They were discussing the solar system:
Believer Scientists:
But in the end, pray do tell me, this solar system, for example, somebody must have created it, no?
Non-believer Scientist:
Not really. Nature did it all.
Believer Scientist:
Well, if that's what you believe.
Both scientists parted. The believer scientist went home and built a small scale model of the solar system. When finished, he invited his friend to his lab to view the artwork.
Non-Believer Scientist:
"What a masterpiece!" exclaimed he upon seeing the model. "Who created that?"
Believer Scientist:
Nature did!
Non-Believer Scientist:
What do you mean!!? Nature has no intelligence to create such a beautiful piece of art. This a magnificent piece of work and it certainly must have had an artist.
Believer Scientist:
There you go! Nature lacks the intelligence to make a small scale model of the solar system such as this one but it is intelligent enough to create the real solar system. For the small scale model of the solar system you say it had to have a creator, but for the real solar system a creator is unnecessary!
A fable! Thank you for that deligtful bit of literature. No, really. But I must note that you managed to conjure up a rather naive Non-Believer Scientist. In my version, he would have replied thus:
Non-Believer Scientist:
Natural laws lead to formation of large-scale solar systems. They, however, do not lead to the formation of beautiful little scaled models. But, they did manage to give rise to live, which eventually evolved and gave rise to our friend the Believer Scientist, whose evolved brain was then able to model what it perceived at a reduced scale. Note that neither the model, nor the concepts required to build it, would have been present in the Believer's brain had not nature given rise to the large-scale solar system that the believer could consequently observe and model. So indeed, the physical laws coupled with the initial state of the universe have resulted in a progression of events that gave rise to astronomical bodies, life on Earth, the human species, and ultimately culminated in this very period. Period.
PS: "The presence of an Infinite Superior Power endowed with reason that reveals itself in the smallest detail which our weak and feable minds are capable of perceiving forms my idea of God." Einstein.
Einstein was a Jew. He quoted the Jewish picture of God. Whoopty-doo.
<hr>
Now, I sincerely hope that you will not once again rub my face into the fact that you were quoting somebody else -- it was rather evident in your original post. The reason I assumed it reflected your viewpoint is because you used the very same banana theory in other posts. And the reply of yours clearly validates my original guess.
I also express sincere hope that you would descend from the heights of admiring your own writings, and start considering the criticisms -- however unpleasant that may be.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 05, 1999).]
