Re: Proof of God's existence?

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:37:53 -0800, John  Ings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:10:00 -0800, "Not so quick"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>If I believe/have reason to think that we may have
>>been put here by an advanced species or something
>>like that, but don't accept the traditional account of
>>creation, what does that make me?, a non-deist-creationist?
>
>Whether you believe it was an advanced civilization or a deity,  
> you a creationist (lower case c) as opposed to a Creationist. 
>The Creationist is a biblical lieralist-inerrantist who dupes the
>scientifically illiterate with lies that sound like science.
>
>You should beware of the Hall of Mirrors trap however.
>The path leading to it goes like this:
>
>Look at this watch I found! See it's intricate mechanism?
>Just look at those tiny gears, the precision jewels, the delicate
>balance wheel. Such a wonder could not have arisen by itself!
>Thus without ever seeing him we can deduce the existence of a
>watchmaker.
>
>Behold the watchmaker! See his clever hands, his intelligent mind,
>capable of making this beautiful watch.  Such a clever being could not
>have arisen by himself! Thus without ever seeing him we deduce the
>existence of a creating intelligence.
>
>But what of this creating intelligence? Capable of so cleverly guiding
>evolution? Such a wondrous being cannot have arisen by himself!
>Thus without ever seeing him we deduce the existence of a intelligent
>creator creating intelligence.
>
>And what of this intelligent creator creating intelligence. Surely it
>must have been created?
>
>Proposing a greater complexity to explain a complexity merely
>postpones answering the problem NotsoQuick. It begs the question,
>removing it a step without answering it.
>
>## Never undertake vast schemes with half-vast methods.

Infinite regression seems to be unavoidable in any case of human reasoning.

We must accept either a beginning or no beginning.
If time and space are eternal and infinite there is no way
to pin down cause and effect to a beginning.  This is
inconceivable to humans, and as miraculous as creation ex nihilo
itself.  But science asserts the creation of space-time out of 
literally nothing, at no place and at no time. (Similar to the bible.)

Causation is entirely a feature of space-time. Outside of space
and with no passage of time, there can be no such thing as
cause and effect.  Looking for events before the beginning
is like trying to go north of the north pole. We can't speak
of causation in the 'reason' for the big bang.  It just must
be accepted as an inconceivable fact.  So we escape
infinite regression and fall into an equal inconceivability.

Yet the cosmos exists.  It is an interacting web of energy passing
from one state into another according to observed laws of nature.
Whether there is an invisible intelligence outside of it, who can say?
But inside the universe we can see intelligence, in ourselves at least.
If we were completely honest, we'd have to admit the even greater
intelligence of the cells that make and sustain us.  They even made
the human brain, without a bit of our help.

The nature of life has been defined as the electro-chemical reactions
of self replicating DNA, an inanimate organizing principle in a physical form
that takes atoms from here and there and modifies them into useful proteins
in an unconscious but eminently useful-intelligent way.

The nature of human thought has been defined as electro-chemical
reactions of a complex net of nerve cells, each unconscious and
entirely mechanical.  It is surmised that a great enough collection
of unconscious parts causes the spontaneous creation of human
consciousness.  It may be true, but it looks implausible.

If it is true, then the basis of life, consciousness, and of all intelligence
must be blind chemistry.  How blind can it be if it made us?

1. Then how do men differ from machines or factories?

2. Chemical reactions are ubiquitous.  Is chemistry only conscious
    in human brains?  

3. Chemistry happens according to natural law. What is so natural
    about natural law, if it has finally produced such wonders as ourselves?

4. Is nature dead and insensible yet responsible for life and consciousness?
    In that case, life is death, and consciousness is unconsciousness.

Accepting all of science at face value, I think that if there is any
intelligence or consciousness in the cosmos, it couldn't have
begun with homo sapiens.  Our definitions and conceptions
are too humanly biased and pitifully small.