Best one sentence summation of how I feel, ever.

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Illuzionz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

God is the singularity. Doesn't need a creator.

Prove both of those statements.

[DrKvothe]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Paraphrased: Everything made by man requires a man to be made.

It's a rather poor version of the watchmaker analogy.

From wikipedia, David Hume's criticism:

"Hume gave the classic criticism of the design argument in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. He argued that for the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose". Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognize human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to compare the world to a machine—as in Paley's watchmaker argument—when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer? Hume also reasoned that if a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?"

The watchmaker analogy is regurgitated ad nauseum and should be replied to with a quote, really.

Beautifully reasoned argument. Snowflakes are a great example. I was leaning towards describing self-assembling materials to demonstrate that physical laws could assemble complexity from simplicity in a predictable fashion, but I was having a hard time figuring out how to dumb it down enough for Illusionz to understand with his 1st grade education.

[Illuzionz]

Originally Posted by Kagatob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Prove both of those statements.

Ok np. Something had to always exist. Whatever that something is, has to be eternal thus being exempt from needing a creator itself since being eternal means always having existed and therefor is not a creation and therefor is not subject to needing a creator itself. Also, whatever that something is, it has to be alive and conscious due to the inherent design found in nature and the fact that only a conscious living thing can design and create things.

[DrKvothe]

Might as well let wikipedia do it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-as..._nanoparticles

[Illuzionz]

Irrelevant. Self-assembly is only possible if the created thing was designed to do as such.

[DrKvothe]

Originally Posted by Illuzionz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I already did though. Rain and dirt didn't exist at one point. Therefor it had to be created. Therefor the creator of that dirt and rain created it. I choose to call that creator God. You're free to call him whatever you like. Regardless, someone had to create it.

Wait so God might be a flying spaghetti monster for all you know? It might require no worship, care nothing for our existence, and may have decided to just create a single cell and let things work themselves out? It might really love an alien species and created us to prepare a technologically advanced world for them to conquer and enjoy?

[DrKvothe]

Originally Posted by Illuzionz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Irrelevant. Self-assembly is only possible if the created thing was designed to do as such.

See, that's why I was having a hard time dumbing it down enough for you. The fact that self-organizing or assembling materials can exist is enough to disprove your assertion that they can't.

[Illuzionz]

Originally Posted by DrKvothe [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wait so God might be a flying spaghetti monster for all you know? It might require no worship, care nothing for our existence, and may have decided to just create a single cell and let things work themselves out? It might really love an alien species and created us to prepare a technologically advanced world for them to conquer and enjoy?

Well according to God we are made in his image so a flying spaghetti monster can easily be dismissed. We are the direct children of God himself and the pinnacle of creation. I also doubt he would have sent his son to save us if he didn't care about us.

[Illuzionz]

Originally Posted by DrKvothe [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

See, that's why I was having a hard time dumbing it down enough for you. The fact that self-organizing or assembling materials can exist is enough to disprove your assertion that they can't.

I'm the one trying to dumb it down for you actually. I already have a good understanding of these concept you're trying to show me. The fact remains is those materials didn't exist at one point and therefor had to be created. If they have self-assembling properties then that can only mean they were created to be self-assembling. Materials can't just poof into existence out of thin air. They must first be created.

[DrKvothe]

Earlier your argument was that bricks couldn't assemble themselves into a house. I give you analogous systems that do self-assemble and now your argument is equivalent to: well, who made the bricks? backpedal faster!