Sunday, November 22, 2009

A Question For The Evolutionist...


Did this evolve, or is it evidence that there is a sand castle maker?



Did this evolve, or is it evidence that there is a bridge maker?



Did this evolve, or is it evidence that there is a robot maker?



Did we evolve, or are we evidence that there is a creator?

18 comments:

Matthew said...

Seriously? This is your argument? Take a bunch of things we know are built and compare them to the human body? Funny thing is - we know who built the sandcastle and bridge.... you will first need to show the human body is created.

PersonalFailure said...

I could show you a picture of the first three, what about that fourth one? Unless you're referencing the picture itself, in which case, check the copyright page.

Whateverman said...

Your logic holds no water.

You accept the plausibility of things needing a creator, which makes sense. However, you reject that logic when it implies your God needs one too.

ie. you're not being logical - you're simply arguing your faith. If you're not going to be honest with us about this fact, at least be honest with yourself...

Nathin said...

We don't walk up to a group of rocks on a beach in formation depicting a smiley face and say - "What an neat arrangement the waves lapping the shore have made!"
It is plain to the eye that their was an arranger.
If there were billions of year, then at one point life would have to come from non-life, and that is an impossibility, seeing as though all the Miller-Urey experiment created was toxic gas and 2 proteins suspended in a corrosive acid.

Angry_Clown said...

Did the bridge maker and sand castle builder evolve or were they created? There is proof the bridge was built but no proof that the makers were built? Who built God? Is God created as were the items in your post? Are we the creators of God as there is proof to suggest that?

Sam said...

Whateverman. If you find that you are having trouble holding water with my logic, I'll get you a cup! :)

The problem here is that you have a mistaken concept of God. If you conceive of God as physical, anthropomorphic (like man) being, the question of God's origin is valid. However, such a concept of God is alien to the Bible and to common sense.

According to revelation of scripture: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

As a Spirit, He exists outside of the three-dimensional physical world in which we live. Outside of time and space.

It is the testimony of scripture that He is the Creator of time and space - He began the beginning. Therefore, as he was before the beginning, and he began the beginning, he has no beginning when observed from a reality that was begun.

Sam said...

Do you really know who built the sandcastle and the bridge and the robot? Did you see them build it? Probably not! But we both know they had a builder because we both know that every effect must have sufficient cause!

I am certain that I could not convince you that a stick of dynamite created the sand castle or a box of matches created the robot! Why? Because in your few short years on this earth you have begun to understand something about sufficient cause for objects (which in effect) are significantly less complex than you are!

Unfortunately, you fail to see that evolution is not sufficient cause for the effect we call Matthew! A complex moral creature made up of amoral material parts. You are my evidence that the body is created, and the fact that you are cognitively aware of immaterial things (such as your conscience – which operates on moral imperatives) is my evidence that you were created by a fearfully great and wonderful Creator!

Sam said...

PersonalFailure... God holds your copyright!

Whateverman said...

Sam wrote the following to me: He began the beginning. Therefore, as he was before the beginning, and he began the beginning, he has no beginning when observed from a reality that was begun.

Thanks for proving my point, Sam. You're not interested in logic whatsoever - you're only interested in presenting your faith.

And to be completely honest, I find no fault with that. Not only is this your blog, but many people believe is a wide variety of things, and they should have the right to express those things.

What I'm quibbling with, though, is that you appear to be trying to justify your faith on logical grounds, and that's simply dishonest. You accept the logic of things needing a creator, but reject that logic when it states your God needs one too.

So look... if you want to evangelize, by all means do so. However, you need to stop fooling yourself that your world view is logical. It's not, and that's why faith is the central component of it.

You have no respect for the power of logic (which again is fine by me), so stop wearing it like a rain coat. You put it on when it appears to be useful, and throw it on the couch when it gets uncomfortable.

Mike Messerli said...

I just stopped by...read the discussion and am surprised that logic does not allow a discussion about God. It's as if logic applies to any topic except for God. Now, to be honest, that's completely illogical. If logic can tell me a bridge was built by someone, and a sand castle had a creator, then I can look at creation, with all its detail and LOGICALLY conclude that it was made by an intelligent designer. Now, I'm not yet calling this designer "God", but I am saying that true logic must force us to ask, "who made all of this?" Logic works beyond our beliefs to truth itself. If you are an honest searcher for truth, then logic does not stop at the discussion about creation, you must logically follow all the leads....and if you do you will have to admit that someone made all of this....

Whateverman said...

Hi Mike,

By all means, utilize logic. And faith. And intuition and emotion and curiosity and knowledge and whatever else you think might be useful. No one is saying your search must only be limited to specific methodologies.

Here's the trick, though. It's not the critics of religion who claim logic can't be used to describe God. It's actually the individual theists themselves. Sam is actually a perfect example of what I'm saying: he claims to value logic (re. "everything has a creator"), but rejects it when it contradicts his faith (re. "God has no creator").

That's not logical. In saying this, I'm not implying that Sam's argument needs to be logical in order for it to have value. The problem is that Sam appears to be trying to make a logical argument

... but that's not really what he's doing. Not at all. He's trying to pretend that logic leads to his conclusions, and it clearly doesn't. Rather, he should be honest both with himself as his readers: his faith contradicts logic at times.

In reality, Mike, logic and discussions about God are not mutually exclusive by definition. Believers who make illogical claims while portraying those claims as logical - they are the ones who get rebuffed by logic.

"It makes sense to me that everything has a creator, so I believe that God created the universe"

That, right there, is an honest and logical argument. It's quite different from what Sam said, however...

Matthew said...

How did you logically conclude that what you are looking at is a creation?

Mike Messerli said...

Matthew, please elaborate on your question. I'm not sure what you are asking.

Mike Messerli said...

Whatever,

ok, let's take this discussion to its logical conclusion- IF logic leads me to believe that someone made all of this, then it is logical to conclude there is an intelligent designer, let's call him God for the moment. Here's where we have to take a breath and ask, does logic demand that everything has to have a creator? Ultimately that is illogical because let's assume we discuss who made God. Whatever is made is part of creation, a created work, there must be one, ultimately, who is the uncreated who made everything. If this is not true then we must eternally ask, "then who made THAT god?" Logically there must be an uncreated one who made everything, and that is the claim of the bible. The creator claims to be outside of creation and himself uncreated. How is that logically possible. It's not, so we come to a place where logic must stop and faith begin or for many unbelief must begin. (By the way, this is a much better discussion over a cold beer....perhaps someday we can sit down and battle all of this out. I'd really enjoy such a discussion.)

Whateverman said...

Rather than answer you here, Matt, I've emailed you in hopes of taking it "offline". I don't want to clutter Sam's blog with a discussion of causality and logic.

In case you're not interested in this, however, I'll keep Sam's topic alive here. Once you declare that logic must be ignored in order to come to a conclusion, you've opened the flood gates - there are a multitude of explanations that do not lead to your conclusion (re. the Biblical god).

I can live with the fact that you might be right, but I've seen very few who are willing to accept they might be wrong (in this particular discussion).

Why not multiple eternal entities - if one God needs no cause, why not 50 gods? Why do these beings have to be divine - isn't it possible that we live in a giant cosmic "ant farm"?

---

Plenty of people are willing to abandon logic when it suits them, and to be perfectly honest, there's nothing wrong with doing so. The problem lies in claiming that your particular abandonment leads logically to your conclusion - and this is just not true.

Anonymous said...

God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.

Joseph Campbell

Andrew said...

Good one Sam, Andrew www.cforu.net

H├ęctor Salas said...

Just living things evolve and its a fact that even god can not deny. You should choose another example