"WRONG. You are arguing from a faulty assumption, that because human created codes come from intelligent minds (sort of), so must all other codes."
"The conclusion that DNA is designed is arrived at inductively: Because all codes we know the origin of are designed, DNA is designed. This is the same type of reasoning that leads us to formulate the laws of thermodynamics, for example."
Faulty Assumption #2 - There is proof of objective morality. There isn't. And whatever sense of morality you look at is through the human prism. If one were to view morality as a derivation ofnatural behaviors that benefit a species, then it is likely that 1) humans would overall tend to share some similar moral codes, but that 2) those moral behaviors would not necessarily be true of other species. If we look at "lower" species with social groups they exhibit very different social rules than ours. If you do not wish to include them, then you are trying to gauge universal morality from a single species with a single origin (something both theologians and scientists agree upon). There is simply not enough pudding to find proof.
True, there is no proof objective morality, but people act as if it does exist, even the staunch moral relativists.
And in fact we do know that the mind is an untrustworthy thing. Moreover, this is an argument from ignorance - because one cannot fathom how the mind works, that there must not be a materialistic cause behind it. Again, this is not evidence
Interesting enough you arrive at that conclusion using your mind. ~Gasps~. So I'll take your reasoning with a grain of salt.
Look, the point is this: if you the product of blind chance then how can you be rational? C.S. Lewis' outline of the problem: "If I am the end-product of millions of years of evolutionn, begun by the random interaction of material, nonrational processes - if I am the final domino to fall in a random chain of events in the material universe, and nothing more, then how can I assert anything at all?"
The chemical reactions in my cranium are only a continuation of nonrational processes which cannot know or understand anything. I cannot be sure that anything is true.
The mere existence of electrochemical reactions in mycranium should have no special claim that rises above the random, material processes from which they derive. Thought is not above the sum of its material parts. If it is, where does the process cease to be a deterministic inevitability and transform into free choice, reason and understanding, which are necessary before I can analyze the surrounding environment?
At what point does it all move beyond achance arrangement of atoms in my brain and assume the cloak of authority over the meaning of particles moving about in the universe? How do we get reason from nonnreason?
By describing the origins of thought and rationality as nonrational, material and random, I will have cut the legs out from under my platform. I cannot assert anything at all. I have no basis to say that one thing is true and another is false. To do so would be tantamount to throwing the words of a dictionary into a hat, shaking it up, spilling the words onto the ground and then asserting that whatever messages the words might spell out are true.
Once again, an argument from ignorance. Because we cannot understand consciousness, we never will, and it must be God's doing. EVen the bat argument is faulty - no one understand the total physicality of any organism (single or group), and thus there is no way to put this statement to the test.
It's an argument from what we do know than from ignorance. We have made a lot of progress in the fields of neuroscience but still can't account for the existence of consciousness. It all points to us being more than just the physical. While I will concede it may not be compelling evidence for the existence of God, it definitely destroys philosophical materialism.
Another faulty assumption. Who says everything that has a beginning has a cause? And who says the Universe has a true beginning? One theory that has long been floated has been the universe has alternated between big bang and big crunch, in which case it is onlythe universe as we know it that has a comprehensible beginning, but itcould in fact be just the latest stage in an endless cycle.
Rational people say everything that has a beginning has a cause. Scientific evidence points to the unverse had a beginning. The Big Bang model of the universe is the most compelling theory of the origins of the universe today. Does it mean it is absolutely true? No. But it is what most cosmologists believe based on scientific evidence.
The last is one of the biggest bits of hooey pseudoscientists try to put forth. The universe is the way it is because it is that way. If it were not it would be different, and we - or any other form of life - would look at it and marvel how THAT was so perfect and fine tuned, and could not be anyother way. As to the physical laws, the laws do not define the universe but describe it, and if all the universe arises, as it appears, from a few simple phenomena, then it makes sense that the complexity that results from their interactions would be able to be reduced to a few simple laws.
As for life, this universe is incredibly HOSTILE to life according to current evidence. Life as we know it can exist in less than .000000001% of the universe. Not exactly welcoming us with open arms. If God did create the univere, I'd get the feeling he was trying to keep us out.
Lastly, I want to point out that EVERYTHING in your post, even those things not in quotes, was cut and pasted from other websites. What does the Lord think of plagarism?
Or you can interpret that the universe is the way it is for our purpose.
As for the universe being incredbilty hostile to life, that just gives evidence of purpose. How marvelous that life exists in such a hostile universe. Kind of lowers the believability of abiogenesis, doesn't it?
Just about everything is in quotes because I cut and pasted, hence the quotes. If there is a paragraph that I cut and pasted without quotes then it is due to oversight.
