I thought I’d go back to the original points from OooSnap. Sorry if this is opening up debates that have been done and finished, and I’m sure I’ll be repeating stuff already pointed out, but I had some time to waste. Feel free to ignore.
1. The Existence of the DNA CODE
A lot of emphasis here seems to be put on the word ‘code’. It’s not important though. DNA’s rarely described as a code anyway (more often a sequence – of which there are examples naturally occurring in nature). Regardless, the fact remains, that we don’t know how life, or DNA, began. Once a single self replicating cell emerged, we know how that could have developed into the range of life we now find on Earth, but there are still gaps in our understanding as to how life originated. I’ve actually given you a better point here than you started with.
2. The Existence of Objective Moral Standards
There aren’t universal moral standards, and there’s no evidence proving objective moral standards. Different cultures develop different moral assumptions. OooSnaps’ point seems to be little more than “Extreme moral relativism is philosophically absurd”. That’s not evidence for God.
3. The Existence of Rationality
Humans’ rationality is limited though. Often clearly limited by our evolutionary origins.
There are evolutionary reasons it was useful for people to grow up trusting those who looked similar to themselves over those who looked different. Did God want us to be racists?
The evolved tendency of men to fear overt female sexuality is also mirrored in many religious texts, but I’m not sure that can be seen as evidence God created man, so much as man created God.
The argument seems to be ‘it would be nice if we could rely on our rationality’ rather than ‘our rationality can be shown to be so pure, it could not have evolved’. Wishful thinking is not evidence.
4. The Existence of Consciousess/Mind
There are so many problems in this part of the post, I can barely bring myself to go into it.
Regardless, there’s a lot of debate over the nature of consciousness, and there has been throughout history. Advances in neurology have given rather a boost to materialists recently, but that seems to be a conclusion most people are emotionally wary of. Regardless, rejecting materialism does not necessarily lead any evidence in favour of God.
The idea that the subjective nature of consciousness provides proof for God is absurd too. Anyway, materialists would be quite happy arguing that the human brain is completely capable of providing all of the simulations we see as part of consciousness. There’s certainly not any evidence against the materialist position, so even if a rejection of materialism could be seen as evidence for God, there’s no evidence for that.
The idea that, because knowing about a bat’s brain isn’t the same as being a bat, is any evidence in favour of God, is absurd.
“If our minds are simply physical states, then we are not free”: This is an argument in support of an omnipotent God?
I’m sure I could tidy my points up here, but this is a complicated topic I’m not well read in, and Ooosnap’s starting post was so weak, I don’t feel it needs much to demolish it.
5. The Existence of the Universe
Science will probably never be able to show what caused the big bang. There may be different theories, but it’s probably impossible to gather the required evidence to know what the cause was.]
Just for fun:
a. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
b. The universe has a beginning.
c. Therefore the universe has a cause.
d. therefore the cause has a cause.
e. therefore that cause must have a cause.
f. and the last one too.
g. I think we need another cause in here.
h. when will the ever end!!!
See the problem?
6. The Universe is fine-tuned delicately
Indeed. We do not know how these constants were tuned, or if it’s even possible for them to have been anything other than what they are. Given that it would be impossible for us to ever say “Well, the cosmological constants appear to make life impossible, guess there’s no God after all guys”, it seems rather one sided to insist this provides evidence for the existence of God.
Arguments 1 5 and 6 are the strongest here (2 and 3 totally pathetic, and 4 totally pathetic in its current form). However, they’re nothing more than gaps in current scientific understanding. Religious followers have always used such gaps to claim evidence of God, but when these gaps are closed, they don’t then abandon there religious claims, but rather, go on to try to find other, smaller gaps. If we found evidence supporting a scientific explanation for the origins of DNA, would Ooosnap see that as proof that belief in a God is irrational? I doubt it.
None of this is proof of the existence of a God. At most it highlights some areas where there’s little evidence with which to draw scientific conclusions. Just because scientific conclusions aren’t currently available, doesn’t serve to provide evidence for super-natural conclusions.
