Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucsfcgl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!arnold From: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: More replies to Ken (and general comments) Message-ID: <398@ucsfcgl.UUCP> Date: Sat, 8-Dec-84 16:29:10 EST Article-I.D.: ucsfcgl.398 Posted: Sat Dec 8 16:29:10 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 10-Dec-84 03:14:38 EST References: <1114@trwrba.UUCP> <> <1905@nsc.UUCP> <397@ucsfcgl.UUCP> <993@aecom.UUCP> Reply-To: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab Lines: 50 Summary: In article <993@aecom.UUCP> teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) writes: >> In article <1506@pucc-h> aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) writes: >> >But if there were no God, man would not exist. Nothing would exist. (This >> >could get into some really mind-bending philosophy....) >> >> Well, this leads us to the logical next statement: If whatever created >> God did not exist, God would not exist. Of course, this holds true for >> whatever created whatever created God, ad nauseum. Why do we stop with >> one level of indirection? >> >> Ken Arnold > this assumes that G-D was created. > Eliyahu Teitz. Yes, it does. The original article, however, made the assumption that man was created, and thefore god existed. My statement was equally logical. This is basically an instantiation of what is often called the "Watchmaker Argument" for the existence of god. It runs: if there is a watch, there must be watchmaker, since such a finally tuned and precisely working mechanims cannot come spontaneously into being. Analagously (it is argued), something as complex as man or the universe must also have had a maker. This was considered a rather elegant argument, since complaining that man was not perfect did not eliminate the need for the creator any more than arguing that, if the watch ran slow, there need not be a watchmaker. This falls short in two major ways: 1. If god is complex and powerful enough to create life, the universe, and everything, the same rule applies to her/him/it. To be obtuse, if god exists, with all complexity and power associated with it/him/her, there must be a maker for god. This sort of argument can continue infintely. No religion I know of goes more than two levels back, and most only one. 2. The watch has no method of self reproduction, and therefore no method of successive improvement, or environmental adaptation, through evolution. In fact, one of the reasons Darwin was fought so hard was because he came up with a plausible and easily understandable driving force for evolution. Since evolution, if accepted, eliminates the argument for the "watchmaker", such a development challenged the faith of many, especially the more intellectual believers (something earlier evolution theories failed to do). Sorry for making a DuBois-like terse statement without complete explanation. I hope this make it clear. Ken Arnold