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