Is this a good argument for the existence of God?

[Petergray]

Humans can not create natural occurring things. For example, they cannot create water. They can melt an ice cube to “make” water, but it was already water, just frozen. Humans cannot make fire, they can strike a match, but that’s friction, they cannot make fire from nothing. If you had no match, you cant make fire. Humans cannot make a tree. They can plant a tree but your not making the tree, the seed is and can humans create seeds, no. Can humans create the sky? No, the clouds, No, a moon, No

But they are here…

That must mean someone more intelligent than humans created them…God.

The very last but can be argued…Why jump to God, but my argument would be, because he is the more intelligent being.

Can you review this for me please, I thought about it while walking by a lake

Any arguments against are fine by the way.
God Bless

 

[dje101]

Humans can not create natural occurring things. For example, they cannot create water. They can melt an ice cube to “make” water, but it was already water, just frozen. Humans cannot make fire, they can strike a match, but that’s friction, they cannot make fire from nothing. If you had no match, you cant make fire. Humans cannot make a tree. They can plant a tree but your not making the tree, the seed is and can humans create seeds, no. Can humans create the sky? No, the clouds, No, a moon, No

But they are here…

That must mean someone more intelligent than humans created them…God.

The very last but can be argued…Why jump to God, but my argument would be, because he is the more intelligent being.

Can you review this for me please, I thought about it while walking by a lake

Any arguments against are fine by the way.
God Bless

I think that it is a good argument and a LOGICAL person would be able to accept it. I used a similar argument on my brother in law a while ago and he quote the Sci-Fi show Stargate to back up his argument.

 

[Petergray]

I think that it is a good argument and a LOGICAL person would be able to accept it. I used a similar argument on my brother in law a while ago and he quote the Sci-Fi show Stargate to back up his argument.

Hehe

 

[Luke_K]

It sounds like your argument is basically: humans can’t create things from nothing, they can only reform what’s already existing. Why does this mean that God exists? You need to elaborate your idea. As it is, you’re placing the responsibility for explanation of the argument on the listener, and it makes it look like you haven’t really thought it through well.

But maybe that’s why you made this thread?

 

[dje101]

It sounds like your argument is basically: humans can’t create things from nothing, they can only reform what’s already existing. Why does this mean that God exists? You need to elaborate your idea. As it is, you’re placing the responsibility for explanation of the argument on the listener, and it makes it look like you haven’t really thought it through well.

But maybe that’s why you made this thread?

How would you expand the argument then? I’m not a theologian or scholar, so forgive my ignorance. How does the OP place the responsibility for explanation of the argument on the listener?

Yes, the OP could add additional arguments to support her idea that humans are not able to make anything out of nothing. For instance, some scientists (going off of memory here) tried to make life by recreating “early Earth” conditions. They were unsuccessful. However, even if they WERE successful, it still took the INTELLIGENCE of the scientist to create all of those conditions for life to be successful. However, I think the OP has the right idea in mind and it is a good start.

 

[Petergray]

How would you expand the argument then? I’m not a theologian or scholar, so forgive my ignorance. How does the OP place the responsibility for explanation of the argument on the listener?

Yes, the OP could add additional arguments to support her idea that humans are not able to make anything out of nothing. For instance, some scientists (going off of memory here) tried to make life by recreating “early Earth” conditions. They were unsuccessful. However, even if they WERE successful, it still took the INTELLIGENCE of the scientist to create all of those conditions for life to be successful. However, I think the OP has the right idea in mind and it is a good start.

to support her idea that humans

I am a boy

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Human impotence doesn’t seem to imply the necessity of intelligent divine potency to me. The fact that the universe doesn’t bend very well to our whims doesn’t mean that there’s something’s whim to which the universe must bend.

 

[JDaniel]

Humans can not create natural occurring things. For example, they cannot create water. They can melt an ice cube to “make” water, but it was already water, just frozen. Humans cannot make fire, they can strike a match, but that’s friction, they cannot make fire from nothing. If you had no match, you cant make fire. Humans cannot make a tree. They can plant a tree but your not making the tree, the seed is and can humans create seeds, no. Can humans create the sky? No, the clouds, No, a moon, No

But they are here…

That must mean someone more intelligent than humans created them…God.

The very last but can be argued…Why jump to God, but my argument would be, because he is the more intelligent being.

Can you review this for me please, I thought about it while walking by a lake

Any arguments against are fine by the way.
God Bless

Welcome, Petergray:

The atheist will counter that ‘nature’ causes those things. The atheist will give little or no credence to the concept, create. They will say that those things you mentioned are simply the results of nature’s dynamic towards restructuring things from already existing, decaying materials. Water, they will say is simply the natural combining of free hydrogen and free oxygen into a molecule. Fire they will say naturally occurs from oxidation or rapidly moving molecules in close proximity. A tree they will say comes to be by the natural process of reproduction and the combining of male and female gametes.

But, that is a strawman, as you no doubt noticed. They will have changed the argument. In the first place, they will replace create with cause. There is a huge difference between the two. They will say that it’s only a matter of time before modern science can reproduce the precise chemistry and conditions to produce an effect of creation. However, what is seemingly forgotten is that such will still be a creation. And it will be merely a duplication of nature, but, they will still not produce a soul. In this case a soul will still proceed from God. They will render available the physical (primary) matter and the properties of form, acting as secondary efficient causes. But they will still not know how the matter is en-souled. And, of course, their solution to this dilemma is to simply deny a “soul.”

Now, the heavens and the planetoids - well, that’s a different story. Those, they will say, are processions from physical laws and emergent energy/matter.

Oops. Sorry. I have to go. More later.

God bless,
jd

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Humans can not create natural occurring things. For example, they cannot create water. They can melt an ice cube to “make” water, but it was already water, just frozen.

Can’t Humans make water?

Acid + Base —> Salt + H2O (Water)
Acid + Metal Carbonate —> Salt + H2O (Water) + CO2 (Carbon Dioxide)

Hopefully a scientist/chemist can verify as to whether we can actually make water, given that it’s the standard product formed from mixing an acid and a metal carbonate.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I’m not very convinced by this argument, and I doubt atheists will be either.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[Garyjohn2]

This argument still leaves open the possibility that God did not creat humans, and that we instead evolved over billions of years from bacteria that were either brought to earth via a meteor, or formed here on earth on its own from a certain mixing of proteins and organic chemicals that eventually formed the very first DNA strand which then began to spontaneously replicate itself without devine intervention.

Which, I believe, is what most atheists believe.

 

[RSD]

Humans can not create natural occurring things. For example, they cannot create water. They can melt an ice cube to “make” water, but it was already water, just frozen. Humans cannot make fire, they can strike a match, but that’s friction, they cannot make fire from nothing. If you had no match, you cant make fire. Humans cannot make a tree. They can plant a tree but your not making the tree, the seed is and can humans create seeds, no. Can humans create the sky? No, the clouds, No, a moon, No

But they are here…

That must mean someone more intelligent than humans created them…God.

The very last but can be argued…Why jump to God, but my argument would be, because he is the more intelligent being.

Can you review this for me please, I thought about it while walking by a lake

Any arguments against are fine by the way.
God Bless

I think that it could be a fruitful subject of meditation for someone who already believes in God, but I don’t see that it would be very convincing to someone who doesn’t. If you are trying to convince one particular person you must first start with whatever you can agree on. I think that most people who don’t already believe in God would not share enough of your point of view in this argument to be convinced. But why not try it out on someone you know who needs convincing? That is the real test. Let us know.

 

[Wayward_Wind]

How were the building blocks of all matter, protons/electrons/neutrons, created?

 

[JDaniel]

Can’t Humans make water?

Acid + Base —> Salt + H2O (Water)
Acid + Metal Carbonate —> Salt + H2O (Water) + CO2 (Carbon Dioxide)

Hopefully a scientist/chemist can verify as to whether we can actually make water, given that it’s the standard product formed from mixing an acid and a metal carbonate.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

EvBB:

In the strict sense of the word, no. Humans can fashion chemical reactions that yield water as either the primary yield or as a byproduct. But, the hydrogen and oxygen either already exist in the molecules of the primary reaction, or the nuclei of atoms are modified to a lower or higher state on the chart, then combined with the other necessary ingredient. Once again, that’s a causal event, rather than a creational event: unless you wish to use the word “create” in its loosest sense. Of course, the word “make” has a much looser meaning to begin with.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

How were the building blocks of all matter, protons/electrons/neutrons, created?

Welcome Wayward Wind:

They were created at the moment of the Big Bang. They were the first physical things created by God. The atheist would say they were formed by exigencies that existed in the primordial singularity. Of course, that begs the further question.

God bless,
jd

 

[Wayward_Wind]

Welcome Wayward Wind:

They were created at the moment of the Big Bang. They were the first physical things created by God. The atheist would say they were formed by exigencies that existed in the primordial singularity. Of course, that begs the further question.

God bless,
jd

Yes, all matter was created even those "exigencies that existed in the primordial singularity or the primordial singularity itself. If you go far enough back or put another way, peel away all layers of matter you must reach a point where there is a void. This void was filled via the first creation.

There is simply no way around original creation. To paraphrase an old Billy Preston song, you can’t get nothin’ from nothin’.

 

[Luke_K]

How would you expand the argument then? I’m not a theologian or scholar, so forgive my ignorance. How does the OP place the responsibility for explanation of the argument on the listener?

Yes, the OP could add additional arguments to support her idea that humans are not able to make anything out of nothing. For instance, some scientists (going off of memory here) tried to make life by recreating “early Earth” conditions. They were unsuccessful. However, even if they WERE successful, it still took the INTELLIGENCE of the scientist to create all of those conditions for life to be successful. However, I think the OP has the right idea in mind and it is a good start.

The reason Petergray needs to elaborate his argument is that he made an unsupported jump to his conclusion. The argument goes:

1. Humans can’t create things, only rearrange pre-existing stuff.
2. Those things, however, do exist.
3. Therefore, an intelligent mind must have created them.

Why does the fact that things exist and we didn’t create them mean some other intelligent person else did? Does everything which exists necessarily need an intelligent creator? You (Petergray) are merely asserting the conclusion, and the only people who will agree with it are those people who held it before you even presented it. The first point doesn’t even matter for the argument.

Let me offer an anecdote. Aristotle believed that void spaces, or a vacuum, was impossible. One of his arguments for it was related to the speed of a falling body. He believed its speed was dependent on the density of the medium through which it falls- the less density, the swifter the motion of the falling body. It follows that in a void space, there is nothing to slow the descent of the falling body, from which we would be forced to conclude that the body would fall with infinite speed- a nonsensical notion, since it implies that the body could be in two places at the same time. Therefore, void spaces must not exist!

But of course, this argument can just as well be taken to prove that the absence of resistance does not entail infinite speed as to prove that void does not exist. It just depends on what you presume to be true about the motion of falling bodies.

Similarly, arguments from intelligent design (which yours seems to be?), conclude that because humans are required to create the new, complex things that humans create, everything must require an intelligent person to create. But the evidence of those non-human created things existing could just as well be taken to prove that an intelligent person is NOT required to create everything which exists. Without any further arguments or evidence, whichever conclusion you make depends only on your personal taste. And really, without any further reason to believe otherwise, the only rational thing to believe is that the phenomenon is entirely natural.

That is why you need to elaborate your argument.

 

[dje101]

I am a boy

LOL I’m sorry

 

[Petergray]

Thank you everyone.

The very last but can be argued…Why jump to God, but my argument would be, because he is the more intelligent being.

That is my argument for jumping to God. I should elaborate more though, I understand.

Thank you very much for this, keep the comments coming if you want, i will read them all.

Thanks

God Bless

Oh and the person I am trying to convince is Richard Dawkins :S

 

[Wayward_Wind]

Thank you everyone.

That is my argument for jumping to God. I should elaborate more though, I understand.

Thank you very much for this, keep the comments coming if you want, i will read them all.

Thanks

God Bless

Oh and the person I am trying to convince is Richard Dawkins :S

A friend and I were discussing the relationship between intelligence and disbelief in God.

My friend, a highly educated priest, said he believes really intelligent people do believe. I don’t think this is true. I think there are as many intelligent non-believers. The difference is that some really intelligent people close their mind’s to the possibility of God out of fear of the consequences of learning they are wrong.

Quoting C.S. Lewis, a young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist can’t be too careful of his reading.