On top of what I believe the law of irreducible complexity shows as evidence of a creator is what your idea of “natural selection over millions of years” fails to see is the probability barrier.
The idea that a complex stucture or system can somehow be formed by chance is a persistent delusion of evolutionists. They supposes that anything can happen if enough time is given. The monkey blindly typing away will eventually produce Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The problem is they cannot find enough time.
Ask any Mathematician worth their salt about the chances of evolution working and you’ll get quite the chuckle.
Check out Emil Borel’s “The Sole Law of Chance” The math does’nt lie. That’s what I love about math
The probability of complex systems reproducing themselves by chances is ZERO
Darwinian evolution is not about pure chance. Here is an analogy that might help:
If I showed you 100 dice lying on a table, all of them having 6 dots on top, and I told you that I got this result by putting the dice in a tin can and pouring the dice onto the table, you would be right in not believing me. But what if I told you that I put the dice in the can, shook it up, poured it out, and then picked up all of the dice that were not showing a 6 on top; and then I repeated the process until I got sixes on all 100 dice? With this additional information, you would not be justified in maintaining your skepticism. Clearly, it would not take too many repetitions of this process to produce 100 sixes. This is what can be accomplished by “artificial” selection. Darwinian evolution is accomplished by “natural” selection. Chance is involved, but nothing could evolve on chance alone (as your mathematics shows).
I think you touched on the heart of understanding these things ---- the matter of “time”. I have a very simplistic view of time. It is simply a measurement of the passing of events. If there were no events, there would be no time. (Please suspend your thoughts about Einstein’s relativity theories for now, and bear with me. I’ll refer to relativity later). Time is not a substance that requires creating, just as “space” is not a substance that require creating. Space is simply the measurement of the distance between two objects. In my view, time came into existence when the first event occurred (or perhaps the second, since time is the measurement of the sequence of events.) Space came into existence when the first two objects were created. When there was no matter, there was no space.
I believe time had an actual beginning, and that when John wrote, “In the Beginning was the Logos”, he was referring to the beginning of time. The begetting of the Son of God (which the second century writers say occurred “before all ages”) marked the beginning of time. Even the first Trinitarians and the original Nicene creed referred to the begetting of the Son as an act of God(begotten not created). It was only the later Trinitarians who dreamed up an “eternal begetting” in the interests of consistency. So since the begetting of the Son marked the beginning of time, there was no “before” the beginning of time. The word “before” has a temporal connotation, and thus “before the beginning of time” is a self-contradiction.
Thus the Son always existed (that is, since the beginning of time. There was no “before”). The Arians, then, were clearly wrong when they affirmed that there was a time at which the Son did not exist. There was no such time. But you may ask, “What about God the Father? Surely you admit that He must have existed before the begetting of the Son. Otherwise, how could He have begotten Him?” I do not admit that. A wise man once said that the Father preceeded the Son sequentially, but not temporally. The Father simply existed at the beginning of time. No one created Him. Indeed, nothing happened before the Father begat the Son. Why? Because there was literally no time for it to happen. But didn’t God at least have some thoughts before He begat His Son? Once again, since the begetting of the Son occurred at the Beginning of Time, there was no “before”. We have all been taught since childhood, implicitly if not explicitly, that there is an infinite regression of time into the past. But is that concept more comprehensible than the idea of time having had a beginning? For me it is much less so. What was God doing for an infinite period of time prior to begetting His Son, and through His Son, creating the Universe? And how did He break out of that infinitely long time period in order to do anything at all? I cannot comprehend God existing and doing nothing for a period of time which had no beginning, or even thinking during such an infinite period before creating. Of all intelligent beings in the Universe, surely it wouldn’t take HIM an infinite period of time to plan the creation.
For some, the solution is to suppose that God exists “outside of time”. I can make no sense out of this idea whatever. The concept supposes that God actually exists and experiences all things simultaneously.
Normally if event A is simultaneous with event B and also simultaneous with event C, then event B is simultaneous with event C. So if God, outside of time experiences the cries of the holocaust victims simultaneously with your reading of this post, then the cries of the holocaust victims are simultaneous with your reading of this post. Indeed, we may infer that ALL events of all time are simultaneous. But the proponents of the view are able to dismiss this arguement by arguing that God’s simultaneous experience of all events is a different kind of simultaneity from the kind we experience.
Well, I’m rambling here, and so I’ll address one other statement Boxer made:
I really do not see this as a truism or self-evident truth in the sense that “All triangles have three angles” is a truism. If the Creator transcends the Universe, then the Creator may be the cause of the Universe, and yet be uncaused Himself. I do agree, however, that the idea that the Unverse itself is uncaused is not self-contradictory, an idea which has persisted from ancient times. Also, as was indicated earlier, if time truly had a beginning, then there’s no reason God could not have simply existed, uncaused, at the Beginning of time.
Finally, as for relativity:
According to Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity, objects get shorter as they approach the speed of light, and time for them passes more slowly. I am not at all certain that this is an actual reality. Some hold that Einstein’s theories are essentially about the behaviour of light. I am inclined in that direction, until I am convinced otherwise.
I am not sure that this is the case. Consider those whitish moths in England that were camoflauged when they rested on the bark of a particular species of tree. When black soot from the industrial revolution settled on those trees, it was easier for the bird enemies of the moth to catch them and devour them. However, the moths that happened to be darker in colour were more likely to escape. Finally as this natural selection continued, and darker moths produced darker moths, that particular kind of moth developed into a nearly black moth. Would you consider this evolution? They didn’t evolve into something else. They were basically the same species of moth. If moved to another environment where the trees were their normal colour, the moths doubtless would have reverted to that colour.
Similarily with man’s “artificial” selection. Man may develop more robust plants, or weed resistant or insect resistent vegetables, but the vegetables are still carrots, or potatoes or whatever. They don’t evolve into dandelions. Through artificial selection. man has developed dozens of varieties of dogs, cats, cows, horses, with varying characteristics. But they are still dogs, house cats, cows, and horses. They haven’t become elephants, chimpanzees, bear, or moose. Likewise through selection, in most cases natural selection, or perhaps deliberate selection, there are various “racial” characteristics among human beings. But they are all people. They haven’t evolved into some other life form.
How does the dice know that it needs 100 dice in a row with all the dice showing 6 dots on top to function the way it is suppose to?
You must have an Intelligent designer ( you picking only the dice that do not have 6 dots on top) to get the desired function that only you (the intelligent designer) know it needs to function.
Show me how order comes out of chaos, life comes out of none life… without a little help from outside its limited understanding. How did a DNA chain know the exact sequence it needed just to be a simple cell. Let alone orchestrate a complex seeing, breathing, self aware life being. Without a little help from our friend GOD! In the beginning GOD (Gen.1:1)
I could you give 30 billion years(that twice the accepted age of the universe right now, I believe) and you would still be a pile of dirt in the corner.
Do the math. Where do the “Laws of Physics” come from? Whether they are different now then at the beginning of the universe. Whether the universe is finite or not. Who (it must be a who, a what doesn’t have a clue ) exactly told it to do anything to begin with?
Wasn’t it Jean Paul Satre who said “the problem that faces us is the fact that something rather than nothing is here” or something like that.
Preditors might intelligently (or instictively) sellect the slowest, easiest, most rewarding prey, but they’re sellecting the easiest and safest way to get their dinner (and satisfy their hunger), they’re not intelligently sellecting the most effective way to survive (as individuals, or a species.)
If they had no hunger, they wouldn’t go through the trouble of catching dinner, they wouldn’t eat, and they wouldn’t survive (as individuals, or a species.)
From a puely materailistic (undirected) view of evolution, what intelligent sellectors sellected hunger, instinct, or intelligence as means of survival?
And why survive?
What intelligent sellector chose that as a goal?
Was the first primitive form of life able to replicate itself?
How did it evolve into self-replicating forms?
How did sex evolve?
If it weren’t pleasurable (or instinct driven) , would any species survive?
What intelligent sellector sellected instinct (and/or pleasure) as a sexual motivator?
Don’t simple, asexual organisms reproduce by eating enough digestible material to grow, and split into different cells?
What intelligent selector sellected the mechanism of digestion, and provided digestible material?
And is DNA symbolically coded information?
What intelligent sellector sellected the meaning of each symbol, and the coding and decoding mechanism?
Yes. Something is ultimate. The real question is “What is this something like?”
Suppose we say twice two is four. Fred demands proof, so we get two apples and two apples and say, Look: Four apples. But Fred will point out that we can only add identical objects, and since these apples are by no means identical, they cannot be added. ie. Empiricism fails to prove something as simple as twice two is four. So much for empiricism.
Twice two is four, but it’s not really true anywhere in our material and temporal world. Rather, it’s only imperfectly true, and imperfectly true for a time. If it’s* really* true (and we intuitively know it is) its reality must lie elsewhere, in an immaterial and eternal world.
If simple mathematical relations exist in an eternal and immaterial world, so too will complex ones. Every possible truth eternally exists, including an infinite number which would require an infinite string of symbols for us to to describe. The set of all possible truths is ultimately real and boundlessly complex. This set would be identical to the Mind of God.
If any truth exists, all truth exists, and therefore the Mind of God exists. But since that statement is itself true, one truth does indeed exist. The Mind of God therefore exists.
Truths can be imperfectly actualized in our world only by intelligent agents. I can draw an imperfect circle in space and time only because a true circle exists eternally and immaterially, and my mind is capable of “grasping” the idea. My mind reaches into the eternal world and lays hold of truth just my hand reaches into the material world and lays hold of matter. A rock cannot draw a circle or grasp that its area is piR2, but I can. But since I myself am imperfect, I also am an actualized idea. I am an imperfect secondary agent actualized at long remove by a perfect primary agent.
The primary agent cannot himself have been actualized. If there ever was a point where the Mind of God existed without an intelligent agent empowered to actualize truth, no intelligent agent could ever have been actualized. Therefore, God is both the set of all truth, and also the primary, eternal, intelligent, actualizing agent.
Truth is good. Therefore God is worthy of endless devotion. It is impossible to love the unlovely. Therefore God is Love.
I don’t know of any Hartshorne-made-easy sites. There are sites that discuss him, yeah. And there’s a lot out there (from articles to full-blown theses) about his version of the ontological argument.
Basically CH concedes (with Kant against Anselm) that ‘existence’ is not a predicate. But that need not be the of Anselm’s insight. It just needs a bit of improvement. CH argues that though existence isn’t a predicate, ‘necessity’ and ‘contingency’ ARE predicates (modes or features that may be predicated of existence).
I’m more visual, so I enjoy illustrations of the argument. If you draw a square with four quadrants, run ‘existence’ across the top (right to left) and ‘necessity/contingency’ down the side (from top to bottom). So you get four possible claims about God one of which has to be true.
Either:
(1) Necessarily, God exists (top left) [God exists and his existence is necessary]
(2) Necessarily, God does not exist (top left) [God does not exist and his non-existence is necessary]
(3) Contingently, God exists (bottom left) [God does exist and his existence is contingent]
(4) Contingently, God does not exist (bottom right) [God does not exist and his non-existence is contingent]
(3) and (4) are out of the question. The sort of being worthy of debating at all a necessary God. If God does exist but exists contingently, then he either came into existence and/or may pass out of existence. And if God exists not (contingently) then one is saying that he may come into existence (though he exists not presently). Neither of these ‘contingent’ versions of God’s existence is a viable in religious terms. The only options are (1) and (2).
One application of this says that the only atheistic version possible is (2). One has to argue that the existence of a personal deity who grounds all else that exists is strictly speaking impossible (viz., Necessarily, he doesn’t exist). But most atheists don’t attempt to make this stronger claim. But if one concedes that God’s existence is possible, one must agree that God does in fact exist. If (2), (3), and (4) are out, one is left with (1). If one agrees that (2) is false (i.e., one agrees that the existence of a necessarily existing personal deity is possible), then one must concede the actual existence of such a God. Hartshorne’s ontological existence develops along the lines of possibilty/actuality and necessity/contingency.
An atheist can object by arguing that (2) is most likely to be true—Necessarily, God does not exist (or God’s non-existence is necessary)—but that one can’t prove this. Because we’re not omniscient and cannot absolutely rule out the meaningfulness of the very concept of ‘necessary personal existence’, we have to grant it for the sake of argument. But in fact all the best arguments INCLINE us to atheism.
But what might those arguments be? Consider, atheists who conclude that (2) is true cannot do so on the basis of the incoherence of the notion of ‘necessary existence’ per se. Many (most?) will settle for the necessary existence of the material world, so they believe necessary existence is meaningful and possible. And they obviously concede the meaningfulness of ‘personal existence’. So how does one argue the IMPOSSIBILITY of conjoining necessary existence and personal existence in ‘necessary personal existence’? That’s a tall order. But it’s the only respectable atheistic option. It’s what they must argue. But so long as one admits the meaningful possibility of the existence of a necessarily existing personal being, one is bound to concede this being’s actuality as well.
I think this is a profound thought. It’s not so much an argument for the existence of God. But it is a profound argument for believing God is essentially loving. We are commanded to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, body, strength. What can be concluded about God as love from the fact that God is so beautiful (so good—for the ‘good’ and the ‘beautiful’ are one and the same in God) that no asthetic appetite can exceed God’s ability to satisfy?
I wonder…if God was not essentially love; that is, if some of God’s actions could not be qualified in some sense as an expression of love (which is essentially what the God-is-not-essentially-love crowd argues), then in what sense is God to BE LOVED by us on account of such actions? Hence, how are we to love God in the entirety of God’s revealed works and actions? Wouldn’t we be more like God (not less) if we did not love God with respect to that in God which is not love?
Surely a God who may or actually “loves not” is less aesthetically satisfying than is a God who never fails to love, of a God who is love (as far as that language will allow us to approach the truth). We don’t want to shape God in our own image. But this danger is faced by the denial that God ‘is’ love as equally as it is by the affirmation that God ‘is’ love. Both affirmation and denial stand within the limitations of human experience and language.
I suppose the challenge is knowing how human experience and rationality have their proper roles in informing our vision of God. For some, divine transcendence means every truth about God is falsified or negated in addition to being affirmed, as if paradox just IS the ultimate truth. But that leaves us with an intolerable and absolute agnosticism.
But if our experience as God’s image bearers grounds our capacity to speak truthfully about God (a very safe assumption), then surely the belief that God is loving in all he does is aesthetically more satisfying than believing that God loves some and not others or that there is that in God which is not qualifiable (to invent a word) as love.
God loves the good he sees in people, not the evil. He saves only that which is worth saving. How can it be otherwise?
Jesus wept over Lazarus. There is nothing lovely about death in any of its manifestations, large or small. God hates it and vows to destroy it. Jesus told Mary he was the resurrection and the life. Nothing good will be lost (resurrection) and every dark corner will be filled with light (life).
You’ve certainly given me food for thought but I have many questions.
One conclusion of this thinking is that God loves some people less and others more depending how ‘good’ they are.
Another, that the doctrine of total depravity (where no good exists before God intervenes) cannot be true. (Not that I necessarily believe in TD).
Perhaps God loves us not for what we are but because of whose we are. Not because of what we are but because of what we can become.
Could I not love my son even if he were evil? Does God just love the bit of Himself that He sees in us? Is that true love?
God would love the good he finds in people and hate the evil.
If TD is true, our understanding of TD would also be totally depraved…
God has a perfect and eternal idea of each of us which he is actualizing in time and space. God loves the person we will become, and he loves us here and now inasmuch as we conform to that perfect idea. The bits that don’t conform, God hates, and will remove. Just like a sculptor who “sees” the statue within the block of marble, God chips away at all the bits that spoil his work, revealing at last his perfect creation.
Jesus hated the unloveliness of that whole situation, and destroyed it through resurrection and life.
Sorry if all this sounds terse. I’m a bit rushed this morning…
