The Atheist's Riddle...

When GOD made man.

Unlike eckhart tolles book (Oprahs new Bible) says

"Man made GOD in his owm image" page 15
The last statment in the book is
"A new species is arising on the planet. It is arising now,and you are it!"

So if I am wrong what does that mean for me.....
If you are wrong what does that mean for you....

What is your evidence than man was "made"?

Thanks for proving me right.

PWNED in 14 minutes. ahahahah. good job, AC.

DNA is indeed spectacular, highly complex and extremely precise, I have only begun to study it. With the little knowledge of DNA that I understand it would take many lifetimes to completely understand it and today's scientists have only began to understand the billions of processes involved in DNA. It will take man hundreds of years to fully understand it.

I agree that a highly intelligent mind must have created such a Master Piece but it utterly confuses me as to why people claim that same highly intelligent mind created the bible (the word of God). The bible contradicts itself, needs translation, and has been interpreted thousands of times, it goes against nature in many ways, and leads to wars. Why would the same highly intelligent god who created DNA create a world with so many religions all of which are so highly flawed? All religions and all bibles resemble other man-made flawed things in our world.

This is an interesting argument, but clearly poor logic. The logical fallacy here is called begging the question. Your #2 assertion begs the question because it assumes that all codes are created by a conscious mind. If we restated your argument as:

1. define dna as a code
2. assume all codes have some property, say, property 'A'
3. since dna is a code and all codes have property A, dna must have property A

Which begs the question, is your assumption that all codes have property A correct? That is, are all codes created by a conscious mind?


I'll grant you some leeway here in your proof and generate another interesting point instead. What if DNA is the only example of a naturally occuring code? This might seem at first to be a dangerous position to take, because it may seem just *too* convenient ("Oh, so DNA is somehow special...how convenient!"). However, let me show you why this is not such a bad position.

First, I would like to redefine your term 'code' to be 'blueprint', because this is the point I think you're really trying to get at and it would be less confusing to use this term instead.

Now, I argue that it is in the way that we define LIFE that your argument stems from. Let me explain this. In what context are blueprints used? They are used as a map to create something. But not just anything. It must be complex enough to necessitate the use of a blueprint. Molecules don't need a blueprint; they result from the properties of atoms and the interactions between those atoms. Rivers, landscapes, stars, black holes...none need blueprints. They are all derived via simple physical mechanisms without the need for some map to follow for them to arise. Things that arise from simple mechanisms don't require blueprints. So something must be 'complex' to require the use of a blueprint.

Now, how do we define what is living? I would argue that life is strongly correlated, and possibly defined by, the complexity of the system. Or maybe is life defined by the fact that it requires a blueprint? Here is my assertion: life is defined as a system complex enough to require a blueprint. There are no living things that do not have a blueprint and anything that has a blueprint is living. So life <=> blueprint. Summarizing and clarifying my argument:

1. Anything that requires a blueprint we define to be living

2. The blueprints of all living things are called DNA

3. By 1 and 2, all blueprints are DNA

There are millions of examples of blueprints in the natural world. My point is that we arbitrarily define all natural blueprints as DNA, because these blueprints lead to what we arbitrarily define to be 'life'. So it is only by us arbitrarily defining all blueprints in the natural world to be DNA that you are able to conclude that all natural blueprints are DNA. That is, by the time a system requires a blueprint, it is already deemed so complex that we call it 'living' and, hence, its blueprint is DNA.

If all natural blueprints are DNA as a result of the definition of DNA, then your argument falls apart. Further, your request for us to provide a blueprint that is not DNA is an impossible request.

I still question the use of "code" as being akin to a language. What language has that nothing else has is symbolic abstraction, which leads to the ability to treat with abstract ideas.

A "code," in the lexicon of cryptography, is nothing more nor less than a substitution.



Well, within the context of computing, "code" is a set of specific instructions to be executed by the internal registers and other components of a computing device. Unless you are talking a specific sub-set of operations, written in machine language, these will be compiled instructions; some intermediate process will apply a set of rules to the code to produce the final runtime code.

In any case, code within a computer has no abstraction layer. A command always has a specific result within the same framework.

Say I create a language in which "1" stands for "apple," "2" stands for "to give," "3" stands for "me," and the syntactical rule is that the verb operates upon the noun following it. Within this language, I can say "give me an apple." I could construct a simple machine which has a feeder trough containing apples with a gate held closed by a solenoid. To "give me an apple" I open the solenoid.

The point being, that this extra layer of symbolic abstraction I've added, whether I say "Give me an apple," or "321," adds no nuance and no variation. The symbol set IS the opening of the solenoid. The map is the territory. If instead of "321" I replace this arbitrary symbol set with a button, "give me an apple" IS the act of closing the contact.


DNA is the same. It is not an abstracted language. It is barely a compiled code. DNA IS the sequence of amino acids that make up the protein being created. There is minor run-time execution involving knowing where to start reading and where to stop. Otherwise, the map is the territory. If you made up a strand of DNA using instead of thymine, adenine, guanine and cytosine, the specific amino acids specified by the codons, you would have left any symbolic step out completely.



Comparing DNA to a language is like comparing a cold sidewalk to a language, and claiming the instruction to water "freeze when left on me," is a symbol set.

Designed by God? Who's to say that their is only one God? Perhaps there are many.

Designed by God? Who's to say that there is only one God? Perhaps there are many.

Designed by God? Who's to say that there is only one God? Perhaps there are many.

What "proof"?
You start from a fallacy and go downhill from there.
DNA isnt a "code" or language", its a bunch of chemicals
strung together over billions of years with a drive to replicate itself.
WHICH IT DOES WITH rna.
dna IS THE TEMPLATE and much attention is paid to it, but
without the machine tool of RNA it wouldnt be squat, really.
THE PATTERN you talk about in DNA does come from an intelligent source...HUMANS.
We define the way the chemicals are laid out, we impose a "pattern" on it, pretty much like we impose the color red on certain objects that reflect certain wavelenghts of light.
EVERYTHING IS THE SAME COLOR, we define different colors from the different wavelenghts reflected from different objects, color wouldnt exist without the human mind.
Neither would "patterns" that we impose on natural processes

The best way to prove god to an atheist, one that thinks they are smart; remind that person that we do not know hardly anything, even fundamentally why reality exists. Therefore anything is possible, so is god...

You could say atoms and electrons are codes too. But they aren't. The only reason dna seems coded to you is because human beings are pattern seekers it is part of who we are as a species. So you logic fails on its face.

Even the most ardent atheist, like say Richard Dawkins, doesn't believe God could never be a possibility. The universe is vast. Nearly anything is possible but nearly an infinite amount of things are infinitely improbable including god. But that probability is about the same as the probability of a giant invisible unicorn standing behind you jumping on a giant pogo stick, i.e. not bloody likely.

Atheism... something Darwin did not wish, but something Dawkins proved against...

I am not an atheist, nor am I an evolutionist, and certainly not a creationist. YOU ARE ALL COMPLETELY WRONG.

Throughout the course of history, EVERYTHING that was "known" has been eventually found to be WRONG. EVERYTHING. Therefore, to think that now we are somehow at the point where we have risen above that is the height of absurdity. Things that "everybody knows" such as the "Big Bang" and the "law" of gravity or the "laws" of thermodynamics will inevitably be found to be wrong eventually. New theories will take their places, of course, which will eventually be found to be wrong and have to be modified, ad infinitum. You cannot profess to know the mind of God.

I am not an atheist, nor am I an evolutionist, and certainly not a creationist. YOU ARE ALL COMPLETELY WRONG.

Throughout the course of history, EVERYTHING that was "known" has been eventually found to be WRONG. EVERYTHING. Therefore, to think that now we are somehow at the point where we have risen above that is the height of absurdity. Things that "everybody knows" such as the "Big Bang" and the "law" of gravity or the "laws" of thermodynamics will inevitably be found to be wrong eventually. New theories will take their places, of course, which will eventually be found to be wrong and have to be modified, ad infinitum. You cannot profess to know the mind of God.

The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall

[link to www.cosmicfingerprints.com]



You think inside a box looking for proof of God. Given the errors and flaws inherent in the DNA model God was more likely a committee.



First I can not belive that someone would compaire DNA to a crystal and second DNA was not flawed in the begining.

We who are christians understood from the Bible that someone would come and start a new world wide belief and that the people would be in ah of him and his teachings.
What really botherd me was I went to the book store to buy it so I would no what we are up agenst. Not even thinking how the shop keeper of the store could be in to this. I made a few coments then she let me know she was reading it. So I talked to her like I want the book because I want to understand it. She started to talk about how it is changing her life and it was like a glaze came over her eyes and she just started going on about it. Then I asked her so do you go to church? Yes she said yes im a lutheran. I just smiled. I did not want to say anymore until I had read it.
After reading it I was and am in shock. There is some really bad stuff in it that are going to decive sooooo many people. One of the most starteling statements in it is on page 21 chapter 1 EVOLVE OR DIE In the bible it says that the people who do not except the new way of thinking will be killed. hmmmmmmmmmm I know my spelling and grammer are very poor but my words are true.......................
[

What was this book you read?

I don't understand what you people are trying to get at. God is something based on faith. No matter what "evidence" you find, it only proves God's existence on a personal level. I believe in God, and I believe that when the universe began, he set up laws that eventually led to the formation of planets, life, humans, etc. And I have a whole list of reasons for believing this. But I also realize that that's my own personal interpretation of the world around me. Anyone who tries to find a completely objective way to prove or disprove the existence of God to other human beings is only making a fool of themselves, even more so when they reduce themselves to insults and name-calling. To each his own.

This is one of the most offensive things I have ever seen to get someone's attention to a website.Just because one person can't figure it out or even a group of scientists,doesn't give some guy with a complex the right to call people of a certain religoius demonination,stupid or dumb.I am not an atheist,but my nephew is and I think that the headline was VERY out of line and taboo.I am a proud and very devout wiccan and believe no man or woma has the right to say something such as that header did.It doesn't matter what or who you believe in.You have NO right to slander or comdemn another person's preferences on sex,religion,polotics,or personal choices.As long as they aren't harming anyone,keep your mouth shut and your opinions to yourself.

I do believe this is called a LOGICAL FALLACY. It is named the either or fallacy; it can either be this or that, since it is not this it must be that. I respect arguments both for and against god(s). I assume we are talking about the Christian God. However this argument is simply not valid. But then again don't believe me, just google 'logical fallacies' for yourself.

I've got one:

A prion is a code. It's naturally occuring, it's not DNA; and it can exist and replicate independently of DNA; and it is not considered living.

It is a very simple code that converts another chemically identical molecule to it's (the prion's) conformation. Prion's can also evolve, exploring other conformations that allow them to exist in different animals. Like DNA the prion's "information" codes for a replicant of itself, it's pathway is just simpler.

I do apologize for toppling your proof, but all i'm trying to do is let you open your mind. Hear me out. Rethink everything you believe. WHY do you believe it? If it isn't for a valid reason, perhaps you should investigate abandoning the belief in favor of something that you can put a reason behind. If you can't logically defend your beliefs, you have no reason to believe them. Much less criticize others for your same problem.

And you will be led by a string of events, an 'event string' if you will...

For all of you who are wondering how God could be a caring god if he created evil, God never created "evil".

"Evil" is a word we use to describe the abscense of good.

So, evil is the abscense of god's love.

Penny Argument is trying to assert a conclusion by appealing to confirmation of her preffered answer. It is not a correctly formulated question in the first place. Google the phrase "black swan" and you'll see the weakness of this kind of thinking.

there is one language that is formed without the human mind, mathmatics.

Does that make it nonexistent? Before knowing the details of how the Earth and moon were connected to the Sun, eclipses were absolutely random.

I hope you all realize that this riddle is a fallacy. It is designed purposfully to be unsolvable within its own rules. I'm willing to admit that DNA is a "code", or more specifically, a "means of transmitting information." The problem here is in steps 2 and 3. Think about it. What basis is there for claiming that codes are never naturally occurring? Answer: none whatsoever. And when is a code ever necessary? Answer: when a living thing needs to transmit information such as in a language, or in spreading genes. Inaminate objects have no need to transmit information.
Therefore, we do have an example of a naturally occurring code. It is DNA. Knowing this, the creator of this "proof" has made sure to set it up so that DNA can't be used as an example. How convenient. Since the only major case of a naturally occurring code on this planet has been taken off the table by this guy, then I'm sure he knows full well that the only way I could possibly meet this criteria is to discover life on another planet, which presumably would have a way to transmit genetic information into subsequent generations. Since he knows this is impossible right now, he can feel good about having "stumped the atheists."
However, any idiot can develop a proof like this if you start with something true, and then move into assumptions rather than facts. For example, here is my proof that God doesn't exist.
1) Perfection can only exist in our imaginations, such as a perfect circle.
2) God is a perfect being.
3) Therefore, God can only exist in our imaginations, and cannot exist in the real world.
If you can find one example of a perfect being or object in the real world, you have toppled my proof. You only need one. Good luck. You'll need it.

Everything has a "creator". A creator doesn't necessarily have to be of nor possess mind. It is taken to literally. Think of it simply: A piece of paper gets thrown onto the street. That day a bunch of cars drove over it and smudges appeared on various locations on the paper. Wrinkles and creases became more prevailant as days passed, as well as tears on certain parts of the paper. In other words another piece of paper strewn onto the street, although similarly altered, would still look differently. The question is, why couldn't the "force of time" be "god". Figuratively speaking, time is what "created" the form of that paper(s) in its image. Nothing could exist without the presence of time. And by time I don't mean a clock, I mean the "force of passings". And time doesn't have mind. Time is only chain-reactions to previous and total prior events. Even (ridiculously speaking) if some great spiritual being with mind existed, it's or his decision making COULD only exist through time, lest everything be motionless.