UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 12 to Meditation 13
Re: Proofs of God's Existence (7)

by Thomas

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form.

Addendum to a Laundry list (7 of 7)

"Just so that you don't feel that there are no proofs, despite the fact that you continue to ignore the proofs I have sent previously, there are others:"

SECTION 1 - (the “design by” assumption):

Ad tedium ad infinitum - assumptions are thus.

And finally assumption number 7 - Halleluiah! It’s Creationism, Intelligent Design the new teleological argument and fallacies galore, the sermon never ends!

7. (a) The existence of design in our Universe. Design implies a Designer.

          The Intelligent design, purpose and order of the Universe indicates an intelligent


    (b) The size of the earth, distance from the sun, tilt of the earth, our moon, lightning,

          ozone, water, atmospheric dust, cells in our body, existence of DNA, etc.,

          all indicate an Intelligent Designer and not random chance.

(a) Design implies a Designer = this most often is a wordplay fallacy; the premise is the conclusion i.e.; design implies design(er); the conclusion contains no new information - it is the assumed premise; so nothing is implied; the premise-conclusion is the same and merely assumed; and what is assumed is logically suspect.

  • Complexity implies a complexitor (or a complexinator).
  • A snowflake implies a snowflake maker.
  • The rising-and falling of tides implies a tidal-god.
  • Infinity implies an infininator (or an infinitor).
  • Dying implies a grim-reaper.
  • I think nature is intelligently designed; this implies an intelligent designer.
  • Deciding to be an invisible god implies not wanting to be known.

A hole in the ground implies someone has dug one (a human (material) or spirit hole-digger). Unless of course it’s a sinkhole; or a crater; or a natural occurring geyser (better back off stupid; it’s gonna blow!)

At least this assumption appears to be free of the bible-god-myth (though we know better - whom the advocates are; for this non-sense; this attempted “Wedge” placed in door of current scientific theory and philosophical thinking - it is Christians and their steadfast hold of their Genesis-myth). At least its’ argument appears to be more in the abstract (appears; but it is not; non-mythological in anyway).

Is there a God - a transcendent creator to this Universe? Does an abstraction residing (temporally as a thought) in mind equate to the reality of it being (and that this assumed thought = being = possesses the quality of permanence)? Is this god-abstraction particularized in any detail - explicit within the conceptualization of the abstraction (If you think of a detail [or aspect] of this transcendent-being - aren’t they all simply [thoughts temporarily existing in mind] mere guesses at what the [abstract-god] concept is?).

Basically it’s a hit or miss guess - yet you don’t know if you hit the target. This is “Transcendental Darts” the abstraction game.

You are throwing invisible darts at an invisible dart board - and you’re trying to keep score!

The biggest error with any creationist, intelligent design, teleological or other mythological-theological argument is not whether there is a transcendent creating-force to the Universe; but rather that; it simply describes - nothing - other than the mythological-abstraction.

Consider for a moment that this abstraction-dart hit the invisible dart board dead center and now you know this: Yes! There is a mysterious transcendent creating-force (that might be like being; as you think your existence is like being); and that this force was involved in the formation of the visible non-abstract forms you perceive as reality; yet it remains transcendent and non-visible in form; and unlike reality; as we perceive it. OK, now what? This is useless knowledge; this (conceded in theory; but not actually conceded) mythological assumed-to-be-true abstraction yields no value; and no new practical knowledge - all current scientific facts and theories remain as they are; unchanged.

Even if a universal transcendent force underneath reality is conceded in the abstract (but it can’t be conceded; it’s a senseless concession); the creation still remains undocumented in aspect and detail. Science theory(s) and our factual knowledge-base(s) document/define all aspects and details of what we actually know. A meaningless philosophical concession to the abstraction/abstract-assumed-answer of this transcendent god-question - generates no new information about the real (that we can perceive [witness] and/or detect).


a.) “God-labeling” or “god-naming” of natural processes simply describes nothing - other than the mythological-abstraction itself; this abstraction assigned the mythic-label “god.”

b.) “Designed by” arguments are an example of fallacious reasoning, an implied analogy that does not logically transfer nor define anything other than the original suspect assumption.

c.) Mythological abstractions-assumptions yield no practical scientific knowledge; all current scientific facts and theories remain as they are; unchanged.

d.) Any arguments hereafter, are superfluous, unnecessary, you do not have to deny any myth that you did not affirm in the first place.

SECTION 2 - (Why the “designed by” assumption is an utter waste of time and resource):

The mythological assumed-to-be-true abstraction yields no value; and no new practical knowledge - all current scientific facts and theories remain as they are; unchanged. Does science education need this useless knowledge?

This is where creationism, “designed by” advocates would like to take our children; into useless knowledge territory. Bring the pulpit, and a mythical “Wedge” (into scientific theory), into the classroom - and skip from god-abstraction-assumption to bible-god-myth; and then tell you’re children both; god-abstraction-assumption and the mythic-bible; are one and the same; and are – TRUTH! This is the very reason why creationism and the “designed by” useless abstraction should be rejected in its entirety.

And the reasons compound, beyond this attempt to masquerade Christian mythological abstractions as truth; as science; in the classroom:

a.)  Ontological assumptions are not true; ever; they are often merely mistakes in grammar.

b.)  Abstractions of transcendence - yield no new scientific information; NONE.

c.)  God-naming: is merely a re-labeling of the Universe (nature); and its unknowns to “God” (super-nature).

d.)  God-abstract-assumption to the “bible is true” - is a false leap and another false assumption.

      The possible existence (or abstraction) of a transcendent-being does not transfer to a mythological-provincial tradition. Transcendent-being or creator ≠ Yeshua or Yahweh.

e) It’s a violation of basic human rights.

Because the right to have unique religious beliefs = the right to be free of unique religious beliefs.

The theological philosophical doctrines of one religion; their tenets and assumptions should never be taught in the public classroom(s); as a replacement for science, real education or as a universal TRUTH. America ’s destiny is not a Christian theocracy.

f.)  Creationism is not science - nor do the non-perpetrators of sin; the not-evil scientific community of REAL scientists support it; in any way! It’s a waste of their time. It’s BAD philosophy - not GOOD science. No real university; or universities; outside of Christendom and their purely theological schools, are doing any research*on this pseudo-theory; that implies no new real knowledge.

* Purely theological-schools (within Christendom); their creationism, “designed by” research can hardly be called research. It’s more a subterfuge of nonsense, based upon misinterpretations of real research performed by real scientists, who exist, work and operate outside the influences of Christian-theology; and do not advocate any “designed by” arguments; unless the phrase is completed correctly; as in “designed by nature.”

g.)   Resources are always scarce when it comes to education. This is an utter waste of PUBLIC resources when monetary resources are often being cut (It’s a waste of private resource as well. Christian money could be better spent elsewhere than on useless attempts to “Wedge” their mythology into science).

h.)  It is a dumbing-down of children; in era where improvement needs to be made; not halted or degenerated.

i.)  Our children deserve the best education science can offer; not the worst bad-philosophy has to offer. Skepticism, rational thinking and scientific methods have always been a threat to bad-theology and its alter ego bad-philosophy. It was not a time to give-in to theology 500 years ago (actually ever); it is not a time to give-in today.

j.)   If creationism deserves a niche; and consideration in our national educational institutions; it is not in the arena of scientific debate; nor as an alternate pseudo-theory (for it is NOT science; nor a real-theory). Its proper place is in, the particulars of, theology and spiritual philosophy. An appropriate class where its merits might be debated would be in a college that offers a class such as this: An introduction to the philosophies of religions around the world.  There it could be debated against other myths, beliefs, abstractions, etc - it could defend its creation beliefs against the creation accounts found in; Hinduism, the Sumerian traditions, the Egyptian traditions; etc; as these are the real competitors to this pseudo-theory.

k.)   The supposed mythical Manichean war of good vs. evil; is a relic of ancient spiritual abstraction and theological philosophy. Christians have imagined into being - a mythical war. Where mythically evil men/women: scientists; armed with knowledge confounded by the mythical devil; are trying to take the souls of good Christian children and deliver them to the devils mythical domain and into the mythos-pit; for eternity!  . . . But back here in reality; stepping out of the imagined realms of the mythological mindset; scientists are doing the opposite of evil; and simply extending our knowledge-base. There is no war; except for them, to wage war against the tedium of mythical assumptions.

l.)  Evolution offers facts, working theories and new facts to support it; every single day.  It explains, expounds, increases and reveals.

Evolution is supported by facts, of the natural world. Creation evidences this creation; not beyond realms; and it speaks loudly about the here and now. Evolution is the rule - how creation has found its legs, has begun to walk about and admire itself.

m.)    Intelligent design is pure bunk; the knowledge-base and reasoning skills at the Discovery Institute and the Templeton Foundation are minimal at best. Why? On paper it would seem – they have some brain-power to spare! And spare it they have. Instead of science they choose mythology, abstraction a supernatural magic; over trying to describe and document a process. Their ideas are a combination of sophistry; mythology; misinterpretations; misleading motives; and an appeal to suspect authority to influence those out of the-know. This is a “Wedge”; a subtle indoctrination; into “belief” in god (or lets say Zeus, what’s in name; or label; it’s all good; god-label glory). It is misdirection, by calling it science-theory, which is tantamount to a lie. I admit this sounds a bit like an ad hominem in the extreme - but “belief” systems (religion!) masquerading as science is a planned thought-out pure-deception; this planned attempt to “Wedge” myth into science.

             They’re spouting pure useless garbage about mythology, ontology, theology and the always-bad-assumptive Aristotelean philosophy on finely-tuned micro-scale; all this exists as god-magic on the micro-intuitive level. It’s another abstraction new game - Stupido-Maximus(!) And here is why! Inference of any god is irrelevant to any discussion about a working-processes; even if a Zeus type character does exist (it doesn’t matter if Zeus does or does not); for if it does then it (Zeus) has a nature; and it ceases to be super-natural. Only if Zeus does not exist can it be truly super-natural; else it is nature. The label describes nothing EVER, other than a “belief” system.  In the Zeus vs. explanation department; I will take explanation every day – because Zeus-theory is not science – ever.

Zeus can only be super-natural if he doesn’t exist. If Zeus’s existence is detected he ceases to be super-natural; and just becomes a part of describable nature. All of super-nature is pure mythology - if it isn’t then it is nature.

      Intelligent design would like to make you “believe” this: that a critique of unanswered data; possible gaps in knowledge; and/or theory – equates – to alternate theory. This is utterly un-scientific! A critique gives rise to further study – not the acknowledgment of “belief” in magic.

      I shall no longer refer to intelligent design as intelligent design. It is not intelligent (it is mythical on a micro scale); and it is not actually design (it infers magic; not design as the reason). This is the Wedge-advocates misleading and intentional “sound-byte” style name (intelligent design).

But intelligent and about design it is not; a more appropriate label would be Micro-Zeus Magic.

Micro-Zeus Magic theory states that whenever there is a gap in scientific fact and or theory; a possible critique therein; this does not give rise to further study to find an answer (?); why? Because (instead; we must mythically ooh and ah) we must agree with these micro-tuner-god “believers” and acknowledge that magic is the reason.

Micro-Zeus Magic theory ver.1: states that according to micro-tuner-god “believers” there exists an “Irreducible Complexity” within living systems. And instead of trying to explain them the micro-tuner-god “believers” would rather attribute this complexity to magic.

Micro-Zeus Magic theory ver.2: states some things are so complex to the micro-tuner-god “believers” as to imply that they are designed; not random – thus “the Complexity-Specification Criterion.” Sound impressive! It’s not. It’s just more complexity by magic theory.

      Both are mere variants of the same idea; the proponents of Micro-Zeus Magic theories cannot comprehend nature’s apparent random processes. But nature is not really that random; this is their first error. When they think of Darwinian evolution they can only hear two words “fittest” and “random,” they’re mythical mind-set is stuck on these. But are the laws of physics and chemistry random? No. The chaos that gave rise to these laws has long since passed; and what is here and now; is a rule based system; dependent upon itself; and quite ordered; which has given rise to life. Does the Moon behave randomly? No. And thus we have a stable global weather environment in which life can develop interdependent and complex ecosystems.                      

      Random mutation is a vehicle for change; but DNA does more than that. DNA is an accumulator of life building knowledge. It is redundant. It contains non-functioning code-relics. It’s expressive.

Chaos has delivered this order; a self-made system; non-dependent on outside agents. Chance has delivered this order to Earth; in terms of material and chance proximity to the Sun. We came to be; and we exist; dependent upon the Sun, this Earth, and the Universal origins of order that came to be after an event horizon was breached, this is what makes sense – magic does not.


The idea of a placing a religious “Wedge” (this Micro-Zeus Magic Theory); like a splinter into the door of a solid scientific education of any child is: transparently deceptive; disingenuous; counter-productive; and without any moral merit.

To view the (CRC’s); the Christians; “Wedge” document refer to:

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html or at;


Among some of the fine points within the document; are these absurdities: all of Western civilization was built on a god-abstraction; all achievements therein (the West) owe to the god-abstraction; science is an infection; science spawned further viral-immoral infections into the political realms; the CRC seeks nothing less than to overthrow science and its legacies (“That source is scientific materialism”). 

SECTION 3 - (more superfluous arguments you need not consider):

Nothing (an uncaused non-event).

A series of precedence mistakes often occur in these backward linear-minds. Example. What I cause to move – moved, I caused something to move; therefore; I am first cause of that movement; in a simple forward-future tense this only makes minimal sense; this cause and effect link is only determinable in the immediate tense in which the cause-effect action has been taken. In complex systems, like life and the Universe, an advanced backward projection of this cause-effect idea unto a first cause concept for the Universe; is not very logical. And the logic disappears in an assumption of mythology. This anthropomorphic projection (this super-being concept; this massive sophistication; on an infinity scale!); is a self-generated pre-existing eternal sophistication beyond reason; is it not even more out of order; than the assumed first cause?

Nothing precedes something:

It is hard to imagine even one photon, appearing out of nothing, but stating that something exists prior to nothing doesn’t follow. A comparison would likely lead one to think that they exist together (nothing and something exist) simultaneously; one state of being is not possible without the other. I discern the limit of something by comparing its edge to an end (nothing). But nothing is a possible state without a something state being extant. A nothing state of being has precedence over a nothing-something comparison state. Nothing, simplicity and chaos exist prior to any sophistication thereafter.

Chaos precedes order:

There can be no system without chaos first. The system is chaotic (apparently); but iterations of interactions with the chaos produce a system; and order; rules will develop within the random interactions over time. A chaotic systems end result; order; are not dependent upon an outside force; it is not dependant on external variables extant beyond of the system. What does that mean? Irregardless of any first cause assumption; a system eventually develops rules (order) based upon the initial conditions of the event and amount of variables extant therein (the system generates the rules; not any assumed first cause). There is a problem here though – the longer a system develops the more unpredictable the future of it becomes.

The future of the Universe: the determination of what will happen in the short term, is measurable and predictable; the more knowledge and working theories we have; the better the near-term accuracy of any prediction. But conversely long-term predictions in complex systems will diminish in accuracy. The further-out the prediction – the greater the error. The end-state of the whole of the Universe is not known; all variables cannot be known. Whether expanding and drifting into hydrogen dust; or collapsing back in on-itself; either end cannot be known. There might be other possibilities; other than just these two. Space-time (matter; energy; the whole of it) might simply cease to exist; in the indeterminate far-off future; or be destroyed; annihilated (as we know it) in a cataclysmic event with another Universe (or large scale quantum-like event).

The order of the Universe (its self dependent systems; laws; rules; etc) that exist now; and the apparent state of the Universe; is not known beyond the event; that which equates to this space-time eruption-event. You can’t backwards think this through either; it is noninvertible; (beyond an event horizon) prior history beyond this order; you can perceive now; is not possible to know. Time before time – it is simply another useless abstraction, when determining facts and theories about the working Universe.

Labeling a “being abstraction – existing beyond space-time” to a name “god,” is useless as well.

Sophistication does not precede simplicity:

Many philosophers (theologians-ontologists) have not understood some of their own abstract philosophical inevitabilities; when considering their god-abstractions. They have tried to convince others (and self; through assumptive reasoning and rationalizations of mythology) that sophistication precedes simplicity; this philosophical inevitability is flawed reasoning and something they might not be aware of. Or maybe they are? In their mistakes; of backward-linear first cause assumptions; they have placed “a sophistication” before all other things. This super-being sophistication defies sense as a pre-existing state (condition) of super-being/super-mind. And to further the assault upon the grey-matter within your head; they claim this sophistication of pre-existing super-being/super-mind has always existed and is uncaused. Even the credulity of child is challenged with this non-sense.

Any five-year olds response to the “god-created-all” statement is, “. . . then who made god?” When speaking of creationism (or Micro-Zeus magic theory) vs. evolution the logic of the creationist-baffled mind-set places an ultimate-sophistication before simplicity; this is illogical.

This concept defies all of known nature; the creation image itself; which reflects how creation came to be. Life, in its entirety, and its origin, has to be considered when contemplating the sophistications therein. DNA is an accumulator; more so than just change by mere mutation. The whole of life must be considered as a large and complex sophistication when considering the question. Does sophistication precede simplicity when considering (the whole; the entirety of life; this) emerging complex system - NO it does not.

While systems can break-down after the emergence of sophistications in complex systems (apex); they do not start out as a sophistication. Complex systems can also be destroyed in their entirety. This, though, is the converse of emergence of sophistication in complex systems (creation); this is a reduction of sophistications to the simple.

Creation out of order (sophistication reductions equate to a more simple-state) defies FACT; defies the way the actual events have happened; defies the image of the creation; both in the Universe’s origins and Life’s origins. The creation-baffled mind-set has a sophistication creating a less-sophisticated creation. This ordered-sequence would work with a: destruction-reduction-concept, though – sophistication reductions equate to a more simple-state; but this is not a creation of complex systems; rather this sequence implies a destruction; reduction event.                      

a.) Simplicity is chaos; simplicity is chaotic in appearance; which gives rise to order; rules; and sophistications; based upon (iterations of) system-self-interaction.

Simplicity precedes sophistication.

b.) Apex (which is a sophistication) in complex systems does not precede simplicity either. Apex is a localization within a complex system, an isolation of variables excluded from the whole; that is a non-transferable analogy (apex: a cusp there-after; stagnate; a breakdown; degeneration); that cannot be transferred to the whole of the system. Simplicity precedes apex-sophistication; as well.

c.) Destruction events remove sophistications to the more simplistic state; which again is apparently chaotic.

d.) Re-emergence: new sophistications, based upon destruction events, can arise from the new apparent chaos.

First cause - or possible infinite causal list.

Of course this, causal list, is a quite possibly infinite; or apparently infinite. The possibility that life arose is not a chance occurrence based upon probability – for life does exist – in this iteration of the Universe. An expanding-contracting Universe could do this [expand-contract-action] nearly ad infinitum – you simply exist in the iteration whence life did arise in this Universe (or Multi-verse; if there are an infinite number of dimensional Universes).

A local Universe: Does this universe exists as a finite; bound event? Is it unbounded? Expanding in an unbound fashion? This Universe is all we know, but this does not even preclude the simple 3-dimensional possibility of another Universe; local and bound to itself; existing beyond the expanding event horizon of this Universe. There could quite possibly be an infinite-like number of localized events equating to what we call our Universe; beyond our own event horizon.

Thus . . . The theories and facts of evolutional theory describe the aspects and details of life’s origins; within this iteration called our Universe (and there need be only 1 iteration). A statistical calculation; this assumption of improbability of life evolving is just another useless philosophical abstraction (a pointless calculation of; do “fantasies-in-mind” exist as a statistical probability; it’s utterly useless) – for life does exist – in this iteration of the Universe. An abstraction describes nothing but the abstraction.

The anthropic principle (a fine tuned for [human] life Universe):

The “Universe-belongs-to-man” principle; or; the “Universe-is-all-about-man” principle; suggests that any thing we try to explain (about the Universe) must be consistent with our human existence; we’re here aren’t we. It’s a truism!

The anthropic principle dictates (suggests) that the Universe is fine-tuned (the 20+/- physical constants; exist in a balance; that is fine-tuned) making the existence of life as we know it possible. If you change any of the 20+/- physical constants, life, as known to us, wouldn’t be possible.  I would guess that this balance relationship would have to be true then, since I do exist based upon the laws found in this Universe.

This anthropic principle provides no value as an idea. As a statement it contains a misleading and unnecessary qualifier (fine-tuned) – stripping that off, we are left with:

Human explanations of this Universe will be done by humans that exist. The 20+/- physical constants in this Universe exist in a balance; that matches the balance that is of this Universe; life’s existence is also based upon this balance.

In this context it hardly seems like a revelation of understanding. Replacement of “fine-tuned” with “balance” a more objective word; yields a relatively modest statement. You would expect the constants to exist in a balance that matches life’s existence – now wouldn’t you.  

Consider my neighbor. . .

My neighbor won the lottery. . . . Gee, what are the odds of that?  . . . Approximately 1 in 64 million?  . . .  WRONG, that’s the odds going in - I told you that he did win the lottery. . . . So, what are the odds of that?  . . . A certainty; a 1 in 1 chance – RIGHT, for he has already won the lottery. Fine-tuning and odds after-the-fact, both are meaningless, in the face of a possibility realized.

The anthropic meaning of life principle: Is this an anthropical-ly consistent statement?

I don’t exist. I did when I typed this; but I don’t anymore.

 f (my-life) = any(x)/dead: as dead → ∞:  f (my-life) = 0.

And I was so sure I existed! . . . I thought therefore I was.

Cause of God; God as cause (abstraction).

The concept of sophistication-of-being-and-super-mind preceding a nothing-state; or simplicity; seems too absurd as to give rise to a better causal sequence → if God? Then some Universe, or an initially chaotic event happens first. If a god-being is to find being (existence); this ultimate sophistication of being; within a Universe (or event); it would exist closer to an apex (or end; destruction; end of a Universe) than at its beginnings (origin of a Universe; or event). God in this more appropriate sequence of (causal) events could be a RESULT (resultant sophistication) and NOT a CAUSE.

God (abstraction) created (to be created; to exist) or exists is still mere assumption.


a.) The nothing-state is an uncaused non-event. It requires no action, event or cause.

b.) Nothing precedes something, and simplicity certainly precedes sophistication.

c.) This super-being sophistication defies sense as an un-caused pre-existing state (condition) of super-being/super-mind. It defies all-sense; this sophistication preceding other more plausible initial states - it is an example of a creation out of order. Only nothing can be pre-existing and un-caused.

d.) First cause is an unreasonable philosophical tenet. It is mere sophistry, in an attempt to rectify, and rationalize mythology.

e.) The possibility that life arose is not a chance occurrence based upon probability – for life does exist – in this iteration of the Universe; and there need only be one iteration therein.

f.) On the idea of an assumed sophistication of super-like-mind and being: in a corrected sequence of events would be a resultant-sophistication and not a cause.

g.) There is no such thing as a supernatural god - it cannot exist. For anything to exist requires a non-infinite existence. Only nothing is infinite. A finite quality is necessary for any being; whether ultimate-like in sophistication or not. To exist in super-nature; would mean to exist beyond all-natures; beyond all realities; an existence beyond a necessary finite-self; as nothing. Existence requires an any-reality; any-nature; type existence; and this is not supernatural. Nothing is the only supernatural state; but; to bad; it is also non-existence. Therefore there is no such thing as a supernatural god.

SECTION 4 - (the superfluous; contemplations of teleological Micro-Zeus Magic Theory):

If a watch is found lying on the ground in the woods, upon examining we can see that it is very complex and we might conclude that this object is too complicated to have emerged out of nothing, we might assert that there must have been a watchmaker. Since the Universe is vastly more complicated than a watch it follows that the Universe must also have had a designer. (A summation of the famous watchmaker's argument by William Paley)

The errors of the arguments (above) are actually open and notorious; it’s odd that one could even conceive that this is sound thinking in any way.

1.) If a man-made object which is clearly man-made like a watch, is found; did a man make it?

2.) What if the object is more primitive, like a broken rock used for cutting the hide off of an animal? If a man-made object which is not clearly man-made, is found; did a man make it?

3.) What if the object is actually from an alien (other world) design; say a complex signaling devicewith never before seen stylistic symbols on it; if this item is found; did a man make it?

In all 3 scenarios, the simple omission of the words: god, intelligent and design have been left out. The inference of a supernatural agent is intentionally eliminated in the questioning statement; that god is not a possible cause. And in all 3 scenarios; in the first premise-statement; the maker of the object was revealed, 1.) man, 2.) man and 3.) an alien.  . . . If you omit the facts (who made it) within the premise; and you substitute god (and not intelligence) as a possible originator (maker), does the reasoning make sense?

4.) If an object which is clearly not a naturally occurring object like a watch; is found; did god make it?

5.) If an object which might not occur by natural process, is found; did god make it?

6.) What if a complex signaling device with stylistic symbols on it that has never been known to exist before; is found; did god make it?

In all 3 cases, knowing the facts from 1-3, together with the wording of the argument (choosing god over intelligence) prejudices the validity of the questioning statements in 4-6. There is no logic, or validity, inherent within false questioning-statements when the facts are known. Irregardless (of the facts though) is there solid reasoning within the logic? Let’s change the all the statements and questions again . . .

7.) If a naturally occurring 6-pointed perfect symmetrical snowflake is examined who do you attribute the construction of the snowflake to – an intelligence-agent, or to cold air combined with moisture?

8.) If a new species of animal that has never been documented; or mentioned in history; before is discovered do we attribute it to recent spontaneous creation by an intelligent-agent, or simply to – we (men) just never encountered it before?

9.) While walking over a steel suspension bridge we wonder who is responsible for the “intelligent design” of this engineering. Do we attribute the design to god or a man or another intelligent-agent?

The attempt to infer supernatural influence logically doesn’t take hold in the 7-9 statement-questions either. And the reasonable conclusions are certainly not supernatural. 7.) Generally a, snowflake simply happens, when there is falling moisture and a temperature that is cold enough fur such. 8.) A new species is simply one that has not been discovered until now. 9.) A human engineered the “intelligent design” that went into the making of the bridge.  

Do we infer supernatural forces are responsible for the formation of the Grand Canyon , or by the natural process of erosion of the water flow within the river, together with the effects of rain, snow, wind and the freeze-thaw cycle? There apparently is no design to the river and thus no intelligent designer behind this formation; yet there is purpose; and value; and design elements within the natural construct of a river. Is a river random or governed by a set of natural laws? It is governed by natural physical laws and is only apparently random.

And life is the same. It is not actually a random occurrence – how can it be. If life was simply a random occurrence then there could not be any physics; chemistry; etc – yet there is; and there are many natural laws. Life and evolution are a law; an order; upon another order; law subject to law. But do we infer nature or super-nature when defining these structures? Do we start out in a calculus-text-book with “God created calculus?” No – the text covers the rules; the order; the laws; the structure; theory and knowledge; attributing the any order; any law; any rule within the Universe to God is fine; personally; but it has no merit whatsoever within any text-book; it is not part of science. It is not part of the definition of the laws inherent within nature.

It cannot be denied by anyone that DNA encodes life, change it and the life form is changed. Therefore a life-form is not constant in detail; if the details can be changed. Who is responsible for the changes that have occurred, and do occur, chance (nature: random modification) or god (a micro intuitive designer)? The orderly modifications are natural and randomly occurring (unimpeded by any supernatural force) based upon another order; the laws of chemistry and physics.

Consider this “intelligent design”,

10.) If a red tomato is chosen over a green tomato; by a customer; is it because god made the red tomato more appealing by design; or did a molecular biologist modify the DNA (the design) of the tomato?

The DNA was modified (the design was changed) by a man – and the genetically modified tomato is a FACT. Did the micro-intuitive-god stop this? No. Why not? Most likely because there are no supernatural forces at work preventing the tomato DNA from being changed; this would extend to both man (direct and intelligent) and to nature (indirect; apparently random; non-intelligent; yet governed by physical laws). The changing of DNA is a process unimpeded by any supernatural forces; life changes as the design changes; if DNA changes so does the life form. Evolution is a process unimpeded by supernatural forces.


 I think the eye is the least mysterious of all confounds that perplex the “intelligent design” advocates. How could an eye develop? The simpler you think on this idea the easier it is to conceive of.

I have (possible future eyes; in-a-sense) sense receptors covering nearly every square inch of my body. Can these sense receptors actually see though? No, but they send signals to my brain. I possess the same structure that a long distant common ancestor; an animal had; a nervous-system - a pre-evolved structure ripe for modification. Any localized sensitivity to light within these sense-receptors already hardwired to the nervous-system; could cause signals to be transmitted to the nervous system; and in turn to a brain. In an organism significantly simpler than a man; that could over time equate to the simple recognition of shadow and light by this sense-cell and primitive nervous system combination. Any advantage to this minor variation in cell use; that leads to continued existence will cause the heredity of this changed DNA code to be passed on.

This is an example of simple integration of pre-evolved structures. The original uses have been modified and an interdependent system has risen by chance and survival-benefit. A group of surface cells that evolved for one reason are now used for a different reason other than their original naturally designed purpose. A group of nerve cells now transmit new and different data; its original naturally evolved purpose has been modified by chance and value; creating a new purpose for the nerve cells; a new purpose for the sense receptors. The system is complicated, integrated and interdependent; but it is not irreducibly complex.

Final Conclusion

Micro-Zeus-Magic theory is super-nature bunk. This theory has a beyond-like quality of being; a super-like quality of being to it; so it is therefore super-stupid.