Let's consider that JHVH is the first mover, the effect with no cause, 
because He has been around forever and was never created.

Now let's consider that JHVH created Man in His own image.

Doesn't that discredit the Watchmaker's argument?

I mean, if God modeled humans after God, then God has eyes, right? And if 
God has eyes (and all those other irreducibly complex systems) the God 
didn't create those systems.

So doesn't
1) God has always existed
2) God made Man in his Image
3) Man has Irreducibly Complex Systems
imply that irreducibly complex systems have always existed and didn't need 
to be designed?


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4bcbc364$1@news.povray.org...

> Let's consider that JHVH is the first mover, the effect with no cause,
> because He has been around forever and was never created.
>
> Now let's consider that JHVH created Man in His own image.
>
> Doesn't that discredit the Watchmaker's argument?
>
> I mean, if God modeled humans after God, then God has eyes, right?

Not necessarily. If God has eyes (two, I assume, in the front of his head),
can I sneak up behind it? Wouldn't that limit his omniscience? And wouldn't
only having a couple of hundered billion neurons severely limit its
knowledge and ability?

Obviously, it doesn't make sense if one replaces the "image" with "physical
analogue". In fact, I don't think any major sects believe that God is
physical in the sense we come to understand it, so the whole "in his image"
business needs a deeper understanding (if you are religious) or is simply
just another nonsense (if not). Either way, the premise you start with is
not valid.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> In fact, I don't think any major sects believe that God is
> physical in the sense we come to understand it, 

Maybe not any more. Certainly when he was walking around the Garden looking 
for Adam and Eve he was. And he wasn't omniscient or he wouldn't have been 
calling out trying to find them. :-)

> so the whole "in his image" business needs a deeper understanding 

Certainly. But then, if we aren't like him physically, and we weren't 
created in his moral image, and we are still incapable of understanding how 
he thinks, in what sense are we his image?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> Let's consider that JHVH is the first mover, the effect with no cause, 
> because He has been around forever and was never created.
> 
> Now let's consider that JHVH created Man in His own image.
> 
> Doesn't that discredit the Watchmaker's argument?
> 
> I mean, if God modeled humans after God, then God has eyes, right? And 
> if God has eyes (and all those other irreducibly complex systems) the 
> God didn't create those systems.

Man was created in His own image, but you don't go telling eyes of 
statues are the same as yours. ;)

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

On 4/18/2010 7:43 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Let's consider that JHVH is the first mover, the effect with no cause,
> because He has been around forever and was never created.
>
> Now let's consider that JHVH created Man in His own image.
>
> Doesn't that discredit the Watchmaker's argument?
>
> I mean, if God modeled humans after God, then God has eyes, right? And
> if God has eyes (and all those other irreducibly complex systems) the
> God didn't create those systems.
>
> So doesn't
> 1) God has always existed
> 2) God made Man in his Image
> 3) Man has Irreducibly Complex Systems
> imply that irreducibly complex systems have always existed and didn't
> need to be designed?
>
>
Hmm. If you follow from your starting premise, maybe. The problem of 
course that (3) is in error anyway. You can *get* irreducible systems, 
without either needing them to be designed *or* previously existing. 
Basically, lets say that:

GTG did something specific and unique, and so did GTT, but you can have 
mutations, like GTGG, or GTTT, GTGT, or even GTTG, which work like their 
original versions. So, lets say 's' counts as a stop. What you do is 
start with GTTs, make a copy GTTsGTTs, then you mutate it a few 
different ways:
GTTsGTGs
GTTsGTTGs
GGTsGTTs

The last one of those copies is defective, but you still have a working 
copy anyway, and it allows for later getting: GTGTsGTTs But, the GTGs 
version would be "irreducible", once other related genes become 
dependent on that form, causing the GTGTs and GTGGs, etc. versions to 
"break" the system.

The trick here is, if you get several of these tweaks, which are 
inter-reliant, the *intermediary* versions may work with a larger number 
of variations and errors than the final version. At some point though, 
you are likely to run into dependency issues, where your GTGs, or 
variation **must** have that combination it in, to work with the other 
gene some place else, which underwent a similar change, and in the 
process produced new behaviors/functions.

Of thousands of genes involving body plan, segmentation, symmetry, limb 
formation, etc., all of them are derived from a relatives *small* number 
of codes. In some cases the codes are nearly identical for the gene 
that, say, makes fingers grow, but the transcription and developmental 
code is different, producing a new pattern of growth. Other cases "both" 
the transcription/development code *and* the control genes differ, but 
they are still identifiably variations on existing genes, that do 
similar things. Any irreducibility seems to come from a duplicate copy 
changing, and linking up with other changes, to produce a unique result, 
then undergoing subtractions, which fail to disable the new effect, but 
which render reversal to an earlier form impossible.

Given that, they neither could have previously existed, nor is adding a 
designer anything other than adding an unnecessary complication, unless 
you can present grounds to show that one is doing it.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Hmm. If you follow from your starting premise, maybe. The problem of 
> course that (3) is in error anyway. You can *get* irreducible systems, 
> without either needing them to be designed *or* previously existing. 

Certainly. And even if you found an irreducible system that you could 
*prove* could *not* have evolved on its own, that still doesn't point to the 
necessity of a God.

After all, we already have systems like that. Indeed, the whole 
"watchmaker's" argument is predicated on the fact that the watch is indeed 
irreducible enough to need to be designed. It doesn't follow from that that 
God created watches.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Hmm. If you follow from your starting premise, maybe. The problem of 
>> course that (3) is in error anyway. You can *get* irreducible systems, 
>> without either needing them to be designed *or* previously existing. 
> 
> Certainly. And even if you found an irreducible system that you could 
> *prove* could *not* have evolved on its own, that still doesn't point to 
> the necessity of a God.
> 
> After all, we already have systems like that. Indeed, the whole 
> "watchmaker's" argument is predicated on the fact that the watch is 
> indeed irreducible enough to need to be designed. It doesn't follow from 
> that that God created watches.

you guys would enjoy God of War. :)

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> you guys would enjoy God of War. :)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1595-God-of-War-III

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Let's consider that JHVH is the first mover, the effect with no cause, 
> because He has been around forever and was never created.
> 
> Now let's consider that JHVH created Man in His own image.
> 
> Doesn't that discredit the Watchmaker's argument?
> 
> I mean, if God modeled humans after God, then God has eyes, right? And 
> if God has eyes (and all those other irreducibly complex systems) the 
> God didn't create those systems.

Unless making man in God's image means that man was gifted with free 
will, a very common interpretation.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> In fact, I don't think any major sects believe that God is
>> physical in the sense we come to understand it, 
> 
> Maybe not any more. Certainly when he was walking around the Garden 
> looking for Adam and Eve he was.

Unless that is an analogy using the words that come closest to what God 
was doing.

> And he wasn't omniscient or he wouldn't have been calling out trying
 > to find them. :-)

By that reasoning, math teachers don't know what two plus two is.

>> so the whole "in his image" business needs a deeper understanding 
> 
> Certainly. But then, if we aren't like him physically, and we weren't 
> created in his moral image, and we are still incapable of understanding 
> how he thinks, in what sense are we his image?

We *were* created in His moral image, that of sinless perfection.  But 
all of us have blown it through sin.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message