I always find it amusing when misguided people try and use logic to prove the existence of that which does not exist. The latest attempt comes from Canada Free Press (!). Shall we gloss over the obvious failings of this article (there are many, like assuming that all reproduction is reliant on two genders, certain organs, which just isn’t true)? I could pick apart every argument he clumsily puts forward, but quite frankly we’ve all been down this path before, and it’s not a challenge, nor is it entertaining. I encourage you to take up the opportunity in the comments though.
Let’s look at the crux of the article’s argument.
No one in their right mind would claim that 10,000 hundred story buildings built themselves from randomness, even over time. Yet those who doubt the existence of a Creator believe that an entire universe, containing all of the billions of elements necessary for life to form, may have come about without a builder. As such, they give credence to billions of times more coincidences to having come about.
Now clearly, I am an Atheist. And I know many other Atheists. Yet I’ve never heard any of them claim that buildings can build themselves. Likewise, we don’t claim that humans have built themselves. The above quote really belies the author’s complete lack of understanding of evolution. It would appear that the author’s intention is to argue that the sheer complexity of the universe means that it cannot have happened randomly. Something must have sparked this surge of life. And that something must be “The Creator”. What isn’t clear is how a being so complex that they can create a universe of this complexity was created themselves. And how the being that created that being was created? if you assume that anything of any complexity must have been created, there really is no beginning. It’s one of the most flawed, illogical, self-defeating arguments I’ve ever had the misfortune of stumbling across (thank you Richard Dawkins!).
And by the way, if the Author doesn’t realize that the opening line alone means that he’s floated into the land of Personal Incredulity, he should read some real books. Not the hokum pokum the exploitative Anthony Flew churned out.
So what do we have on the other side of the argument? I was fascinated to read in New Scientist about experiments that have shown bacteria making massive evolutionary hurdles in just 44,000 generations. To be clear, these bacterium have evolved to a point where they have lost one of the limitations that effectively defined them as a species. It would appear that the seeds were sown as early as the 20,000th generation, which is a truly remarkable find. What makes this even more remarkable is the fact that this has been reproduced. It’s evolution “on-tap”.
Both pieces of news came across my inbox the same day, and really serve as a microcosm of the two sides of the argument. On the one side we have the religious, regurgitating the same old flawed, defeated, arguments in new and badly written diatribes. On the other side we have science. Tests, experiements, results and reproducable scenarios. The absurdity of the fact that such a so-called argument even exists is clearly evident.
“On the one side we have the religious, regurgitating the same old flawed, defeated, arguments in new and badly written diatribes. On the other side we have science. Tests, experiements, results and reproducable scenarios. The absurdity of the fact that such a so-called argument even exists is clearly evident.”
– Most science has tests, experiements, results and reproducable scenarios… no doubt about it.
But the problem with evolutionary “science” is that it doesnt really meet the “quality standards” of science.
Ill illustrate with just a small example:- the report of the bacterium evolving to a “point where they have lost one of the limitations that effectively defined them as a species.” is merely evident of genetic changes taking place in living organisms…nothing more, nothing less.
This simple fact of genetic changes (that most educated religious people acknowledge as a trait of living beings)is stretched by some people, to serve as “irrefutable evidence” for their actual claim – that life forms evolved from a single cell to intelligent humans.
The fact that science can never observe the actual claim just gets swept under the carpet. All thats left is an assumption inflated with the hot air of “evolutionary science”.
One can only ‘believe’ that “evolutionary science” indeed has final and binding evidence to support their hopes and faith…that there really is nothing beyond what we have observed.
“What isn’t clear is how a being so complex that they can create a universe of this complexity was created themselves. And how the being that created that being was created? if you assume that anything of any complexity must have been created, there really is no beginning. It’s one of the most flawed, illogical, self-defeating arguments I’ve ever had the misfortune of stumbling across (thank you Richard Dawkins!)”
Psuedo-intellectuals like Richard are often portrayed as torchbearers for “reason” and “logic”. I wonder if men like Dawkins realize that the scientific findings of the universe, i.e that it had a point of origin- actually work in favour of the theistic side of the debate…that once upon a time, there was nothing in existence.
Popping up the old “If God created the universe, then who created God?” argument, (which Richard Dawkins rephrases in more colorful words, based on his stunted understanding of the nature of God,) doesnt do anything to confound the theistic explanations for life or, for that matter, defend the non-theistic viewpoint.
Do you mean in that God defies reason and logic, and therefore if you try and apply reason and logic to him you will fail? You could say as much about any fictional, irrational thing.
The theists argument has a starting point of assuming that things which are complex and intricate do not come into existence on their own, a designer must do it. The atheist’s response is to ask “isn’t god supposed to be complex and intricate? If even a bacteria is too complex to have come into existence without a designer, then either god is less complex than an ameoba, or someone designed god.”
Of course the whole argument is silly since no evolutionist claims that things popped into existence randomly.
seeing as we believe god created reason and logic, yes he can defy it. parents create rules for their kids that they themselves don’t follow all the time.
and for the second paragraph, intricate and complex things that CAME into existence had a designer. we believe god always was and is, he had no beginning point
How does that argument not favor the atheist viewpoint? The argument is simple – if you are going to back your opinion with a statement, be sure that the statement does not refute your belief simultaneously. If the universe is too complex to be created by something other than a higher power, why is the higher power even here in the first place?
Nothing more, nothing less than clear proof that the underlying theory behind evolution i.e. genetic mutations improving the species, is not just possible but reproducable in tests. I never claimed that this experiment proved anything other than that. And in my experience, the vast majority of religious people aren’t open to the theory of evolution and are offended by the implication that they evolved from monkeys. And while I’m not claiming that evolution within bacterium proves that we evolved from primates, it does prove the concept is sound and sets a basic acceptance that genetic mutation extreme enough to change the characteristics that define a species exists and can occur reasonably quickly.
What I don’t see is any hint of evidence that a god exists. And to say Richard Dawkins, or anyone else for that matter, doesn’t understand the nature of god is like saying they don’t understand the nature of Harry Potter.
But… doesn’t it kind of make sense to know about Harry Potter before going on claiming how ridiculous he is?
And things like Astral Projection and the like haven’t been explained very far by science, as far as I know… it could very possibly be the link to God.
And, God’s omnipotent, right? So couldn’t he have just sparked evolution and watched as we tried to figure everything out?
/<3
Understanding god, any god, simply isn’t possible. For example, if I said to you I had invented a substance I call “foo” and ask you to define it, you couldn’t. If matters were further complicated by several different people giving you definitions of “foo”, would that help? Bear in mind you don’t actually have access to “foo” to substantiate any of the claims. You could blindly believe one of the posited definitions, or you could make up your own.
That’s the situation with gods. There are many definitions of gods from many different sources. None of these can actually substantiated because no one has access to a god to evaluate the claims. We can look at some of the specific definitions of gods and disprove, or at least discredit them, but nothing more.
As for god starting evolution and leaving us to it, would it really be a god if it did that? It certainly wouldn’t be a god as defined by the major monotheistic religions, a god who dropped humans onto the earth. One would imagine god, in order to be considered a god, would have to have done more than simply kick off an existing scientific process.
“And while I’m not claiming that evolution within bacterium proves that we evolved from primates, it does prove the concept is sound and sets a basic acceptance that genetic mutation extreme enough to change the characteristics that define a species exists and can occur reasonably quickly”
The evidence pointing to “genetic mutations improving the species” is valid 100%. I will not dispute that.
But using these legitimate findings to set the “basic acceptance” that you wrote about is the very ‘stretch’ I was talking about. i.e – Frame evidence of mutation as evidence of the larger unprovable claim. That the single cell evolved into the multitude of species.
The real question is not if genetic mutations occur or not, but if millions of years of mutations caused creatures to change in the magnitude that the ToE claims happened. This is what has been concluded by evolutionary “science”, but it has never been observed by science.
For the sole reason that the concept of genetic mutations is integral to evolutionary “science”, evolutionary “scientists” derive the conclusion that it wants.
i.e –
‘if we have observed genetic changes in bacteria evolving rapidly in labs, it suggests that these same changes occuring over millions of years produced the multitude of species as the ToE teaches.’
Good point dg, it would be like when my 1-yr old took his first steps, trying to say I’ve just observed astral-navigation on a small scale. A rational person would have to admit there may be significant problems to overcome in extrapolating a toddler’s steps to traversing to the stars.
DG, I think you’re assuming I’m making a stretch, whereas in reality I am not. All I am saying is that mutation of this type in bacterium proves that living organisms posess the ability to mutate to the point that they cast aside some of the limitations that define them as a species. If, for example, someone wants to put forward the argument that it was evolution of this type that lead to us developing from monkeys, then that’s up to them to prove. Rick and yourself are right, these mutations don’t prove that we evolved from monkeys, but it does show us that within nature mutations are possible. Mutations that are so severe the subjects of them effectively become a new, or sub, species.
If you read back through the original article, and my subsequent comments, you won’t find me claiming that these tests on bacterium prove that we evolved from monkeys. What you will find is my genuine excitement that the kind of mutations that may have lead to us developing into the species we are today have been observed and recreated, and may be reproduced at will. What I would hope is that these findings will lead to further, more detailed experiements on more complex organisms (I’m not getting into the debate about the relative complexity of bacterium, fascinating as they are) that will further prove that genetic mutation that benefits a species is possible.
Or, to give it an analogy. If I pick up a rock and drop it, it will fall to te ground. That doesn’t prove that any other rock, if picked up and dropped, will also fall to the ground. But you won’t find me betting against it based on the evidence to hand. And in terms of evolution, the evidence in hand says that evolution in living organisms is possible, and that’s a start.
Why do you keep insisting we evolved from monkeys? That is a perversion of evolution which merely shows that we developed form a common ancestor. Please get it right.
yes yes. just what I was thinking. it’s bad for the image and the god believers are just so onedimensional in their being offended: “what meee? a monkeyy duuuuhh no blasphemy..”
Yes, of course. I simply started off saying that theists are often offended by the thought of evolving from primates (which they are, even though that’s not what actually happened) and continued with the same phrase for consistency. Also, it’s quicker to type.
Err… what exactly defines a species, then?
Is there a DNA strand that says, “This is THIS species”? And if not, then that means species are human-defined, yes?
Well what if we totally effed up and either looked at the wrong DNA strand (one connected to DNA adaptation, not species differentiating) or gave our species too small of a boundary, so that a considerable amount of adaptation caused the organism to change “species”?
Couldn’t this whole argument of Evolution vs. Non-Evolution just be a simple misunderstanding, based on human error?
I’m serious. I don’t get it.
/<3
The definition of a species is generally defined as a group that is capable of inter-breeding. your absolutely right that this is just a method us humans use to classify organisms and it is fraught with difficulty. There are, for example, organisms that breed asexually, so they are difficult to fit neatly into a species. We also have organisms that belong to the same genus but different species that can breed and produce offspring – see the Liger for an example of this (the result of two members of the Panthera genus, but different species – Panthera leo and Panthera tigris, mating).
However, there is sufficient diversity of organisms to render any but the highest level grouping of them irrelevant. There is also such an abundance of evidence of evolution and natural selection causing speciation that the arbitrary boundaries we draw around organisms based on their traits and ability to breed is also irrelevant. We can redraw the lines if needbe based on other factors, but we will still find evidence for evolution causing speciation.
“…you won’t find me claiming that these tests on bacterium prove that we evolved from monkeys. What you will find is my genuine excitement that the kind of mutations that may have lead to us developing into the species we are today…”
This is a rather fine distinction, isn’t it? Like “I don’t claim it proves X, but it may have”? This begs the question what exactly is the excitement about here. The claim is a bug now metabolizes citrate when before it could not. Has the biochemical pathway for this metabolism been worked out? Apparently not yet. How does the new pathway compare to pre-existing pathways in the bug? What previous pathway no longer does what it once did? No one yet knows. So all we really know is that the DNA of the bug changed in at least 2 genetic points in a manner that, in this case, had some advantage for it.
No one in the creation camp would argue against the reality of the ability of life to do this. Even though the odds are statistially hugely against it, occasionally one of the many kinds of observed DNA mutations will impart some temporary advantage for an organism. Even more rarely, 2 or more successive mutations will do likewise. However all known kinds of random mutations serve to increase the entropy of the DNA code, whether or not some temporary functional advantage is gained by them. Read “In the Beginning Was Information” by Dr. Werner Gitt for more on that. So even these experiments don’t show that “evolution” is moving the DNA in the right direction to support the central idea of evolution, from microbes to men, because you’re losing information in every mutation. Thinking it does is like a business man selling his wares at a $1 lose per-item, but thinking he’ll make it up in volume.
Is because of this “entropy” that natural selection exists. When bad mutations occur, which they most certainly do, or when a phenotype stops being helpful, many factors within the environment help “filter” these genes. Amongst those are sexual selection, and survivability (i.e. If a gene makes a gazelle slower, then it could be easily attacked and eaten by a predator, therefore eliminating her gene from the population’s gene pool).
Albinos in wild populations are quite an example. They can easily be spotted by predators in many if not most environments.
Despite mountians of empirical evidence supporting evolution, religionists continue their invinceable ignorance on it.
But the argument has devolved from the existance of God. Here the atheist need offer no defense for he has made no proposition. The religionist has posited a God. He has yet to prove it.
Wait, so you can prove there’s no God?
Seriously?
/<3
Don’t worry about it; read my comment at the bottom of the page and you’ll see that all proofs are essentially invalid anyway. You can’t prove that there’s a God, but you can’t prove that anything they say in science is true, either. So for all we know, there could be an anything out there. Or nothing.
You are right that the “building” analogy was meant to illustrate that the “sheer complexity of the universe means that it cannot have happened randomly.” Rather than complexity, I would say “order” and “harmony” (the universe is not just a complicated mass of stuff like a tangled ball of wall is).
Dawkins shows his total lack of research (or dishonesty) in suggesting that anyone thinks of the creator as “a being so complex that they can create a universe of this complexity…” A Theology 101 (or even Philosophy 101) student knows that God is the simplest being there is – there are no parts to God – no up or down or inside or outside. Before you jump on that and suggest that I am describing nothing, just remember that your thoughts also have this quality. Take an abstract idea like “your idea of justice” if you really need an example.
Causality is not needed to explain a simple being. There is nothing to be “assembled” so to speak. God can’t not be. Everything else could conceively not be, because it is made up of parts and those parts need an explanation. The most logical explanation is that God, the necessary being made them. The only other explanation is that there is no beginning, but that the chain of causality stretches back without a first event. But that doesn’t make sense: there must have been a first one for there to have been a second one, and so on.
Once again I would like to remind you that evolution even if true does not explain the existence of matter, ie from nothing. It only attempts to explain how matter can change from one thing to another – and when someone finally gives me a good enough reason to think that a bit of slime could gradually become a dog or cat or wombat by purely random means (ie and not by some divine guidance) I’ll be most grateful. Just a small question: are these wonderful 44,000th generation forms still bacteria or something else? I would love to see a series of evolutionary charts where we had something other than a horse at the beginning of a long chain of horses, or a finch at the beginning of the series of finches, or better still an entire functioning universe gradually forming itself out of … nothing at all.
You might find this hard to believe, but these days you need more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator. My arguments come from a book written by a man (Lee Strobel) who worked his but off trying to disprove Christianity, but who became a Christian himself after collecting the overwhelming flood of evidence for a higher being. Here they are:
First of all, actually, I don’t like the article posted about the buildings being created by themselves. That was one of the worst arguments I have ever read. In fact, I feel embarrassed to be fighting on the same side as he(/she?). But you may have noticed that wherever we Christians don’t have an explanation for something, we point towards the sky. And we seem to fit the evidence to the idea, instead of the idea to the evidence, as the scientific and correct way to do things would be. By the way, I’m not mocking anyone during this comment. Everything I say is as is. When I say the correct way, I mean that I truly believe that it is the right way to do it. So here we are, Christians fitting evidence to the idea. But aren’t Darwinists doing the same? Currently, archaeologists worldwide are looking for fossils to prove evolution. And unsuccessfully, I might add. All the fossils that Darwin predicted would exist (the transition species things) have yet to be dug up. And yet you know they’re out there. They have to be. Don’t they? I guess you have to just have FAITH that they exist, instead of looking at the evidence pointing to a higher being. I say again, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator.
Let’s continue with the concept of evolution bringing about new organs. Doesn’t it fit that through the ages, new little mutations could create little changes in your body that eventually become new organs, with a purpose? On the surface, it makes sense. I’d give it a nod and a sideways thumb on solidity, though. Forgive me if there are holes in my arguments, I’m only human, I forget! In fact I invite you, encourage you to challenge this post. You cannot ask one question I cannot answer. But anyways, back to the new organs.
Let’s replace the organ with a mousetrap. A mousetrap is much more simple than even the simplest organ, would you agree? Just the base, spring, catch-ey sensor-ey thingy with the cheese, and the snappy killy thing itself that kills the mouse. Now, the argument with the self synthesizing organ is that little parts of it developed over time, slowly creating the parts necessary for the organ to function. Let’s say you take away part of the mousetrap, any part, like as if it was in construction, not finished yet (like the not-organ). Would it function without the spring? (no force to move snapper thing) Without the base? (just plain fall apart) Without the catch, or sensory thing? (no way to activate it) Without the snapper? (nothing to smash mouse)
Here is the problem. If evolution tends to keep organisms with beneficial attributes, then wouldn’t the mutated organism with half a whositwhatsit get dominated by the organisms that didn’t have to supply nutrients to an organ that didn’t even work yet, taking the nutrients away from the organs that need it?
Please respond, I feel as if my argument wasn’t well done, and would like your comments to point out the faults of my arguments, therefore allowing me to fill in all of the holes I fear I have left. Thanx!
My email is: [email protected]
P.S. – – Please get a copy of “The Case for a Creator”. It’s done by Lee Strobel, who attacks Christianity with every question you all could ever come up with, and noted professors of the topics in which he questions have answers that exceed the question’s boundaries. I don’t know if I worded that well. But anyhow, read the book. If you can maintain atheism after finishing it, I would like to hear every one of your arguments for atheism. In fact, if you can remain atheist after reading “The Case for a Creator”, that would probably pull me from my faith in God. Seriously. That Lee can put up a strong argument on both sides of the issue, both for and against a Creator. BUY IT! EITHER IT WILL BACK UP YOUR ATHEISM, OR WILL CHANGE YOUR MIND. EITHER WAY, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE. In fact, if you want a copy, I’d be willing to buy it and send it too you free of charge. My treat.
thats not the worst argument i’ve ever heard. have you ever heard the argument:
God is love, love is real, therefore god is real
people like this make theists look like idiots haha.
Well, as far as evolution goes, species never really develop half an organ (one-time mutations don’t count). Instead, they’ll develop a simple little one, and add more bits to it.
Like, instead of a hand, we’ll get a mitt. Or, even before that, we’ll have a leg to walk on. Or, even before that, we’ll have a little stub to move us around.
No matter what, it still serves the purpose it needs to. Just, really suckily at first.
And species with a primitive contraption for grabbing fruit still pwn the ones who lack the appendage.
😀
/<3
As a matter of fact, Ipersonally believe that atheist have any substantial prove for their disbelieve so I dont no what ton say for now unless their able to answer “Is faith and reason mutually exclusive?”
are faith and reason mutually compatible?
well, what can we say, it’s the faulty and illogical logic of the masses
You know what I just noticed? Actually, now that I think about it, it’s more of a question than a comment. Does it require two animals of the same species to have he same mutation for them to produce offspring with that same desirable trait? That would make it so much harder for anything to have actually taken place, and nearly impossible for us to come from monkeys, as for each rare desirable mutation, there would have to be a person of the opposite sex with the exact same mutation that would mate with that one organism for the trait to continue even but once.
‘You know what I just noticed? Actually, now that I think about it, it’s more of a question than a comment. Does it require two animals of the same species to have he same mutation for them to produce offspring with that same desirable trait?’
no it doesn’t require two animals of the same species to have the same mutation for it to be passed on. each animal has two sets of genes for each trait such as eye colour one passed on from each parent, the trait that manifests itself will be the dominant set of genes. for example with eye colour if your mother passes on a blue eye gene to you and your father passes on brown eyed genes you will ALWAYS have brown eyes as it is dominant, however if they both pass on blue eye genes you will have blue eyes. therefore the only requirement for a mutation to be passed on to ofspring is for it to be a dominant gene, if it was a recesive gene (ie blue eye colour) then two individuals will need to have that mutation to pass it on.
Nobody but the ignorant has ever seriously claimed that humans came from monkeys. Humans and other primates shared a COMMON ANCESTOR that was neither human nor “monkey.”
And please, let’s not forget that small-scale genetic mutations are far, far from the only compelling evidence for evolutionary history. The fossil record grows more complete every year. Protein and DNA sequence similarity, amongst other molecular evidence, is another indication of genetic history.
It’s easy to nitpick the individual pieces of evidence. But the bottom line is that evolution is a very strong theory that best fits ALL of the evidence we have at this time. It is about as controversial amongst actual scientists — the people who dedicate their careers to the actual study of these matters and who work with the evidence itself on a daily basis — as the theory of plate tectonics (another theory that’s technically “unobservable” because it takes place on a geologic time scale).
You are all mistaken. The final answer is the mystic turtle. The world exists because it is carried by the mystic turtle.
And what carries the mystic turtle? Another mystic turtle. Yes, an infinite loop. What’s the matter?
I don’t see how the shallow concept of a creator makes life easier to understand or bear. OK, there was a start, a first, and everything that exists exists because that non-being used his unfathomable non-willpower to will it so… Great.
That does not really explain anything. And least of all, why one should adhere to some religion.
And if I do not adhere to any religion, then I’m an Agnostic instead of an Atheist, and what good does that make me anyway?
Is the world better because it is not random? Do you sleep better at night thinking you’re here for a reason? Because the mysterious non-being willed you into existence and left you there along without any guidance (and no, do not point towards the Books, as they were all obviously written by men, regardless of faith, for they are full of contradictions and God would need no such media)?
I’d say I don’t care. Whether the Creator exists or not, as long as He does not speak to me directly (without the intervention of people I could deem full of ulterior motives), it makes no difference to me.
You’re not going to convince anyone, even with all the proof neccesary and/or possible will they ever believe it. We just have to wait for natural selection to kill them off.
Many of you have alluded to the fact that evolution is driven by random mutations. However, if one only considers mutation as the driving force behind evolution, it is hard to imagine that life would have gotten anywhere in terms of complexity. Mutation is certainly the dominant force for asexual organisms with shorter reproductive cycles (such as bacteria or viruses). In the case of sexual organisms with longer reproductive cycles — such as human beings — genetic drift, behavioral change due to environmental changes, and interspecies breeding are influential as well. These changes occur over much shorter time scales (between successive generations) and stem from the fact that populations tend to favor the expression of traits that are more beneficial for survival.
Combined with the influence random mutation, these forces do explain why certain species tend to change very gradually over long time periods and then change relatively quickly over shorter time periods (where a beneficial mutation occurs). A “missing link” is not required, as changes among populations are not entirely gradual. Yes, random mutations do tend to inhibit an individual’s ability to survive and reproduce in the general case, and for this reason 9,999,999,999 mutations are not passed on to successive generations. The 1 out of ten billion mutations that is beneficial is amplified in frequency by genetic drift. Humans are an exception to this because of our ability to prolong our own lifetimes through medicine and reproduce anyway, but even we still fit the model in more subtle ways. If randomness were the only driving force behind evolution (i.e. if reproduction also occurred at random as to not favor beneficial traits over non-beneficial ones), then evolution would crawl at a snail’s pace even by geologic standards, and would thus not be valid as a model.
Nevertheless, arguing whether or not evolution is correct seems to be skirting the true issue here. Evolution does not argue against the existence of God, nor does it make the claim that humans evolved from primates. There is fossil and DNA evidence to suggest that human beings and certain primates share a common ancestry, and evolution agrees with this idea. Evolution is the idea that the traits of populations tend to change over time. It is a restatement of the fact that a system will continue to change until it has changed as to counteract the forces that are changing it, applied to life on a grand scale. How grand a scale this occurs on is yet to be fully realized, but many believe that all of life may share a common ancestry.
There is much room left in science for a God. There is no universally accepted model to describe the universe as it was before roughly 10^-43 seconds after its creation (if there was one). The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is a statement of the existence of information that we can never know. The problem atheists have with the religious right (and this does not apply to all religious individuals) is that many are content to accept God as an explanation for everything and leave it at that. This is an excellent thing for people who need something to believe in. Science however treats God the same way as every other hypothesis: held under question until proven definitely by experiment. So far, many specifics about God have been shown to be false, and most believers have amended their idea of God to fit with the model we have for the world today. God has yet to be proven or disproven entirely, and it may exist or it may not. I personally believe that whatever the true answers, they are bound to be much more amazing than what religion postulates.
Now, look at us. We’re all talking about “evidence” that “proves” things. How wonderful, but you’re ignoring two quite obvious facts by assuming that anything is “evidence” for anything else: we don’t know anything except what we see. When we look at something red, at the root of our intelligence, we’re not *seeing* something *red.* We’re seeing something that looks red *to us.* The same can be applied to all scientific “discoveries”; they are based on reasonable assumptions made from observations, reasonable assumptions made from correlations between those reasonable assumptions, and reasonable assumptions made from apparent correspondences between patterns in observations. Even mathematics are based on this; the definitions of numbers are relative to the definitions of other numbers, but if there is not some definition down at the bottom of it all that is related to the nature of the universe, mathematics cannot be used to prove anything about the nature of the universe, as it makes no assertions regarding the nature of the universe. Giving mathematics the benefit of the doubt and going on to state that there is indeed a definition related to the nature of the universe somewhere underneath everything, this definition must be based on reasonable assumptions from apparent correspondences between patterns in quantitative observations. In order to invent basic arithmetic, for instance, one may have looked at three objects and seen a number of objects he could not define, and then removed two of the objects and looked at the one remaining, and then removed one of those two objects and looked at the one remaining, and he would have seen that three objects were composed of the minimum quantity of objects there are when there are not no objects plus itself plus itself. However, this man, when he (for our purposes) invented mathematics, would have left occasions in which this assumption were not true unprecedented, as such an occasion would be mind-blowing and completely illogical. The assumption that it would not happen simply because it was mind-blowing and illogical, while reasonable, was still an assumption. Therefore, at the root of all knowledge lies observations and the small jump necessary to reach the conclusions regarding what they represent. While small, this jump is still a jump; for all we know, I could be dreaming, and maybe none of you even exist. Maybe you’re all figments of my imagination. Or maybe we’re all gods who forgot we were gods and lost our abilities and fell on the world we created, thus explaining why we were never there to monitor what happened on it. Maybe there is indeed one God, but He is not good; He is evil and wants to trick us into believing in science by producing the images that would result in our observations that would in turn result in our assumptions. Who knows why He wants to trick us instead of just killing us straight out? Perhaps He is a disgusting sadist who loves creating creatures just so He can trick them like He’s doing to us, and then suddenly turn off the laws of physics, just when we think we’re on to something, and eat us one-by-one, savoring our tears at the loss of what we once believed to be our dearest friend. On this note, another thing to remember is that just because something has happened for all observable history doesn’t always mean it will continue to happen forever; granted, it appears as though it usually does, but what if one day it didn’t? Sure, that would be weird, but it would be possible nonetheless.
Ah, sorry, I forgot something: the one exception to the general rule that we don’t know anything is the definition. Definitions are the one thing that we know for sure, because when we create a definition binding, in our heads, we’re not binding a meaning to a meaning (that would be an assumption). Rather, we’re binding a meaningless name to a meaning. Actually, forget I said that: if we define something, then by the reflexive property, we must assume that the meaning we’re binding the name to means itself, for if it does not, then upon evaluating the name that we are binding the meaning to, we would find a meaning-meaning minding rather than a name-meaning binding, meaning therefore that we’re making an assumption, and that particular assumption would be proven false by the property of the meaning not being equal to itself.
Should that property exist in the meaning, that is.