The existence of an Absolute Intelligent First Cause has been proven to exist with absolute metaphysical certainty. So why are people still atheists? Are Atheists irrational?


#103

That’s like saying that sulphuric acid sends a message to magnesium and instructs it to separate into magnesium sulphate and hydrogen. And it does it every single time without fail!

Must be an intelligence behind that. Praise be…


#104

It Isn’t exactly like the interaction of chemicals because the processes involved in those interactions are pretty well understood. That isn’t the case with DNA.

When the four nucleotide bases — adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine — are ordered within the DNA strand, the bonding (how they attach to the structure) is understood but the sequencing or ordering of the bases in the structure appears completely random. Yet, the sequencing of the bases is precisely how the information is encoded into the molecule. So the question is how could the complex information that regulates the development of all life on earth have been arrived at completely fortuitously? That information is crucial because its transcription into mRNA molecules serves as the templates for the construction of the myriad of functional protein strands which carry out the millions of tasks within cells which keep living things, well, living. The explanation for how the original sequencing of the bases (I.e., the stored information to regulate all the functions in a living cell) occurred in the first place to permit the production of a sufficiently functional mechanism by which the genetic code could reproduce itself in survivable form remains a mystery.

Long story short: before the genetic code could successfully reproduce itself (and thereby benefit from adaptive change) there had to obtain a sufficiently complex coding (achieved completely by random bonding) which “magically” hit upon the sophisticated information set minimally required to enable the capacity for self-replication. An astoundingly fortuitous event – on a completely different level of causality from the simple chemical reaction in your example.

At least let’s try to represent what needs to be explained – and not explained away – accurately and adequately.


#105

I would say that atheists don’t focus so much on whether God exists or how the universe bagan but on whether God of the Bible exists and whether he created the living things or they came through evolution. They really don’t care about the big bang or the first mover, they just believe in spontaneous order.


#106

The existence of DNA is very odd indeed.


#107

You are asking the wrong question. Evolution includes natural selection, and natural selection is definitely not fortuitous. Consider your ancestors, your billions of ancestors all the way back to that first just-about-alive very primitive proto-cell 3.5 billion years ago. Every single one of those ancestors succeeded in reproducing. Not one failure. Not one. There were trillions of failures along the way, but none of their DNA is around today. Only the successful reproducers among all those billions of earlier generations have passed their DNA on to modern living organisms.

That is not fortuitous, that is a very strict filter ensuring that only successful DNA gets passed on. Anyone who thinks that natural selection is a random process does not understand evolution.

To summarise: “If your parents didn’t have any children, then the chances are you won’t either.”

rossum


#108

It is the right question because we are speaking of how the required complexity of DNA that would make replication possible was arrived at. Natural selection only kicks in after organisms begin to reproduce by replication.

To summarize: “How did any parent come to attain the capacity to have any children BEFORE any children were there to be had?


#109

lihyiyf yifl;uiy7rfi; 'uioi;ug


#110

I tend to shy away from complexity arguments. This is not to say that your argument doesn’t have merit because i think it does. The first organism has complex self organizing principles that makes one wonder how this could have possibly arisen by a chance chemical reaction alone. But what i find even more interesting is that beginning with the very first organism what we see in the evolution of organisms is the fact that they produce effects that prepossesses the existence of an environment; its incredibly suggestive of a teleology in nature that we find things such as sensory perception and nervous systems in nature and yet the physical processes involved in an organisms development when considered in themselves are blind to the environment in which they operate.


#111

Back then it probably wasn’t DNA, but RNA. DNA is not chemically active, while RNA is. RNA can form its own chemically active enzymes, called ribozymes. The RNA only system is much simpler than the current DNA -> RNA -> enzyme system.

We know that random ribozymes can be effective in various roles, see Ekland et al (1995) Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences. A ligase is a ribozyme that links two shorter pieces of RNA together to make a longer piece. Ligases can be found in random RNA sequences.

Spiegelman’s Monster is another example of a short piece of RNA which can replicate, though not self-replicate, in the right conditions.

Do not be mislead by the complexity of modern organisms. Very early organisms were a lot simpler.

Once you have a very simple imperfect replicator, adding complexity is not a big problem.

rossum


#112

This is a strawman of abiogenesis theory. While researchers fully admit not all the steps are known, the point is that there were no large leaps, but rather a large number of small steps, and likely many false starts and dead ends. I would recommend Jack Szostak’s talks found on Youtube for a good series of lectures on the state of abiogenesis research, what is known, and what is yet not known, and where the significant problems are. At no point is abiogenesis about magic leaps:




#113

We cannot categorise Atheists as anything other than that. Not all of them are irrational.
Also, what proof? Debates disappear after a fortnight. How has this not gone viral yet?!?!


#114

It is very real. We are borned from material.


#115

I meant to comment on this post and have finally gotten around to it.

No where did IWantGod agree that “intelligence can arise without a cause.”

His point was that intelligence would be an aspect of the First or Uncaused Cause. Ergo, intelligence in that sense would NOT have arisen, but would simply exist, uncaused.

It isn’t clear to me that merely because intelligent beings might arise, that that necessarily implies intelligence itself would arise, even in those intelligent beings. That would entirely depend upon the relationship that intelligent beings have vis a vis intelligence. We wouldn’t, to take an analogous example, claim truthful beings cause truth to arise in them, but that they recognize the truth that exists independently of them. Intelligence as a phenomenon might be more of an independently existing thing, like truth. Sure, we might speak of someone becoming more truthful, but that doesn’t mean truth is caused or made to arise by them. No more, I suspect, than we would say intelligent beings are the cause of intelligence. They might possess intelligence, but does that necessarily imply that they cause intelligence or somehow bring it about or make it arise in any meaningful sense? It may not arise in any sense at all, but may be simply tuned into or apprehended in some sense.


#116

What are you talking about STT?


#117

I think some atheists genuinely don’t understand why the arguments, particularly from Aquinas, prove the existence of God. But in my experience, every time i have a debated an atheist and backed them in to a corner, they have literally questioned logic itself, they have gone so far as to suggest that perhaps reality is fundamentally irrational which suggests to me at least that a lot of atheists especially some who have come on catholic answers in the past simply don’t want to believe there is a God. It’s not a matter of reason but rather its a matter of ideology and they will excuse themselves from acknowledging the existence of an intelligent first cause any chance they get.

I know the arguments for God’s existence work. They are irrefutable.


#118

You are correct, I phrased my response badly. The implication is that intelligence can exist without a cause.

My underlying point remains, that this shows it is an error to assume (rather than prove) that human intelligence can exist without a cause.

At least one uncaused intelligence exists, therefore it is necessary to show whether human intelligence is, or is nor, another uncaused intelligence.

An atheist, who denies the existence of any and all uncaused intelligences, does not have this particular problem.

rossum


#119

I don’t have to prove that a human intelligence cannot exist without a cause. I simply have to prove the existence of an ultimate intelligent necessary reality upon which all other beings depend for their existence.


#120

Then please do so. So far in this thread the existence of such an entity has been assumed, but not proven.

One point to tackle in your proof. Are the actions of such a necessary entity necessary or not necessary?

rossum


#121

Please explain. What has been assumed? Have you read all my posts.


#122

About the fact we are material.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.