The ontological argument for God Refuted

I saw a blog post by a theist with the username “DarkZealotOfPeace” claiming to have proof for the origin of god and in this blog post I’m going to debunk what he says.

 

The atheistic universe of blind-force can NEVER cause any sort of ordering.Naturally ,order decreases with time but according to evolution ,it’s the opposite.That’s the easiest way to refute atheism in just a few lines !Even by using one’s wisdom one must realize that everything had to come from something that had always existed i.e is causeless.This is the only way how our reality of cause-and-effect can operate.If every effect had a cause which is also an effect of another cause and so on ,the universe could not exist -reality as we know it would not and will not exist !One might even ask .Where did the universe and all the matter and energy it contains come from? Where did the old,unexploded universe come from?Where did it originate from? Where did it’s origin originate from etc. etc.It’s like asking the foolish set of question that some people dwell on which is —> “who created us ?Then Who created God?Then Who created that God and so on….” therefore we must accept the possibility of a cause which is not an effect (perhaps outside the realm of time itself).Since we clearly DO exist ,there must a source ,an origin from which all things came which itself is not caused by something else.Now one might think okay ,I agree that everything had to come from something uncreated but does it have to be a God ?!

First off, order can arise without design.  Take crystals, they are some of the most ordered structures in the world, yet we don’t automatically say that a crystal making god made them.  It’s just that we can explain why crystal form the way that they do in the light of our knowledge of molecular geometry.  And contrary to what he said, each individual unit won’t automatically move from order to disorder.  Take a protein alpha helix folding, the helix folding spontaneously went from disorder to order.  It all comes down to what configuration is most thermodynamically favorable.  It only seems like things go from order to disorder because the number of possible states that we would recognize as “ordered” are far outnumbered by the states we recognize as being “disordered” but there is no magic force moving everything from order to disorder as he would lead us to believe.

Well the answer to finding proof on the existence of a God is simple .Some might think all things came from the Monad i.e the primeval blob of energy and mass that erupted to cause the big bang.However ,from observation we see that the amount of energy and mass in the universe is finite so it does not seem rational how something eternal and infinite could be having a set value when nothing was there to set such a value.It’s just like trying to add,subtract or multiply the number infinity.This means that the one thing from which the primordial universe and therefore all things came from must be infinite .And since the universe we observe is not infinite by itself we can conclude that the limited universe which we live in is originated (caused) by something infinite which is distinct and separate from the universe itself.

OK, now he’s showing a complete lack of understanding of general relativity and quantum mechanics.  He’s looking at time as something that is entirely different from space when time is another dimension of the space time continuum.  Also, time can run at different rates in the universe.  For example, when one is to go fast, time slows down in their reference frame in accordance with the famous Lorenz transformation where T’=T(1-(v/c)^2)^.5.  Also, time will slow down when subject to gravitational fields and at a singularity, time will stand still.  Contrary to what he claimed, the universe didn’t start with a blob, it started with a singularity and given that gravitational attraction is a function of the mass multiplied by the gravitational constant over the radius squared, a singularity (like in a black hole) has infinitley strong gravity and at a singularity, time stands still.  So the universe always existed, but always has to be defined within the limits of time itself.  It’s not that there was nothing before the big bang, there was just no before the big bang.  And at the quantum level (thee very small) from which our universe started out, things like particle antiparticle pair formation are observed to occur spontaneously.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9402256.pdf

Now let us look at the proof that the creator of the universe is intelligent for there is no other explanation for the world we see around us.WE ourselves are the proof of a single genderless deity who is all-powerful.All things finite are in pairs but infinity cannot have a pair (Yin and yang ,light and darkness ,positive and negative etc.)We need no miracles for proof ,only understanding ,knowledge and wisdom..Not all atheists are morons ,but some are.They keep yapping about “Probability ! ,Probability !” yet they fail to realize that in all “probability” the likelihood of all this coming by chance is so insignificant that the likelihood of a God is more ‘probable’.
Here are some facts that evolution cannot explain
1)There is not a single specimen of a transitional animal and too many “missing links” including for humans when it comes to tracing the evolutionary history of many creatures.

Actually, there are a wide variety of “transitional” forms of animals like Cynagnathus, Westlothania, Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus and Archaeopteryx to name but a few.

sea-lion-big-wallpaper

2)The bodies of plants and animals seem to have the ability to ‘learn’ from the surrounding and pass off that information to descendants in the form of resistance and other mutations.Although a large part of evolution is based on this ,no one can explain how this mechanism came into being.The discovery of nylon-eating bacteria has been used by critics and proponents of creationism and intelligent design, in both print articles and on websites, to challenge creationist or Darwinist claims. These bacteria can produce novel enzymes that allow them to feed on by-products of nylon manufacture which did not exist prior to the invention of nylon in the 1930s.The daily decisions we make about lifestyle, diet, exercise, thought patterns and environment can directly affect the physical sequence of our DNA. Stressful events and factors in our lives can link various methyl groups to our genetics, or change the histones that make up our DNA. Think these changes are too insignificant to notice? Think again. These subtle shifts in the well-being of our nuclei can go so far as to impact the genetics of our children, making them more or less susceptible to hereditary factors such as high blood pressure or life expectancy.Evolution does happen but only for pre-existing creatures with the bodies that have the code for self transformation.

Actually, our DNA cannot  “learn” and we don’t pass on those traits to our offspring.  The only thing that we pass on to our offspring is changes in the DNA sequence in our germ cells.  Things like DNA methylation and Histone modulation only impact the levels of gene expression in that particular cell but they don’t alter the actually DNA sequence, much less in a matter that we could pass on to our offspring.  As for the nylon-eating bacteria, here’s an article about how they EVOLVED.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC167468/pdf/612020.pdf

3)Some intrepid biologists at the University of Southern California (USC) have discovered bacteria that survives on nothing but electricity — rather than food, they eat and excrete pure electrons. These bacteria yet again prove the almost miraculous tenacity of life — but, from a technology standpoint, they might also prove to be useful in enabling the creation of self-powered nanoscale devices that clean up pollution. Some of these bacteria also have the curious ability to form into ‘biocables,’ microbial nanowires that are centimeters long and conduct electricity as well as copper wires — a capability that might one day be tapped to build long, self-assembling subsurface networks for human use.As you may recall from high school biology, almost every living organism consumes sugar to survive. When it gets right down to it, everything you eat is ultimately converted or digested into single molecules of glucose. Without going into the complexities of respiration and metabolism (ATP!), these sugars have excess electrons — and the oxygen you breathe in really wants those electrons. By ferrying electrons from sugar to oxygen, a flow of electrons — i.e. energy — is created, which is then used to carry out various vital tasks around your body (triggering electrons, beating your heart, etc.)

This is just another example of why evolution is true.  The Bacteria merely evolved to utilize the electrical gradient in their electron transport chains.  The Bacteria that use them have a different sequence then their ancestors.  But it’s just an example of how organisms can adapt using preexisting structures.

4)Some say that Humans and Apes share 98% of their DNA but this is untrue.A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize.As far as we know ,it is near impossible to mate with another species.If you try to have a baby between a woman and her pet monkey ,the chances are that no offspring will result.This is another problem when it comes to the evolution of sexual beings.If an ape gave birth to an evolved ape ,that evolved ape is in all probability unable to reproduce without a mate sharing the same DNA.

First of all, humans are apes, just like we’re mammals and just like we’re vertebrates we are apes.  A chimpanzee is more closely related to a human than it is to a gorilla and a gorilla is more closely related to a human than it is to an orangutan and an orangutan is more closely related to a human than it is to a gibbon and this has been confirmed genetically time after time.  Also he is showing a complete lack of understanding of how evolution works.  There is no such thing as a more and less evolved organism, there are more basal organisms and there are more derived ones, i.e. ones that have more in common with the common ancestor of both and those that have less.  But just as there is no discrete point where you can say you lost all of your childhood traits there is no discrete point where the last Australopithecus afarensis (lucy) became the first Homo habilis (hand man).  It’s just that one group of A. Afarensis ultimately gave rise to H. habilis while the other gave rise to A. Africanus and gradually, as the two lines genetically diverged, they would become less and less interfertile until they couldn’t interbreed at all.

5)One would expect that, at the very bottom of the fossil record, the remains of living creatures would be extremely sparse. Contrariwise, the earliest fossil stratum reflects an “explosion of life” that is so profuse it baffles Darwinists. They portray it as one of the “major” mysteries of the history of life.Similar explosions have occurred in history at certain instances and nobody knows why.Some claim that such lifeforms may have been introduced by meteors from other planets but this is a baseless thing cooked up by evolutionist to avoid having to accept creationism .An individual once said “Evolutionists claim that only they do not follow blindly but many of them have toyed with the idea of infections from alien organism .This is fallacious because it presume DNA accidentally occurred elsewhere as well” Another thing to point out is that the idea of Panspermia (that life originated from outside sources) implies that an organism had not only evolved extremely fast since the beginning of time but it also supposes that it’s evolution was so fast that it formed so long ago so as to have then traveled millions of kilometers for thousands of years to reach earth.It also supposes that such life could support itself on such a journey.

Actually, we have a much better understanding of why the Cambrian explosion happened then we do before.  1st, contrary to popular belief, multicellular life is well known to exist before the Cambrian explosion.  1st, some (pre)historical context.  Over the course of the proterozoic eon, there were two “snowball earth” events where the world froze over.  Each time that it melted and, the melt water brought in vast quantities of nutrients that induced vast algal blooms which pumped out vast quantities of oxygen.  When oxygen concentrations increase in the water, multicellular life becomes a highly evolutionary favorable proposition.  After the first one.  After the first one 2200MYA oxygen first became very prevalent in the atmosphere.  Between 2000-750MYA we see a number of organisms such as horodyskia (1500MYA).  The second snowball Earth occurred 750-650MYA and another increase in oxygen concentrations followed.  We then see a wide range of animals known as the Ediacaran fauna from which the organisms involved in the “Cambrian Explosion” came from.  Also, as for the the origin of life, there is a great series of videos made by Jack Szostak on how life arose (see the bottom).

6)The earliest forms of life should be characterized by a lesser complexity than that which supposedly evolved much later. But such is not the case. The so-called “simple” forms of life are “incredibly complex” (Simpson, 15). The alleged upward swing of the evolutionary chain presents many a problem. A fern, for instance, has 500 chromosomes in the nucleus of each of its cells, a crayfish has 200, while humans have only 46. This is an anomaly.Some pose the fallacious “Scaffolding” argument that life was complex and then devolved .But this implies either an overly abnormal ultra-fast evolution into a complex organism before it devolved or it implies the illogical ,that life emerged as more complex forms.

1st of all, his basic assumption that ferns and crayfish are more complex than humans is entirely unfounded.  They, like us are multicellular organisms with a high degree of tissue variation.  2nd, because an organism has more chromosomes doesn’t mean that it has more genetic material simply because there isn’t a set amount of DNA per chromosome. Also, there is no such thing as life “devolving” although, depending on what’s most favorable, an species can become more or less complex (google placozoa).   3rd, even if an organism is multicellular doesn’t mean that it will always have more genetic material.  80% of all the genes in a multicellular organisms are expressed in all the cells and these are housekeeping genes that are required for the cell to function.  It’s only the remaining 20% that are used to differentiate the tissues.

7)Advanced organisms have two sexes. Gradual evolution could not have produced sexuality. To say that it could have done so is to assume that both sexes evolved from the same ancestor at the same time with fully functioning and compatible sexual organs as non-developed sexual organs will cause no offspring to result. Even if one sex of a species evolved, it would have died without a mate. As put by Parker, “…we can’t even imagine that males evolved from females, or vice versa.. ” If sex emerged by accident both sexes needed to have formed from the same parent at the same time ,with compatible sexual organs and also the desire to mate AND the ability to conceive since reproduction of any kind is a complex process.

First of all two sexes could evolve from a common ancestor that wouldn’t have had two sexes.  Here’s how.  The precursor organism could have reproduced hermaphodically but one of the offspring was born with a mutation that had non-functional “female” parts but functional male parts.  It could still mate with another hermaphrodidic organism and thus pass on its genes and some of its descendants would have nonfunctional female parts but functional male ones.  These would become the males and over time they would lose the female part entirely.  Conversely, some of the females hermaphrodites would lose the functionality of their male parts and these would become females and thus the sexes were born.

8)Evolution demands long, uninterrupted spans of time. Yet the geologic record is one of catastrophes that interrupted life on earth. Gould admits that these “great dyings” are a problem because “our strong biases for gradual and continuous change force us to view mass extinctions as anomalous and threatening.For example when the great Ice age occurred ,millions of plant and animals perished yet life reemerged when the ice age receded and such organisms were already adapted to the new surrounding.This also applies to the mass extinction at the end of the age of dinosaurs.

Actually evolution doesn’t “demand” long uninterrupted time to evolve and rate of change in a population can occur at varying rates depending on their rates of reproduction and environmental variation.  The catastrophes wipe out most of the species alive leaving many ecological niches open and when the extinction event is over the survivors evolve to fill those niches in what’s known as an “adaptive radiation”.

9] Now just think,suppose a evolution did happen and a micro organism ‘did’ form by accident.At the immediate second it became alive it had to have the ability to reproduce ,eat,breath,excrete etc.(Characteristics of living things) at the very instant it was born.So how did everything come exactly as life would require it?And that too in a single instant the ‘mistake’ happened?Let us now consider single aspects at a time- So suppose if the organism was born it would have to have evolved the ability to reproduce (Any reproduction is a complex and surgical process and the reproductive capacity of the organism must have been near-perfect RIGHT FROM THE START )But it had no ancestors to evolve the ability from.So it could not multiply (without considering it would die due inability to breath,inability to eat,missing digestive system for specific food it eats etc.) and therefore no offspring.Therefore no life would be there today.The same applies to the other requirements for life.So you see,too many parts of living beings required a sudden leap to have formed and these leaps have had to come about in a controlled and/or meaningful manner.Scientist have created proteins in situations similar to those of a young earth.Guess what.Like DNA,protein does not mean life.It requires an already fully functioning body to be of any use in life processes. Furthermore DNA just floating around does not do anything .You might also see ,that the first DNA organism ‘also’ had to have a DNA containing all the information of the body structure (even though the body structure was by accident-so how did it know?How did it ‘generate’ the information into encoded DNA?) and also a system capable of containing the information and processing it.

Actually, the first organism was far more simple than the most simple bacteria are today and it’s “eating” would have just been diffusion of biomolecules through its membrane.  But while it is true that DNA floating around does not do anything, the same is not true for RNA.  There are RNA sequences that have enzymatic function known as ribozymes and some of these are capable of self-replicating.  So the first organisms didn’t use DNA as its genetic material, it would have used RNA instead.   It would have later evolved the use of proteins and DNA because proteins are better at carrying out enzymatic activity and DNA is better at information storage than RNA, but RNA is still capable of both.  Also, as a side note, no atheists are saying that these things happened by “accident” or “mistake” because for there to be either of those there would have to be an intent behind it.

10) How on earth can a cellular organism form?! Since the cell wall and the organs need to have been accidentally created at the same moment and the cell organs have to be formed ‘inside’ the cell .The cell needs to be able to transport resources (food) in and excrete wastes to prevent dangerous buildup.To do this the cell wall needs to be fine tuned to only allow specific materials in and specific materials out while at the same time any mechanism within the cell must be accidentally ,one that perfectly needs only those resources which are allowed in and specifically produces those chemical products capable of being ejected form the body.This is the argument for intelligent design.
There are many but it’s too long and also difficult to find because most things like this are simply classified as ‘weird’ and then ignored

Well, a more appropriately phrased question would be how did a multi cellular organism form.  And as a side note not all organisms have sell walls.  But not all the organs would have had to have been “created” at the same time and the ancestor of the multicellular organisms would have already been able to carry out cellular functions such as excretion.  It would have started off with a single celled organism reproducing and having the cells remained joined together (which is well documented).  Gradually, some of the cells would alter levels of gene expression to carry out more and more specific functions for the organism.  Initially, these cells would have had the capability to carry out any function that the other cells could for the organism but would better at one function than the other.  Gradually, however, they would become so specialized that they could only carry out one specific set of function and these vecame the first tissues which in turn would have become the first organs.  To show how wrong his presuposition is take our cardiovascular system: we need a heart to pump blood through our system to deliver enough oxygen to our organs so one might argue that we needed a heart from the sart.  Howver, there are a wide variety of animals that can function properly without a heart and this is because their metabolic rates are much lower than our own.  So our “heartless” ancestor may have just had a water vascular system to transport oxygen throughout its system.  But say an alteration in the environment occurred that made a higher metabolic rate more favorable.  If one began to evolve a region of the water vascular system that became specialized in moving the water through the system to increase the flow of oxygen, it would be selected for but at first, while it would have been beneficial for the organism it wouldn’t be necessary for its survival.  But as the metabolic rate of the organism increased with subsequent generations, you would eventually meet a point where the minimum oxygen requirements for the cell could only be met if there was a heart pumping the water through the system.  And if you might ask what about before the water vascular system? well then it would have used diffusion and had an even slower metabolic rate.  But again a system that ultimately gave rise to the water vascular system may have been beneficial at first but not 100% necessary.  But as the organism evolved and its oxygen requirements increased the water vascular system went from being beneficial to necessary for survival.  So, no the organisms don’t need all the organs in place from the start to survive.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC167468/pdf/612020.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC167468/pdf/612020.pdf