God Talk: Debates and Discussions with Believers

These are actual conversations that have taken place between religious believers and myself, through forums, email, dialogue, etc.

A House Builder Built on Sand

Christian: I don't believe in builders of houses!

Rebuttal: Spare me your nonsense. A house is a man-made thing, by definition. We have no reason for concluding that the world or the universe is created though.

Christian: So, you're saying, the building is proof and evidence of the builder even, if there is no proof of their existance because, buildings are man-made?

Rebuttal: I'm saying that a house is man-made, because no such thing occurs in nature. We have experience with houses, we've seen them built and some of us have even built them ourselves. However, for you to imply that nature itself is designed is an undemonstrated failure in the analogy. We know what is designed because we have nature to compare it to. If you argue that nature is designed, you strip the word "design" of its meaning, and on top of that, you have no evidence for your claim.

Christian: I believe that houses can occur in nature, all you need is enough time and (BAM!) You have a functioning house.

Rebuttal: More strawmen! I already said houses can be nothing but man-made, so spare me your ridiculous analogies. We don't observe nature being designed, so you'll have to make a better argument than an analogy that begs the question.

Christian: Why houses can be nothing but man-made? Does a Male Dog, and female need to mate to reproduce? They reproduce a dog by design.

Rebuttal: I can hardly believe you're asking why houses can only be man-made. A house is a human concept we devised to explain a certain type of shelter we've developed for ourselves. Calling anything else a house is either metaphor or nonsense.

Yes, dogs reproduce (hey, you learned something in school after all!), but how in the world does that advocate design? The fact that they can produce offspring is only evidence that they can produce offspring.

Christian: You believe that houses can only be man-made but, cannot see how the universe had to have a creator. (Dogs and copies machines) have something in common they are DESIGNED to reproduce a result from existing information.

Rebuttal: No, I don't "believe" that houses can only be man-made, I KNOW that they can only be man-made. It's a fact, and your denial of it is just too sad. The origins of the universe are more mysterious to us than a house, because we fully grasp what a house is, and we've seen people build houses and maybe even built houses ourselves. We have no experience of the universe being created and we're still learning about what it is, so comparing it to a house is ridiculous on many levels.

Christian: Exactly, God is beyond our understanding yet he created the universe. The unseen builder of the universe.

Rebuttal: Wow. You must've completed missed the point of my comment. If God is beyond our understanding, you might as well be saying a gfrenkernkfv is responsible for the universe. Essentially, you're saying that an unseen and UNKNOWABLE builder created the universe. I don't even know where to begin with such nonsense.

As for the dogs and copiers crap, I may just grant you that dogs are "designed" to reproduce... but it's the work of natural selection, not of any creator god. Animals that are best suited to their environment will have better odds of survival, and this includes their ability to reproduce. It hardly provides evidence of design though. I wonder if you'd say a barren woman or impotent man is designed NOT to reproduce.

Christian: Natural selection is selection from existing information which is "designed" to do that. A barren woman or man were orginally "designed" to reproduce but, for some reason they cannot. They were still designed from the start. If a T.V. doesnt work does that mean it did not have a designer?

Rebuttal: The existing information that stimulates selection is the environment. Organisms that reproduce have an increased chance of surviving through the genes they pass on. If you want to claim that there is some guiding force behind natural selection, I'll simply point out that it's unproven speculation that contributes nothing to our understanding. Once again, a T.V. is a man-made object by definition. You're comparing the mystery of nature to well-known human devices, and you don't see the flaw in that?

Like I said before, equating design with what we observe in nature will strip the word "design" of its meaning. Your analogy of the house builder failed at its inception, but you try to probe deeper and provide evidence of design in nature. All you keep coming up with are phenomena that we know to be designed, because we have designed them ourselves. You assume the conclusion in the question. Reproduction is harder for you to make your case on because it is natural, not man-made, and is therefore not as easy to find design in. If there's no clear evidence of your house builder, and it's not even clear that there's a house in the sense you claim, then you've cut the ground out from under yourself. Or rather, I should say, it's an analogy built on sand.