In a sense, the author is looking at God through the wrong end of a telescope.
To use his own evidentiary processes:
My DNA is proof that a larger organism exists. I flake DNA off all the time. I left some at the pizza place half an hour ago. My DNA at the pizza place is evidence of the existence of me. Without me existing first, that strand of DNA I left on the counter would not and could not exist to be left there -- and yet, now, that strand of DNA is out there all alone, impossible for it to ever rejoin the being that spawned it, impossible for it to ever even detect its progenitor, and yet... here I am, bored, beerless and writing shitty LJ messages.
So the inept logician who wrote the book that I've already forgotten the title of, by his own evidentiary processes, seems to believe that if a strand of my DNA exists at the pizza place, for me to also exist, that strand of DNA must be able to witness me. If that strand of DNA, using every ability at its disposal, every power it possesses, cannot detect me... this makes it probable that I don't exist. And yet -- by a science that you and the author would swear by -- the existence of that strand of DNA on the pizza counter not only makes it probable that I exist, it mandates it.
How come you're able to look down your microscope and see my DNA on the pizza counter that is even now furiously trying to replicate itself into an image of its progenitor, and accept that the existence of that DNA strand is proof of the probable existence of me -- yet it's impossible for you to conceptualize the vista from the other direction? That humanity, because it does not possess the faculties to empirically detect its own progenitor, is instead proof that the progenitor doesn't exist?
What rationale that isn't pure cheese-logic can you possibly have that for the Creator to exist, the Creation must be able to detect Him?
I would suggest that the people who are in the habit of making that logical misstep are the ones who are, in fact, secretly the most desirous to have God in their lives. All of your desire to have a divine Father to make meaning out of your sense of bewilderment is expressed in this lavish, wishful fantasy that it would be logical that the Creation can identify and measure the Creator.
A more accurate logical statement about the creator/creation relationship is this:
For a Creator to exist logically, the Creation does not have to be able to detect him. For a Creator to exist, all that is logically required is for the Creator to be able to detect the Creation.
No amount of non-detection from the Creation speaks to the logical existence of its Creator. There are very few things that you would be able to create that would be able to detect or recognize you as their creator, and yet you will still exist whether they know it or not.
Essentially your logical fallacy is a very human and touching one. You have anthropomorphized God. The one thing that you would be able to create that could detect and recognize you as its creator is a child; and it is easier for you to conceive of no-God than a God who, all-powerful but with human characteristics and motivations, could choose to create something that cannot recognize him, because you, as a human, would never wish for a child who has no senses, who cannot see or hear or touch you, who has no ability at all to know when you are speaking to him, nurturing him, feeding him or loving him.
no subject
To use his own evidentiary processes:
My DNA is proof that a larger organism exists. I flake DNA off all the time. I left some at the pizza place half an hour ago. My DNA at the pizza place is evidence of the existence of me. Without me existing first, that strand of DNA I left on the counter would not and could not exist to be left there -- and yet, now, that strand of DNA is out there all alone, impossible for it to ever rejoin the being that spawned it, impossible for it to ever even detect its progenitor, and yet... here I am, bored, beerless and writing shitty LJ messages.
So the inept logician who wrote the book that I've already forgotten the title of, by his own evidentiary processes, seems to believe that if a strand of my DNA exists at the pizza place, for me to also exist, that strand of DNA must be able to witness me. If that strand of DNA, using every ability at its disposal, every power it possesses, cannot detect me... this makes it probable that I don't exist. And yet -- by a science that you and the author would swear by -- the existence of that strand of DNA on the pizza counter not only makes it probable that I exist, it mandates it.
How come you're able to look down your microscope and see my DNA on the pizza counter that is even now furiously trying to replicate itself into an image of its progenitor, and accept that the existence of that DNA strand is proof of the probable existence of me -- yet it's impossible for you to conceptualize the vista from the other direction? That humanity, because it does not possess the faculties to empirically detect its own progenitor, is instead proof that the progenitor doesn't exist?
What rationale that isn't pure cheese-logic can you possibly have that for the Creator to exist, the Creation must be able to detect Him?
I would suggest that the people who are in the habit of making that logical misstep are the ones who are, in fact, secretly the most desirous to have God in their lives. All of your desire to have a divine Father to make meaning out of your sense of bewilderment is expressed in this lavish, wishful fantasy that it would be logical that the Creation can identify and measure the Creator.
A more accurate logical statement about the creator/creation relationship is this:
For a Creator to exist logically, the Creation does not have to be able to detect him. For a Creator to exist, all that is logically required is for the Creator to be able to detect the Creation.
No amount of non-detection from the Creation speaks to the logical existence of its Creator. There are very few things that you would be able to create that would be able to detect or recognize you as their creator, and yet you will still exist whether they know it or not.
Essentially your logical fallacy is a very human and touching one. You have anthropomorphized God. The one thing that you would be able to create that could detect and recognize you as its creator is a child; and it is easier for you to conceive of no-God than a God who, all-powerful but with human characteristics and motivations, could choose to create something that cannot recognize him, because you, as a human, would never wish for a child who has no senses, who cannot see or hear or touch you, who has no ability at all to know when you are speaking to him, nurturing him, feeding him or loving him.