Thursday, September 27, 2007

Where did the Universe Come From? Part 4

Where did the Universe Come From? Part 4:
"If you can read this sentence, I can prove to you that God exists"


See this email I just sent you, that you're reading right now? This email is proof of the existence of God.

Yeah, I know, that sounds crazy. But I'm not asking you to believe anything just yet, until you see the evidence for yourself. All I ask is that you refrain from disbelieving
while I show you my proof. It only takes a minute to convey, but it speaks to one of the most important questions of all time.

Yes, it does.
Sure you're not.
Evidence? Proof? Yeah, right.

So how is this email proof of the existence of God?:

This email you're reading contains letters, words and sentences. It contains a message that means something. As long as you can read English, you can understand what I'm saying.

You can do all kinds of things with this email. You can read it on your computer screen. You can print it out on your printer. You can read it out loud to a friend who's in the same room as you are. You can call your friend and read it to her over the telephone. You can save it as a Microsoft WORD document. You can forward it to someone via email, or you can post it on a website.

Regardless of how you copy it or where you send it, the information remains the same. My email contains a message. It contains information in the form of language. The message is independent of the medium it is sent in.

Messages are not matter, even though they can be carried by matter (like printing this email on a piece of paper).

Messages are not energy even though they can be carried by energy (like the sound of my voice.)

Messages are immaterial. Information is itself a unique kind of entity. It can be stored and transmitted and copied in many forms, but the meaning still stays the same.

Messages can be in English, French or Chinese. Or Morse Code. Or mating calls of birds. Or the Internet. Or radio or television. Or computer programs or architect blueprints or stone carvings. Every cell in your body contains a message encoded in DNA, representing a complete
plan for you.

OK, so what does this have to do with God?

It's very simple. Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind. A mind that agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and sentences. A mind that expresses both desire and intent.

It has been shown that random mutation and natural selection *can and do* produce information. Here's a place to start

Whether I use the simplest possible explanation, such as the one I'm giving you here, or if we analyze language with advanced mathematics and engineering communication theory, we can say this with total confidence:

"Messages, languages and coded information never, ever come from anything else besides a mind. No one has ever produced a single example of a message that did not come from a mind."

DNA doesn't have language. That is an analogy!

Nature can create fascinating patterns - snowflakes, sand dunes, crystals, stalagmites and stalactites. Tornados and turbulence and cloud formations.

I'm with you so far

But non-living things cannot create language. They *cannot* create codes. Rocks cannot think and they cannot talk. And they cannot create information.

argument from incredulity fallacy

It is believed by some that life on planet earth arose accidentally from the "primordial soup," the early ocean which produced enzymes and eventually RNA, DNA, and primitive cells.

But there is still a problem with this theory: It fails to answer the question, 'Where did the information come from?'

"I don't know" does not equal "Goddidit"

DNA is not merely a molecule. Nor is it simply a "pattern." Yes, it contains chemicals and proteins, but those chemicals are arranged to form an intricate language, in the exact same way that English and Chinese and HTML are languages.

Unsupported assertion.
Unsupported assertion.
Unsupported assertion.
Gene sequences are not a language. That's just an analogy!

DNA has a four-letter alphabet, and structures very similar to words, sentences and paragraphs. With very precise instructions and systems that check for errors and correct them.

To the person who says that life arose naturally, you need only ask: "Where did the information come from? Show me just ONE example of a language that didn't come from a mind."

argument from incredulity fallacy again

As simple as this question is, I've personally presented it in public presentations and Internet discussion forums for more than two years. I've addressed more than fifty thousand people, including hostile, skeptical audiences who insist that life arose without the assistance of God.

But to a person, none of them have ever been able to explain where the information came from. This riddle is "So simple any child can understand; so complex, no atheist can solve."

Once more for the cheap seats: " "I don't know" does not equal "Goddidit"

You can hear or read my full presentation on this topic at

For a high-school level, layman's version, go here:

Matter and energy have to come from somewhere. Everyone can agree on that. But information has to come from somewhere, too! Information is separate entity, fully on par with matter and energy. And information can only come from a mind. If books and poems and TV shows come from human intelligence, then all living things inevitably came from a superintelligence.

unsupported assertion. the last sentence is bad logic.

Every word you hear, every sentence you speak, every dog that barks, every song you sing, every email you read, every packet of information that zings across the Internet, is proof of the existence of God. Because information and language always originate in a mind.

more unsupported assertion.

In the beginning were words and language.

In the Beginning was Information.

When we consider the mystery of life - where it came from and how this miracle is possible - do we not at the same time ask the question where it is going, and what its purpose is?

Respectfully Submitted,

Perry Marshall

Further reading:

-"If you can read this, I can prove God exists" - listen to my full presentation or read the Executive Summary here:

-The Atheist's Riddle: Members of Infidels, the world's largest atheist discussion board attempt to solve it (for well over a year now!), without success:


-"OK, so then who made God?" and other questions about information and origins:

P.S.: Preview of tomorrow: You get to listen in on one of the most fascinating science lectures I've ever had the privilege of hearing. A presentation in which hard science and faith fuse together in a fascinating tour of this magnificently engineered universe that is our home.

No evidence, no proof. Just worthless argument from incredulity.


10 people have spouted off:

Qalmlea said...

*sighs* All you need to get any sort of complexity is a molecule capable of replicating in some fashion that has the potential to introduce "errors" in the replicating process. That's it. It's so simple... maybe it's too simple for some people.

John said...
yep. replication with variation is all it takes.

But I don't think creaionist's can't understand, or even don't understand. I think they willfully refuse to accept it.

They have shoe-horned ther god into smaller and smaller gaps as science progresses. I think they have drawn the line at evolution.
They see it as making their god too irrelevant.
9/28/07, 9:30 AM
jackal said...

I'm sorry, I didn't have the patients to read all of that guy's drivle. Message me about it if you think I should.
What got me is his assertion: "Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind."
He's using inductive reasoning. Since X is true for all of these cases, X is true for all cases. It only takes one counter example to prove this false. Take any one of these:
- Fireflies communicate through visual messages--flashing lights to attrack a mate. Do fireflies have minds?
- Moths communicate through chemical messages (for attracting a mate). Do moths have minds?
- Plants use bright colors and fragrances to attrack polinaters, usually bugs. They're communicating across kingdom. If you're going to tell me that plants have minds, then you are stupid, crazy or lying.

John said...
I'm sure he would counter with something along the lines of:

"God has a mind, and he created their languages for them."
9/28/07, 9:40 AM
jackal said...

Then I would say, "You're just assuming the conclusion."
Then he would say, "No, you're assuming the conclusion when you assume God didn't make those languages."
To which I would reply, "Your hypothesis is not scientific if it is not falsifiable. What conditions would show your hypothesis, that all messages are created by minds, untrue?"
And he would say... actually, I don't know what he'd say to that... maybe, "The condition that God didn't exist," which gets us nausiatingly back to where we started.

jackal said...

Of course, since he's claiming to have the proof for a god's existance, the burden of proof is on him, not us.

Qalmlea said...

A fine point that is often missed on both sides: You start by assuming the opposite of what you want to show. So if you want to show god designed a firefly's language, you start by assuming he didn't and look for evidence to the contrary. Complexity is not evidence. Now, if you found that every firefly is signaling the Hebrew bible in Morse code...well...

Braddock said...

I agree with him that languages can only come from the mind. So where did the langauge of DNA come from? Our mind, because we gave the chemicals their names. If we just looked at it as "a bunch of random proteins were spewed out and they like to bond with these other proteins" then it isn't a language at all and doesn't require a mind to exist.

John said...
That's why I say that DNA doesn't have language.
10/5/07, 4:41 PM
tom said...

The real problem in the battle between theists (T) and atheists (A) is that the argument simply goes in circles--T "prove" God exists, A counter with actual logic and reason, T say something about God being beyond human understanding, A discount this statement because it isn't based on facts and science. Really, the bared core of the dispute relies on personal belief and nothing else. If you want to believe in God and that He created the world, you will. If you don't, you'll try to find a rational explanation.