Help Me Refute Two Arguments

[Grunner]

First, in response to your Infinite Monkey Theorem, there is no such thing as an infinite amount of monkeys. While this may seem rather simplistic, it isn't. Infinity is an academic and irrational concept. We deal with infinity to explore ideas and to work out mathematical concepts. Those concepts, aren't real (in the mathematical sense of real numbers, for example). Further, when you look at possibility one must admit that anything is possible, but not everything is probable. When we are looking at models of origin (whether you're dealing with Big Bang or evolution - both distinct and separate concepts), we are not dealing with infinite variables. We are looking at a great number of variables, but they are not infinite. They are finite.
What I would suggest regarding the monkeys is that if we could muster up a copy of Shakespeare's work and reproduce that effect with the infinite monkeys, I suppose the theorem might hold water. Maybe just have a thousand monkeys churn out even a sentence at random. And that's the issue with spark of life. Scientists, who have worked for decades, replicating ideal conditions have still not been able to replicate the origin of life. If they did, under ideal conditions, what does that say of the organization of complex life under random conditions?

Regarding your second query, I think what we see regarding the evolution of humanity (both as individuals and as societies) is not a demonstration of increased morality. Rather, we see a stark degradation of humanity and its value. Then again, maybe I'm basing that on my own morality.

[Old man]

1. The Infinite Monkey Theorem: One of my preferred arguments for God's existence is the teleological argument, aka Intelligent Design. However there's this particular theory which states that if you sit a group of monkeys in front of typewriters then, given an infinite amount of time, they'd eventually type out the works of Shakespeare. ... As time approaches infinity, the probability of something happening approaches 100%. In other words, given infinite time, everything will happen. Even the incredibly unlikely. Refute?

This is only valid if the assumptions are made that:

1. There will be no repeats of previous attempts
2. Each correct answer is "locked" into the correct place
3. They are not allowed to use the backspace as an option.
4. None of the monkeys have the capability to rewrite the work of the other monkeys.

In order for this to work you have to establish numerous assumptions and limiting factors that will eliminate any randomness and you create an environment where creativity is the rule not randomness. If it is random as they say as time goes on you do not eliminate the number of possible outcomes you keep them and the probability of them duplicating a previous mistake becomes 100% not them finally arriving at the one and only correct solution. BTW If they were using a computer then the <CTRL> <ALT> <DEL> option would also have to be disabled.

[Ceegen]

I have a deep interest in apologetics and have read of several arguments on both sides of the table. There are two arguments skeptics can pose that I can't seem to combat, perhaps you can help me?

1. The Infinite Monkey Theorem: One of my preferred arguments for God's existence is the teleological argument, aka Intelligent Design. However there's this particular theory which states that if you sit a group of monkeys in front of typewriters then, given an infinite amount of time, they'd eventually type out the works of Shakespeare. Applied here, the skeptic says that although our universe appears to be quite fine-tuned for life, we're just one of infinite universes and we just happened to come out lucky. As time approaches infinity, the probability of something happening approaches 100%. In other words, given infinite time, everything will happen. Even the incredibly unlikely. Refute?

The point is, time has a beginning. Time can't approach infinity if it didn't have a beginning. If time had a beginning, then it goes to reason that something created time itself. What could possibly do that? It is this idea that creates reasonable doubt to the statement that God doesn't exist, if time itself was created.

Currently, all laws of physics break down to gibberish when calculating the universe to the point of the Big Bang. Nothing works based on the reality that we know in this existence, to this single point of space-time from which the universe is currently still expanding from, as proven by red shift observations and star positions. This is proof that time came into existence at the point of creation, which reasons that the universe itself is not infinite and was a created thing. What then, created it?

2. Morality comes from humanity: The moral argument says that objective morals exist and they come from God. I kinda find this a rather weak one, personally. Some skeptics will say that morals are just the result of evolution. Things are considered right or wrong because of the herd instinct we developed to have. Now, over time humans divided into different groups and their morals became different from each other as new advancements in though occurred as well as the conditions they faced. Refute?

The morality dilemma is only used for two things (off the top of my head): Degrading God (and subsequently, Jesus) to being lesser than all-powerful and infinite, which leads to defying God's perfect moral standards by making our own set of rules.

If morals were from man, then this means that morality is subjective, and anything can technically be "good" in the right situation. This also then means that if morality is subjective, then evil does not exist. There has to be a perfect moral standard by which all things are judged, else good and evil doesn't exist at all, not even subjectively.

That perfect moral standard, is God, who we can not comprehend. But this, again, boils down to faith - What YOU as an individual believes to be true or not. (Free will).

[Angel Water]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I'm probably not qualified to give you a good counter to the two arguments the OP proposes. But you never know till you try.

1.) I don't think anyone on this forum or yet to be born would live to witness the monkey's typing out the complete works of Shakespeare, given an infinite amount of time.
Mainly because Monkeys are not a being that would live infinitely. Therefore, that group of monkeys in front of the typewriter would die before the proffered odd's are, in the Infinite Monkey Theorem,would occur.
Secondly, with regard to ID. The one thing that always smacks me about that is, what created the Designer?

As the history of the world, and molecular biology would demonstrate that if there were an intelligent designer, nothing would be imperfect in nature given that designer is qualified to be called God and thus is implied to be perfect. Because no thing that is perfect can create any thing that is imperfect.


And 2. If objective morals exist then morality would be universal. As all that God created, including humans, regardless of how those Humans see God, would exist universally. They don't.
So when God is innate, that would imply morality from God would be invested in the human psyche as a matter of course. But it's not.

Morality is subjective.
Besides, God couldn't be moral by our definition and remain as God.
All that transpires on the planet, if one first believes it to be God's will, would indicate as much. Wouldn't it?

[glad4mercy]

As the history of the world, and molecular biology would demonstrate that if there were an intelligent designer, nothing would be imperfect in nature given that designer is qualified to be called God and thus is implied to be perfect. Because no thing that is perfect can create any thing that is imperfect.

God created everything perfect, but He gave man a free will, and man in His freedom sinned. Then sin caused the world and the universe to become imperfect. It's all there in the Bible. So the imperfections that you see are not the result of God creating an imperfect universe, it is the result of man marring what God created. Man was perfect, until he sinned, and his sin was not the result of any imperfection in the way God made him, it was the result of his conscious decision to reject God. God gave him the freedom to choose life or death, and he chose death.