Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-02-2013, 06:54 PM
Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
Even if it turned out that a deity or deities of some sort were responsible for the creation of earth or the univerese or whatever, it still would not prove THEIR deity is the correct one, or even if the creator being still existed, this arguement is completely useless when attempting to prove a particular religion. " *Insert something here*, is too complex to have come into being by accident, therfore YHWH", is both annoying and stupid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheLastEnemy's post
08-02-2013, 09:03 PM
 
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
The traditional arguments for the existence of God do nothing to define what God is, rather they show simply that there is a Supreme Being as opposed to there being no Supreme Being. In the case of the teleological argument (or argument from design), we also see that the Supreme Being must be a conscious entity, because only a conscious entity can "order" something.

As for the "God did-it" argument, there is no such thing. Oh, some non-intellectuals might spout something like that, but among those qualified to debate, it's not a god-of-the-gaps escape. Rather, God as a the Supreme Being is actually proved to be necessary.
Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2013, 09:05 PM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2013 09:09 PM by Chas.)
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(08-02-2013 09:03 PM)Egor Wrote:  The traditional arguments for the existence of God do nothing to define what God is, rather they show simply that there is a Supreme Being as opposed to there being no Supreme Being. In the case of the teleological argument (or argument from design), we also see that the Supreme Being must be a conscious entity, because only a conscious entity can "order" something.

As for the "God did-it" argument, there is no such thing. Oh, some non-intellectuals might spout something like that, but among those qualified to debate, it's not a god-of-the-gaps escape. Rather, God as a the Supreme Being is actually proved to be necessary.


But the argument from design fails. Darwin beat it to a pulp. Watson and Crick killed it. Dawkins buried it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
08-02-2013, 10:13 PM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2013 10:22 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(08-02-2013 09:03 PM)Egor Wrote:  The traditional arguments for the existence of God do nothing to define what God is to make it harder to disprove, rather they show simply attempt to imply that there is a Supreme Being as opposed to there being no Supreme Being. In the case of the teleological argument (or argument from design), we also see that the Supreme Being must be a conscious entity, because only a conscious entity can "order" something. We also create arguments that we think support our personal beliefs in god.

As for the "God did-it" argument, there is no such a thing [And I have heard it frequently]. Oh, some non-intellectuals might spout something like that, but among those qualified to debate, it's not a god-of-the-gaps escape. Rather, We assume God as a the Supreme Being is actually proved to be necessary.
Fixed.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2013, 10:54 PM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
own3d pwn3d and cak3d

When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.

You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2013, 11:21 PM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(08-02-2013 09:03 PM)Egor Wrote:  The traditional arguments for the existence of God do nothing to define what God is, rather they show simply that there is a Supreme Being as opposed to there being no Supreme Being. In the case of the teleological argument (or argument from design), we also see that the Supreme Being must be a conscious entity, because only a conscious entity can "order" something.

As for the "God did-it" argument, there is no such thing. Oh, some non-intellectuals might spout something like that, but among those qualified to debate, it's not a god-of-the-gaps escape. Rather, God as a the Supreme Being is actually proved to be necessary.
Provide evidence.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
09-02-2013, 07:24 AM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
He doesn't need evidence. He has the profound sense of intellectual superiority that comes from believing something stupid for no good reason. The fact that the believes it is enough of a reason, and "logical" arguments to support the belief are easy to muster. Of course his arguments make sense because he already knows them to be true! Any gap or apparent inconsistency or inability to understand the counter argument is irrefutable proof his absurd proposition is true. The fact that others don't believe it only strengthens his confirmation bias.

His logic goes like this.
a. I think I am shit hot smart
b. I believe in God
c. Therefore, God is real.

Or perhaps more precisely:
a. I believe myself to be smarter than the people in set B (atheists)
b. Therefore, the things I believe are true and the things you believe are false. Any differences between my beliefs and yours are clear evidence of (a).

Any intellectual argument slung in return is merely confirmation that he is smarter and you are dumber. Your argument is stupid because you are stupid. Your argument is wrong because he is smart. If he deigns to he might even come up with a "logical" argument that fits his mental model, and is of course correct and unassailable because he is smarter.

That's how stupid people think all over the world, and Egor is no exception. He just trains harder and sets his sights higher than the average idiot. He believes clearly false things for no reason - and I don't just mean in the existence of his crazier-than-usual reimagining of the god concept - I mean the old tired "You all really believe in God" line, and just about every crazy thing he's posted in the time I have been on this board. It's not really even that group B is atheists, either. It's all Christians too. It's all religious people. It's all people. It's him against the world. Atheists are just an easy first target. A low hanging fruit in making himself feel superior by assuring himself that someone else is stupid. He's the one true figurehead of truth in this world. He's not just anohter moron. He's not just another loon. He's -right-! He has invented his own new religion because he had to separate himself from the morons that Christianity has suckered in. His religion of two people, plus a message board. And the fact that he doesn't have any evidence to support his claims, the fact his claims are the same old tired moronic claims as so many terrible apologists over the years, the fact that other people think he's crazy? That's what makes him sure he's right.

I've noticed a pattern. I'm intolerant of stupid for the first few posts I read on this site. I get ranty. Well, enough said.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Hafnof's post
09-02-2013, 07:33 AM
Re: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
I thought ego® promised to leave? Changed his mind again?

And christians should really just give up trying to argue against evolution or any "alternative" or even any addendum. Because they don't argue in scientific terms, just bullshit.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
09-02-2013, 08:20 AM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
I agree with Bearded Dude. Science is not always easy to get your head around, so people don't take the time to understand it. Evolution especially is misunderstood. I had a very general idea what it was, but when I read Why Evolution is True, great read, there was so much in there. Plus I've been out of school many years and scientists have discovered so much in a few decades. So it can be hard for theists and atheists both to argue some of it just because scientific concepts don't come shrink wrapped and tidy as religious concepts do. I am going to read that book again so maybe I can begin to argue intelligently. Of course many people still dispute it or kid themselves that god somehow used it that even if I present the concepts correctly, it may not do much good. The idea of god using it is really peculiar to me. If he had such great plans for our species, why did he wait billions of years for us to show up? Why did dinosaurs rule for 300 million years? Was that just an amusing sidebar or incompetence or what? Why did we get lice, rats, roaches, and mosquitoes? To me design or anything nonrandom doesn't look too viable.

I agree with the original concept that even if they proved there was a god it doesn't mean that any one religion is right. A bit of a logical leap.

Godless in the Magnolia State
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjs's post
09-02-2013, 08:25 AM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(09-02-2013 08:20 AM)cjs Wrote:  I agree with Bearded Dude. Science is not always easy to get your head around, so people don't take the time to understand it. Evolution especially is misunderstood. I had a very general idea what it was, but when I read Why Evolution is True, great read, there was so much in there.
Aye, I'm currently reading that one too. Yes

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: