I need you to attack this argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-11-2013, 08:53 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
Please sign a White House Petition on Evolution: http://wh.gov/lkqu2

Mandate Equal Time to Instruction of Evolution for Faith-Based Schools Receiving Tax Rebates or Other Public Assistance. http://wh.gov/lkqu2

Feel free to copy, paste, and re-post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2013, 08:47 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
How about a simple "I DO NOT KNOW" ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2013, 07:10 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:06 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Given the incredible number of factors necessary for life to exist, if any single one proved impossible to come about randomly, it would necessitate the existence of an eternal, intelligent force.

This isn't about whether or not such a factor exists, it's about the argument itself. Is it solid?
Argument translation:
Given that a great deal of things are necessary for X to exist, and we know it exists, if we can't determine the origin of all of these things then that would mean [assumed conclusion without any real reason].

The eternal, intelligent force is a huge assumption with absolutely no "reason" backing it up.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adrianime's post
07-12-2013, 04:23 AM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2013 04:33 AM by viole.)
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:06 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Given the incredible number of factors necessary for life to exist, if any single one proved impossible to come about randomly, it would necessitate the existence of an eternal, intelligent force.

This isn't about whether or not such a factor exists, it's about the argument itself. Is it solid?

Independently from what we mean by "random", the argument is question begging.

It makes the implicit assumption that there are things that cannot possibly exist without an agent. And this is equivalent to assuming in the premise that such an agent exists.

I mean, even the computer I am using could pop out into existence randomly. It is not plausible, but it is not impossible.

The theist needs to make an example of at least one existing thing that necessarily requires an agent. I am not aware of any, without begging the question.

The argument, if we do not use special pleading, also implies that God is the result of a design. Unless we believe that God, theoretically, could be the result of a random process.

Ciao

- viole
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes viole's post
11-12-2013, 03:59 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:06 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Given the incredible number of factors necessary for life to exist, if any single one proved impossible to come about randomly, it would necessitate the existence of an eternal, intelligent force.

This isn't about whether or not such a factor exists, it's about the argument itself. Is it solid?

I'm a newbie, and this topic looked interesting...
Not a solid argument. It could just mean that we don't yet understand enough about the specific processes involved. How could you prove that something "is impossible to come about randomly"?

What makes you think that there is an external, intelligent force in the first place?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2013, 05:29 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:06 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Given the incredible number of factors necessary for life to exist, if any single one proved impossible to come about randomly, it would necessitate the existence of an eternal, intelligent force.

This isn't about whether or not such a factor exists, it's about the argument itself. Is it solid?

I think I can give you an answer of the sort you're looking for. See the thing is, you can ignore the 'given X' part of the question. It's irrelevant. The question can be reworded as 'If any single factor necessary for life to exist were impossible through random means would this necessitate the existence of an eternal, intelligent force.'

Answer: No. There might need to be an intelligent force at the point the 'impossible without intervention' moment occurred, but the moment it has there's no longer a need for the force to exist, so the force need not be eternal, only to have existed up to that point.

If they then try to use mathematics against you (odds on X happening being very, very small) ask them the odds on the specific ordering of a deck of cards. Answer: 8.0e67. (That's an 8 with 67 other digits after it.) Point out by the logic they're using, a deck of cards cannot be in the order it's in, the odds against it are too staggering to believe possible. You might also point out that science doesn't think any of it is just 'random', but instead is constrained by the rules of the physical universe.

... I hope I've got this right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: