Top 21-30(+) Creationist Arguments
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-01-2015, 02:47 PM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2015 02:36 PM by Bear100.)
Top 21-30(+) Creationist Arguments
Most of you probably know about the two "Top Ten Creationist Arguments" video made by Seth Andrews. While I was watching these (again) I had an idea to come up with my own top 10 list. (because I was that bored but that's irrelevant)

Edit: Video link to the first 20. Thank you DLJ.








(21) 1. Beauty found in Nature
This is another form of "this couldn't have happened by chance" argument, saying that the nature is too beautiful to have been shaped by accident. This argument is easily refuted by providing counterexamples. (e.g. natural disasters, diseases, viruses)

(22) 2. Watchmaker Argument (Argument from Design)
"This watch couldn't have formed randomly, it must have had a designer" - you know where the theist is going to go with this: "This world couldn't have formed randomly, it must have had a designer." - This is a form of false analogy, where the objects being compared are not related to each other, therefore the comparison falls apart.
More obvious examples: "This bear is too complex to have been formed by nature alone, it must have had a designer", "This grass is too complex to have been formed by nature alone, it must have had a designer"

(23) 3. "Were you there?"
This is an argument made famous (or should I say infamous?) by none other than creationist Ken Ham in an attempt to disprove evolution by claiming that no man has ever witnessed evolution so it never happened. This statement is false, as we have observed evolution in Peppered Moths during the industrial revolution and Blue Moon Butterflies in Samoan Islands who have evolved to overcome parasites, for example. Evolution of E-coli bacteria also continues to be observed today in lab settings by evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski.

(24) 4. God can't be defined (or God works in mysterious ways, etc.)
So you can't define God yet you believe in him? Seems legit. (Note: This is usually an ad hoc statement to wiggle out of tough questions e.g. "If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why won't he get rid of cancer?", etc.)

(25) 5. You can't prove God doesn't exist
This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the one making a negative claim. If we come to believe in God because we can't disprove his existence, we might as well as also start believing in Santa Claus, Pokemon, and plush time traveling teddy bears in outer space. (last item is a reference to the "Feuerstein Fallacy" video)

(26) 6. 2.2 billion Christians can't be wrong
Just like 1.6 billion Islams can't be wrong and 1 billion Hindus can't be wrong. Next.

(27) 7. "Why do you hate God?"
We hate god because he is “arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” You know who said this.
Seriously, though. Credibility has little to no correlation with likability.

(28) 8. Atheists worship Satan
Atheism is not the same thing as Satanism. Atheists do not believe in Satan.

(29) 9. Religion provides hope
This is like saying alcohol provides hope for alcoholics, heroin provides hope for heroin addicts, etc. Providing hope doesn't always necessarily lead to a positive conclusion. Regardless, this argument only becomes a red herring, because whether or not religion provides hope has nothing to do with the existence of God.

(30) 10. God gave us Free Will
This is usually an argument made by theists in attempt to reconcile an omnibenevolent God with the evil in the world today. If God gave us free will to do evil, then he is not omnibenevolent as Christians would have us believe. Quoting Epicurus:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"


Feel free to come up with your own Christian arguments in this thread as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bear100's post
02-01-2015, 03:26 PM
RE: Top 21-30(+) Creationist Arguments
(02-01-2015 02:47 PM)Bear100 Wrote:  Most of you probably know about the two "Top Ten Creationist Arguments" video made by Seth Andrews. While I was watching these (again) I had an idea to come up with my own top 10 list. (because I was that bored but that's irrelevant)


1. Beauty found in Nature
This is another form of "this couldn't have happened by chance" argument, saying that the nature is too beautiful to have been shaped by accident. This argument is easily refuted by providing counterexamples. (e.g. natural disasters, diseases, viruses)

2. Watchmaker Argument (Argument from Design)
"This watch couldn't have formed randomly, it must have had a designer" - you know where the theist is going to go with this: "This world couldn't have formed randomly, it must have had a designer." - This is a form of false analogy, where the objects being compared are not related to each other, therefore the comparison falls apart.
More obvious examples: "This bear is too complex to have been formed by nature alone, it must have had a designer", "This grass is too complex to have been formed by nature alone, it must have had a designer"

3. "Were you there?"
Argument made famous (or should I say infamous?) by none other than creationist Ken Ham. This argument is easily refuted by using the same argument back against them to highlight its fallacy.
"How do you know that the Garden of Eden existed? Were you there?" - I wonder if Ken Ham has ever provided a legitimate answer to this that is not a solid, concrete "no."

4. God can't be defined (or God works in mysterious ways, etc.)
So you can't define God yet you believe in him? Seems legit. (Note: This is usually an ad hoc statement to wiggle out of tough questions e.g. "If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why won't he get rid of cancer?", etc.)

5. You can't prove God doesn't exist
This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the one making a negative claim. If we come to believe in God because we can't disprove his existence, we might as well as also start believing in Santa Claus, Pokemon, and plush time traveling teddy bears in outer space. (last item is a reference to the "Feuerstein Fallacy" video)

6. 2.2 billion Christians can't be wrong
Just like 1.6 billion Islams can't be wrong and 1 billion Hindus can't be wrong. Next.

7. "Why do you hate God?"
We hate god because he is “arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” You know who said this.
Seriously, though. Credibility has little to no correlation with likability.

8. Atheists worship Satan
Atheism is not the same thing as Satanism. Atheists do not believe in Satan.

9. Religion provides hope
This is like saying alcohol provides hope for alcoholics, heroin provides hope for heroin addicts, etc. Providing hope doesn't always necessarily lead to a positive conclusion. Regardless, this argument only becomes a red herring, because whether or not religion provides hope has nothing to do with the existence of God.

10. God gave us Free Will
This is usually an argument made by theists in attempt to reconcile an omnibenevolent God with the evil in the world today. If God gave us free will to do evil, then he is not omnibenevolent as Christians would have us believe. Quoting Epicurus:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"


Feel free to come up with your own Christian arguments in this thread as well.

Well, the number one argument is from ignorance but Creationists are too ignorant to even realize how willfully ignorant they are. It's circular ignorance.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like dancefortwo's post
02-01-2015, 03:36 PM (This post was last modified: 02-01-2015 03:39 PM by CleverUsername.)
RE: Top 21-30(+) Creationist Arguments
Quote:6. 2.2 billion Christians can't be wrong
Just like 1.6 billion Islams can't be wrong and 1 billion Hindus can't be wrong. Next.

People of one religion will be incredibly quick to pull double standards when it comes to other religions. I prefer the point that there was a time when the grand majority though the Earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Popcorn I put more thought into fiction than theists put into reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2015, 03:36 PM
RE: Top 21-30(+) Creationist Arguments
(02-01-2015 03:26 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Well, the number one argument is from ignorance but Creationists are too ignorant to even realize how willfully ignorant they are. It's circular ignorance.
I believe God of the Gaps was already discussed in one of the original two videos so I didn't add it in the OP.

But it's true, you can't have a logical reasoned discussion with someone who doesn't use logic and reason as a basis for their beliefs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2015, 09:56 PM (This post was last modified: 02-01-2015 09:59 PM by Ace.)
RE: Top 21-30(+) Creationist Arguments
argument from ignorance

observation: I don't know how something like this could have possibly happen/arise
conclusion: therefore some magical sky fairy did it

now replace the magical sky fairy with anything you wantTongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2015, 10:07 PM
RE: Top 21-30(+) Creationist Arguments
(02-01-2015 09:56 PM)Ace Wrote:  argument from ignorance

observation: I don't know how something like this could have possibly happen/arise
conclusion: therefore some magical sky fairy did it

now replace the magical sky fairy with anything you wantTongue

Ice cream? Drooling
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
02-01-2015, 10:53 PM
RE: Top 21-30(+) Creationist Arguments
For completeness, here are the first 20.

Shouldn't the new list start at 21? Something to edit when you're bored again Smile







Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
02-01-2015, 11:02 PM
RE: Top 21-30(+) Creationist Arguments
(02-01-2015 02:47 PM)Bear100 Wrote:  3. "Were you there?"
Argument made famous (or should I say infamous?) by none other than creationist Ken Ham. This argument is easily refuted by using the same argument back against them to highlight its fallacy.
"How do you know that the Garden of Eden existed? Were you there?" - I wonder if Ken Ham has ever provided a legitimate answer to this that is not a solid, concrete "no."

If I had a nickel. Look asking the same question to them is not going to work. Why? Because they do have one witness, and that is their god. Because of this they will say god was there to witness it. In fact you will hear ken ham say it all the time that god was always there. The real rebutal is this.

Creationist: Evolution is not true, I mean where you there?

Skeptic: No, but being there does not mean that it is reliable. In fact eyewitness testimony is the worst form of evidence. Crime is a prime example, as many eyewitness accounts are debunked by the forensics. Same goes with evolution. Just because no human watched it all does not mean it is true. Evidence like transitional fossils, taxonomy, DNA, molecular clocks, etc, etc, all show evolution is correct and conform to what we expect in evolutionary theory.

Say what skeptic said, it is better as it shows being there is not good enough evidence, and that evidence is about demonstration, not witnessing.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
02-01-2015, 11:47 PM
RE: Top 21-30(+) Creationist Arguments
Quote:3. "Were you there?"
Argument made famous (or should I say infamous?) by none other than creationist Ken Ham. This argument is easily refuted by using the same argument back against them to highlight its fallacy.
"How do you know that the Garden of Eden existed? Were you there?" - I wonder if Ken Ham has ever provided a legitimate answer to this that is not a solid, concrete "no."


Regarding AiG statement of faith on their website

they say the bible is true and absolutely nothing under any circumstances would ever make them change their mind, right ?

well lets ask them that question, we know the answer which is why its worth asking it
after they give us the answer which everyone expected

ask them what if god appeared before them and everyone could see, touch, hear, and even take videos of him, and god himself said that the bible is complete bullshit and he had no part in it

what would Ham say to this ? after all if he said nothing will ever change his , so accepting it means he has admit his beliefs in the damn book is wrong (which he previously stated something he would never admit)
and rejecting it means he could has to reject the actual word of god

how would he and his minions respond to this ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ace's post
03-01-2015, 01:41 AM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2015 01:58 AM by Bear100.)
RE: Top 21-30(+) Creationist Arguments
(02-01-2015 11:02 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 02:47 PM)Bear100 Wrote:  3. "Were you there?"
Argument made famous (or should I say infamous?) by none other than creationist Ken Ham. This argument is easily refuted by using the same argument back against them to highlight its fallacy.
"How do you know that the Garden of Eden existed? Were you there?" - I wonder if Ken Ham has ever provided a legitimate answer to this that is not a solid, concrete "no."

If I had a nickel. Look asking the same question to them is not going to work. Why? Because they do have one witness, and that is their god. Because of this they will say god was there to witness it. In fact you will hear ken ham say it all the time that god was always there. The real rebutal is this.

Creationist: Evolution is not true, I mean where you there?

Skeptic: No, but being there does not mean that it is reliable. In fact eyewitness testimony is the worst form of evidence. Crime is a prime example, as many eyewitness accounts are debunked by the forensics. Same goes with evolution. Just because no human watched it all does not mean it is true. Evidence like transitional fossils, taxonomy, DNA, molecular clocks, etc, etc, all show evolution is correct and conform to what we expect in evolutionary theory.

Say what skeptic said, it is better as it shows being there is not good enough evidence, and that evidence is about demonstration, not witnessing.

That seems a more logical rebuttal, but I've done a little bit of research and evolution actually has been observed previously in peppered moths (a famous example) and continues to be observed today under laboratory settings, so I'll probably put that instead.

(02-01-2015 11:47 PM)Ace Wrote:  
Quote:3. "Were you there?"
Argument made famous (or should I say infamous?) by none other than creationist Ken Ham. This argument is easily refuted by using the same argument back against them to highlight its fallacy.
"How do you know that the Garden of Eden existed? Were you there?" - I wonder if Ken Ham has ever provided a legitimate answer to this that is not a solid, concrete "no."


Regarding AiG statement of faith on their website

they say the bible is true and absolutely nothing under any circumstances would ever make them change their mind, right ?

well lets ask them that question, we know the answer which is why its worth asking it
after they give us the answer which everyone expected

ask them what if god appeared before them and everyone could see, touch, hear, and even take videos of him, and god himself said that the bible is complete bullshit and he had no part in it

what would Ham say to this ? after all if he said nothing will ever change his , so accepting it means he has admit his beliefs in the damn book is wrong (which he previously stated something he would never admit)
and rejecting it means he could has to reject the actual word of god

how would he and his minions respond to this ?

I feel like "bible is absolute truth and nothing can change my mind" is another argument altogether. Again it's a weak argument that goes nowhere and sounds very silly when you replace the word "bible" with any other fiction. e.g. "the hobbit is absolute truth and nothing can change my mind"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: