What is the worst argument for God?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2013, 03:41 AM
 
RE: What is the worst argument for God?
(07-04-2013 10:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  The universe does not look designed except to the simpleminded.

Don't make yourself look any more stupid than you already do. The teleological argument has been around a very long time and has been debated by very intelligent people throughout history. I know you think you're smarter than all of them, but trust me, you don't come across that way.
Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2013, 03:46 AM
RE: What is the worst argument for God?
(08-04-2013 03:41 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(07-04-2013 10:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  The universe does not look designed except to the simpleminded.

Don't make yourself look any more stupid than you already do. The teleological argument has been around a very long time and has been debated by very intelligent people throughout history. I know you think you're smarter than all of them, but trust me, you don't come across that way.

Chas tries to be terse and more often than not that handicaps him.

Being terse is effective for circle jerking but not so for actual argumentation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2013, 03:48 AM
RE: What is the worst argument for God?
(08-04-2013 03:41 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(07-04-2013 10:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  The universe does not look designed except to the simpleminded.

Don't make yourself look any more stupid than you already do. The teleological argument has been around a very long time and has been debated by very intelligent people throughout history. I know you think you're smarter than all of them, but trust me, you don't come across that way.

I concur.

I don't think it is 'simple-minded' to look at the world and conclude that has been designed.

But it is a demonstration of ignorance.

If there were no evidence to the contrary, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the sun moves around the earth.

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
08-04-2013, 03:53 AM
RE: What is the worst argument for God?
(08-04-2013 03:48 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(08-04-2013 03:41 AM)Egor Wrote:  Don't make yourself look any more stupid than you already do. The teleological argument has been around a very long time and has been debated by very intelligent people throughout history. I know you think you're smarter than all of them, but trust me, you don't come across that way.

I concur.

I don't think it is 'simple-minded' to look at the world and conclude that has been designed.

But it is a demonstration of ignorance.

If there were no evidence to the contrary, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the sun moves around the earth.

Smile

Had he added "in this day and age" it would have been closer to the truth.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2013, 06:32 AM
RE: What is the worst argument for God?
(08-04-2013 01:30 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  At Fatima there was a large crowd, tens of thousands of people, many of whom reported seeing some kind of solar event. I don't think this fits into the category of 1 or 2.

It started with the "apparition" of the virgin Mary to three kids then later a UFO appeared Laughat

The event:
People witnessing the event.
The people had gathered because three young shepherd children had predicted that at high noon the Blessed Virgin Mary would appear in a field in an area of Fatima called Cova da Iria. According to many witnesses, after a period of rain, the dark clouds broke and the sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disc in the sky.[4] It was said to be significantly duller than normal, and to cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the shadows on the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds.[4] The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern,[4] frightening those who thought it a sign of the end of the world.[5]


The sun careened towards earth in a zigzag pattern...that just HAS to be true!

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2013, 10:02 AM
RE: What is the worst argument for God?
(08-04-2013 03:48 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(08-04-2013 03:41 AM)Egor Wrote:  Don't make yourself look any more stupid than you already do. The teleological argument has been around a very long time and has been debated by very intelligent people throughout history. I know you think you're smarter than all of them, but trust me, you don't come across that way.

I concur.

I don't think it is 'simple-minded' to look at the world and conclude that has been designed.

But it is a demonstration of ignorance.

If there were no evidence to the contrary, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the sun moves around the earth.

Smile

Even if someone could prove beyond any doubt that the universe was designed, that doesn't prove who or what designed it. Every religion would claim victory for their god(s). Every believer of every faith would profess the glory of their god(s).

The bottom line is: even if such evidence is ever discovered, unless someone/something steps forward to claim responsibility people are still just believing what they want to believe and nothing more.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcmPL4codsbtiJhpFav3r...-w_49ttW6a]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2013, 11:34 AM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2013 11:42 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: What is the worst argument for God?
I think the worst part of the argument by design is this.

A: There appears to be some sort of structure or order to the universe, or parts thereof. Okay, might be some quibbling over how you define order and structure, but pretty much fine with that.

B: Some intelligence must have directed it to be so.

B is in severe need of support, and little has been done to support it. Typically this is done by simply sticking the word "obviously" in there and mocking, insulting, or generally carrying-on-asshole towards anyone who doesn't reach the same "obvious" conclusion. This is... argument by mockery? What's this fallacy called?

The only support I've seen for B (and this isn't often brought forward) is the "watchmaker" metaphor, in which we stumble across a ticking watch in the woods, and conclude that someone had to make it and wind it up because it would never have occurred naturally. Sometimes something else is substituted, like a sandcastle on a beach, but the logic of the metaphor is always similar: It's something which both in our experience and our theory, would never form spontaneously, would not be self-reproducing or self-preserving if left to its own devices, and would eventually wind down, rot away, erode, or otherwise fall apart over time. So far so good.

But then the analogy is erroneously extended to things that ARE self-reproducing and self-preserving. (Whether or not they are self-generating or not I won't address.) Life is the most commonly given example. We are now talking about a thing which, when left to its own devices, well tend to thrive, variate, speciate, and evolve. (Yes, I know "evolve" is a hot-button word, but most evolutionary-origins deniers will still acknowledge it as an ongoing process, and that's all I'm arguing here.) Walk away and come back in a few million years, and the gold watch will have corroded (at least the critical components like screws that hold it together will have), wound down, and probably eroded away. The sandcastle wouldn't have survived the tides or even a day of wind and rain. But a small clump of moss clinging to a rock will have spread across a good portion of the continent, and have started adapting to most of the climatic zones.

So if a pocket watch or a sand castle were to somehow spontaneously form, it wouldn't "stick". Also, there'd be no natural forces that would tend to spontaneously assemble it. But if there WERE natural forces that would tend to spontaneously form something "designed" or "orderly", and such a thing had a tendency to reproduce, or at least endure considerably longer than it takes those natural forces to spontaneously produce it, we'd expect to see examples of order spontaneously arising. Of course, we don't.

[Image: crystal-cave-1.jpg]
(Intelligently designed. OBVIOUSLY intelligently designed, you moron. Or Photoshopped. That looks Photoshopped, doesn't it?)

It's the same problem with abiogenesis. Do we see life spontaneously forming in puddles of primordial goop? Nope. In modern times, such spontaneously forming life, or even the goop we would expect them to form in, would rapidly become food for already-established life, or destroyed by free oxygen. In short, we wouldn't EXPECT to see it happening. Would the odds of spontaneous generation be low in any given puddle or over any given year, century, millenium? Most likely. Have we done it in a lab? No. But given the right primordial goop (which HAS been done in the lab, quite easily, in simulations of what would have been natural conditions after Earth's formation), spread across enough of the Earth's surface, and a few million years of rerolling the dice, the odds of something forming become... plausible. This is NOT true of the sand castle or the watch. And once we have the one thing, it becomes two things, and four things, and eight things. This is ALSO not true of the watch or sand castle. And then those things start to vary, and whichever variations have more survivability potential come to dominate, and the group as a whole becomes "better designed", and better still, to the point where it is incredibly-well "designed". This is ALSO not true of watches or sand castles. The extension of the analogy from watches and sand castles to life is hugely, hugely flawed.

And yes, I recognize that life isn't the only thing that argument by design is applied to. I merely examined it in detail to highlight some of the argument's flaws.

Overall, argument by design's most fundamental error is in leaning on our intuitive recognition or perception of what is designed and what isn't, and refuses to examine the question in detail beyond that knee-jerk, intuitive response, save that some proponents go cherry-picking examples in support of said response. This intuition is quite unreliable, and should not be the end of the reasoning process.

That said, however frustrating it is to see people clinging to argument by design, it is at least halfway clever, halfway intriguing, and halfway interesting, suggesting that whoever came up with it was at least a halfwit. "Because the Bible Says So" is more obnoxious BY FAR.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
08-04-2013, 11:49 AM
RE: What is the worst argument for God?
(08-04-2013 11:34 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  I think the worst part of the argument by design is this.

A: There appears to be some sort of structure or order to the universe, or parts thereof. Okay, might be some quibbling over how you define order and structure, but pretty much fine with that.

B: Some intelligence must have directed it to be so.

B is in severe need of support, and little has been done to support it. Typically this is done by simply sticking the word "obviously" in there and mocking, insulting, or generally carrying-on-asshole towards anyone who doesn't reach the same "obvious" conclusion. This is... argument by mockery? What's this fallacy called?

The only support I've seen for B (and this isn't often brought forward) is the "watchmaker" metaphor, in which we stumble across a ticking watch in the woods, and conclude that someone had to make it and wind it up because it would never have occurred naturally. Sometimes something else is substituted, like a sandcastle on a beach, but the logic of the metaphor is always similar: It's something which both in our experience and our theory, would never form spontaneously, would not be self-reproducing or self-preserving if left to its own devices, and would eventually wind down, rot away, erode, or otherwise fall apart over time. So far so good.

But then the analogy is erroneously extended to things that ARE self-reproducing and self-preserving. (Whether or not they are self-generating or not I won't address.) Life is the most commonly given example. We are now talking about a thing which, when left to its own devices, well tend to thrive, variate, speciate, and evolve. (Yes, I know "evolve" is a hot-button word, but most evolutionary-origins deniers will still acknowledge it as an ongoing process, and that's all I'm arguing here.) Walk away and come back in a few million years, and the gold watch will have corroded (at least the critical components like screws that hold it together will have), wound down, and probably eroded away. The sandcastle wouldn't have survived the tides or even a day of wind and rain. But a small clump of moss clinging to a rock will have spread across a good portion of the continent, and have started adapting to most of the climatic zones.

So if a pocket watch or a sand castle were to somehow spontaneously form, it wouldn't "stick". Also, there'd be no natural forces that would tend to spontaneously assemble it. But if there WERE natural forces that would tend to spontaneously form something "designed" or "orderly", and such a thing had a tendency to reproduce, or at least endure considerably longer than it takes those natural forces to spontaneously produce it, we'd expect to see examples of order spontaneously arising. Of course, we don't.

[Image: crystal-cave-1.jpg]
(Intelligently designed. OBVIOUSLY intelligently designed, you moron. Or Photoshopped. That looks Photoshopped, doesn't it?)

It's the same problem with abiogenesis. Do we see life spontaneously forming in puddles of primordial goop? Nope. In modern times, such spontaneously forming life, or even the goop we would expect them to form in, would rapidly become food for already-established life, or destroyed by free oxygen. In short, we wouldn't EXPECT to see it happening. Would the odds of spontaneous generation be low in any given puddle or over any given year, century, millenium? Most likely. Have we done it in a lab? No. But given the right primordial goop (which HAS been done in the lab, quite easily, in simulations of what would have been natural conditions after Earth's formation), spread across enough of the Earth's surface, and a few million years of rerolling the dice, the odds of something forming become... plausible. This is NOT true of the sand castle or the watch. And once we have the one thing, it becomes two things, and four things, and eight things. This is ALSO not true of the watch or sand castle. And then those things start to vary, and whichever variations have more survivability potential come to dominate, and the group as a whole becomes "better designed", and better still, to the point where it is incredibly-well "designed". This is ALSO not true of watches or sand castles. The extension of the analogy from watches and sand castles to life is hugely, hugely flawed.

And yes, I recognize that life isn't the only thing that argument by design is applied to. I merely examined it in detail to highlight some of the argument's flaws.

Overall, argument by design's most fundamental error is in leaning on our intuitive recognition or perception of what is designed and what isn't, and refuses to examine the question in detail beyond that knee-jerk, intuitive response, save that some proponents go cherry-picking examples in support of said response. This intuition is quite unreliable, and should not be the end of the reasoning process.

That said, however frustrating it is to see people clinging to argument by design, it is at least halfway clever, halfway intriguing, and halfway interesting, suggesting that whoever came up with it was at least a halfwit. "Because the Bible Says So" is more obnoxious BY FAR.

Terrific, fleshed-out reasoning. Normally I refute the pocket watch argument by simply saying "one is biologic and the other is not" (you say self-preserving and self-reproducing).
I particularly like your summation Thumbsup

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
08-04-2013, 01:02 PM
RE: What is the worst argument for God?
Anything faith based always jerks my neck.

"You have to have faith"

"I had a spiritual awakening"

And yet another interesting topic I am not interested in.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2013, 01:19 PM
RE: What is the worst argument for God?
The stupidest, in my humble opinion, is when people say; "you need to have faith, it's human".
Like having an imaginary friend is what makes you human.

Not sure it passes as an argument, but when people say "well, you can't prove gravity/air exists either, because you can't see it either".
It's even more hilarious, when the person saying that shit, is too dumb to understand the proof, of air or gravity, given.

I've hear quite a few people say, they believe in God, but "he's not a person, he's a force within us all, a force of love and human interaction".
I'm not quite sure I'm comfortable with someone being inside me at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes MuffinPuffin's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: