Alexrd Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 The theological proof that God exists smacks atheists out!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 14, 2008 Author Share Posted June 14, 2008 Hello, alexrdias. I hope you'll forgive that I did not watch the entire video, as only the first 4.5 minute or so seemed to be related to this "theological proof". Of course my time is valuable to me, so I will only be critiquing what I presume to be the relevant parts. If there is some other part of the video that you feel that I should address, feel free to point it out and I will be happy to do so. Below is a summary of the argument(s) that the speaker presents in the first half: 3 steps in establishing the existence of god: 1) God as a first cause. 2) Argument from design. 3) God as a source of morality. 4 Fundamental questions: Origin Meaning Morality Destiny Combine the 3 steps and the 4 questions and, "Only god is big enough to explain this universe". First, let's point out that none of these are argument for god. At best they are arguments for something supernatural, but no part of this is anywhere close to be an actual argument for the judeo-christian god. I will be returning to this point as tick through each part of this, so I wanted to lay the groundwork first. Okay: 1) God as a first cause.The problem with first causes is that they lead to infinite regression. If Y created Z, then what created Y? Must have been X. Well what created X then? W? Unfortunately for the purposes of my analogy we can eventually determine that A was the first cause, but for the purposes of the actual logic, there is no end. Hence the "infinite" in "infinite regression". However, our brain, being what it is has a very difficult time accepting this. Conflicting logic says, "well the whole thing had to have started somewhere!!!". And that's fine. Let's accept that yes, it did indeed all have to start somewhere. But why is that answer "god"? Why isn't it "satan"? Or the titans, or the flying spaghetti monster, or magic fairiers with magic fairy dust? What evidence do any of us have for one of these fantastic ideas over any of the others? How could we possibly verify them? Most importantly, how can we rule out a perfectly logic explanation that can be verified by science and requires no superstitious supernatualism at all? Decades of research into quantum physics brings us closer and closer to such an explanation. At some point in the future we'll be smart enough to be able to build the equipment necessary to test our predictions. At that point, there will be a few less gaps for god to hide in. So the argument that there must have been a first cause is no more an argument for god than it is an argument for anything else. The speaker's first point fails as proof of god's existence. 2) Argument from design.My counterarguments here are going to sound very familiar because the same logic applies. The appearance of design is not evidence of design. Furthermore, even if it were considered evidence of design, it tells us nothing about the designer. The designer could be god, satan, the flying spaghetti monster, zeus, apollo, thor, invisible pink unicorns or anything else we care to dream up. So not only do we not have any supportable argument for design, we have no supportable argument for the identity of the alleged designer. Unfortunately for the speaker, we have more than 150 years of scientific research that shows that not only is a designer not necessary, a designer is highly improbable at worst and highly incompitent at best. The speaker's second point fails as proof of god's existence. 3) God as a source of morality.At this point I feel confident that I do not need to repeat that even if we were to accept that morality required an external source, that we would not be able to determine what that source is. Also similar to the examples above is that scientific research continues to offer up natural explanations that make supernatural hypothesis unnecessary (recent research with mirror neurons, etc). Even if that were not the case, we have centuries of moral philosophy that are capable of showing that we can discover morality on our own, if it took the science a long time to be able to figure out how we do it. So, the speaker's third point fails as proof of god's existence. I will try to keep my summary of the last part as brief as possible: 4 Fundamental questions: 1) Origin 2) Meaning 3) Morality 4) Destiny Combine the 3 steps and the 4 questions and, "Only god is big enough to explain this universe". 1) Origins can be explained with abiogenesis and evolution. 2) There is no inherent meaning. The question is a non sequitur. 3) Morality can be explained with sociology and neuroscience. 4) There is no such thing as destiny. The question is a non sequitur. So combine the three steps with the four questions and we're left with, "Supernatural explanations do not tell us anything usefull about the universe whereas science tell us quite a bit". Perhaps this is why most scientists tend to be atheists and many atheists have a passion for the sciences. I hope that helps. Thanks again for your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 The theological proof that God exists smacks atheists out!!!BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK achilles' point is good too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M@RS Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 I messed up on the movie, it's called "End of the Harvest" sorry, my bad I should have known better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 14, 2008 Author Share Posted June 14, 2008 Achilles, to help with this "debate" look up and watch the movie "Before the Harvest" You might like it...Just looked at End of the Harvest on IMDb and cannot imagine how a work of fiction is going to help the discussion. Rather than presume to have me waste an hour of my life, why don't you summarize the parts that you feel would be enlightening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Just looked at End of the Harvest on IMDb and cannot imagine how a work of fiction is going to help the discussion. Rather than presume to have me waste an hour of my life, why don't you summarize the parts that you feel would be enlightening? Come on, Achilles. It's only a 53 minute waste. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 14, 2008 Author Share Posted June 14, 2008 Come on, Achilles. It's only a 53 minute waste. I'll spend 5 minutes here or 5 minutes there taking on apologist arguments than have been refuted a thousand times, but some film student's senior project is asking for too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexrd Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 First, let's point out that none of these are argument for god. At best they are arguments for something supernatural, but no part of this is anywhere close to be an actual argument for the judeo-christian god. But there is something then...It's God for me and for the christian, it's Allah for the muslim, etc... I will be returning to this point as tick through each part of this, so I wanted to lay the groundwork first. Okay: The problem with first causes is that they lead to infinite regression. If Y created Z, then what created Y? Must have been X. Well what created X then? W? Unfortunately for the purposes of my analogy we can eventually determine that A was the first cause, but for the purposes of the actual logic, there is no end. Hence the "infinite" in "infinite regression". God is the alfa and the omega. However, our brain, being what it is has a very difficult time accepting this. Conflicting logic says, "well the whole thing had to have started somewhere!!!". And that's fine. Let's accept that yes, it did indeed all have to start somewhere. But why is that answer "god"? Why isn't it "satan"? Or the titans, or the flying spaghetti monster, or magic fairiers with magic fairy dust? What evidence do any of us have for one of these fantastic ideas over any of the others? How could we possibly verify them? Again, there is something. And that is against atheism, for them there's nothing. Most importantly, how can we rule out a perfectly logic explanation that can be verified by science and requires no superstitious supernatualism at all? Decades of research into quantum physics brings us closer and closer to such an explanation. At some point in the future we'll be smart enough to be able to build the equipment necessary to test our predictions. At that point, there will be a few less gaps for god to hide in. We aren't there yet to see what that explanation will be. Maybe the explanation it's God itself... The appearance of design is not evidence of design. Furthermore, even if it were considered evidence of design, it tells us nothing about the designer. The designer could be god, satan, the flying spaghetti monster, zeus, apollo, thor, invisible pink unicorns or anything else we care to dream up. So not only do we not have any supportable argument for design, we have no supportable argument for the identity of the alleged designer. Unfortunately for the speaker, we have more than 150 years of scientific research that shows that not only is a designer not necessary, a designer is highly improbable at worst and highly incompitent at best. However, there's a possibility that there's is a designer, and I beleive that it exists. At this point I feel confident that I do not need to repeat that even if we were to accept that morality required an external source, that we would not be able to determine what that source is. Also similar to the examples above is that scientific research continues to offer up natural explanations that make supernatural hypothesis unnecessary (recent research with mirror neurons, etc). Even if that were not the case, we have centuries of moral philosophy that are capable of showing that we can discover morality on our own, if it took the science a long time to be able to figure out how we do it. I would like to see that. My time is valuable to me also, so I will answer to you whan I have more time left. This is just my opinion, I hope everyone respect that, as I respect yours. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 God is the alfa and the omega. Alpha. Again, there is something. And that is against atheism, for them there's nothing. Unless that something has a natural explanation. Because then it's just nature. Which in terms of this argument, is nothing. This is just my opinion, I hope everyone respect that, as I respect yours. Thanks. I do. Thank you as well. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 14, 2008 Author Share Posted June 14, 2008 But there is something then...It's God for me and for the christian, it's Allah for the muslim, etc...Without evidence we have no reason to believe that this is true. That doesn't mean that we can rule it out, but it also means that there is no wisdom in accepting it as true. Compound that by the fact that you are taking a guess at which of these imaginary figures is the one you're "supposed" to be following. God is the alfa and the omega. You are aware that because some guy wrote that down on a page, that doesn't make it true, correct? Again, there is something.But you can't say what that something is. Saying that it is god is 1) undefendable and 2) doesn't tell us anything useful about our universe. I could say that its the flying spaghetti monster and we would both have to accept that we're just guessing. We aren't there yet to see what that explanation will be. Maybe the explanation it's God itself...Just as it could be invisible pink unicorns. What is your point? However, there's a possibility that there's is a designer, and I beleive that it exists. The odds of there being a designer are orders of magnitude more unlikely than natural explanations that render such a hypothesis unnecessary. I acknowledge that you are welcome to believe whatever you wish, but belief does not make something true or useful. I would like to see that.Which? My time is valuable to me also, so I will answer to you whan I have more time left. Fair enough. I look forward to reading more of your posts in the future. This is just my opinion, I hope everyone respect that, as I respect yours.If you have argument worth respecting, then I will be happy to respect them. Take care. Which in terms of this argument, is nothing. Or everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Or everything I guess that's true. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexrd Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 just a quick post: When you talk of God, wht's God for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 15, 2008 Author Share Posted June 15, 2008 A fictional cultural icon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pho3nix Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 When you talk of God, wht's God for you? An entity created by the human mind that gives comfort, purpose and a meaning in life for those who choose to believe in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M@RS Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 I'll spend 5 minutes here or 5 minutes there taking on apologist arguments than have been refuted a thousand times, but some film student's senior project is asking for too much. This wasn't a senior project, it's just an old movie...I apologized for being rude, if you keep this up I'm going to apologize again for apologizing in the first place, I red all of the crap that you gave me, why don't you watch the movie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 15, 2008 Author Share Posted June 15, 2008 You didn't read any of it and I think we both know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M@RS Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 I read it, I know that, you don't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elijahyago Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 No takers on the 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer, so perhaps we'll have better luck with this one: thats all bull****! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M@RS Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Thank you, I'd say the same except that I'm a christian and I don't cuss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 thats all bull****! Any reasons why that is what you say it is? It all boils down to your opinion, people, and, barring some extraordinary change of heart, it's not going to be changed (easily). As for God? I regard (him) as an icon created by cultures, spread widely around the world. Although good has been done in (his) name, the bad seems to outweigh it (i.e., Crusades). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Any reasons why that is what you say it is?Because the Bible says so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 16, 2008 Author Share Posted June 16, 2008 I read it, I know that, you don't...You read my post, read the contents of that page, drafted your response and posted it all within 5 minutes? How gullible do you think we are? Please try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M@RS Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 I am a really fast reader, don't believe if you want but I know the truth, I read the articles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 I am a really fast reader, don't believe if you want but I know the truth, I read the articles... Being a fast reader is not always a good thing: if you rush through the articles, you're not giving yourself enough time to analyze the text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 16, 2008 Author Share Posted June 16, 2008 All that tells me is that you weren't reading for comprehension. Of course, I could already determine this from your subsequent responses, which means that while you may have taken the time to read the words on the screen, you didn't bother to devote any time to applying what they meant to your thinking. In other words, you didn't really read them at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.