Forum:The Five Arguments for God
(→Further objections to consider: ho ho) |
(→Further objections to consider: I suppose this should be signed since it's now a discussion.) |
||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
Are rocks not designed? | Are rocks not designed? | ||
| − | :Well yes. But fine tuning does exist - though not in the form the argument suggests. Evolution has "finely tuned" life to exist on the planet in which it exists. However this is hardly surprising, as we would not be around to consider the fact if evolution did not try to fit life to the environment in which it finds itself. | + | :Well yes. But fine tuning does exist - though not in the form the argument suggests. Evolution has "finely tuned" life to exist on the planet in which it exists. However this is hardly surprising, as we would not be around to consider the fact if evolution did not try to fit life to the environment in which it finds itself. [[User:Ikanreed|Ikanreed]] ([[User talk:Ikanreed|talk]]) 22:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC) |
:Secondly the universe as a whole is actually outstandingly inimical to (our kind) of life. Biological life as we know it would not be able to survive in 99.9999999999999 <small>plese continue this number</small>% of the universe. In any event the universe is certainly outstandingly hostile to human beings. For that matter, humans could not survive on most of the surface of the Earth for long - what with it being largely covered with water. | :Secondly the universe as a whole is actually outstandingly inimical to (our kind) of life. Biological life as we know it would not be able to survive in 99.9999999999999 <small>plese continue this number</small>% of the universe. In any event the universe is certainly outstandingly hostile to human beings. For that matter, humans could not survive on most of the surface of the Earth for long - what with it being largely covered with water. | ||
Revision as of 22:15, 23 January 2015
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god
Enjoy... Here is a very detailed page that counters some arguments from non-believers. I would enjoy if you can prove those premises and conclusions false. Pitzy 19:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Contents |
Why 1st argument is false:
Enjoy Pitzy 19:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Objections to premises
""Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause."" —Premise 1
Let's start with the assumptions here, and the first premise is a good place to go for that. This one is wrong even if it's not the core wrongness of the piece(see discussion of premise 2, AKA "how much bullshit are we going to accept for the sake of argument?"). I contest it on a simple phrasing basis. By example, if a train derails, it doesn't have an external cause. It derails because it was moving quickly, and the rails were misaligned. That's two distinct undeniable factors, and that's just the simple direct necessity. To a human looking for cause we'd be concerned with what safety measures were overlooked, what damaged the rails, what design features are meant to overcome derailments and didn't. To say something has an explanation is to view things far to simplistically to operate in the real world. As a universal assumption, it's a flimsy one.
"If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God" —Premise 2
The mere fact that we're having this argument tells you this one isn't agreed upon. This is begging the question. If we give you god as a premise, then why would you need to prove it.
The amount of outright strawman bullshit heaped upon atheists in the explanation for this premise deserves an Extra Bullshit Award.
"A. If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence." —Atheists, according to this article
I've never heard any atheists ever make any sort of construction remotely resembling this. To you, is it okay to lie about what those you disagree with say? Do you find this to be an ethical and just practice? Look all over this atheist infested wiki. You'll see nothing remotely like this, not even on talk pages, essays, or forums. I urge you to ponder the honesty of William Lane Craig and why you trust him. Ikanreed (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Objections to deduction
Nah, that's fine. To my logic skills the deduction is good, given the assumptions. We can't give you those assumptions. Ikanreed (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Why 2nd argument is false
Enjoy. Pitzy 19:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Objections to premises
First and foremost read our article on the cosmological argument. That's this one to a T.
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." —premise 1
An interesting supposition here. It's very fluid with the idea of "cause". As per my objections to proof #1, a cause is perhaps reductionist. And the word "cause" is pretty ambiguous. Causality, to physics(for example) isn't an ironclad law of intuition, but a description of the flow of information at the speed of light. Relying on it relies on the existence of time and space. But hold it: those are characteristics of the universe. So that can't be the kind of cause we mean, since we're trying to go to before the universe. There are other kinds of definitions for "cause" and each raises it's own concerns. This premise mostly fails on it's own ambiguity. A more clear version could be written, but seemingly never is.
"The universe began to exist." —premise 2
This isn't an objection per se, but a question that is unanswered in the phrasing of the proof.
Time, as revealed through relativity, is a dimension of the universe. A simple variable that a lot of mechanisms of the universe interact with. Velocity is a relationship of time and position. Acceleration is a relationship of time and velocity. Time started, for all intents and purposes, with the universe. We have no evidence to substantiate that it's existence is separate from space, and some pretty good reasons to believe it's existence is attached to space(this is suggested through some rather complex math demonstrating the relationship of velocity and energy and it's similarity to the topology of a hypersphere). Anyways, the question that this premise raises is: what does it mean to "begin to exist" before time?
"Begin" is a word tied to our deeply human perception of time. A time T a thing exists, at T-1 it didn't, so the thing starts to exist at T. But when you don't have T? That idea is meaningless? What does begin mean?
Objections to deduction(this is the big problem)
Let's grant those premises. There are problems in the deduction.
The problems aren't with the deduction arriving at the conclusion, but the undiscussed further implications thereof. It appears to raise a contradiction thus invalidating the premises. That contradiction comes from taking a further implication. All causes must exist, and thus begin to exist. Your proof suddenly requires causes for causes for causes, with no end, and no evidence for any of them. It's a very suspect implication, and should raise doubts on the premises. For which there are plenty.
And further, even if you accept the premises, and accept the deduction, ignore the further implications, the unstated further conclusion that all causes must be something you deem "God" is an insane non-sequitur. Why would that be true? Completely not established. At all.
Again, see the cosmological argument, our article has a great breakdown of everything wrong here. Better than mine. Ikanreed (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Why 3rd argument is false:
EnjoyPitzy 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Objections to the premises
"If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist." —premise 1
I call this premise the "irredeemable asshole argument". It's the one that baldly asserts that you're a bad person for not agreeing with the conclusion. If you make this argument you're an awful person who deserves no respect. Ever. It's untrue, because one can imagine a godless universe where people follow an absolutist moral code. It's not hard. A universe where no one kills, lies, or fights, but no one has heard of god. All in your imagination, but it's easy to see how these concepts are not related.
He brings up the Eurypthro Dilemma, but refuses to consider the "god(s) contradicts himself in revelations" problem that undermines his kinda classless begging the question response.
"Objective moral values and duties do exist." —Premise 2
Completely unsubstantiated. People still argue over what is right and wrong, and have forever. People who claim to follow identical instructions from identical holy books wildly disagree about what is right. Subjectivity reigns. Clearly and unequivocally. There might be an objective reality, but I see no reason to give him it as a premise.
Neither premise stands up to any scrutiny. Ikanreed (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
why 4th argument is false:
Enjoy..Pitzy 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Objections to premises
"The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design." —premise 1
A simple false dilemma. Why should those three be the only options?
Apparent fine tuning can also derive from:
- Localized convergence of variables
- As an example, consider earth's orbit. It's perfect for life. Liquid water at most levels. But that's just earth. Venus and mars are both outside that band. Why would a designer fail to tune those planets? Pretty unexplained, right? You could call that chance, but in a thousand solar systems with a dozen planets each, it's inevitable
- Evolution by natural selection
- Life is a beautiful display of how things can arrive at tuned solutions through somewhat chaotic processes that aren't chance. Giraffes have long necks that are perfectly suited to what they eat because their ancestors that didn't died. There's no absolute law of the universe that says they must. Nor did a small creature just randomly mutate straight into a giraffe one day.
- More I haven't thought of, much like Craig didn't think of(or refused to acknowledge) those two.
"It is not due to physical necessity or chance." —premise 2
Improbable things happen and Anthropic principle both undermine this "point".
Further objections to consider
First:
What really meaningful evidence is there that the universe is finely tuned? Life as it exists in this universe is going to be suited to this universe, because otherwise it wouldn't be alive. But maybe there are universes hypothetical even more conducive to life.
- Maybe if the gravitational constant were an iota stronger, stable solar systems would have formed earlier, and stars exploded less often.
- Maybe if the speed of light were faster, interstellar travel would be easier(wouldn't that be a fun universe)
- Maybe there are possible universes where there isn't malaria, aids, and cancer
Why is this the best possible universe?
Second: Wouldn't the ability to intuit that something is designed rely on contrast with something that isn't designed?
Are rocks not designed?
- Well yes. But fine tuning does exist - though not in the form the argument suggests. Evolution has "finely tuned" life to exist on the planet in which it exists. However this is hardly surprising, as we would not be around to consider the fact if evolution did not try to fit life to the environment in which it finds itself. Ikanreed (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Secondly the universe as a whole is actually outstandingly inimical to (our kind) of life. Biological life as we know it would not be able to survive in 99.9999999999999 plese continue this number% of the universe. In any event the universe is certainly outstandingly hostile to human beings. For that matter, humans could not survive on most of the surface of the Earth for long - what with it being largely covered with water.
- Suggesting that the universe has been created for our convenience is either absurd or implies the existence of a pretty incompetent creator.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 22:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Finally why 5th argument is false:
Enjoy...Pitzy 19:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Rather than premise by premise...
"It is possible that a maximally great being exists. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
" —Oh really?
It is possible I have a maximally great house.
If it's possible that I have a maximally great house, then I have a maximally great house in some possible world
If I have a maximally great house in some possible world, then I have one in every possible world.
If I have a maximally great every world, then I have on in this world.
Wait... where the fuck is my perfect mansion?
These are old arguments
The first three fall into one basic premise:
1) Most of it is a great example of special pleading. Everything exists therefore God did it since rhetoric. Based on no evidence it was god (not Thor, or a galatic dog fart) and never answers the question that if everything that exists has a creator...what created god? This is an old argument by apologetics that has been debunked since it was proposed, but it still seems to get repeated to the laughter of anyone with a brain.
Four and five are almost nonsense.
2) Objective morality, especially of the bible, doesn't exist.
3) The possibility of a "maximal being" to exist is nonsense. Just because someone can think something could exist doesn't mean it does. Human beings have imagined dragons, space squid, and sea monsters that can exist as well and they don't.
This can be debunked by elementary school theology. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. Although WLK wants to imply that there is something new in these arguments that's not the case. It's the same old ideas re-presented (sometimes) with slightly newer words.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
And finally
More arguments isn't better arguments.
Logic necessitates that once something is established as true, it's true. Proving it twice doesn't do any good. It does however waste incredible amounts of time for people debunking your bullshit. You have a responsibility to decide which of these is the one that convinces you and defend that. Having more proofs actually makes your logical point weaker by suggesting that you're using rhetorical tactics rather than trying to genuinely make a specific meaningful assertion. Ikanreed (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)