Talk:Argument from design

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Melanesian tribesman and airplanes

I haven't been able to find a corroborating source for the "airplane's egg" story, and the only other examples I see are mostly Youtube videos in which this page is being quoted. As such I believe a reference to corroborate this claim should be added.

Quinque viae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae#Criticism

The five logical reasons God exists.

the unmoved mover; the first cause; the argument from contingency; the argument from degree; the teleological argument ("argument from design").

Sure, there is criticism from people like Richard Dawkins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae#Criticism

However, to quote here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae#Defense

The 20th-century philosopher of religion Richard Swinburne argued in his book, Simplicity as Evidence of Truth, that these arguments are only strong when collected together, and that individually each of them is weak ^{— Unsigned, by: The Thinking Theist / talk / contribs} 18:15, 13 May 2015

That's not necessarily true. If a proof for god is true, then there shouldn't need to be more than one. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, yes Thomas Aquinas and the Summa Theologica is so the cutting edge of contemporary philosophy and theology... (yawn) ScepticWombat (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please also see here. "When you wish to make an argument then you should present it in your own words. If you simply post a link to another website or blogpost saying the answer can be found there you will probably not be taken seriously. An even worse mistake is posting YouTube links as it is highly unlikely that people will spend half an hour listening to them. Remember - make the point yourself."--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Holy shit, didn't we just have some kid drive-by this exact set of "proofs" a few months ago. As I recall I took way too much of my time to actually answer the lazy URL dumper. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it did seem to have had the effect of making the dumper think about and admit that WLC's arguments are crap. Not that he couldn't have gotten the same info by reading RW's articles on WLC and his arguments, but I guess the "personal touch" is a bit more likely to be taken seriously.

I must admit that Swinburne's opinion (if it's correctly represented, of course) did remind me of Craig (no, not because of possible quote mining, though he does love that too) and his claim that his five arguments form a "cumulative case". That's just as much of a BS contention as this supposed opinion of Swinburne's, though Swinburne is at least not (as far as I know) the kind of shameless shyster that Craig is. Why on earth do five weak arguments suddenly become good when taken together? That's only the case if they're cumulative, and these aren't any more cumulative than Craig's five arguments. If you pile five bucketfuls of crap on top of each other, all you get is a bigger pile of crap; it doesn't spontaneously turn into gold. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

More recently the prominent Thomistic philosopher Edward Feser has argued in his book Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide that Dawkins, Hume, Kant, and most modern philosophers do not have a correct understanding of Aquinas at all; that the arguments are often difficult to translate into modern terms; and that the Five Ways are just a brief summary directed towards beginners and must be understood in the context of Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Aquinas’ other writings. He argues that Aquinas’ five ways have never been adequately refuted when thus considered ^{— Unsigned, by: The Thinking Theist / talk / contribs} 23:51, 13 May 2015

So a fan of old Aquinas claims that all the subsequent philosophers who were critical of him have misunderstood the old saint and that a guy almost 800 years in his grave is still cutting edge. Yup, sounds plausible. PS. please sign your posts by clicking the sign button or using four tildes. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

most modern philosophers do not have a correct understanding of Aquinas at all - ah, the "sophisticated theology" line. It's not that king is really naked, it's just that you have to be sufficiently educated in clothes detection to see them. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that in order to understand why the arguments are strong put together, you must read more of his works. The arguments are difficult to understand in modern terms. To understand them, you must understand them in the context of Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Aquinas’ other writings. In that sense, they were never refuted.--The Thinking Theist (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Has any theistic writer ever debunked the entire writings of Dawkins? No? Then I guess that means atheism is true, since the context of his works have never been refuted. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 15:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, TTT, are you saying that Feser's interpretations of Aquinas add up to an irrefutable proof of the existence of god? If so, isn't this one of the greatest advances in philosophy since forever? Why haven't we all heard about it. Must be an atheist conspiracy. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Your argument is basically "Some guy wrote a book saying Aquinas was right." Your statement about the book may we be utterly true. But it is hardly sufficient to convince anyone of your belief that the argument from design is valid. Can you read the article and then explain your objections in your own words.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Basic "wrong assumption"

1) God in some meaningful sense is humanoid in form (so we could be designed in {deity pronoun's) image(s)

2) God intended designing "a human".

(Consider all the ways purchaser-constructed-objects can be arranged, most with 'several bits left over.) 86.177.101.135 (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

We are told in Genesis "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

"His image" implies a male. But why would a solitary God require male sexual organs? Presumably he would not. So perhaps both the male and female were created in his image? Is God then a hermaphrodite? Should the correct way to refer to God be "it" or "It"?

On the other hand the previous verse is: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ..."

Who is this "us"? Was he perhaps speaking to Mrs God? That would explain at least how he came to have a son.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 11:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The 'son' was with Mary - the 'sons' mentioned in the Book of Job (so God is an adulterer as well).

And 'It' is a Stephen King novel. Anna Livia (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Bronze

Any opposition? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Bronze it like Mr Olympia, baby. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

A good summary

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=lang_en&id=5AzvCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Different form of argument

I've seen the argument floating around that the universe couldn't exist if certain parameters were changed slightly.^{— Unsigned, by: GreatPerson / talk / contribs} 06:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Aka, the argument from fine tuning. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)