Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logical Proof of Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound
BeagleBob
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 81
Joined: 11-21-2007


Message 10 of 175 (470863)
06-13-2008 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ypostelnik
06-11-2008 4:54 AM


Unrelated note, but I'm curious: are you a Muslim? Most Christians have abandoned these lines of argumentation decades ago, but I notice that most Muslims still use them.
Anyways, the article appears to be a hodgepodge of cosmological and teleological arguments unknowingly cribbed from Thomas Aquinas and other thinkers.
This is going to be a somewhat superficial treatment of the post since it goes in so many different directions, but let's actually dissect it:
quote:
The simplest proof (yet one that no atheist has ever been able to counter effectively) is that a universe of this size and magnitude does not somehow build itself, just as a set of encyclopedias doesn’t write itself or form randomly from the spill of a massive inkblot.
Definitely a cosmological argument... it focuses on the origin of the universe. It's very much a stretch to say that "no atheist has ever been able to counter [this proof] effectively." The reason theologians like William Lane Craig have had to reformulate the premises of cosmological arguments like this one is because it has a central flaw that can be described as the "problem of regression."
That is, if we take into account the premise that "all things that exist must have a cause" and we say "the universe had a cause, called God," two things are possible:
1. God is caused, and this SuperGod is itself also caused, and the SuperSuperGod above this is also caused... ad infinitum. (problem of regression)
2. God is uncaused. However, by allowing for uncaused entities we contradict the original premise of "all things that exist are caused."
.
.
.
quote:
They believe that not only did whole planets appear spontaneously, but also believe that the fact that these planets do not collide as meteors do, that they have gravity, that they contain the proper atmospheric conditions for life to take hold and contain sustenance to sustain this life all happened by mere fluke. Yet the same people would (rightly) denounce as preposterous the notion that the Egyptian pyramids built themselves. They would point to the structure and detailed design of these impressive inanimate objects. Yet they outrageously chalk up to coincidence billions upon billions of times more detail and design in all parts of life found in this universe.
To be sure, someone can build sandcastles in the sky on how the spontaneous coming together of molecules, then turning into bricks, changing further into buildings, culminating in 10,000 perfectly aligned skyscrapers all built with no builder is a plausible scenario. They can form intricate arguments to support this theory. But in the end, the entire proposition remains offensive to logic itself.
A teleological argument, and one that is poorly formulated since it doesn't take into account actual science behind the phenomena it is describing.
Also (and this is a very common mistake), the term "logic" refers to the formulation and grammatical structure of arguments and how they follow certain axiomatic laws of structure and inference. You're misusing the term here.
.
.
.
quote:
Even if this were possible, would the simplest of animals have been able to survive were it missing even one essential organ? Would human beings survive if one organ or cavity was missing or displaced, even after somehow being otherwise perfectly formed with no designer? The simple fact is that even if humans were so perfectly formed, if food, water, sunlight or any one of a host of details necessary for life to exist were somehow missing, human life would have lasted on this planet for a maximum of a few days.
Take a nice, detailed look at evolutionary biology sometime. It'd help answer all these concerns.
.
.
.
Argh. The original posting definitely is much too large, too unfocused, and poorly structured. I'm not just talking about from a standpoint of its arguments, as a paper it needs to be neater and more focused.
You wrote an impressive volume of stuff, but unless you can tie it coherently into a few points you're in danger of using spaghetti logic.
In addition, please go back to the original sources. Read Aquinas, criticisms of Aquinas, as well as the proofs and disproofs of various other thinkers in the Philosophy of Religion. It would really help you.
The ideas you're propagating are hardly new... and they were formulated in a much cleaner, neater, more concise way by others. Please learn from their example and come back to us when you're a bit more organized.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ypostelnik, posted 06-11-2008 4:54 AM ypostelnik has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Brian, posted 06-13-2008 5:35 AM BeagleBob has not replied
 Message 25 by ypostelnik, posted 06-17-2008 8:19 AM BeagleBob has replied

BeagleBob
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 81
Joined: 11-21-2007


Message 41 of 175 (471577)
06-17-2008 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by ypostelnik
06-17-2008 8:19 AM


quote:
BeagleBob,
You seem to have a profound misunderstanding of all the arguments you seek to counter.
All religions state that the Creator is not physical and transcends physicality. See the debate,
I used to teach philosophy. My criticisms weren't leveled at a specific, material entity. Rather, when I did go over your arguments I was critiquing the general format. In many instances your statements in the original article were essentially non sequiturs or were rife with internal contradictions.
quote:
on your second question - the entire point is that all of the details necessary for formation, on a scientific level, are intricate and rely on trillions of simultaneous happenings for life to form. Something that vast and intricate must have an intelligent Creator. So countering with "there's science behind it" is no counter, it's the very point the argument is making.
Like I said, this here is a teleological argument, very reminiscent of Paley's watchmaker argument. "It's intricate, therefore it must be designed."
The thing is, there are two fundamental errors that this argument makes.
1. Design is not detected by intricacy, but by contradistinction to nature. There are plenty of very complex, intricate structures in the universe, such as tornadoes or stars or fractals. However, we don't consider these to be "created" any more than simple rocks are. This is because natural forces can fully account for their formation. If natural forces can fully account for the formation of life, then there's no need to appeal to an outside agency.
2. Organisms can evolve and grow in complexity as time goes by, so at the end goal "complexity" isn't an issue. The only real question is how the first living prokaryote first developed, and we've got some good research underway. From what we see, prebiotic life can be remarkably simple.
quote:
As to evolutionary biology, I doubt Darwin would believe in it today given the lack of transitional fossils and being that non-life would have had to turn into living molecules, etc. millions of times, each separately, to effect the rich variety found in DNA/RNA.
So no, neither argument was refuted.
On the contrary, a wealth of transitional fossils have been found. One of the best examples is the transition of land animals into whales:
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
Here's a whole bunch of them:
Also, I don't think you quite understand the biochemistry behind abiogenesis. Current models of abiogenesis don't argue that a whole bunch of proteins mashed together at random to create the first cell. Rather, the first cell developed through stepwise stages, each of which is possible and many of which have been proven or are close to being proven through biochemistry and microbiology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ypostelnik, posted 06-17-2008 8:19 AM ypostelnik has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ypostelnik, posted 06-20-2008 2:01 AM BeagleBob has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024