News:

The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.

Main Menu

Please Object to my Argument

Started by jsprouse, September 06, 2011, 08:29:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jsprouse

I have an assignment for class. I had to come up with a argument for God's existence. I am looking for what some of your objections to it might be. I am not going to try to argue with you, just looking for your perspective. Thanks!

Premise 1: The complex order in the universe is either random or is designed for a purpose.

Premise 2: It is not random.

Conclusion: Therefore it is designed for a purpose.

Davin

Quote from: jsprouse on September 06, 2011, 08:29:54 PM
I have an assignment for class. I had to come up with a argument for God's existence. I am looking for what some of your objections to it might be. I am not going to try to argue with you, just looking for your perspective. Thanks!

Premise 1: The complex order in the universe is either random or is designed for a purpose.

Premise 2: It is not random.

Conclusion: Therefore it is designed for a purpose.

Premise one is a false dichotomy.
Premise two is merely asserted.

The conclusion doesn't follow.

More detailed:

Premise 1: Not many people suggest that the universe is random, what most suggest is that it's governed by natural laws (which are anything but random). So not only is it not a complete dichotomy, but it's also somewhat of a straw man.

Things that should be included into the dichotomy:
The universe is designed with a purpose.
The universe is designed without a purpose (other than to simply make a universe).
The universe is completely random.
The universe came about through natural laws.
The universe doesn't really exist.
etc...

Even with all those extra ones, it's not a complete dichotomy (even if you proved all the extra ones false, it's illogical to suppose yours is correct without support).

Premise 2: The second premise is merely subjective and there is no real way to test it (what does a designed universe look like if this one is not designed?).

Conclusion: The conclusion doesn't make sense because the premises do not support it.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Stevil

This is an excellent example of the God of the gaps!

jsprouse

Quote from: Davin on September 06, 2011, 08:47:21 PM
Premise one is a false dichotomy.
Premise two is merely asserted.

The conclusion doesn't follow.

More detailed:

Premise 1: Not many people suggest that the universe is random, what most suggest is that it's governed by natural laws (which are anything but random). So not only is it not a complete dichotomy, but it's also somewhat of a straw man.

Things that should be included into the dichotomy:
The universe is designed with a purpose.
The universe is designed without a purpose (other than to simply make a universe).
The universe is completely random.
The universe came about through natural laws.
The universe doesn't really exist.
etc...

Even with all those extra ones, it's not a complete dichotomy (even if you proved all the extra ones false, it's illogical to suppose yours is correct without support).

Premise 2: The second premise is merely subjective and there is no real way to test it (what does a designed universe look like if this one is not designed?).

Conclusion: The conclusion doesn't make sense because the premises do not support it.

Thanks for your input. I do plan to support these two premises with positive evidence for there truthfulness. Premise 2 at this point is just an assertion, but I do plan on backing it up :) By random I mean unguided, unintentional, without purpose.

I guess what I am trying to get an answer to is, what objections do you have for the existence of an intelligent designer of some sort?

jsprouse

Quote from: Stevil on September 06, 2011, 08:49:32 PM
This is an excellent example of the God of the gaps!

I was shooting for using science to provide some positive evidence for a designer, not that a lack of scientific knowledge shows that there is a designer.

Forgive my ignorance, how is this an example of God of the gaps?

Davin

Quote from: jsprouse on September 06, 2011, 09:10:19 PM
Quote from: Davin on September 06, 2011, 08:47:21 PM
Premise one is a false dichotomy.
Premise two is merely asserted.

The conclusion doesn't follow.

More detailed:

Premise 1: Not many people suggest that the universe is random, what most suggest is that it's governed by natural laws (which are anything but random). So not only is it not a complete dichotomy, but it's also somewhat of a straw man.

Things that should be included into the dichotomy:
The universe is designed with a purpose.
The universe is designed without a purpose (other than to simply make a universe).
The universe is completely random.
The universe came about through natural laws.
The universe doesn't really exist.
etc...

Even with all those extra ones, it's not a complete dichotomy (even if you proved all the extra ones false, it's illogical to suppose yours is correct without support).

Premise 2: The second premise is merely subjective and there is no real way to test it (what does a designed universe look like if this one is not designed?).

Conclusion: The conclusion doesn't make sense because the premises do not support it.

Thanks for your input. I do plan to support these two premises with positive evidence for there truthfulness. Premise 2 at this point is just an assertion, but I do plan on backing it up :) By random I mean unguided, unintentional, without purpose.

I guess what I am trying to get an answer to is, what objections do you have for the existence of an intelligent designer of some sort?
Mainly: there is no reason to suppose the thing in the first place; just like subatomic robots that created everything (including light in transit from galaxies 13 billion light years away), five days ago. Consistently, you should accept these subatomic robots just as you accept a creator god. Of course consistently, you should also accept a universe that came about through natural laws as equally as the previously mentioned universe creator things.

Starting from scratch (using nothing of religious books or hearsay), there is no way to mark a logical trail to a creator god. There is a way to start from scratch (using nothing from science books and hearsay), and mark a logical trail to the theory of gravity. I accept gravity, I don't accept intelligent creator things.

My reasoning is consistent across the board of things I accept, don't accept and deny.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Asmodean

Quote from: jsprouse on September 06, 2011, 08:29:54 PM
Premise 1: The complex order in the universe is either random or is designed for a purpose.
Poor definition. You have amended in later posts, so I'll let it go.

Have you considered a third possibility?

QuotePremise 2: It is not random.
What reason would it have not to be random?

This does not call for counter-argument since this is not an argument itself.

QuoteConclusion: Therefore it is designed for a purpose.
This conclusion is faulty on several levels, the more major of which being the huge leap from "it aint random" to "it must have been on purpose"
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

jsprouse

Quote from: Davin on September 06, 2011, 08:47:21 PM
Mainly: there is no reason to suppose the thing in the first place; just like subatomic robots that created everything (including light in transit from galaxies 13 billion light years away), five days ago. Consistently, you should accept these subatomic robots just as you accept a creator god. Of course consistently, you should also accept a universe that came about through natural laws as equally as the previously mentioned universe creator things.

Starting from scratch (using nothing of religious books or hearsay), there is no way to mark a logical trail to a creator god. There is a way to start from scratch (using nothing from science books and hearsay), and mark a logical trail to the theory of gravity. I accept gravity, I don't accept intelligent creator things.

My reasoning is consistent across the board of things I accept, don't accept and deny.

I see what you are saying. Thanks for your input Davin, it helps.

Stevil

Quote from: jsprouse on September 06, 2011, 09:15:55 PM
Quote from: Stevil on September 06, 2011, 08:49:32 PM
This is an excellent example of the God of the gaps!

I was shooting for using science to provide some positive evidence for a designer, not that a lack of scientific knowledge shows that there is a designer.

Forgive my ignorance, how is this an example of God of the gaps?
This is so exciting, I am really looking forward to your positive evidence. I will then provide objections if I have any, until then your argument remains as GOTG

jsprouse

I don't think I explained very well what I was getting at. This syllogism IS in an extremely simple form that requires much more information to back it up. I am not providing any evidence for the truthfulness of the premises here. I have given no evidence or reasons yet at all. All this is stating is that IF premise 1 & 2 are true (and you can deny their truthfulness) then the conclusion logically follows, but only if the first two assertions are true.

All I was looking for was what some of the major objections to a teleological argument are. Here is the way I think about it: If a tornado goes through a construction site and when it has passed through it leaves a completed building in it's wake that seems ridiculously impossible. We know that it would take some sort of intelligence and purpose to put together the building, not just a random act of nature. So it seems to me in my mind that the universe exhibits complexities that seems to require that it is "put together."

That is just where I am coming from and I know that everyone here has a different perspective, but I am hoping that we can kind of get to understand each other and where we are each coming from.

Thanks!

Davin

#10
Quote from: jsprouse on September 06, 2011, 10:45:32 PM
I don't think I explained very well what I was getting at. This syllogism IS in an extremely simple form that requires much more information to back it up. I am not providing any evidence for the truthfulness of the premises here. I have given no evidence or reasons yet at all. All this is stating is that IF premise 1 & 2 are true (and you can deny their truthfulness) then the conclusion logically follows, but only if the first two assertions are true.

All I was looking for was what some of the major objections to a teleological argument are. Here is the way I think about it: If a tornado goes through a construction site and when it has passed through it leaves a completed building in it's wake that seems ridiculously impossible. We know that it would take some sort of intelligence and purpose to put together the building, not just a random act of nature. So it seems to me in my mind that the universe exhibits complexities that seems to require that it is "put together."

That is just where I am coming from and I know that everyone here has a different perspective, but I am hoping that we can kind of get to understand each other and where we are each coming from.

Thanks!
The biggest problems I see witht he tornado argument:

Living things are not buildings.
Buildings do not reproduce.
Living things do not require tornados to reproduce.

So essentially the tornado argument is a straw man argument (saying that those who propose evolution and/or abiogenesis claim something like this) and/or a faulty analogy (trying to use the complexity of a building to represent the complexity of living things).

Edit: Also for the straw man/faulty analogy: Trying to equate an event (the tornado) to natural laws (gravity, chemical reactions... etc.).
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Whitney

Quote from: jsprouse on September 06, 2011, 09:10:19 PM
Thanks for your input. I do plan to support these two premises with positive evidence for there truthfulness. Premise 2 at this point is just an assertion, but I do plan on backing it up :) By random I mean unguided, unintentional, without purpose.

I guess what I am trying to get an answer to is, what objections do you have for the existence of an intelligent designer of some sort?

you can't logically argue that the universe is guided without first proving there is a guider...all you are doing is labeling something as a gap and shoving god into it.

My objections to an 'intelligent designer' is that there is absolutely no proof of one.

jsprouse

Quote from: Davin on September 06, 2011, 11:05:31 PM
The biggest problems I see witht he tornado argument:

Living things are not buildings.
Buildings do not reproduce.
Living things do not require tornados to reproduce.

I don't disagree with any of those statements :)

I guess what I am trying to say, in very general terms, is that complex order seems to indicate intelligence.

Whitney

snowflakes and crystals are complex yet we know how they form naturally....

You know...this has been discussed on the forum before...searching for threads about the watchmaker argument may produce more results than searching for teleological.

Asmodean

Quote from: jsprouse on September 07, 2011, 12:00:21 AM
complex order seems to indicate intelligence.
Seems to and does are not exactly the same though.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.