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.
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.
This is an excellent example of the God of the gaps!
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?
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?
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.
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: 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.
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
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!
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.).
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.
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.
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.
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: jsprouse on September 07, 2011, 12:00:21 AM
I guess what I am trying to say, in very general terms, is that complex order seems to indicate intelligence.
Not necessarily. We could be the result or product of a random universe and never know it.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 07, 2011, 07:44:49 AM
We could be the result or product of a random universe and never know it.
That proverbial box of gears has been shaken for quite enough time to fall into a clock, but all it often takes is one random act at the beginning of a process and then it just carries on on its ripple effect. Can think of it as a system of chain reactions.
Quote from: jsprouse on September 07, 2011, 12:00:21 AM
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.
And there you have the problem 'seems to indicate'. It's the evolved propensity of humans to see patterns or objects where they really don't exist. For example:
The Medawar Lecture 2001 Knowledge for vision: vision for knowledge (http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1458/1231.full)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frstb.royalsocietypublishing.org%2Fcontent%2F360%2F1458%2F1231%2FF9.large.jpg&hash=6f859faee3f091995053c2e9966571fd86c7412d)
There is no dog in that picture. Your mind has interpreted those blobs and 'found' a dog that does not exist.
Consider the question: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Well the falling tree does create pressure waves, but it's only a human ear/mind combination that hears a 'sound', as 'sound' is an abstract human concept. The same applies with, for example, the human eye. The eye has structure but it is human interpretation of that structure that implies design.
Can you provide a definition of design that does not require a designer? You have to be able to do this so that 'designed' can be differentiated from something 'non-designed'.
Does that help?
Quote from: Asmodean on September 07, 2011, 08:05:33 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 07, 2011, 07:44:49 AM
We could be the result or product of a random universe and never know it.
That proverbial box of gears has been shaken for quite enough time to fall into a clock, but all it often takes is one random act at the beginning of a process and then it just carries on on its ripple effect. Can think of it as a system of chain reactions.
I wouldn't use the clock analogy, since those are 'irreducibly complex' and have to have certain parts arranged in a certain order so that it could function as a clock. Rather, the universe self organises based on rules (which we don't know if were designed) and that we and every other complex arrangement are the result of those simple rules interacting with eachother based on intrinsic physical properties.
Without being able to tell what a universe which
isn't designed looks like, or finding a designers, there's really no way of knowing whether we're the product of a universe or the goal of a universe.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 07, 2011, 05:04:24 PM
Without being able to tell what a universe which isn't designed looks like, or finding a designers, there's really no way of knowing whether we're the product of a universe or the goal of a universe.
The third option would of course be that the universe designs itself.
The box of gears metaphor is a poor one, but my further explanation hints at this third possibility. Let us say a particle is created. The "first" particle. At the same instant, the rules governing this particle are created (in the sense that it behaves in a way we define as rules) The next particle is created and there is a relation between the two. A relation created together with the second particle
(This is just an illustrative example, meant to demonstrate that the rules which govern something do not necessarilly have to preceed or succeed that something, but can be a part of that something's makeup, thus allowing that something to arrange and define itself without a master-designer, yet in an ordered fashion)
Quote from: Asmodean on September 07, 2011, 05:29:46 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 07, 2011, 05:04:24 PM
Without being able to tell what a universe which isn't designed looks like, or finding a designers, there's really no way of knowing whether we're the product of a universe or the goal of a universe.
The third option would of course be that the universe designs itself.
The box of gears metaphor is a poor one, but my further explanation hints at this third possibility. Let us say a particle is created. The "first" particle. At the same instant, the rules governing this particle are created (in the sense that it behaves in a way we define as rules) The next particle is created and there is a relation between the two. A relation created together with the second particle
(This is just an illustrative example, meant to demonstrate that the rules which govern something do not necessarilly have to preceed or succeed that something, but can be a part of that something's makeup, thus allowing that something to arrange and define itself without a master-designer, yet in an ordered fashion)
You have a point, and it's yet another 'intelligence' that would need to be differentiated from the theistic idea of creative intelligence.
Jsprouse, just the
appearance of intelligent design doesn't mean that it is intelligently designed in the way that we, as intelligent beings, design things. I think one of the toughest problems you run into with this problem is that it isn't able to show that the theistic or deistic version is necessarily the correct one.
*Edited to correct typo.
Quote from: Tank on September 07, 2011, 10:39:51 AM
There is no dog in that picture. Your mind has interpreted those blobs and 'found' a dog that does not exist.
No my mind has not, I see the Demon you refuse to acknowledge, repent while you still can.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0RxvH.jpg&hash=0d54b095a686773ec99cb0a9aa2086b4e5aafd69)
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on September 07, 2011, 06:18:46 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 07, 2011, 10:39:51 AM
There is no dog in that picture. Your mind has interpreted those blobs and 'found' a dog that does not exist.
No my mind has not, I see the Demon you refuse to acknowledge, repent while you still can.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0RxvH.jpg&hash=0d54b095a686773ec99cb0a9aa2086b4e5aafd69)
That's my face... :'(
Quote from: Davin on September 07, 2011, 06:24:49 PM
That's my face... :'(
[/quote]
Ah you frown Davin but your face has been delivered to us from the ass of the non existent dalmatian.
Command as you will, but please note I have a weak choke response.
I object to your argument.
I don't see a demon, I see Rorschach from the Watchmen movie...
I see Jabba the Hut
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on September 07, 2011, 06:18:46 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 07, 2011, 10:39:51 AM
There is no dog in that picture. Your mind has interpreted those blobs and 'found' a dog that does not exist.
No my mind has not, I see the Demon you refuse to acknowledge, repent while you still can.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0RxvH.jpg&hash=0d54b095a686773ec99cb0a9aa2086b4e5aafd69)
Great, it's 3am, and that just freakin scared me! ;__; *huddles under covers*
Quote from: jsprouse
Premise 1: The complex order in the universe is either random or is designed for a purpose.
Cosmological Argument...also know as the First Cause Argument and goes something along the lines of:
Everything in nature has been created and nothing can create itself. Everything that exists around us has a cause. Nothing causes itself to come into existence. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes so the universe must have had a first cause, so there must be a creator.
Simply put, the world and everything in it is dependent on something other than itself for its existence.
If you follow the argument and one believes God exists, and that all things which exist were created, then God must have been created, right? Wrong, say the theist. God is exempt from being created because he always 'was'. Yet this falls into the dilemma of infinite regress (who created whatever created God, ad infinitum). Still, you will hear "God was not created, the bible tells us he is eternal", but the statement completely misses the point. If God was not created, then one can believe something can exist without having been created and that means the initial premise "everything that exists has been created" is not true and a contradiction.
So why is the Christian first cause exempt from needing a cause? Or in other words, why should the creator be exempt from needing a creator? Enter Thomas Aquinas and his Uncaused Cause Argument otherwise known as the
argument from contingency: A contingent being can either exist or not exist. You can be dead or alive and it will not significantly change the state of the universe. Contingent beings have a cause for their existence and that cause cannot be itself or other contingent beings. Basically, you did not cause yourself to exist. And this leads us back to the infinite regress dilemma...unless....there is a necessary, non-contingent being! This being is necessary because nothing would exist without it
AND the being itself is uncaused because contingent beings cannot be their own cause.
The first problem with Aquinas' contingency argument is it is not self-evident or true that if most of the universe's inhabitants are contingent, the universe itself must be as well. This is known as the
fallacy of composition: assuming that if the parts of something have a certain quality, the whole of it must have the same quality as well. Example: a stone house might be made up of large stones, but that does not mean the house itself is large. We do not know, in the traditional sense of the words if the universe had a beginning or will have an end.
The second problem follows the first: the
law of conservation of mass states that "matter cannot be created or destroyed". If Aquinas' knew about that law, would he have still written the assertion that our universe is contingent?
The third problem follows the second. Is an uncaused cause only attributable to a god (Aquinas's god to be sure), or might there be other possibilities?
Aquinas' over imagination of this "ultimate" being is extremely questionable. He denies that there should be an infinite regress of contingent beings, yet he argues for an infinite god. He claims that contingent beings cannot be their own cause, but then states that God is his own cause and necessary. What makes him so sure that a god would be a necessary, uncaused cause?
This brings us to the "Why something exists rather than nothing" sub-argument, but by asserting God as an answer, it only begs the question of why there should be a god rather than nothing. What if it is just a brute, unthinking fact that the universe exists and no explanation is necessary? With so many alternative possibilities, the "The complex order in the universe is designed for a purpose" argument is no more persuasive than Pascal's Wager.
The next problem is 'time'. Because causality only makes sense in the context of time, it is fruitless to postulate a first cause that occurred before the creation or before the Big Bang, as it implies that the event took place outside of time. But what is even the basis for believing that everything (except God) has a cause? Research Quantum Mechanics.
Time Paradox(Definitions simplified)
God is defined as The Conscious First Cause (per Acquinas)
The First Cause is That which caused Time.
Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision.
A Decision is the action of changing ones mind from undecided to decided.
Time is the measure of change.
Premises:
Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it.
Conclusions:
Time is required for Change.
A Decision is a Change.
Decisions require Time.
Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
Consciousness requires Time.
God is Conscious.
God requires Time.
God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
God isn't the cause of Time.
God isn't The First Cause.
If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
God doesn't exist.
Enter Kalaam Cosmological Argument. This is basically the same as the original but specifically includes a second premise which
denies the existence of an actual infinite. It fails just as well because the KCA proponents wish to eliminate the possible objections of an infinite universe or an infinite regress of causes and it is asserted that since we cannot fully conceive of infinity, there must not be such a thing.
The Cosmological Argument is another presuppositional argument. One must presuppose a god and that the universe is the work of that god. It also questions the possibility that the universe could be infinite and has no beginning (non-temporal), but if this is accepted then it questions the issue of a temporal beginning of the universe. However, some theists who accept a
non-temporal theory still believe that the universe needs to be sustained by something and as far as they are concerned it is sustained by a/their God and would not be here if God did not exist. This point was argued by Aquinas' in his 'First Way'.
That brings us to what the role of God is after the world has been created. It can be argued that God could be the first cause either as creation out-of-nothing ('ex nihilo' = Genesis 1-2) or a form of theistic evolution (God as the cause of the Big Band and/or evolution). However, the 'law of conservation of energy' (the amount of energy in the universe must remain constant in order for there to be 'laws of nature') means that God could not be continually putting energy into the universe and THAT questions God's activity in the universe and THEN questions of the use of miracles within the laws of nature.
And the last problem I'll deal with (because I'm tired of typing) deals superficially with deism - God as the first cause may only be the first cause and is not the causing or causes. Basically, after setting the Universe (or first cause) in motion God withdraws and merely observes. But if this is so what reason is there for believing in God and practicing religion today?
Even if God is still around the CA has not solved the further issue of
which God actually created the world. Of course, this latter point may only be solved on the basis of special woowoo revelation, which is outside the boundary of the Cosmological Argument.
*Edited twice...frackin typos*
As per usual, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on September 10, 2011, 05:05:55 PM
As per usual, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post.
As per usual, you are most kind...*grinnin*...and thank you.
While it is not my personal favourite argument it should be mentioned that the origin of the universe, or the origin of life or whatever might actually have been random. Luck of the draw. Exceptionally unlikely, but still a distinct possibility, and if dissected using Occhams Razor it is still a more likely solution then the invisible architect in the sky.
What happened to you jsprouse?