How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

by darkl1ght3r 87 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  darkl1ght3r

  How to Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument - By Ben Spencer

  Step 1

  Come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".

  For example:

  • All effects require a cause. Therefore, there must be a first cause.
  • All complex life-forms require a designer. Life cannot come from non-life.

  Step 2

  Come up with a being that the law created in Step 1 does not apply to.

  For Example:

  • God

  Step 3

  Deny all evidence and logic that reveals the gaping hole in your argument.

  For Example:

  • *fingers in ears* LALALALALALALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU.
• 

  GreyWolf

  You will have to be a bit more sophisticated if you think that you can dismiss the ideas that many intelligent Christians, Muslims, and Jews hold. Before posting in such a way, you would be wise to do some good reading. Try, for example, to look at some of Alvin Plantiga's works or Anthony Flew's recent book There is a God. And there is much more. Frankly, I think garden variety atheists are as naive as fundamentalists, and I include people like Dawkins who knows next to nothing about philosophy or the philosophy of science.

  GreyWolf
• 

  bohm

  Greywolf: i would be interested in why you believe Dawkins know next to nothing about the philosophy of science, and how that affect his arguments?
• 

  B_Deserter

  and I include people like Dawkins who knows next to nothing about philosophy or the philosophy of science.

  Richard Dawkins knows nothing about the philosophy of science?

  wow
• 

  drwtsn32

  Yep.

  A lot of creationists don't seem to get how it's logically unsound to magically excluded God from the very rules they try to impose on science... usually by stating nonsensical things like "God is outside of our space and time and is therefore not bound to it." To them it is perfectly reasonable to make such a claim, even though they have no supporting empirical evidence at all.

  It's a perfect example of the special pleading logical fallacy.
• 

  superpunk

  Saw this yesterday.

  
• 

  BurnTheShips

  nothing about philosophy or the philosophy of science.

  His "Ultimate 747" proof of atheism was a joke. It also completely undercut all of his past explanations regarding evolution where he described how complexity could arrive from simplicity. Also, he really doesn't seem to get the epistemic foundation for science.

  BTS
• 

  mindmelda

  I think I like that stick figure illustration the best. LOL

  I think it's fine to believe in God and spirituality and the paranormal...etc , just quit trying to prove that it's anything but "magic", okay?

  Humans are susceptible to magical thinking, it's part of our innate brain freakiness, but don't confuse it with logical scientific arguments.

  Just keep those two things away from each other...it's similar to not keeping matches near the can of gasoline in the garage.

  I actually believe in the paranormal in a certain sense, but I never try to rationalize it or explain it. If I could, I'd be accepting my Nobel Prize in other-dimensional quantum physics instead of dinking around sounding stupid on internet forums.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  but don't confuse it with logical scientific arguments.

  Which of course, have nothing to do with our innate brain "freakiness".

  BTS
• 

  mkr32208

  Yeah I would respect them a lot more (well nothing plus 1% is a lot) if they would just stop trying to lie and weasel and divert and deceive and just flat out say "it's magic and I can't even begin to explain it."

  I mean the lies, the pseudoscience the preposterous claims and then pitching a fit like a 2 year old really makes me want to puke on them. I mean just be HONEST for f*cks sake and say "yeah it's all magic."