How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

by darkl1ght3r 87 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  mindmelda

  Well..a lot of this problem seems to be the fact that God is invisible and doesn't seem to talk to anyone directly like he used to. LOL

  Hey, why don't we rate visits from the Big Guy anymore? He apparently used to come and talk to people all the time, send them an occasional stone tablet or two, make big miracles happen and wow the crowds.

  Why doesn't modern man rate the same from God? Are we so bad? Did God lose interest? Did he think that after we killed his Son that we're just too uncivil for direct contact?

  But, it sure would solve a lot of problems about the whole matter. Wars could have been prevented, internet wank, loads of books about it, and just people in general being confused and aggravated by the whole thing.

  I'm thinking, it can't matter that much if you really have no real way of knowing. The importance of believing or not believing in something higher can't be just proving it or not.

  It probably has more to do with what we need than anything. Some people need to believe, some don't. I guess it's hard for the non believers to see why someone would need to believe, and vice versa.

  I don't think it's a right or wrong thing, because like what color you prefer, it seems to be left entirely up to you and is totally subjective.

  I think were it gets off track and scary is when someone, as you mention, decides that those who don't agree with their version get really upset about it and make all sorts of assumptions that the other side of the coin must be evil or something wrong with them because they have different needs and interpret what they observe and feel differently.

  You have to leave that element out of it to have any kind of intelligent discussion about the matter. Or any significant ideas, really. There's almost always some validity to the other person's reasons for a religious or political or personal decision.

  For instance, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, either, but I can often see why people who embrace those ideas do so. It's often intensely personal and that combined with their observations and information lead them to a certain conclusion.

  The only problem is when you villainize people who you don't happen to agree with. All these issues are not the kinds of things that are entirely provable, like a math equation.

  They're all rather grayish areas of life that are highly subject to personal interpretation.

  You'll never get total agreement on such matters, but you can agree not to antagonize and villainize others over it.
• 

  darkl1ght3r

  So Darkyl, I guess then if creationists make the argument that: "electronic DVD equipment requires a designer", then they can be legitimately charged with "special pleading" by atheists for not also including God in the same argument (even thought the theists don't even believe that God is "electronic DVD equipment" to begin with).

  No no no no no.

  Holy smokes dude. This isn't that hard. READ THIS PAGE and then re-read my last post.

  Your analogy fails again because God is not electronic DVD equipment. Nowhere in the initial premise is such an equivocation made. The subject of the claim is unrelated to God. It is not special pleading because no sane person equates God with electronic DVD equipment. However lets go back and look at the subjects of the claims in question, and compare it with the one you just used:

  "All things..." - Literally everything. Assuming God exists, this would include God. You must resort to special pleading to not include God.

  "All effects..." - Nearly everything we know of. Assuming God exists, this could include God. If it does not, you need to provide evidence of how you know God is not an effect, i.e. an uncaused cause. If you cannot, you must resort to special pleading to not include God.

  "All life..." - God is supposedly alive. Assuming God exists, this would include God. You must resort to special pleading to not include God.

  "All electronic DVD equipment..." - God is not DVD equipment. You do not need to resort to special pleading to not include God.

  Now, special pleading is not inherently wrong, IF you can provide a rational justification as to why the exclusion is being made. However if you cannot, then it becomes a logical fallacy.

  And the atheists have no burden of proof whatsoever to back up their charge of special pleading, -such as to try to substantiate that God for rational reasons should also himself be included in the category of "electronic DVD equipment".

  Are you through beating that strawman to death?

  The only thing that atheists have to do to back up their charge of "special pleading" is to point to the fact that theists have not provided a rational explanation for whatever their special definition of God is, and why he is not a thing, effect, or life!!!

  Logic... it's not that hard. Or, at least it shouldn't be.
• 

  hooberus

  darkyl, I think that one of the problems with your position is that the Creationists/ theistic arguments are generally not as vague as you present them. At least not the ones in the writings by the prominent theorists.

  For example I have never read a printed creationist argument with a premise so broad as encompasing "All things..." - Literally everything in existence. (Which would of course indeed include God.)

  Nor have I read one with a premise so broad as "All life..." as in any type of life in existence. (Which as you point out, assuming God is life, would have to include God.)

  Now if someone was so braod in their premises as the above then they would indeed likely be guility of special pleading if the did not also include God in the argument, since God is belived by even theists to exist, and to be alive.

  However, the actual arguments used by prominent theorists are more like the following, taken from the Book the Biotic Message by Walter ReMine.

  "An intelligent designer is necesssary for the origin of [biological] life from non-life."

  You will note that the argument is not so broad as referring to any type of "life" in existence, but instead specifically to biological life. Furthermore, it is referrring to biological life that comes from non-life,- that is biological life that has an origin (i.e. not eternal). His argument is that such life is best explained as the result of intelligent direction rather than being the result of purley natural processes. (Remine then goes on to provide evidence from chemisrty and probability analysis to support his assertion).
• 

  bohm

  Hooberus: ""An intelligent designer is necesssary for the origin of [biological] life from non-life."

  You will note that the argument is not so broad as referring to any type of "life" in existence, but instead specifically to biological life. Furthermore, it is referrring to biological life that comes from non-life,- that is biological life that has an origin (i.e. not eternal). His argument is that such life is best explained as the result of intelligent direction rather than being the result of purley natural processes. (Remine then goes on to provide evidence from chemisrty and probability analysis to support his assertion)."

  Problem 1: His word was 'necessary', you describe it as 'best explained'. Which one is it?

  Problem 2: What ARE his argument? I work with propability theory for my thesis, and i have *never* seen a propebalistic argument made for a 'designer' that was not fundamentally flawed. Does he use bayesian analysis, and if so what is his priors? Does he use orthodox methods and if so how can he make sure his hypothesis are correct? or does he choose he just multiply numbers together he pulls out of his arse while he conveniently forget nature is governed by physical laws?
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  does he choose to just multiply numbers together he pulls out of his arse while he conveniently forgets nature is governed by physical laws?

  Amen, when i first read the Watchtower's publications that took on 'evolution', they used just such an argument against abiogenesis, it was the only thing in the book that i found convincing. But then i was only about 10 at the time! Once i learnt that abiogenesis was about chemical reactions, governed by nuclear, electromagnetic & thermodynamic forces, the whole thing fell apart. The probability argument is laughable when you consider how nature actually works. And even more laughable (not to mention just plain baffling) when you realise that the numbers are literally pulled out of thin air. All they do is find out how many atoms there are in the universe (an unknown number in itself, so they probably get that number from thin air as well), then pick a number slightly higher than that & just hope that it convinces people. Which unfortunately it does, as there are lots of naive 10 year olds out there who are ready to hoover up whatever garbage they spew out.

  Mind you, i say "the Watchtower's publications", but it's not like they're actually written by the Watchtower, most of the arguments in their publications (including the probablity arguments) are simply stolen from other creationist sources, like the ID Institute. Ha, institute? Institution more like!
• 

  darkl1ght3r

  darkyl, I think that one of the problems with your position is that the Creationists/ theistic arguments are generally not as vague as you present them. At least not the ones in the writings by the prominent theorists.

  THat is a very good point. Although I don't see how you say you've never seen a creationist argument phrased that way... the broad sweeping argumets are far more common in the fundamenalist type churches. And for proof of that, you need look no further than JW publications. Then agan, one thing you and I both know and can agree on is that the JWs don't exactly represent the pinnacle of Christian apologetics. BUt trust me, I still listen to Christian radio and have downloaded lots of sermons about evolution and "proof" of God's existence, and those arguments are pretty common. But you're right, I wouldn't expect Michael Behe or Stephen Meyer to make those kinds of statements.

  The more intelligent apologetics are much more deliberate and reasoned in their argumentation than the the knee-jerk fundamentalists. However, based on the ones I've read they still skirt pretty close to ending up in the same place. For example, the argument from complexity, which is a cornerstone of the ID movement, argues that complex life could not evolve and bears indications of design. That still raises the question: is God not complex? If you say, "Well, thats complex biological life," then you've just arbitrarily defined God to be exempt from your argument, and you're back to the point where you must provide justification for how you are able to assert, let alone affirm, anything positive about God's nature. How do you know God isn't biological? How do you know he is"spiritual"? What is "spiritual"? Are spiritual things complex? Why is he a "he"? Why does God have a gender when gender is a biological trait? That kind if thing... (not saying you are making those claims, just using them as examples).

  And even if all the "evidence" of design is proof of a designer, (I'll repeate wobble's question which went completely unanswered), why the quantum leap of logic to say that it must be a "God" that did it? You still can't be certain that it was a god, let alone your God.

  You're in effect saying, 'If X is true, then God exists.'

  What I'm saying is, 'Provided X is true, show me the link between X and God. Otherwise I could just as easily say that If X is true then Voltron exists.' Which would be really awesome, btw. :)

  Voltron, FTW!
• 

  hooberus

  darkyl, I will try to reply, though not all in one post. I will stick to actual printed design argument examples from prominent theorists. I also will refrain from responing to any other posters who's points only distract from this discussion.

  Some basic starting points:

  When a theorist makes an argument such as:"An intelligent designer is necesssary for the origin of [biological] life from non-life." They are not in the argument statement istelf asserting anything about the nature of the designer, (e.g. that he is or is not biological, that he is or is not spirit, etc.). They are only asserting the claim that "An intelligent designer is necesssary for the origin of [biological] life from non-life.", and attempting to support it with evidence from chemistry, mathematics, etc. demonstrating that non-intelligent natural only processes are unable (even given generous assumptions) to generate life from non-life.

  Likewise even a much more general argument such as that by William Lane Craig that "eveything that has a beginning has a cause" is not in the argument itself asserting anything about the nature of the cause. Its simply asserting that "eveything that has a begining has a cause", and then using evidence from observation, and logic to attempt to support it.

  Now of course theists do make assertions about God. For example traditional Biblical theists belive that God has certain attributes (He is spirit) and does not have other attributes (he is not biological, nor does he have a beginning), because of what the Bible says, and for other theological and philosophical reasons. Mormon theiets have a "god" that has different attributes (he is biological, and was not always God), because of what their "latter day prophets" have said. However it should be kept in mind that such assertions are not in the above specific arguments.

  OK so far?
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  They are only asserting the claim that "An intelligent designer is necesssary for the origin of [biological] life from non-life.", and attempting to support it with evidence from chemistry, mathematics, etc. demonstrating that non-intelligent natural only processes are unable (even given generous assumptions) to generate life from non-life.

  Fair enough, but they're still wrong, as science is showing more & more every day, & it's still just an assertion, based not on research, but rather on (mostly uninformed) speculation. They are fundamentally anti-research & anti-science in their views, & they only like science if it tells them what they want to hear, they aren't interested in reality. If they deny any of that, they are liars, & if they accuse atheists of being the same, they are wrong.

  End of debate as far as i'm concerned.

  P.S. Oh & the distinction they make between 'life' & 'non-life' shows just how flawed & unscientific their understanding of chemistry & biology is. Once again i say, they are not interested in science, all they want is to link the supernatural with reality. Hence their misunderstanding (rooted in willful ignorance) of the calloquial terms 'life' & 'non-life' & their silly assertion that 'life' has a 'soul' & 'non-life' is fundamentally different & has 'no soul'. Utterly wrong, & utterly childish.