Monday, October 02, 2006

Defending a Creator, Part 3

This is the continuation of a debate that I've had with an atheist about whether people create the idea of an intelligent designer in their own minds.

Let me get this straight, then: you wanted the argument to be between theses two choices:
1) God is not true.
2) God is false.

Oh, wait, you wanted the discussion to be an open-minded "God is true or false."

By saying this is not an issue about evolution, or about any other belief alternate from the intelligent designer, is to say that you--as a professed atheist and evolutionist--want to be able to attack without the fear of counter-attack. To advance without fear of having to retreat. To strike with the sword with no need for a shield.

Much of the proof for a Creator comes from the evidence that such theories as Evolution (and others, I guess, although this is the main one) are simply inexplicable. You cannot take this out of any argument. What? Do you expect to disarm believers and THEN debate them?

Actually, however, you prove my point. You're not claiming to be pro-any-theory in this debate. Therefore, if you refuse to espouse a theory here, you have virtually no place from which to knock down a legitimate theory. You may not think it legitimate, but it is, especially in comparison to an "I'm not claiming anything"-view. This confirms my statements:
" don't have a satisfactory replacement theory..."
"You reject the parachute but you jump anyway...You reject the boat but you try to swim the sea--when you can't swim."

You say: "And I do not claim, and neither does any scientist I know claim, that we came from nothing. You seem to be stuck in a very limiting either/or mentality. No wonder you create so many false dichotomies and make so many logical fallacies.
In fact, that god comes from nothing is the usual claim from theists."

Here we go again: "I don't claim-I don't claim-NOBODY ELSE CLAIMS."
First of all, anybody who claims the Big Bang believes that an explosion made everything happen. That explosion came from certain chemical elements. Are you calling that the "something not nothing"? Well, where exactly did the original elements come from?
I'm not saying you espouse the Big Bang, although it's an American freedom to speculate. But surely you know some scientists who endorse it!

The second part of your statement utilizes circular reasoning. "Theists say that God came from nothing." You don't seem to like that. But then, you yourself, are claiming that everything must come from something--that God must have come from something, or somebody. Yet Evolution (nor any other atheistic theory, by the way) cannot satisfactorily explain "what something" everything came from. In fact, ultimately Evolution says everything came from nothing. The "forever universe" theory, as I call it, which theorizes that the universe has always existed, has been proved both scientifically impossible and still doesn't answer the question of origins.

You say: "Secondly, I don't claim that we came from a process of chance. Though I would like an extremely precise explanation of what you mean by "chance" in this context."

The process of "chance" to which I am referring is that no one was behind it. No Creator--no designer--no maker. Atheists believe this because they believe that no god, or greater being, created them. Unless, of course, they believe in aliens who created them (but what, then, are the aliens origins?). So, then, if atheists espouse any theory at all, they generally regard Evolution as numero uno, which of course, is a process with no design or direction, but, of course, chance.

You say: "Firstly, that we as humans consider things complex is not evidence of any god. It is evidence of our ability to consider things to be complex. It takes an illogical leap of faith to presume a god. It is an example of a hasty generalization, also known as fallacy of insufficient statistics or the logical fallacy of reaching an inductive generalization based on too little evidence."

When you start talking about human beings' conception of complexity, you outsmart yourself. I believe it was C.S. Lewis who once said, "If we had no purpose, we never would have been able to discover that we have no purpose."
[You can't say that our view of complexity isn't necessarily complex and our view of simplicity isn't necessarily simple. If you claim this, then you might as well stop blogging completely: for you have nothing beneficial to add to conversations. If you don't believe in absolutes (which I'm not saying you don't, but such a statement sounds like it), then you can't try to prove anything to be absolutely false, absolutely ridiculous, or absolutely illogical. What's this "false"? What's this "ridiculous"? What's this "illogical"? When you start down the rabbit trail of "but the way we see complexity..." is a trail that will leave you as a lost hound dog.]* Deciding there is a Creator is not a hasty, generalistic, giant leap of faith. I've shown you the logic before. And complexity must be seen as complexity, not as our ability to perceive complexity, as I've pointed out in this paragraph.

You say: "...preconceived belief..." "If you assume an intelligent designer is the answer, you haven't asked a neutral question.'

I haven't assumed anything. I asked the neutral question, "Where did we come from?" [not "Who created us?"] and I came to an intelligent designer as the logical answer. This is how most Christians come to the THINKING. Don't accuse me of preconceived ideas or notions. The door swings both ways, you know.

Your claim of insufficient information is based on what you require to believe. You refuse to believe my (or anybody else pro-Creator's) logical arguments, and therefore you consider there to be insufficient information. However, the only sufficient information for people like you would probably be to see God Himself. Therefore, you would die not believing anything rather than believe in God...then you'd get to see God...then it'd be too late.

In summary: you "demonstrated" how my argument is illogical; I demonstrated how you're wrong; and you are left with only that you've "already demonstrated" that I'm wrong.

"Actually, Saivism is the oldest religion on earth and Siva, the Compassionate is in fact the oldest god concept. Aruguing for credibility on the premise of age just doesn't work with the Judaic god." --ted

Before I could give a whole answer, I'd have to research Saivism more. However, the Judeo-Christian view has literally been around since Adam, and then established itself firmly in Abraham. If you reject these theories off-hand, then you are claiming divine knowledge yourself.

*These lines were left out of the original comment on the basis that I think I misunderstood what my opponent's meaning was. However, it's a good paragraph for other situations anyway.

~ Kingdom Advancer

No comments: