Well Dex....
I have to say, you definitely gave me a lot to chew on all week. I've rethought everything about my argument, and I feel even more confident in my philosophical foot hold. I don't believe I am presupposing anything.
First of all,
Then how did he get here, where did he come from?
I already replied to question
"Where God comes from." He eternal.
The onus is on you now. Whatever
you think was before the time-space-matter universe
also needs an explanation. Where did it come from? If you say it was eternal.... well....allow me say that I believe God is eternal.
Your original purpose was to prove that god exists using the argument from design. This simply assumes a priori that he exists, and is thus the logical fallacy called begging the question, which is to assume the truth of what you're trying to prove. You've merely shifted the hypothesis from "Everything has a cause" to "Everything but god has a cause," which explains nothing, it's just a refusal to explain.
Wrong. I didn't create the law. The law actually does state
everything that comes to be, had a cause. Not
everything has a cause.
Moreover, even if your assumption is correct, that something eternal caused the universe, that doesn't necessarily mean it was god. Maybe what's eternal is just geometry. Quarks, the simplest structures we know of, have three characteristics called colour, flavour, and charge, and they can't be pried apart. The three dimensions of space can't be pried apart either. So what's so great about 3 dimensions, as opposed to 2, or 4, or 24? Three dimensions, topologically, are what you need to make a knot that won't spontaneously unravel, and the simplest particles may be, according to some interpretations of string theory, knots in the fabric. That's pretty far out stuff, but at least it has some empirical grounding, unlike the claims for god's existence, and has some hope of leading to further insights.
Quarks, huh? You wouldn't be foolish enough to believe that matter would presuppose the beginning of all time, space, and
matter, would you? Because that's exactly what your doing. Matter exists because matter exists. That's circular arguing and a fallacy.
Begging the question again, you try to prove he exists by assuming he exists. The second postulate begs the question again, you assume the universe was designed in order to prove it was designed. You've offered that fallacy three times, first by assuming that god exists and the universe must therefore be designed, and here by assuming the universe is designed and therefore god must exist, and a third trivial time in between that follows from the first one. . Taken together, the argument is entirely circular: god exists because god exists,or alternatively, the universe is designed because the universe is designed.
Hold on a sec, let's examine that argument again.
1. All designs have a designer.
No mention of God whatsoever. All I'm talking about is design. Moreover, logically we can believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Number 1 is true. As you know, science is the search for causes. Our good friend
logic, tells us that there are only two types of causes.
Intelligent and non-intelligent.
Intelligent:
Non-intelligent:
Nature does not create design. In fact, the second law(law of entropy)says that as time passes, the design falls apart. Only intelligence can be behind design.
The second point is where the debate lies:
The universe has a highly complex design. I say it's design. Atheism say its the appearance of design.
Number three -therefore the universe is designed - is only true if number one and number two are.
I still have not mentioned God.
But if one, two, and three are correct then logically one could say that this designer is God, or some supreme alien force, whatever suits ya.
See? I'm not presupposing anything. Again, my logic tells me that design comes from an intelligent source: a designer. Therefore, I stand by number one.
All designs have a designer.
Atheism does not want to admit design, because its philosophical assumptions have impacted how it interprets the empirical evidence we have all seen. If one assumes beforehand that only natural causes are possible, then no amount of evidence will convince him that intelligence created the universe.
To admit design would mean to admit intelligence. That's why atheism has a problem with
number one of my argument. It cannot admit design. As soon as it's mentioned, the red flags for you side go up, and it must be discredited.
You've got nothing here but the same tired old fallacies I've seen many times before.
I resent that.:x
I have not posted one quote from the bible, or the Q'uran.
(unlike some of the very weak arguments presented by ahmadabdalrhman, or that other muslim guy eassanir, or something:roll
I'm actually trying to show how one can look at the empirical and forensic evidence that is accessible to all, and using reason and logic, determine how belief in God, so to speak, is rational.
And if it's rational, then it should be included in the market place of ideas. I already knew that this case would be discredited before it has barely begun. I recently read
Scott Free's post on how people have a genetic leaning to belief in God. Therefore implying people without this
leaning base their interpretation on logic and reason, and others don't.
(He left me with a lot to chew on this past week as well, I'm working on my "fool proof" reply! lol)
Quoting Scott Free:
Perhaps there is some kind of genetic disposition toward religiosity that could be somehow exploited to this end.
What are your thoughts on this Dex? I'm interested to know. Am I biologically dispositioned to believing in a creator? Or am I using logic and reason to interpret the evidence? I'm sure you know what I believe.:roll:
But back to you accusing me of fallacies.:x I didn't want to play this card just yet. I was saving it for as one of my points in regards to the philosophical portion of my case. But I feel it's a good time to use it:
You accuse me of fallacies because I allegedly presuppose things.
I'm going to show you how atheism presupposes a big no no for your side.
I really want you to marinate on this one, so I'm gong to break it down, so I can be as clear on my point as possible.
(I'm refering to atheism in general, but I'm going to pick on you Dex, ;-))
The very fact that you think you have reasons to be atheist actually presupposes that God exists.
How so?
Because
reasons require that this universe be a
reasonable one that presupposes there is order, logic, design and truth. But order, logic, design, and truth can only exist and be known if there is an
unchangable objective source and standard of such things. To say something is
unreasonable, you must know what
reasonable is. To say something is
not designed, you must know what
designed is. To say something is
not true, you must know what
truth is, and so forth.
Your aethistic view unwittingly borrows from the theistic view in order to look more intelligent. Gotcha! :lol:
I was pretty sure you'd get to this "fine tuning" argument too, and I'm expecting the "irreducible complexity" argument eventually as well.
It's just one portion of my science section in regards to my case. It's coming. LOL, I sense your getting ready to discredit it.
With regard to the anthropic constants arguments you've offered, you need to understand two things. First, the composition of the atmosphere is not now what it's always been, so any argument based on its current composition, and its degree of transparency to certain wavelengths, as an example of design has no merit.
Empirical science and Forensic science assumes(by faith, I might add) that the universe operates in the same way as it did millions of years ago. It's the only tools we have in regards to science.
How does the universe operate? What is the origin of the universe? What we study now, definitely has merit. It's observation. It tells us the truth.
The presence of free oxygen in particular is a consequence of the life on this planet, not a cause of it, and other forms of life have adapted to it.
That's right, oxygen is not a cause of life. But notice how critical it is for life.
Second, numbers like the gravitational coupling constant are irrelevant, they depend entirely on the system of units chosen to express them in.
Gravity is constant. Let me pull out my grade four textbook and double check....yup... it's right here...constant.....;-)
The only things that matter from the fine tuning perspective are the dimensionless constants, numbers that'd be the same no matter what system of units was chosen, like the ratio between the proton and electron mass, or the relative strengths of the gravitational and electromagnetic forces.
Seems to me that a lot of fine tuning is required in the universe. Ratio between the proton and electron mass....thanks Dex, I'll add that to the list...didn't have that one...;-)
So, how significant is this fine tuning? Several physicists have done some calculations on this, and their conclusion is, not very.
I would say that this fine tuning is signifcant. It shows design.
Anywayz, I got to keep plugging along here. I'm absolutely itching to get to some philosophical questions, and I haven't even finished the anthropic points yet! Later friend!:smile:
