Reply to Topic
This is a refutation of New Atheist arguments against the existence of a designer; these arguments suck for a variety of reasons:
1. They usually try to use empirical or naturalistic evidence to disprove a metaphysical concept - this just makes them the opposite of "creationist" arguments - which try to use empirical evidence to prove God's existence.
2. Most of the arguments only apply to a Biblical literalist version of God (ex. who "demands worship", is fully "omnipotent", etc) which is even rejected by many Christians, let alone deists and classical philosophers.
(The "Problem of Evil" is a cliche example, and it fails since it tries to apply naturalistic axioms by which we measure human character to something metaphysical - so it's completely meaningless, like arguing that a glass is "half full" versus" half empty; it also wouldn't even apply to individual humans unless a specific ethical system, namely obligatory utilitarianism was presumed as the moral axiom to begin with).
--The "Problem of Design refuted"---
The basic premise here is that "God is unintelligent" because there are "flaws" in design (ex. disease).
(This is actually an empirical argument so like "Problem of Evil" it's also flawed from the get-go) But even going by human axioms of intelligence this argument fails unless you're a nihilist:
For example we consider Darwin intelligent despite his theory having had a lot of flaws and being revised over time (Therefore if Darwin is a product of God's design, God is intelligent by human standards; since we consider Darwin intelligent because of his works, it therefore falls that God is intelligent because Darwin is his work).
Therefore God can only be unintelligent if "no human who ever lived is intelligent" - aka a form of nihilism, and a position taken by deliberate choice, not "logic".
---
The best atheistic argument I've heard is the argument that neither God nor absence of god are falsifiable, therefore bothering yourself with belief is futile (which is a totally different ballpark).
Most of these New Atheist arguments however suck, and are just emotion masquerading as logic - the reason they're being pushed (often by nihilistic and materialistic teens of course) is simply to promote nihilism and moral relativism - which ironically is refuted by a lot of sciences, with more and more evidence such as in sociobiology indicating moral objectivism.
While I dislike religious fundamentalism, I'm starting to dislike these New Atheists just as much since they've overstepped their bounds and seem like they're more interested in milking money from nihilistic teens by telling them what they want to hear than making any serious theological arguments.
1. They usually try to use empirical or naturalistic evidence to disprove a metaphysical concept - this just makes them the opposite of "creationist" arguments - which try to use empirical evidence to prove God's existence.
2. Most of the arguments only apply to a Biblical literalist version of God (ex. who "demands worship", is fully "omnipotent", etc) which is even rejected by many Christians, let alone deists and classical philosophers.
(The "Problem of Evil" is a cliche example, and it fails since it tries to apply naturalistic axioms by which we measure human character to something metaphysical - so it's completely meaningless, like arguing that a glass is "half full" versus" half empty; it also wouldn't even apply to individual humans unless a specific ethical system, namely obligatory utilitarianism was presumed as the moral axiom to begin with).
--The "Problem of Design refuted"---
The basic premise here is that "God is unintelligent" because there are "flaws" in design (ex. disease).
(This is actually an empirical argument so like "Problem of Evil" it's also flawed from the get-go) But even going by human axioms of intelligence this argument fails unless you're a nihilist:
For example we consider Darwin intelligent despite his theory having had a lot of flaws and being revised over time (Therefore if Darwin is a product of God's design, God is intelligent by human standards; since we consider Darwin intelligent because of his works, it therefore falls that God is intelligent because Darwin is his work).
Therefore God can only be unintelligent if "no human who ever lived is intelligent" - aka a form of nihilism, and a position taken by deliberate choice, not "logic".
---
The best atheistic argument I've heard is the argument that neither God nor absence of god are falsifiable, therefore bothering yourself with belief is futile (which is a totally different ballpark).
Most of these New Atheist arguments however suck, and are just emotion masquerading as logic - the reason they're being pushed (often by nihilistic and materialistic teens of course) is simply to promote nihilism and moral relativism - which ironically is refuted by a lot of sciences, with more and more evidence such as in sociobiology indicating moral objectivism.
While I dislike religious fundamentalism, I'm starting to dislike these New Atheists just as much since they've overstepped their bounds and seem like they're more interested in milking money from nihilistic teens by telling them what they want to hear than making any serious theological arguments.
