View Full Version : Deistic refutation of arguments against design
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.
Fabulous
11-12-15, 01:02 AM
http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/06/54d3d4cce6f55_-_tumblr_llhctdm0ju1qje621o1_500.gif
carlspackler
11-12-15, 01:30 AM
I believe what I see.
The Rodent
11-12-15, 01:33 AM
What's the deal with all these God threads, Ace?
Surely there's a religion forum out there you can post these?
When you say New Atheist, do you mean just newer members or another mini branch nonsense?
This is how I look at it, science can't prove there is no God, religion can't prove there is a God, so just let people believe in what they want, if it makes someone happy and helps him in hard times of life, let him be.
I believe what I see.
You can't see your brain with your eye's.
Redwell
11-12-15, 11:14 AM
I used to argue about this stuff. I recommend putting your time towards something more productive.
You can't see your brain with your eye's.
Autopsy/CAT Scan/Neurosurgery
What's the deal with all these God threads, Ace?
Surely there's a religion forum out there you can post these?
I've been on a few, lately I've run into some New Atheists who are just as bad as the fundamentalists, and seem to think that science can disprove a creator (even though Dawkins himself admitted that it can't).
While the fundamentalists are kooks, they aren't being taken seriously anymore while the New Atheists have been a growing fad - even though their logic isn't very different.
Me i think that bad logic is a worse problem than the position being debated itself.
Autopsy/CAT Scan/Neurosurgery
And? There are pictures of Jesus, Angels, Devils etc. I'm not saying something is real or not, but I just don't like "I need to see it" argument.
Redwell
11-12-15, 05:10 PM
Autopsy/CAT Scan/Neurosurgery
And? There are pictures of Jesus, Angels, Devils etc. I'm not saying something is real or not, but I just don't like "I need to see it" argument.
Those are artistic interpretations of those things. By "see it" we don't mean directly or even visually. Science is largely about using reliable instruments to accurately parse reality.
Anyway, faith is belief regardless of evidence. So don't fret.
BlueLion
11-12-15, 05:27 PM
You've picked the wrong forum m8
Those are artistic interpretations of those things. By "see it" we don't mean directly or even visually. Science is largely about using reliable instruments to accurately parse reality.
Anyway, faith is belief regardless of evidence. So don't fret.
The point is you can't see your own brain with your eyes, you can see scan and stuff but that ain't the same. Just pointing out that not seeing something dose not make it false, not talking about religion here, apply's to world in general.
You've picked the wrong forum m8
Are people actually surprised? In all his time being here he has discussed movies maybe four times, the rest has been spent arguing with Yoda or creating threads like this.
It is like me joining stromfront to talk about Basketball.
Are people actually surprised? In all his time being here he has discussed movies maybe four times, the rest has been spent arguing with Yoda or creating threads like this.
It is like me joining stromfront to talk about Basketball.
Most forums suck and are full of trolling, the best I've found for discussing anything is City Data and even it sucks.
...and this forum is apparently the polar opposite, to the point that I'm too lowbrow for it - go figure.
Most forums suck and are full of trolling, the best I've found for discussing anything is City Data and even it sucks.
...and this forum is apparently the polar opposite, to the point that I'm too lowbrow for it - go figure.
In all honesty you don't bother me, at first i thought you were a troll but i've come to notice that you're just someone on the wrong type of forum with strong opinions. It still baffles me that you are here though. Did you initially join the forum to discuss movies and noticed some of the other discussions or what? Just curious.
Same type of thing happened on an Organized Crime Forum i used to visit. A guy joined and started trying to spark up discussions on World War 2. Made zero sense because there are plenty of WW2 and History Forums he could've joined, and that forum was very small so i have no idea how he came across it and decided this feels like the right place :laugh:
Anyway carry on, some of these threads end up pretty interesting.
Captain Steel
11-12-15, 10:52 PM
IMO, this is a Movie Forums board and it has plenty of movie-related categories and threads...
BUT it's also got a miscellaneous chat section. Somebody obviously placed that section there for a reason. Someone obviously was inviting people to discuss other subjects, or else they would not have created such a section. To me, "miscellaneous" means anything, and placing such a section on a movie forum sounds like it's intended as a place to discuss anything non-movie related.
So 90sAce?
You keep on keepin' on, brother.
And I'll be right behind you with some other non-movie related topics in the Miscellaneous Chat section!
Jesus Captain!! All i meant was it is pretty odd that someone has spent the vast majority of his time here NOT discussing movies. Take you for example, you've clearly talked alot about both movies and general topics, while Ace has barely mentioned a movie since he joined. Nothing is wrong with that, if he was breaking any rules by doing so then the mods would have told him that, all i'm saying is that it is not somewhere you'd expect someone to seek out these discussions especially when he apparently has no interest in the main subject of the forum.
Captain Steel
11-12-15, 11:14 PM
Jesus Captain!! All i meant was it is pretty odd that someone has spent the vast majority of his time here NOT discussing movies. Take you for example, you've clearly talked alot about both movies and general topics, while Ace has barely mentioned a movie since he joined. Nothing is wrong with that, if he was breaking any rules by doing so then the mods would have told him that, all i'm saying is that it is not somewhere you'd expect someone to seek out these discussions especially when he apparently has no interest in the main subject of the forum.
Sorry, Camo. Wasn't directing my response at you. Just stating my opinion, in general, on forums.
I understand what you're saying - it is a bit suspicious or odd if someone only discusses non-movie topics on a movie forum. But the site provides a section for those topics, so if someone wants to come to JUST post in that section... it's not my site, it's not my business. JMHO.
Its not suspicious just odd. My "joining stormfront to talk about Basketball" example is possibly a bit extreme (and racist as i was using that as a Black stereotype), but it is the same idea as joining a movie forum to talk about god or whatever other subject he has brought up.
We should let Khan and whoever else discuss the topic though as most posts (my fault) have been about Aces intentions.
Citizen Rules
11-12-15, 11:32 PM
Hey guys good evening:)
I'm under the impression that MoFo needs more posters. We are a little site as far as active members go so even if Ace is out in left field that's OK with me. Clearly Ace is an intelligent person and I would engage him more in conversation if I knew what it was he was trying to say. I'm just a simply country guy. I have noticed that Yoda seems to enjoy trading post with Ace and so I guess it's all good.
carlspackler
11-13-15, 12:16 AM
You can't see your brain with your eye's.
"eyes"
"eyes"
That you can't see your brain with!
carlspackler
11-13-15, 12:49 AM
That you can't see your brain with!
My brain's eye managed to spell "eyes" right.
"eyes"
Yeah, i hate both of you :p
Captain Steel
11-13-15, 02:39 AM
I, eye, aye.
I, eye, aye.
Aye means yes were i come from.
Where is JayDee? :p
My brain's eye managed to spell "eyes" right.
Besides being totally irrelevant to my point, bad luck, you don't believe your brain exists. :(
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.
That's a giant straw man there.
Take this for instance:
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.
Exploring models for how the universe came into existence and why it is the way it is, is not strictly speaking a metaphysical pursuit, and the exploration of those ideas is not necessarily (or even likely) an attempt to "disprove a designer." And the role of science is not to prove anything, and it is certainly isn't to prove something like a god doesn't exist. Science is not in the business of "proving" things--that's not how science works. You should know that, but perhaps you really don't.. And maybe you have run across some atheist who thinks it's possible to disprove god, but you can be sure he's not scientifically minded or trained, or otherwise a respected spokesperson for atheism. Do you see how you've created a straw man there? From our past conversations, I'm going to guess not, but que sera sera.
carlspackler
11-13-15, 07:18 AM
Besides being totally irrelevant to my point, bad luck, you don't believe your brain exists. :(
That's a dafter comment than mine.:D
Exploring models for how the universe came into existence and why it is the way it is, is not strictly speaking a metaphysical pursuit, and the exploration of those ideas is not necessarily (or even likely) an attempt to "disprove a designer." And the role of science is not to prove anything, and it is certainly isn't to prove something like a god doesn't exist. Science is not in the business of "proving" things--that's not how science works. You should know that, but perhaps you really don't.. And maybe you have run across some atheist who thinks it's possible to disprove god, but you can be sure he's not scientifically minded or trained, or otherwise a respected spokesperson for atheism.
If you think these statements are true your not paying any attention to how these conversations are going in the public arena right now.
I happen to agree that science can't prove there is no God and religion can't prove there is. That's one of the reasons I am called upon to have faith. At the end of the day science and religion have the same problem of no beginning. However if you don't think both sides are going around this issue to try to "prove" the existence or non-existence of a God your crazy. It is happening constantly both with really well educated brilliant minds all the way down to the depths of social media. It's everywhere.
That's a dafter comment than mine.:D
Gotta have some fun. :p
carlspackler
11-13-15, 08:38 PM
I see another couple of believers have just gone to see their God in Paris but they've taken more than 60 innocent people with them.
Bound to be the work of the Christians again.....................NOT!!
carlspackler
11-14-15, 01:19 AM
A bit more than 60 now.
Just remember to be tolerant when you're out there.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.