Argument From Incredulity

[SithDoughnut]

That doesn't make any sense. It's like saying just because we don't know the definition of the word 'hijsahu,' doesn't mean that the hijsahu doesn't exist.

If something which fits the definition of 'God' doesn't exist, then God doesn't exist. So, again, before we can say whether or not can exist, we have to define what God is. The definition is EXTREMELY important. If not, we're going to do what AoS does who claims that the planets are gods.

That's exactly my point. No logical arguments work for or against God because he has no definition. I'm not saying that the logical argument doesn't work for a specific definition of God, but the OP specified the Christian God, who is a very vague character.

 

[Chesterton]

LOL! IMO, the weakest of all atheist arguments is the problem of evil.

What do you think is the strongest?

 

[sandwiches]

What do you think is the strongest?

The fact that there is no demonstrably verifiable evidence of a god independent of belief.

 

[Received]

I don't think a comprehensive definition of God is necessary to discuss the problem of evil. "God" could be limited to "an entity who is all-powerful [whatever that means] and benevolent." You can conceive Him as a cosmic grandaddy who floats about like Zeus, or a much more complicated philosophical interpretation. Point is, the argument is essentially about incompatible qualities, not so much a full-fledged definition of a said supernatural entity.

 

[Greg1234]

The fact that there is no demonstrably verifiable evidence of a god independent of belief.

The human body was designed. The fact that you believe that it wasn't is your faith. Start there.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The human body was designed. The fact that you believe that it wasn't is your faith. Start there.

I'm afraid that the evidence simply doesn't support your view. It does ours.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Greg1234]

I'm afraid that the evidence simply doesn't support your view. It does ours.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Sure. Its either Darwinism or Creationism. You can pretend that it does but when you encounter a creationist, try to relate by just imagining the level of absurdity in debating about whether a 747 found on a desolate planet is designed. This is not even an argument. Its not even a debate. Its just. I'll leave it at that. And thats when individuals continuously reject the rest of scientific evidence and believe that omission is justification.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You can pretend that it does but when you encounter a creationist, try to relate by just imagining the level of absurdity in debating about whether a 747 found on a desolate planet is designed.

Do you mean like the 747 times I've explained how this sort of example is absurd, and has nothing to do with evolution?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Greg1234]

Do you mean like the 747 times I've explained how this sort of example is absurd, and has nothing to do with evolution?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Nothing to do with evolution. Thats what you sell to the public to deflect. It doesn't mean I have to acknowledge it.

And thats when individuals continuously reject the rest of scientific evidence and believe that omission is justification.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Nothing to do with evolution. Thats what you sell to the public to deflect.

Deflect from a very poor and misleading analogy, yes.

Here is a better analogy. We'll even keep the 747s...


Astronauts land on a desolate planet. The wind howls mournfully across the sharp rocks that cut across the plains. The air readings read breathable air, and so the intrepid astronauts remove their helmets.

As they walk across the landscape, they notice two large objects that look remarkably like 747s. They stare in wonder, for how can two airplanes be here on this remote planet? What are they?

They approach the objects, and then are startled when one of them moves!

One of the 747-like objects revs its engines and rolls right on top of the other 747.

The astronauts wonder: what is it doing? Why is it on top of the other 747?

The one on top extends a long tube that fits into a hole in the one on bottom. One astronaut suggests that it is trying to refuel the other 747.

The 747 on top starts to move back and forth, and the one on bottom makes a moaning sound, as if experiencing the sweetest ecstacy.

"They're mating," shouts one astronaut.

After the mating is complete, the top 747 flies away. Shortly afterwards, a hatch opens up in back of the bottom 747, and a miniature version of the 747s rolls out. The mommy 747 lovingly keeps its child under wing...


The moral of the story: if there is no reproduction, it isn't a good analogy to evolution. Complexity arises in evolution because of reproduction.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[sandwiches]

Sure. Its either Darwinism or Creationism. You can pretend that it does but when you encounter a creationist, try to relate by just imagining the level of absurdity in debating about whether a 747 found on a desolate planet is designed. This is not even an argument. Its not even a debate. Its just. I'll leave it at that. And thats when individuals continuously reject the rest of scientific evidence and believe that omission is justification.

Sorry, you'll need more than arguments from incredulity AND ignorance. The fact remains that even IF we were designed, that's still not evidence of a god. PERIOD.

 

[sandwiches]

Nothing to do with evolution. Thats what you sell to the public to deflect. It doesn't mean I have to acknowledge it.

So, why do you keep deflecting and avoiding answering what integrated complexity is?

 

[jayem]

I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that design proponents misunderstand and misapply information theory. Simplicity is actually more associated with design, and increasing complexity with randomness. An analogy is finding a perfectly round, smooth stone in a pile of rocks. Which is more likely to have been purposefully made--the rocks of all different shapes and surface contours, or the one that's spherical and uniform? But this is getting off-topic.

 

[Greg1234]

Sorry, you'll need more than arguments from incredulity AND ignorance.

As much as saying that a 747 is designed is an argument from incredulity. The argument from incredulity is born from the assertion that you own the past. That science is over religion and the ignorant manbeast beginning of mankind. All three are your beliefs. So when you play this card, know that it is entirely irrelevant to me.

The fact remains that even IF we were designed, that's still not evidence of a god. PERIOD.

Of course you will remain in denial. Nobody said you wouldn't. And yes, lifeforms require intelligent design.

 

[sandwiches]

As much as saying that a 747 is designed is an argument from incredulity. The argument from incredulity is born from the assertion that you own the past. That science is over religion and the ignorant manbeast beginning of mankind. All three are your beliefs. So when you play this card, know that it is entirely irrelevant to me.

I KNOW how 747s are made. I have seen them being made by intelligent beings. My wife works with 747s and the intelligent beings that design and build them. I have seen the plans used to build 747s made by intelligent beings. Can any of those statements be said about God and life? No.

No ignorance or incredulity needed for plains, bro.

Now, as for you: Have you ever seen God creating a life? Not a life being born but literally God making life? Have you ever seen God designing life? Have you ever seen God doing anything?

Of course you will remain in denial. Nobody said you wouldn't. And yes, lifeforms require intelligent design.

If humans were designed, could we not have been designed by more advanced biological lifeforms?

So, again, by showing that life on Earth is designed, which it demonstrably isn't, is not enough to show the existence of a God.

In other words: "Life was designed THEREFORE there is a God" is not a sound statement. Now, if you think it is, explain to us HOW showing that life was design would automatically show us that a God exists?

 

[Greg1234]

I KNOW how 747s are made. I have seen them being made by intelligent beings. My wife works with 747s and the intelligent beings that design and build them. I have seen the plans used to build 747s made by intelligent beings. Can any of those statements be said about God and life? No.

Desoloate planet. No intelligent life forms. 747 is still designed. Chance cannot assemble a 747 with or without the presence of a designer. Whether you know or don't know that a 747 is designed, it remains designed. Therefore, saying the 747 is designed without a designer is not argument from incredulity unless it has been imbued into you that science is debunking engineers or creators which designed the 747. Then your judgment is altered. Understanding the past along with an unbiased unhampered line of thought and reasoning, the 747 is clearly designed, No chance required.

If humans were designed, could we not have been designed by more advanced biological lifeforms?

You are free to believe that. As a materialist, you are restricted from going beyond point A and B. This argument is easily refuted. But lifeforms require an intelligent designer.

In other words: "Life was designed THEREFORE there is a God" is not a sound statement. Now, if you think it is, explain to us HOW showing that life was design would automatically show us that a God exists?

Life is designed therefore there is a designer. What you do after that realization, whether you cook a pan of fish, jump skip rope, fly a kite, or resort to aliens is completely irrelevant to me. Design is established, and if you were aware of what is given, and the arguments awaiting you, this is all that needs to be established.

 

[keith99]

...

Life is designed therefore there is a designer. What you do after that realization, whether you cook a pan of fish, jump skip rope, fly a kite, or resort to aliens is completely irrelevant to me. Design is established, and if you were aware of what is given, and the arguments awaiting you, this is all that needs to be established.

I must have missed where you proved or even presented any compelling evidence that life is designed.

 

[sandwiches]

Desoloate planet. No intelligent life forms. 747 is still designed. Chance cannot assemble a 747 with or without the presence of a designer. Whether you know or don't know that a 747 is designed, it remains designed. Therefore, saying the 747 is designed without a designer is not argument from incredulity unless it has been imbued into you that science is debunking engineers or creators which designed the 747. Then your judgment is altered. Understanding the past along with an unbiased unhampered line of thought and reasoning, the 747 is clearly designed, No chance required.

On what basis would assume that a 747 is designed if you've never seen one?

You are free to believe that. As a materialist, you are restricted from going beyond point A and B. This argument is easily refuted. But lifeforms require an intelligent designer.

Don't just talk about it and refute it, champ.

Life is designed therefore there is a designer. What you do after that realization, whether you cook a pan of fish, jump skip rope, fly a kite, or resort to aliens is completely irrelevant to me. Design is established, and if you were aware of what is given, and the arguments awaiting you, this is all that needs to be established.

So, God hasn't been shown to exist. k thanks.

 

[Greg1234]

On what basis would assume that a 747 is designed if you've never seen one?

The components of design are not confined to a 747 or a car or a naval warship, or an android robot, or a human system. You don't have to see a 747 first and the first 747 would require a designer. As in all the cases, you are the one who needs to bring forward evidence that chance can build either one. No matter what level of denial your materialism drives you to. Like I said from the beginning, one only has to take a step back from the situation and just witness the proposal of Darwinism and the chance assembly of a human. Just step back and look at it. And a denial of scientific knowledge to boot. When you have trouble, think of the chance proposal for a 747, and you will begin to relate. This isnt even an argument.

Don't just talk about it and refute it, champ.

Your alien argument has its time and place. You work on that chance argument. Don't be surprised though. I would have told you the same thing for a 747.

So, God hasn't been shown to exist. k thanks.

Like I told you, what you do beyond that point is governed by you line of thinking and your persuasion. What you are aware and are not aware of is not a shared trait. Chance vs Design is where we will meet. And this is as much of a contest that needs to be waged with a materialist. That lifeforms need a designer.

 

[ug333]

Based on the original post, the problem here is that "good' is just redefined to allow a God who allows the choice of evil and then allows the evil to hurt the good. That is now the definition of a good God and it is done.

So long as God can be redefined to avoid being disproven, any discussion of disproof is moot. That is OK to me, because without evidence in favor of God a disproof doesn't seem very relevant.