tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post8135466501774274386..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Outline of the Analogical Design ArgumentUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81501428288299962842008-11-18T04:43:00.000-05:002008-11-18T04:43:00.000-05:00I know this is obvious to some people but I'll say...I know this is obvious to some people but I'll say it anyway.<BR/><BR/>The claim <BR/>"god created the universe"<BR/>encapusulates quite a few questionable hidden premises.<BR/><BR/>- Is there a god? How do you know?<BR/>- Would he have created the universe if could have? How do you know?<BR/>- Was he capable? how do you know?<BR/>- Was the universe created? How do you know?<BR/>- Is your source of information for knowing what you think you know reliable? How do you know?<BR/>- Does god creating the universe theory have any competing "god created the universe theory" from any other sources such as another religion (to include non-mainstream) perhaps? <BR/><BR/>Science and christianity aren't the only theories in town. But one of the strengths of science is that it places a high value on tangible evidence and making the solution fit the evidence even if it has to be revised a thousand times.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32223948396895480122008-11-18T02:46:00.000-05:002008-11-18T02:46:00.000-05:00ahswan- you say:First, the potential issue of infi...ahswan- you say:<BR/><BR/><I>First, the potential issue of infinite regression does not negate the argument itself; once you get to the conclusion that a designer exists, only then can you deal with the issue of who the designer is, and the designer's origins.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, once you get to the conclusion that a designer exists. And how, pray tell, do you get to this conclusion?<BR/><BR/><I>Second, the argument deals with the physical reality. The Judeo-Christian God is not a physical being; therefore the argument with relationship to a non-physical designer has to be different.</I><BR/><BR/>As I said: the Argument from Magic. Magical beings don't play by the rules, so they can do and be whatever they want. Kinda obviates any point in applying logic, though. Might as well just say "God exists, just 'cuz". It's simpler and has the same logical force.<BR/><BR/>Third argument: dave has answered this nicely already.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35145813072159881202008-11-17T15:07:00.000-05:002008-11-17T15:07:00.000-05:00ahswan wrote:>Third, science currently doesn...ahswan wrote:<BR/><BR/>>Third, science currently doesn't support the eternal nature of the universe or of any living organism, so to ask "if the designer is eternal, why can't the universe itself be eternal" is to ignore science.<<BR/><BR/>Science currently doesn't support the eternal nature of a god, either, so to suggest, "if the universe is not eternal, why can't the designer itself be eternal" is also to ignore science.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00637555419320105824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82123681419071082042008-11-17T13:43:00.000-05:002008-11-17T13:43:00.000-05:00First, the potential issue of infinite regression ...First, the potential issue of infinite regression does not negate the argument itself; once you get to the conclusion that a designer exists, only then can you deal with the issue of who the designer is, and the designer's origins.<BR/><BR/>Second, the argument deals with the physical reality. The Judeo-Christian God is not a physical being; therefore the argument with relationship to a non-physical designer has to be different. <BR/><BR/>Third, science currently doesn't support the eternal nature of the universe or of any living organism, so to ask "if the designer is eternal, why can't the universe itself be eternal" is to ignore science.ahswanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04462618951849788878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44730848467440345682008-11-17T08:03:00.000-05:002008-11-17T08:03:00.000-05:00Nicely laid out, exapologist. I would just like t...Nicely laid out, exapologist. I would just like to recommend reading Paley's <I>Natural Theology</I>, available online <A HREF="http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=A142&viewtype=text&pageseq=1" REL="nofollow">here</A>, among other places. Paley was no dummy: he knew the science of his day quite well, and wrote clearly too: something that most modern-day Creationists would do well to emulate. The young Darwin found him convincing, and I would too, if I didn't know better.<BR/><BR/>As you say, the problem is that an intelligent Designer requires a Designer Himself, which leads to an infinite regress. Of course, the classical theistic answer to this is that God does not require a Designer for some reason. But the reasons offered are either magic (He created Himself, or has simply existed forever), mystery (we don't know how He came to be, He just did) or wordplay (God is the Uncaused Cause, or the Necessary Being, or some such flaptwaddle).<BR/><BR/>I somehow don't find any of these possibilities satisfying, so I guess I'm going to Hell. Oh well.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.com