This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

God is a logical necessity

#71ThuggernautzPosted 1/30/2013 7:40:07 AM
almasbaby posted...

Isn't that just an assumption, that a complex universe needs a complex creator which in turn also needs a creator? It seems to me that the argument against a creator is not unlike the argument for design. It appears that if there is a creator he must be very complex, just as the order of the universe makes it appear that it was designed. Both arguments have there foundation in incredulity, not fact.


Not necessarily. Mandelbrot set; infinite complexity from a very simple equation.
#72Cubbiesboy22Posted 1/30/2013 7:50:58 AM
I feel sorry for the OP. He was like the cow in Jurassic Park except he willing lowered himself into the raptor cage.
#73Lord_IchmaelPosted 1/30/2013 9:12:36 AM
almasbaby posted...
Lord_Ichmael posted...
Topic: Standard argument from design.

Standard rebuttal: Surely something complex enough to have created a complex universe needs an even more complex creator, and that creator needs a creator, and so on for infinity.


Isn't that just an assumption, that a complex universe needs a complex creator which in turn also needs a creator? It seems to me that the argument against a creator is not unlike the argument for design. It appears that if there is a creator he must be very complex, just as the order of the universe makes it appear that it was designed. Both arguments have there foundation in incredulity, not fact.


If the sole basis for something requiring a creator is that it's complex/appears to be designed, then why shouldn't that apply to the creator as well? It's special pleading.
#74almasbabyPosted 1/30/2013 9:56:23 AM
Lord_Ichmael posted...
almasbaby posted...
Lord_Ichmael posted...
Topic: Standard argument from design.

Standard rebuttal: Surely something complex enough to have created a complex universe needs an even more complex creator, and that creator needs a creator, and so on for infinity.


Isn't that just an assumption, that a complex universe needs a complex creator which in turn also needs a creator? It seems to me that the argument against a creator is not unlike the argument for design. It appears that if there is a creator he must be very complex, just as the order of the universe makes it appear that it was designed. Both arguments have there foundation in incredulity, not fact.


If the sole basis for something requiring a creator is that it's complex/appears to be designed, then why shouldn't that apply to the creator as well? It's special pleading.


You said it yourself. You're applying the same logic. Why should more creedence be given to your conclusions than to the TC's? You've both got the same point of departure which is basically "it appears so".
#75OrangeWizardPosted 1/30/2013 11:25:46 AM
From: Lord_Ichmael | #073
something requiring a creator is that it's complex/appears to be designed, then why shouldn't that apply to the creator as well? It's special pleading.


So what if the creator needs a creator, and so on, and so forth? I don't see how this means the earth doesn't need one.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#76fudrickPosted 1/30/2013 11:32:21 AM
OrangeWizard posted...
So what if the creator needs a creator, and so on, and so forth? I don't see how this means the earth doesn't need one.


The point of that argument isn't to prove that the earth doesn't need a creator/designer, it's to demonstrate that if a person wants to use that argument and be logically consistent they'd have to apply it to the creator of the earth as well, and then to the creator of the creator of the earth, etc.

But you knew that <.<
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#77OrangeWizardPosted 1/30/2013 11:35:29 AM
From: fudrick | #076
The point of that argument isn't to prove that the earth doesn't need a creator/designer, it's to demonstrate that if a person wants to use that argument and be logically consistent they'd have to apply it to the creator of the earth as well, and then to the creator of the creator of the earth, etc.

But you knew that <.<


Yes, I did.

If someone really did hold that argument, I'd wonder what the response would be then?
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#78Joe605Posted 1/30/2013 11:59:03 AM
ScottSweatshirt posted...
There really shouldnt be any reason for one to demand proof of God when the answer is a self proclaimed truth that any reasonable and rational person shouldnt have problems accepting.

Its a simple argument really.

Design essentially requires a designer

Now this fact of life comes natural to us as our minds automatically assumes this principle. For instance, if you were stranded on a island and came across a stone hut the first thought that would cross you mind is who built it and who lived there. Not how did it get there or sit there wondering if a tornado came through constructed it by chance

On a much smaller account, if instead you came across the words SOS written across the desert sands you would not assume it was a product of the wind or the crashing waves. The point is you immediately assume the need for a designer when you something requiring design or purpose.

Is it possible that it could have happened by accident? Hmm, there is perhaps a chance out of a trillion but what self respecting human being would accept those impossible odds as there answer? This is exactly the same reasoning atheist use to support their off base belief system. Why do they? Because its the only explanation they can arrive at. There are no alternatives so the impossible is made to be believable. Everything happened by chance. Anything and everything is possible with time by its side. This is the philosophy of the atheist as if life is some simple lego piece.

The brain is the most complex creation in the natural world and in many ways it is comparable to a computer except its far more advanced of course. But I digress

There is evidence of design in the universe therfore that implies the need of a universal designer. The theist claims that to be God, the atheist thinks some abstract, obscure non cognizant force did it by chance over the course of a trillion years.

Now tell me what belief system requires more faith? I think you already know the answer

Lastly, I think people convolute this simple truth when they learn to idealize science as some form of self serving authority. When science in itself is evidence of design. The science deals with the how while God deals with the why.
People seem to think that the two are the antithesis of each other when they are actually complementary.

I bring a final example something we can all relate to, the internet.

You can analyze how it works, understand it and successfully determine how it functionally operates. Thats is the science of the matter however but the transcendent question of what determined its fine infrastructure remains and that obviously was a cognizant being the objective in mind

Didnt have enough energy to proof read so it is what it is.



The argument that this all came about by chance is about as far away from atheism as god is lol. Fail harder next time.
---
Bowling IS a sport.
The good thing about science is that it is true whether or not you believe in it.
#79fudrickPosted 1/30/2013 12:04:17 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
Yes, I did.

If someone really did hold that argument, I'd wonder what the response would be then?


Well, there is still the issue of demonstrating that the designer was ever required in the first place, I suppose
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#80Lord_IchmaelPosted 1/30/2013 12:34:07 PM
almasbaby posted...
Lord_Ichmael posted...
almasbaby posted...
Lord_Ichmael posted...
Topic: Standard argument from design.

Standard rebuttal: Surely something complex enough to have created a complex universe needs an even more complex creator, and that creator needs a creator, and so on for infinity.


Isn't that just an assumption, that a complex universe needs a complex creator which in turn also needs a creator? It seems to me that the argument against a creator is not unlike the argument for design. It appears that if there is a creator he must be very complex, just as the order of the universe makes it appear that it was designed. Both arguments have there foundation in incredulity, not fact.


If the sole basis for something requiring a creator is that it's complex/appears to be designed, then why shouldn't that apply to the creator as well? It's special pleading.


You said it yourself. You're applying the same logic. Why should more creedence be given to your conclusions than to the TC's? You've both got the same point of departure which is basically "it appears so".


My point is that neither is necessarily true. I'm just using the same logic. I don't actually claim it's valid.