Here is a collection and my responses to various arguments for deism or theism. Often we are asked to not only disprove or refute the ideas being presented but are held to the requirement of offering some replacement explanation. While I enjoy the challenge of coming up with a rational consistent worldview based on the facts at hand, this simply misses the point. Atheism is by definition a null hypothesis, this means it is the assertion that the idea put forward is not true. It need only demonstrate that sufficient evidence has not been presented to accept the arguments and their conclusions or that the arguments are fallacies. That is what I seek to do here. My own ideas about origin and purpose will have to wait, though they will likely be touched upon.
The Main Premises:
None of the claims are very good. You cannot move from one claim to another via deduction or induction. The claims are both independent (they do not reference each other) yet interdependent in the way they are thought to provide proof. The claims all assume a definition (or definitions) of god without giving reasons for those definitions or explicitly stating them.
The Specific Arguments:
Please note that I am ignoring and young earth anti evolution arguments; they are not the point of this post nor as interesting philosophically as the ones I am choosing to discuss. I would happily cover that subject in another post at some point, or possibly just direct people to other sources (more likely).
Cosmological- The Prime Mover
What happened before time? Where was space before the big bang? These questions and those like them cannot be answered with our current understanding of physics. They may not have a sensible answer. There is a point before which we can say or see nothing. I think it is safe to say "we don't know" and if you want to say "ah well I know..." and wink knowingly at Jesus or Thor, over the shoulders of ALL OF PHYSICS, then you are going to have to show your work. The main argument is There is no thing which is un-caused, this assertion seems to make sense until you realize that it A) begs the question and B) relates to things in time and space rather than time and space itself. Can the term "cause" have any meaning outside of the idea of time?
Teleological- the argument from design. Paley's watch. Darwin starts our path here, after that we can begin to view another method. I wont bother referencing poor design, or cruel or petty (there might be gods that fit that) IMPORTANT an over-arching order is not the same as god.
The second part is the anthropic principle in reverse; Here is often employed even more physics references and a misunderstanding of certain probabilities. Of course the anthropic principle suggests the first proper answer to this idea. If you want to talk about probabilities I will need you to show the numbers you are using as well as how you came by them and the equations.
Ontological - (not ornithological but there is a joke there somehow I'm sure) Anslem's conception as I have heard it stated is a non sequitur. "Imagine the most perfect being. It would be more perfect if it existed. Therefore it exists"
There also seems to be an inherent Platonism, with god as the ideal ideal, which I question on more basic grounds. This is often tied to an assertion that Math and Logic exceed the physical universe (and therefore precede it?) to which; for now one can only say "incompleteness theorem"
From Morality - This is typically stated that without god there is no basis for morality. The emphasis is on god as an idea and not a specific deity. This argument is fallacious for a few reasons. 1 it is an Appeal to Authority 2 it posits that god is the source of morality which is part of the definition given (circular reasoning) 3 Basically the argument from evil in reverse without specific conception of god. (the argument from evil is only to rule out a specific type of god -loving, all knowing and all powerful)
From Faith - not really a relevant argument from evidence please stop it.
From Scripture - (revelation) Well this is the leap from theism to religion.It relies on specific texts to be true. These are not as spurious as the from faith argument but are beyond the scope of this essay and will be addressed separately.
From History - This is always a specific idea to support a specific religion. I plan to look specifically at the resurrection claims about Jesus as most of my sources are Christian apologists. Any links to other historical claims are welcome)
My sources for the original pro arguments against which I argue.
Hitchens Vs Craig
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8
Hitches Vs Turek
http://vimeo.com/1904911
Hitchens Vs Boteach (actually doesn't believe in evolution) Mainly failing at the math and argument from incredulity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ
Hitchens Vs Mcgrath
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U1b7Xgyq-Y
Hitchens Vs D'Souza (some interesting ideas couched in logical fallacies)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8
Additional Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God
Mentions Historical Resurrection (does not give actual sources they must be acquired)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpp37iJogFI&feature=related
No comments:
Post a Comment