Common theist argument: "You know, I used to be an atheist myself..."

[lpetrich]

[
You need to go back and read Paley's argument again if you think it implies that only a human can design something with form and function.

I'm not claiming any such thing. Only that the Argument from Design leads to conclusions that most of its advocates would prefer not to accept.

 

[bilby]

You need to go back and read Paley's argument again if you think it implies that only a human can design something with form and function.

And yet that's exactly what it DOES imply.

Paley stumbes across a watch 'on a heath'. He remarks that it is clearly a designed object - not something that belongs on a heath. The things that DO belong on a heath - grass, rocks, insects, maybe a mouse or a bird - don't catch his notice. They do not stand out as 'designed objects' - they are natural, where the watch is not.

This cannot be the case unless there's a fundamental difference between the watch and the rest of nature. That difference being that the watch is a designed object while the rest of nature is NOT.

To then conclude that the rocks, grasses, etc. are also designed is a contradiction, and demonstrates that the argument presented by Paley is busted. It depends on two contradictory premises - that a watch stands out because it's designed; And that the rest of the heath is designed and is therefore just like the watch.

 

[Wiploc]

Paley stumbes across a watch 'on a heath'. He remarks that it is clearly a designed object - not something that belongs on a heath. The things that DO belong on a heath - grass, rocks, insects, maybe a mouse or a bird - don't catch his notice. They do not stand out as 'designed objects' - they are natural, where the watch is not.

This cannot be the case unless there's a fundamental difference between the watch and the rest of nature. That difference being that the watch is a designed object while the rest of nature is NOT.

To then conclude that the rocks, grasses, etc. are also designed is a contradiction, and demonstrates that the argument presented by Paley is busted. It depends on two contradictory premises - that a watch stands out because it's designed; And that the rest of the heath is designed and is therefore just like the watch.

He made so much sense in the first half of that essay, while he was proving absolutely that the watch was manufactured, that I thought I would be a Christian by the end of the essay. However, there was no second half. He proved that the watch was manufactured, and then he stopped.

 

[lpetrich]

Paley stumbes across a watch 'on a heath'. He remarks that it is clearly a designed object - not something that belongs on a heath. The things that DO belong on a heath - grass, rocks, insects, maybe a mouse or a bird - don't catch his notice. They do not stand out as 'designed objects' - they are natural, where the watch is not.

I think that that is reading too much into his scenario. A watch would stand out simply because it looks very different from the heath itself.

His argument is that a watch consists of several parts that work together, parts with shapes that make them suited for doing so, and that this therefore means that a watch must have been designed. The Watchmaker Argument, William Paley, Natural Theology chs. 1 - 3.

However, there are processes that can make orderliness with no involvement of design, processes like crystallization. Does anyone believe that snowflakes are individually made by fairies that live in the atmosphere? Or that rock crystals are individually made by gnomes who live in the Earth's interior? Are crystals grown in labs individually made by elves who sneak in and do it? Instead, they form by a kind of natural selection, with the molecules settling down into lowest-energy states relative to each other. Natural selection? It is that kind of mechanism, because it can make orderliness without design being involved.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Paley stumbes across a watch 'on a heath'. He remarks that it is clearly a designed object - not something that belongs on a heath. The things that DO belong on a heath - grass, rocks, insects, maybe a mouse or a bird - don't catch his notice. They do not stand out as 'designed objects' - they are natural, where the watch is not.

I think that that is reading too much into his scenario. A watch would stand out simply because it looks very different from the heath itself.

His argument is that a watch consists of several parts that work together, parts with shapes that make them suited for doing so, and that this therefore means that a watch must have been designed. The Watchmaker Argument, William Paley, Natural Theology chs. 1 - 3.

However, there are processes that can make orderliness with no involvement of design, processes like crystallization. Does anyone believe that snowflakes are individually made by fairies that live in the atmosphere? Or that rock crystals are individually made by gnomes who live in the Earth's interior? Are crystals grown in labs individually made by elves who sneak in and do it? Instead, they form by a kind of natural selection, with the molecules settling down into lowest-energy states relative to each other. Natural selection? It is that kind of mechanism, because it can make orderliness without design being involved.

Also, we humans have demonstrated that very complex things can evolve from pretty simple rules.

One of the more interesting (to me, anyway) is this one:
https://infidels.org/library/modern/meta/getalife/coretierra.html

 

[Learner]

You are babbling again.

Please go back and read my post again and try to address the point I was making.

I've looked again and still see the same thing . You "thought" in your mind it seems , that I was disputing the fact as said in your quote-line :
"Its not a viewpoint that we are made from the same elements found in nature, it is a fact."

1. Creationists don't believe that simple self-replicating molecules could have formed from undirected natural processes.
2. Creationists believe that an intelligent, sophisticated, all-powerful god arose somehow from undirected, natural processes.

Do you see the contradiction here?

I see the contradiction ... but the error is your blundering cleverness : because... I have "no idea" or comprhension of No. 2. I don't doubt I'm not alone (where theists are concerned). What made you think this was the standard theistic /creationist belief or understanding? And.. It's certainly not biblical , especially when theists believe just from faith i.e. God is eternal and always was!

Perhaps you mean Intelligent-design creationists but still include all types of believers. Why not make your point to them (IDers) to address?

 

[bilby]

You are babbling again.

Please go back and read my post again and try to address the point I was making.

I've looked again and still see the same thing . You "thought" in your mind it seems , that I was disputing the fact as said in your quote-line :
"Its not a viewpoint that we are made from the same elements found in nature, it is a fact."

1. Creationists don't believe that simple self-replicating molecules could have formed from undirected natural processes.
2. Creationists believe that an intelligent, sophisticated, all-powerful god arose somehow from undirected, natural processes.

Do you see the contradiction here?

I see the contradiction ... but the error is your blundering cleverness : because... I have "no idea" or comprhension of No. 2. I don't doubt I'm not alone (where theists are concerned). What made you think this was the standard theistic /creationist belief or understanding? And.. It's certainly not biblical , especially when theists believe just from faith i.e. God is eternal and always was!

Perhaps you mean Intelligent-design creationists but still include all types of believers. Why not make your point to them (IDers) to address?

Appealing to the eternal nature of God is unreasonable and unparsimonious. If something (eg God) is eternal, then the question of how something comes to exist is pointless - and we may as well assert an eternal universe, and dispense with the needless 'God' entity altogether.

ONLY if the existence of something rather than nothing requires an explanation, does creation of the universe need to be explained; And in that case, the creation of 'God' (or any other precursor to the universe) is equally in need of explanation.

You can't insist that God is necessary because the universe MUST have a cause, and then in the next breath handwave away any need for God to have a cause. That's intellectually dishonest.

If entities require causes, then God needs a cause. If entities can be eternal, then the universe can be eternal, and God becomes unnecessary.

This all comes before the options atrib proposes, and leads inevitably to these being the only possibilities:

A. Creationists believe that things cannot exist without a cause
B. Creationists believe that God is eternal and uncaused

Do you see the contradiction here?

If you try to resolve that contradiction by suggesting that God arose naturally without a creator, then you run into atrib's further contradiction:

1. Creationists don't believe that simple self-replicating molecules could have formed from undirected natural processes.
2. Creationists believe that an intelligent, sophisticated, all-powerful god arose somehow from undirected, natural processes.​

Logically, only two possibilities exist - either SOMETHING (God or the universe) is eternal; or SOMETHING (God or the universe) arose without the need for a creator. In either case, the 'God' entity is superfluous. If something is eternal, then the universe can be eternal and God is unneeded. If something can begin to exist spontaneously, then the universe can begin to exist spontaneously, and God is unneeded.

The idea of God adds exactly NOTHING to our understanding of origins. It just kicks the can down the road.

 

[Learner]

Appealing to the eternal nature of God is unreasonable and unparsimonious. If something (eg God) is eternal, then the question of how something comes to exist is pointless - and we may as well assert an eternal universe, and dispense with the needless 'God' entity altogether.


ONLY if the existence of something rather than nothing requires an explanation, does creation of the universe need to be explained; And in that case, the creation of 'God' (or any other precursor to the universe) is equally in need of explanation.

No problems to question or ponder on the thought, even making those "assertions" of the eternal universe. Theists do NOT claim the strawman notion, God comes from undirected "natural processes" i.e. no.2, . This was the pointless bit.

You can't insist that God is necessary because the universe MUST have a cause, and then in the next breath handwave away any need for God to have a cause. That's intellectually dishonest.

If entities require causes, then God needs a cause. If entities can be eternal, then the universe can be eternal, and God becomes unnecessary.

Its something to ponder on, definitely, where thought-exercises are concerned,... but why does it seem to you ,that this particular logic layout you've provided, is the one (ultimate) logic format. It would be intellectually dishonest if you are saying ; God must be equal to universe, by the properties (not characteristics) to be the same simply because of the understanding we have for "eternal".

This all comes before the options atrib proposes, and leads inevitably to these being the only possibilities:

A. Creationists believe that things cannot exist without a cause
B. Creationists believe that God is eternal and uncaused

Do you see the contradiction here?

Yes I see the contradiction. You are assuming (theists believe the false notion ), the logic follows as : God is made of "things" that abide by physical laws, that have causes, contradicting the "concept" of Creator.

If you try to resolve that contradiction by suggesting that God arose naturally without a creator, then you run into atrib's further contradiction:

1. Creationists don't believe that simple self-replicating molecules could have formed from undirected natural processes.
2. Creationists believe that an intelligent, sophisticated, all-powerful god arose somehow from undirected, natural processes.​

What you both fail to realise is : You're actually demonstrating evolution. Theists do NOT take to the idea that God comes from natural processes let alone life from undirected evolution. God created Natural processes is the theme.

Logically, only two possibilities exist - either SOMETHING (God or the universe) is eternal; or SOMETHING (God or the universe) arose without the need for a creator. In either case, the 'God' entity is superfluous. If something is eternal, then the universe can be eternal and God is unneeded. If something can begin to exist spontaneously, then the universe can begin to exist spontaneously, and God is unneeded.

Logically from the natural and material world-thinking sure but you (plural) are "asserting" this applies everywhere including the unknown (beyond the things we do not know of)!

The idea of God adds exactly NOTHING to our understanding of origins. It just kicks the can down the road.

So quite a few posters say, and what you are actually saying it seems to me, is : An idea or concept not yet fully understood, adds nothing to our understanding to its origins?

 

[bilby]

Its something to ponder on, definitely, where thought-exercises are concerned,... but why does it seem to you , this particular logic layout you've provided, is the one (ultimate) logic format.

If you have a third alternative, then present it. As far as I can see, the two possibilities are exhaustive.

Either ALL things have a cause; Or there are uncaused things.

If ALL things have a cause, then gods have a cause. If there are uncaused things, then the universe doesn't necessarily require a cause, so it would be foolish to hypothesize one without hard evidence.

It would be intellectually dishonest if you are saying ; God must be equal to universe, properties (not characteristics) to be the same simply because of the understanding we have for "eternal".

No, if I was saying that it would merely be incoherent; But I am not saying it - you are. Would you like to re-phrase that in English for me?

This all comes before the options atrib proposes, and leads inevitably to these being the only possibilities:

A. Creationists believe that things cannot exist without a cause
B. Creationists believe that God is eternal and uncaused

Do you see the contradiction here?

Yes I see the contradiction. You are assuming (theists believe the false notion ), the logic follows as : God is made of "things" that abide by physical laws , that have causes.

That's an unnecessary complication - it doesn't make a shred of difference whether or not God is made of "things" that abide by physical laws, and/or that have causes.

It still remains true that either there are uncaused things, or there are not. The idea that we must introduce a concept of 'God' to explain how things come to exist, depends on the belief that there are no uncaused things; But it also depends on the belief that God is an uncaused thing. Which is a contradiction. So it cannot be true.

Logically, only two possibilities exist - either SOMETHING (God or the universe) is eternal; or SOMETHING (God or the universe) arose without the need for a creator. In either case, the 'God' entity is superfluous. If something is eternal, then the universe can be eternal and God is unneeded. If something can begin to exist spontaneously, then the universe can begin to exist spontaneously, and God is unneeded.

Logically from the natural and material world thinking sure but you (plural) are "asserting" this applies everywhere including the unknown (beyond the things we do not know of)!

If you are going to assert that the existence of a contradiction is not a barrier to truth, then you are abandoning reason altogether, and literally anything goes. That's literally an insane position to take.

The idea of God adds exactly NOTHING to our understanding of origins. It just kicks the can down the road.

So quite a few posters say, and what you are actually saying it seems to me imo : An idea or concept not yet fully understood, adds nothing to our understanding to its origins?

Adding a vague and undefined concept to any hypothesis is generally considered to be poor form. But it is even worse to introduce (as you are) a self-contradictory concept. To do so is literally insanity.

 

[atrib]

You are babbling again.

Please go back and read my post again and try to address the point I was making.

I've looked again and still see the same thing . You "thought" in your mind it seems , that I was disputing the fact as said in your quote-line :
"Its not a viewpoint that we are made from the same elements found in nature, it is a fact."

1. Creationists don't believe that simple self-replicating molecules could have formed from undirected natural processes.
2. Creationists believe that an intelligent, sophisticated, all-powerful god arose somehow from undirected, natural processes.

Do you see the contradiction here?

I see the contradiction ... but the error is your blundering cleverness : because... I have "no idea" or comprhension of No. 2. I don't doubt I'm not alone (where theists are concerned). What made you think this was the standard theistic /creationist belief or understanding? And.. It's certainly not biblical , especially when theists believe just from faith i.e. God is eternal and always was!

It doesn't matter how this god came about.

1. An intelligent, vastly complex entity that has the ability to create universes with life in them just exists.
2. It is impossible for simple, self-replicating molecules to arise through natural processes.

To believe both 1 and 2 is hypocritical to the extreme.

The claim that God has always existed is a special pleading fallacy. If God is assumed to be eternal, then the energy that makes up this universe should also be assumed to be eternal. If it is impossible for a universe to arise out of nothing, then it is impossible for God to have created the universe out of nothing.

And then there is the question of how this god defies the arrow of time, i.e. why God is not subject to entropy while everything else in the visible universe is.

 

[Lion IRC]

A. Creationists believe that things which come into existence have a cause.
B. Creationists believe that God did not come into existence.

Do you see any contradiction here Learner?
Nope. Me either.

It's kinda implied by the word creationist.

 

[bilby]

A. Creationists believe that things which come into existence have a cause.
B. Creationists believe that God did not come into existence.

Do you see any contradiction here Learner?
Nope. Me either.

It's kinda implied by the word creationist.

Creationists also believe that the universe came into existence, and therefore requires a cause. I am a little surprised that you forgot that.

The contradiction then lies in their exclusion of 'God' from the set 'the universe' - which is a contradiction of the meaning of 'the universe', which in this context means 'everything that exists'.

Of course, you could resolve that contradiction by saying 'God doesn't exist'.

Or you could pretend that hiding it in an equivocation fallacy on the meaning of 'universe' makes it go away - but that would be intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Lion IRC]

A. Creationists believe that things which come into existence have a cause.
B. Creationists believe that God did not come into existence.

Do you see any contradiction here Learner?
Nope. Me either.

It's kinda implied by the word creationist.

Creationists also believe that the universe came into existence, and therefore requires a cause. I am a little surprised that you forgot that.

How could I have forgotten?
That's exactly what I JUST SAID!!!

Things which come into existence have a cause.

 

[bilby]

A. Creationists believe that things which come into existence have a cause.
B. Creationists believe that God did not come into existence.

Do you see any contradiction here Learner?
Nope. Me either.

It's kinda implied by the word creationist.

Creationists also believe that the universe came into existence, and therefore requires a cause. I am a little surprised that you forgot that.

How could I have forgotten?
That's exactly what I JUST SAID!!!

Things which come into existence have a cause.

Well then the contradiction then lies in their exclusion of 'God' from the set 'the universe' - which is a contradiction of the meaning of 'the universe', which in this context means 'everything that exists'.

Of course, you could resolve that contradiction by saying 'God doesn't exist'.

Or you could pretend that hiding it in an equivocation fallacy on the meaning of 'universe' makes it go away - but that would be intellectual dishonesty.

Or you could just respond to the first paragraph of an argument, and pretend that the remaining paragraphs, which explain your error, don't exist. That's yet another intellectually dishonest option.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A. Creationists believe that things which come into existence have a cause.

Funny, though, that everything we have experience with does not come into existence. Things that already exist recombine into new forms, which we give new names, but their existence stretches back the length of the universe.
Minerals in tge soil configure to become a plant, which feeds and becomes part of an animal, part of which becomes part of a predator... which becomes a trophy on the wall, until it becomes an eyesore, then part of it becomes part of moths, which reconfigures to parts of a spider, which, if you're not diligent, becomes part of an 8-month old named Kelly who insists to this day that she never ate spiders... and part of Kelly contributed to Beowulf, who ate a butterfly...

if anything we see is an indication for the operation of the universe, it must be eternal, just reconfigured from the last iteration. And some day to reconfigure into something else...

 

[bilby]

A. Creationists believe that things which come into existence have a cause.

Funny, though, that everything we have experience with does not come into existence. Things that already exist recombine into new forms, which we give new names, but their existence stretches back the length of the universe.
Minerals in tge soil configure to become a plant, which feeds and becomes part of an animal, part of which becomes part of a predator... which becomes a trophy on the wall, until it becomes an eyesore, then part of it becomes part of moths, which reconfigures to parts of a spider, which, if you're not diligent, becomes part of an 8-month old named Kelly who insists to this day that she never ate spiders... and part of Kelly contributed to Beowulf, who ate a butterfly...

if anything we see is an indication for the operation of the universe, it must be eternal, just reconfigured from the last iteration. And some day to reconfigure into something else...

^This.

The First Law of Thermodynamics implies that nothing ever comes into existence, nor ceases to exist.

If creationists wish to claim that there is a circumstance to which 1LoT doesn't apply, they are going to need some seriously impressive evidence. This is one of the most thoroughly tested laws of physics. It's not about to be overturned by a bit of hand waving and a collection of old stories.

But as I showed above, even if we allowed, ad argumentum, that the universe - everything that exists - had a beginning, it would require a contradiction to declare that this beginning had a cause.

 

[abaddon]

... Minerals in tge soil configure to become a plant, which feeds and becomes part of an animal, part of which becomes part of a predator... which becomes a trophy on the wall, until it becomes an eyesore, then part of it becomes part of moths, which reconfigures to parts of a spider, which, if you're not diligent, becomes part of an 8-month old named Kelly who insists to this day that she never ate spiders... and part of Kelly contributed to Beowulf, who ate a butterfly...

“When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.” ― John Muir

(Or "attached to the rest of the universe").

Ultimately nature made a watchmaker and nature made the watch. Which the configuration called "watchmaker" sold to some other ephemeral configuration who then lost it on a heath. That's what nature does: self-organize in a huge variety of patterns and events.

Theists tell another story, intuitively (which means mindlessly and naively) relying on language's ancient structure to inform how reality is. "Made" becomes "create" or "cause" and seems to imply a sudden ("magical") start of an utterly new thing. (There is a lot of 'thingness' in this story). If the particular thing is human, then that thing is utterly different from every other nonhuman thing in the universe (except for the big mirror image of him, God). Why? Because humans have "mind" and mind doesn't feel made of matter so therefore it's not. So "man" becomes an agent of free will... a spirit stuck inside of "the material realm".

And then the rest of how that story goes, all mirrored in our sentence structure. For example: "Man", the noun -- "make/cause", the verb -> "pocketwatch", the direct object. Which gives the illusion of an absolute distinction of three different sorts of "thing": an agent with will, the force it exerts, and the dumb object that can't do anything unless an agent forces it to. This is the story that informs creationist's notion that nature can't make complex patterns -- that it takes an already-complex "agent" to cause other complexity.

And is "the universe" itself a "thing"? Probably like everything else, when taken all together it's a "thing" but merely in our conceptions. We talk of phenomena as things because we must treat them as discrete separate units, for no better reason than language forces us to. But the reality looks to me much more like an ever-morphing series of intertwined events, with no agents fashioning handfuls of it like clay. Heraclitus and Buddha were nearer correct about that than Plato and the Hebrews and Christians.

 

[Learner]

If you have a third alternative, then present it. As far as I can see, the two possibilities are exhaustive.

Either ALL things have a cause; Or there are uncaused things.

If ALL things have a cause, then gods have a cause. If there are uncaused things, then the universe doesn't necessarily require a cause, so it would be foolish to hypothesize one without hard evidence.

What I was trying to get at when I asked " why does it seem to you , this particular logic layout you've provided, is the one (ultimate) logic.?" It was in the context that, the two options (caused and un-caused) could have different variations.

Lion has beat me to it :

A. Creationists believe that things which come into existence have a cause.
B. Creationists believe that God did not come into existence.

Do you see any contradiction here Learner?
Nope. Me either.

It's kinda implied by the word creationist.

Cause and uncaused still remains here in this example.

(this should pretty much answer the rest of your cause and uncaused post)

 

[bilby]

If you have a third alternative, then present it. As far as I can see, the two possibilities are exhaustive.

Either ALL things have a cause; Or there are uncaused things.

If ALL things have a cause, then gods have a cause. If there are uncaused things, then the universe doesn't necessarily require a cause, so it would be foolish to hypothesize one without hard evidence.

What I was trying to get at when I asked " why does it seem to you , this particular logic layout you've provided, is the one (ultimate) logic.?" It was in the context that, the two options (caused and un-caused) could have different variations.

Lion has beat me to it :

A. Creationists believe that things which come into existence have a cause.
B. Creationists believe that God did not come into existence.

Do you see any contradiction here Learner?
Nope. Me either.

It's kinda implied by the word creationist.

Cause and uncaused still remains here.

(this should pretty much answer the rest of your post)

Not only does it fail to answer the rest of my post, but I have already detailed (https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?16830-Common-theist-argument-quot-You-know-I-used-to-be-an-atheist-myself-quot&p=648841&viewfull=1#post648841) exactly how badly it fails.

 

[Learner]

The failure is yours. You are claiming your "version" of cause and uncause as "fact". It is, no more or less than other variations of cause and uncause.