Worst argument for the existence of a creator.

Using the word "purpose" implies, as i intended, that there is some kind of higher meaning and reason. Therefore you made the mistake of assuming i thought reproductrive organs were not evolved primarily to reproduce. I could be forgiven for assuming that your use of the word purpose implied objective meaning.

It's called the Teleological Argument and the eye ball (which i replaced with penis) is often used as an example of supposed "design".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

I doubt many theists would claim their beliefs to be illogical.

Well there is always logic behind things.. whether or not we should seek to find the logic is another question.

Deterministically yes.

 

I think what you're attacking is the ethical theory called "natural law" philosophy. We're talking here about "natural law" the moral philosophy rather than "natural law" the scientific theory (like the law of gravity). "Natural law" philosophy goes back to ancient thinkers like the Roman Stoics and was all the rage in the Middle Ages and the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This Greco-Roman philosophy seemed to offer the early Christians an elegant way to tie together various passages in the Old Testament like "Be fruitful and multiply", homosexuality is an "abomination", Onan sinned by casting his seed upn the ground, etc. It's still influential in the Catholic Church and even some Protestant Churches. Basically, it does equate natural function with proper purpose or God's Plan: because something is functional to survival, that is its proper purpose and ought to carry out that purpose and none other. Implicit in this theory is the notion that what we want doesn't matter unless it is furthering this grand underlying purpose. This is the basis for Catholic objections to birth control and masturbation, as well as the taboo against homosexuality. This theory has been criticized for committing the "naturalistic fallacy" of making an "is" into an "ought". The critics say that just because the penis evolved because it had survival value in reproduction doesn't mean it's morally necessary to use it for that and only that purpose. The comeback to that is that everything in nature is part of a larger Divine Plan, and it's God's purpose, not our own, that should control our actions. I do think the fine tuning of the universe may reflect Intelligent Design, but I'm not persuaded that this should necessarily dictate our morality.

 

At the end of the day it comes down to the question "Is there a God or not"... because that is the deciding factor on whether or not anything can have objective meaning (or at least have objective meaning that we can know of).

The comeback stated above does not hold ground because, for the critics to claim that everything is the result of evolution and things can have many equal uses, they also implie that a (christian) God does not exist. For a comeback to be relevent you would first need to prove the existence of God before going onto claim there is a divine plan.

In other words, the anti-design argument holds true without a need for prior circumstances (God).. but for the design argument to have any meaning, we first need to know that a God is there at all.

At the end of the day i guess Christians aren't interested in the logic of how the world works because they simply put their trust in religion.. but when faced with the evidence (such as evolution creating such a well oiled world) they are forced to answer with arguments that can't be proven.

 

At the end of the day, I think it comes down to whether you are a jack-ass, or not a jack-ass. Belief in God has nothing to do with that. Christians can be jack-asses as we avoid them, atheists can be jack-asses and we avoid them. It doesn't matter . especially in the here and now, if "everything" has a meaning. What particularly matters is making sure people do not suffer, die, hunger, whatever. People are too concerned with teaching evolution in schools of keeping gay men out of wedlock--we should be more concerned with are the ~16,000 children who will die of hunger today. That is something relevant and important. What would God care about more, believing in creation, or saving 16,000 lives?

And watch your assumptions and generalities. The Catholic Church's teaching says that evolution is a fact. Don't group all Christians together when it comes to evolution

 

so if we dont like the use of the penis we can fount a use for the hands and reproduse with handsex?

 

I think that we first need to understand if we need to act, why we need to act, how we need to act and what we need to do to act. We must look at the most fundamental of issues to understand what we really need to be doing and what our priorities are before we attempt to fix the worlds problems or even determine what those problems are in the first place.

It's all very well helping starving and sick people.. but that is just a role to be filled by health services etc. The reason all these problems occur at all is down to the most basic belief systems we have in our societies.

It is more important to stop problems from reoccurring than to deal with ones that we already have... if we spend too much time dealing with issues at the moment and less time understanding why they happen... then we will always have problems.

What is better? Getting to the heart of the issues and getting the government to act where necessary, or leaving help to be the duty of small charities who will for ever be underfunded and barely any help at all?

My point being that discussion of the bigger questions in life (that don't have a direct effect on the world) is never irrelevant...

For instance... it is more important to discuss the religion and motive for religious terrorism than it is to help the injured when they decide to fly planes into towers.

Religion, science, politics and philosophy are very important and along with them comes discussion about meaning, evolution, free will blah blah.

I'm sorry.. I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the different kinds of christian belief.

 

lol thats not what i meant... it was very badly worded.

 

Yes we have to look at fundamentals, but a fundamental of helping people isn't through the instruction of evolution or science in high school. It is about action.

Yeah but it isn't based on belief in God. There are Christians who believe that people deserve to be poor based on some sort of imaginary sin, but there are also atheists who don't give a rats ass about anyone else.

Ok, so we won't help the people who died of hunger yesterday or today, but what about tomorrow? The day after that... We can sit around and educate eachother just by talking about why certain things happen, but awareness on a basic level doesn't acomplish anything.

Small charaties can do one thing, and governments can do anotyher. Somep people are more natural protestors/lobbyists. Others take direct action.

I never said is was totally irrelevant, just a little pointless when you think about how shitty the world is.

I think it is more pertinent to act. We can discuss until our hearts content, but discussion acomplishes nothing. What would be better would be action to help people. We know where this type of terrorism comes from, it comes from extreme secularization (look at the Iranian Revolution--the Shah banned the hijab and the shit hit the fan) and poverty. How can we stop this--well through outreach. Not at terrorists directly, but at the people that they try to recruit.


I guess I'm an idealist.

 

You of course know that this does not even remotely resemble the design argument.

 

I suppose there could theoretically have been thousands of short-lived species who never worked out what their wangs are for, but I'm not sure it's something I'd choose to speculate about.

As to the first post, Voltaire talked about the dangers of assuming a design just because an effect seems so perfectly linked to a cause. They were actually discussing that stuff back in the 18th century. Generally I don't approve of the notion that the universe is wonderful or that the world is so shitty. The "could be worse, could be raining" attitude is one that America may need to learn to adopt to survive the 21st century and the slow collapse of its empire.

The problem isn't that people believe in design, but that they presume this belief allows them to do whatever they want - that whatever they wanted to do is what they were designed to do. I have no beef with beliefs that don't adversely affect one's life or the lives of others, but we all know what too much confidence can do.

 

that is my opinion on the design argument... not a description of it.

 

I really didn't say that you were describing the design argument but you do go into why you think the design argument is worst argument for the existence of a creator.

In doing so you make statements like; “Just because we have found a use for something does not mean it exists to serve that purpose or to even have a purpose.” and “Have you ever noticed how we are not actually that suited to living in this world?” or “It is only due to the advancement of HUMAN technology and creation that we have made our lives easier.” and “A banana is very suited to being eaten. It was not designed this way.”

Such statements, do not negate any design argument I’ve heard of and so would like to know what you think the design argument really is?

 

From wikipedia:

A teleological argument, or argument from design, is an argument for the existence of God or a creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design, or direction — or some combination of these — in nature. The word "teleological" is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning "end" or "purpose". Teleology is the supposition that there is purpose or directive principle in the works and processes of nature.

 

Gee, Thanx!

Now maybe you can show how the things you said had anything to do with disproving it.

Here let me help you out, here’s one. Let’s say that you found a watch, would you say that it just made it’s self or would you think someone made it even if you never met or knew the maker? What if it was broken and no longer served any useful purpose would it no longer have been designed?

 

“Just because we have found a use for something does not mean it exists to serve that purpose or to even have a purpose.”

The design argument claims that because we see purpose and design in things then they must have been designed. Often, we create purpose for things in the way we perceive them to work. e.g. God gave us animals and and sharp teeth hence our teeth are designed to chew through tough meat.

Our teeth are sharp because of natural selection.. the people born with sharper teeth had an advantage over the ones with blunt teeth.. so most of the blunt toothed people die out. Our teeth weren't designed for eating meet.

“Have you ever noticed how we are not actually that suited to living in this world?”

The design argument claims design... when there is actually a lot in the world that is not beneficial to human life..... evolution and natural selection don't make humanity a priority.. humans are just part of an evolving world and are not part of any design.

“It is only due to the advancement of HUMAN technology
and creation that we have made our lives easier.”

If there is any design in the world it is from human consciousness. Our lives run pretty smoothly due to ourselves.. the world "God" designed us was not very generous.

“A banana is very suited to being eaten. It was not designed this way.”

Basically.. people see suitability of things to other things... and assume design.. but it's down to evolution and natural selection.

The human mind can design things. That is why we have items and systems that are clearly not derived from nature.

For a start, the natural world is not particularly "designed". Things happen... that is due to the laws of physics.. clouds rain.. rain goes into rivers.. into the sea etc... but that only happens because SOMETHING has to happen.. the rain has to go somewhere.... the system was not designed.. if it was designed don't you think it would be better for clouds to rain straight into our cups on command?

Evolution has caused what systems there are in the world right now... evolution is not driven by a force or a mind.. it is just the laws of physics.. cause and effect..

Nothing on this earth that wasn't designed with human/animal purpose by humans/animals has any meaning. They just happen because if you stick a load of atoms and particles in a space they have to do something. Volcanoes erupt.. so what? It is just atoms being atoms... cause and effect.. when you let go of something it drops to the floor... so what? that's how the atoms have arranged themselves due to physics..

Evolution doesn't have the answer to why the world is here.. but the world doesn't resemble what looks like a working system with a purpose so there is no need to assume it was designed.

 

Thanx

Oh, by the way have you given any thought to why water expands when it freezes as opposed to almost everything else that contracts when it gets colder.

 

No, that's physics and i'm not a scientist.

 

You might want to give it some thought. That one “chance” anomaly makes life possible.

 

This is exactly what i was talking about.
What a terrible argument.

Firstly it is not chance. Things happen because of cause and effect.

Secondly, why do you assume that life is like the "jackpot" of all possible worlds? It is not amazing that of all the things that could have happened to the world it ended up like this. There were thousands of possible outcomes of the world today.. and ONE of those outcomes had to happen... we are just one of those insignificant outcomes. Why is what has happened special?

If it had happened differently and the world had spawned thousands of little rocks instead then perhaps your equivalent would be saying to my equivalent "Hey! isn't this amazing! out of all the things that could have happened.. the world ended up like this!"

The big bang just rolled the dice and this is what it landed on.. we exist... big deal. If it had landed differently then the world might have turned into a lifeless desert... but all opportunities were possible.

Also, don't you think that out of the billions (possibly infinite) amount of planets and stars in the universe it would be a bit odd if none of them created little hamburger munching humans?

 

All I asked was for you to stop a think for a moment but instead you get all bunchy and go off. Talk about terrible arguments, you make all kind of assumptions and then tell me that I have a terrible argument and I haven’t even made any argument as of yet, just asked a few questions, as I recall.

If you can’t even tell if someone is making an argument I don’t even know where to start.

How about, when you make up your mind whether; “it is not chance. Things happen because of cause and effect” or “The big bang just rolled the dice and this is what it landed on” maybe we can talk some more.