Confused Christians

Here is one of many pointless conversations with a Religious Apologist. Am I being trolled? You decide.

The story begins with me suggesting that if there is evidence to support the existence of God, it would be interesting to see it. A religious apologist provides a link to “20 arguments for God’s Existence” by another religious apologist (Peter Kreeft). This is a series of inductive arguments and analogies – it’s certainly not evidence. So...

#

Posted By

Date

Time (UK)

Comment

The Religious apologist reminds me that I am ignoring the 20 arguments for God article that he provided. He reminds me four times...

1	A Religious Apologist	12 Sep 2013	1:03AM	But of course you ignored my further evidence--let's get back to that link again: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
2	A Religious Apologist	12 Sep 2013	1:40AM	How would one verify such by the scientific method? Does one test with God's input and one without? That's the limit of this particular verification process regarding cosmological issues. That's not to say that there is no evidence for God beyond this particular unsuitable process: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
3	A Religious Apologist	14Sep 2013	1:19AM	you ignore other evidence not straitjacketed by the limited tool of science and its limited verification processes: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
4	A Religious Apologist	14Sep 2013	1:19AM	Again I've offered [a non-scientific explanation for intelligence] over and over which you've ignored--here's one link to consider, among many. As usual I've had to offer such multiple times, still hoping that you might respond to such on topic: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

So I decide to post a refutation for each of the arguments,

5

JimC

14 Sep 2013

6:54PM

A link was provided in a separate thread to “20 arguments for God's Existence.” Peter Kreeft is a professor of philosophy and a Christian Apologist. He is the author of “The Handbook of Christian Apologetics". It would be impossible to discuss all 20 arguments in a single thread so I suggest we look at them one at a time. Let's begin with the “The Argument from Change” which is number one on Peter Kreeft's list...

...when I got as far as number 5, a Christian Evangelist joins the debate...

6	A Christian Evangelist	30 Sep 2013	4:44PM	I've been away from this Board awhile. It seems to have changed for the worse. The topic “The Argument from Change” is an example. One internet article is used to answer some other interent article. Internet articles on controverted subjects are notoriously poor.
7	JimC	30 Sep 2013	5:03PM	A Religious  Apologist  presented a web site few weeks ago which he said provided "evidence for God". I don't blame him for posting an "Internet article" as you put it but it seemed to me there was no evidence in the article - just some analogies and inductive arguments. So I ignored it.  A  Religious Apologist then posted comments aimed specifically at me for ignoring the article. He did this four times. So rather than being criticised for ignoring so-called "evidence" I felt bound to respond. His article contained 20 "arguments" so I felt each should be examined individually rather than generally. The arguments so far have been flawed logically, and I've explained why. We've done 5 out of 20 so far.  Having been criticised for ignoring the article, I am now criticised for responding! Quelle Surprise! However you do have a point about long posts. Perhaps I should post my explanations off the board and provide links – then people don’t have to read long, boring posts.

The Religious Apologist joins in again – but he seems to have forgotten that I only responded to his link to Peter Kreeft’s website after he posted comments on four occasions, aimed at me, for ignoring it. He also seems to think that his loss of memory qualifies my post as a fallacious Straw Man argument!

8

A Religious Apologist

1 Oct 2013

1:59 AM

I didn't post comments aimed at you for "ignoring the article"--you are attacking me on a false premise--so you get a straw man for your misrepresentation. I critiqued the fact that you made dismissive, unsubstantiated posits regarding the content of the article, which you failed to support. Please note the difference.

Hmmm. He's forgotten what he said 2 weeks previously. So I am bound to remind him. This happens a lot in various debates. By the time I’ve reminded him of what he actually said, the debate has given up the will to live. Perhaps I’m being trolled. Anyway...

9	JimC	1 Oct	7:53AM	You did post comments aimed at me for "ignoring the article" which you referred to as "evidence". This happened four times over a seven day period, including twice in a single post.
10	A Religious Apologist	4 Oct 2013	12:509 AM	Do you see what you just did? My critique all along was that you were ignoring EVIDENCE! I did link to the article for that evidence but "evidence" itself was the issue--hence my point above!

Bizarre.  It seems that A Religious Apologist has forgotten his comments on 12th and 14th and blissfully unaware that the Kreeft article provides no evidence at all! Just weak analogies and inductive arguments.

Argument from Time and Contingency - Refuted

These are the standard objections to argument #3 on the list provided here...

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

If nonbeing is a real possibility, then the nonbeing of God is a real possibility. If the argument assumes God is exempt from this premise, then the argument commits the fallacy of special pleading, or if God is assumed at this stage, it is a circular argument because it is assuming in the premises what it is trying to prove. 

There is a premise which states... “If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed—literally—nothing at all.” This assumption of “literally nothing at all” is not justified for three reasons: First, it is contradicted by the conclusion that God existed before the universe. Secondly, if time didn't exist until the universe existed there is no such thing as a “past moment before which” it existed. Finally, if there is a "past moment before which" our universe existed, how can the author possibly know what existed there, or didn't exist ? 

The premise that “From nothing nothing comes” sounds obvious based on human empirical experiences. But during the last 100 years we have discovered aspects of reality that are counter-intuitive, beyond human intuition and imagination. Things that were unknown to the original author of this argument, 800 years ago. For example, the concept that the total energy of the universe is zero so that our universe is literally an arrangement of nothing. To quote Heinz Pagels … "Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility."

The argument states that "There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary." In fact there is no such thing as en empirical necessity. It is wrong to claim that an existent "thing" is logically necessary. And the claim is contradicted by a previous premise which states that "nonbeing is a real possibility." Several philosophical objections have been raised to this point in the past, notably Hume ... “Whatever we can conceive as existent, we can also conceive as nonexistent.” Also Kant famously explored this idea and explained how the concept of “necessary existence” is not meaningful. 

http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/articles/kantexistence-a.pdf

Towards the end of the argument, the reference to “something” suddenly becomes a reference to a “being” with no explanation or justification. This appears to be a device used to subsequently support the conclusion that the absolutely necessary “thing” is a “being” from which there is another unjustified leap to the conclusion that the necessary “being” must be God. 

This conclusion ignores the possibility that if there was a "necessary thing" it could be a singularity, or a quantum vacuum fluctuation, or a team of godlike "beings", or alien "beings" or any number of alternatives to God including a "thing" that we have yet to discover, and so on... years ago.

The Design Argument - Refuted

These are the standard objections to argument #5 on the list provided here...

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

a) The entire argument is analogical and very weak when evaluated against the criteria for analogical arguments as described here... http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/analogy.php

b) There is a statement that design comes only from a mind, but no explanation of how to tell the difference between order and design. The essence of the argument is that if a man-made product is designed by men, then a nature-made product must be designed by a nature-designer. This is an extremely weak analogy (see above). 

c) Although man made products are well within human experience, the concept of a nature-maker or nature-designer is beyond any possible human experience. And of course, any such “nature designer” need not be a god (unless the definition of any being who may be responsible for design in nature is a god). This part of the argument commits the fallacy of composition

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

d) The argument assumes nature has a purpose and works towards an end. There is no justification or evidence for this assumption. 

e) Order could be a necessary attribute of existence. In other words, for something to exist it has to be “ordered”. Therefore everything that exists is bound to be ordered, by definition. 

f) The author assumes we can infer the application of intelligent design by examination, especially when living things remind us of something a human might design. However, observations of nature show that order and apparent design can come about by purely natural means, for example: snowflakes; crystals; rainbows; etc. 

g) The introduction of the concept of “chance” as a premise, and its instant dismissal by the author, highlights three flaws in the argument:

g1) The author has used the fallacious argument of false dichotomy by stating that nature is either the result of chance or purposeful design. Those are not the only two options. According to evolutionary scientists evolution is not chance. It is the very existence of the non-chance components of natural selection that allows evolution to happen. Natural selection results in order out of chaos, naturally and not by chance or at random.

g2) How do we tell the difference between chance and natural law? If we flipped a coin and we had precise information regarding size, shape, mass, forces, wind speed, humidity, gravitational force, and every physical factor on the coin, the outcome of the coin toss would be predictable. This implies that a chance event is just a lack of precise knowledge of initial states.

g3) Assessing the significance of "chance" requires the probability of an event to be calculated. It is impossible for anyone to calculate the probability of the existence of an ordered universe as there is not enough data available regarding the conditions required. If order is a necessary attribute of existence then the "chance" of an ordered universe existing is 100%

If we assume the existence of a designer...

h) The argument ignores the imperfections that we see in nature. Imperfections in a product suggests imperfections in the maker, which is not usually how God is portrayed. This line of thought also leads eventually to the "Problem of Evil" argument.

i) There are thousands of hypotheses which can explain what this designer or designers might be, without necessarily being God. For example: Nature itself could be self-organising; there could be a team of cosmic designers; the designer or designers do not have to be gods, they could design and create universes using advanced technology; and so on. 

j) If the great complexity we see in nature is evidence of a designer, then the designer must be greater than his or her creations. Therefore this designer would have been designed, leading to an infinite regression and the obvious question: Where did God come from? 

The analogies in this argument are particularly weak, as a standard evaluation demonstrates:  

Truth : The objects being compared (man made products vs natural products) are not similar in the way assumed. They are assumed to be similar in order to prove the argument. 

Relevance : Fails as a result of the truth test

Number : The only shared property appears to be "order" or "patterns".

Diversity : The shared properties are of very different types (e.g. Rolls Royce vs Giraffe). They are assumed to be of the same type in order to prove the argument.

Disanalogy : Fails due to the failure in the diversity test.

One of the weakest analogies provided by Religious Apologists is the Watchmaker argument. Click here to see a variation of that argument which uses a Rolls Royce instead of a pocket watch.