MathGeek Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?view...70753eb7335c425 This showed me some holes in the agnostic and atheist's case about uniformity of the universe, which I think is "The God of the Gaps". Clearly, I am not a professional argumentarian. What are your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?view...70753eb7335c425 This showed me some holes in the agnostic and atheist's case about uniformity of the universe, which I think is "The God of the Gaps". Clearly, I am not a professional argumentarian. What are your thoughts? This guy's arguments are full of holes, he assumes that god must exist or the order of the universe won't make any sense...this in itself is a type of inductive logic. Which he claims doesn't work if there is no god, so his argument only works if you assume god's existence in the first place. He also commits the Non Causa/Pro Causa fallacy because he assumes that the only explanation for a uniform universe is the existence of a god, without providing evidence that such is the case. He also sets up a false dichotomy by arguing that either god exists or there is no regular laws...again, he makes this statement without providing evidence that said laws could not exist "naturally" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Its also important to note that he misuses Hume's statements. Hume was not arguing about god, he was arguing about the primacy of Inductive logic. Other philosophers, like Descartes argued that Deductive logic was primary, and set out to prove the most basic things, even ones own existence, using deductive logic. Hume's was arguing that inductive should be accepted as a tautology, because it could never be proven to work using deductive logic, as deductive logic was created out of observations using the inductive method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llwellyn Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 The Transcendental Argument, even if it showed that we must presuppose a God in order to reason and learn, does not provide any support for the Christian God concept as opposed to any other God concept. Christian apologists think themselves so clever for this argument, but this argument can be employed as effectively by Osama Bin Laden or an African Witch Doctor. When you look into the Christian God-concept, you see that it is as "self-refuting" as they claim atheism to be. they propose a God who tells us his notion of ethics is different from our notion of ethics -- he would be right in cursing people which our conscience tells us is wrong. If this is so, there would be no way to know that this is true. Imagine someone telling you: "I would consider it to a good thing for me to lie to you." Can you believe such a statement? Obviously not -- it's self-refuting. Yet the Christian God tells us that "his ways are not our ways." Fine... But you've just written yourself out of the picture, Big Guy. C.S. Lewis made the same objection to Biblical Christianity: "It is true we have His threats and promises. But why should we believe them? If cruelty is from His point of view 'good,' telling lies may be 'good' too. Even if they are true, what then? If His ideas of good are so very different from ours, what He calls Heaven might well be what we should call Hell, and vice-versa. Finally, if reality at its very root is so meaningless to us — or, putting it the other way round, if we are such total imbeciles — what is the point of trying to think either about God or about anything else? This knot comes undone when you try to pull it tight." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts