How does on deal with the teleological argument?

[davidtaylorjr]

I understand, and agree the regression is difficult to stop. We reach a point where our knowledge becomes thin and incomplete. We've essentially re framed the argument to "The sub atomic particle and the sub atomic particle maker". The thing is, most people are willing to accept the existence of sub atomic particles without a designer, as they are incredibly simple in design. You now have to commit to the position that matter, and by extension the universe, is not possible without god. This is a whole different argument, and Occam's Razor is against you there.

Which is true, it is impossible without God as the Teleological Argument suggests. Therefore, nothing you have said disproves the teleological argument.

 

[Ikari]

But where did the material that created the Big Bang come from? See how that works, you can't keep explaining radom variations if there was nothing there to begin with. You can't get something, from nothing.

You actually can get something from nothing in a net zero energy universe such as our own. Spontaneous generation of matter/antimatter pairs are observable even in our current universe.

 

[Cephus]

But where did the material that created the Big Bang come from? See how that works, you can't keep explaining radom variations if there was nothing there to begin with. You can't get something, from nothing.

Where did God come from? Where did the "stuff" to make God come from? If you can't answer that, you can't just keep asking questions of us.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Where did God come from? Where did the "stuff" to make God come from? If you can't answer that, you can't just keep asking questions of us.

God did not have a beginning, God is eternal, that is why he is God.

 

[Ikari]

Where did God come from? Where did the "stuff" to make God come from? If you can't answer that, you can't just keep asking questions of us.

God is the vacuum.

 

[Cephus]

God did not have a beginning, God is eternal, that is why he is God.

Because you say so. Gotcha. So if we just said that the universe did not have a beginning, the universe is eternal, that settles it?

 

[Cephus]

God is the vacuum.

So God sucks. I can agree with that.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Because you say so. Gotcha. So if we just said that the universe did not have a beginning, the universe is eternal, that settles it?

Except the universe did have a beginning, the one who created it told us about it. Remember, we are talking about whether or not there is a God.

 

[Ikari]

So God sucks. I can agree with that.

There is no such thing as suck. Particles move from areas.of higher pressure to lower, there is only blow.

 

[Ikari]

Except the universe did have a beginning, the one who created it told us about it. Remember, we are talking about whether or not there is a God.

Or rather humans invented the concept of gods to explain how we got here before we have the knowledge of it

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Or rather humans invented the concept of gods to explain how we got here before we have the knowledge of it

Except there have been witnesses of God, therefore I must refute that.

 

[Ikari]

Except there have been witnesses of God, therefore I must refute that.

Where are these witnesses? And why are there no more witnesses today?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Where are these witnesses? And why are there no more witnesses today?

Read the Bible.

 

[Cephus]

Except the universe did have a beginning, the one who created it told us about it. Remember, we are talking about whether or not there is a God.

And when you actually prove that there's a God, you might have a point. You're just asserting it without a shred of objective evidence and a lot of blind faith, neither of which are at all impressive.

 

[Ikari]

Read the Bible.

How do you know they were witnesses? Were you there?

 

[Cephus]

There is no such thing as suck. Particles move from areas.of higher pressure to lower, there is only blow.

And by creating lower pressure areas, you can create a vacuum.

 

[Ikari]

And by creating lower pressure areas, you can create a vacuum.

The vacuum is perfect, infinite, and omnipresent. All glory to the hypnotoad!

 

[CRUE CAB]

Whenever someone who believes in God brings this point about I am usually at a loss for word. This is the only one where I cannot form a decent argument myself.

So, what would be a refutation and counter argument to the teleological argument, so I can better arm myself for the future?

A belief is not something that requires scientific definition. Thats why they call it faith.

 

[head of joaquin]

The "watch must have a watchmaker" type is the one I get the most.

Read Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker". He disposes of this fallacy real well.

The bottom line is there absolutely no evidence of a telos or purpose or design in the physical universe. All we observe is matter and natural causes.

 

[head of joaquin]

Except the universe did have a beginning, the one who created it told us about it. Remember, we are talking about whether or not there is a God.

I thought we were talking about the universe, which can quite nicely be explained by methodological naturalism, whether God exists or not, and whether God created the universe or not. God isn't relevant to explaining observable facts using natural causes. It doesn't help in the slightest to impute supernatural causes to anything observable since they lead to no useful prediction about things we care about. That's what science does.

 

[shagg]

Which is true, it is impossible without God as the Teleological Argument suggests. Therefore, nothing you have said disproves the teleological argument.

you're wrong. you were arguing in favor of the teleological argument, otherwise known as Intelligent Design. I proved that objects of apparent Intelligent Design can be produced from random movements of particles over time, and thus the apparent necessity for a god to exist because living creatures are of apparent Intelligent Design is averted. That is how the teleological argument works, it never suggests matter can not exist without god. It "Proves" god exists because it proposes its the only way to explain complex structures in living creatures. I didn't prove that matter can exist without god, but i also didn't have to. this was about complex, intelligently designed structures, not simple "Smallest particles possible".

His name escapes me, but there was a philosopher whos theory was that matter, if left unobserved, did not exist. When confronted with the continued existence of unobserved matter (i don't know how this is possible, or was proved) he stated that all matter existed continuously because god was constantly observing everything. If you want to take up that position I'd be happy to be your devils advocate.

 

[obvious Child]

It does indeed make for some provoking ideas. I myself, am an agnostic. The Christian understanding of god seems too limited but then the concept of god period seems so fanciful I just can't quite buy it. Hope that doesn't offend you.

Not at all. I left Christianity in my teenage years because their notion of God doesn't make sense for a long list of reasons.

You are right about defining or even discussing the concept of the existence of god, seems it usually comes down to the limitations of humans making it impossible to grasp something so vast vs the leap of faith on the part of believers. Still interesting conversation though

Yup, hence why its futile to try discuss God within the context of Logic. There's no reason why Deities must be constrained by logic. So how can we apply a framework to a being(s) that aren't restricted by such framework? We can try, but we're going to fail in the end.

 

[obvious Child]

I think you are ignoring the impact of entropy in your discussion here, though I agree that the God-of-the-gaps model is a weak one.

That's just an outline. And I'm a bit rusty. I haven't had to deal with a hardcore Intelligent Designer in a while.

 

[obvious Child]

You are the one who does not understand what we are to have faith in, or what faith really is.

*Yawn*

Reply to me when you have something other than "I say so."

 

[cpwill]

That's just an outline. And I'm a bit rusty. I haven't had to deal with a hardcore Intelligent Designer in a while.

Well I think your best refutation of Intelligent Design (if not intelligent design) is going to come from explicitly Christian sources, then, as they at least would pass the first hurdle of commonality of intent with your opposition. Francis Collins and C.S. Lewis come to mind.