Introduction
I'd like to divert a moment to highlight the flaw in the belief in god. I'll get back to my Australian revolution idea in the next blog. So, while reading a few anti-theist books I encounter many religious arguments that many aren't seeing for what they are. The argument from complexity. the argument from beauty, the argument from design to me all seem to be the same argument. The argument from improbability. In this blog, I'm going to take the first 10 arguments from this site referenced in Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion'.So lets get started!
Ding Ding (that's me hitting the boxing match starting bell thing you hear i boxing matches) so first off we haveSo lets look at this. The argument can be viewed as "it is extremely improbable (to make it impossible) that reason could have happened to exist in the universe without god making it exist. Therefore god exists. This is the argument from improbability.1 - TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT
If reason exists then God exists. Reason exists. Therefore, God exists.
So lets look at this one. this is Thomas Aquina's argument, the everything has a cause, therefore the universe has a cause. God terminates the regress. But this can be viewed as "based on observation things I see have a cause, not having seen everything and associated its cause, I can say that it is highly improbable that everything else I have seen has a cause, but the universe does not. Its improbable that the universe is the only thing without a cause, therefore it must have a cause". This is the argument from improbability.2 - COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause. I say the universe must have a cause. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Therefore, God exists.
So this says, My mind is so complex that mere chance can not have created it. If it is so complex as to be able to conceive of a god, then it is far far to improbable to have been created by anything other than god. The formation of my mind is to improbably complex to have not been deliberately created. This defaults to the argument from improbability in the way i have just discussed and it falls to the argument from improbability from the argument from complexity. This ones a freebe and is not counted in the 10.3 - ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
I define God to be X. Since I can conceive of X, X must exist. Therefore, God exists.
The argument made here (falling into the argument from improbability being that this is the Cosmological argument (2)) is that the universe is to complex to have been created by something other than something more complex than itself. The argument in this case is that its improbable for the universe to have formed without superior design. This is the argument from improbability. Any argument depending on the argument from complexity defaults to the argument from improbabilityARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY
That which is complex has a creator. The universe is complex. Only God is complex enough to create the universe. Therefore, God exists.
This is a rewording of number 3. as such this argument defaults to 3 and then defaults to the argument from improbability. You notice that these arguments get easier to debunk as you progress as they tend to be essentially reworded forms of the same argument.4 - ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
I can conceive of a perfect God. One of the qualities of perfection is existence. Therefore, God exists.
This argument says that god is necessary presumably in the cosmological argument sense to start the process of the universe. The argument being that it is highly unlikely that the universe started by itself than was created by a god. This is the argument from improbability in the way I just mentioned and on its dependence on the Thomas Aquina prime mover argument I discussed in number 2. Lets not forget for a moment that this argument does not identify why god is not unnecessary. It just claims it to be so.5 - MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
God is either necessary or unnecessary. God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary. Therefore, God exists.
Again this is the argument from complexity. which is relegated to the argument from improbability in number 3. Things are to complex to have come about by chance. It is improbable that things could arrive at their current complex state of being without having a designer. This is the argument from improbability.6 - TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex? Only God could have made them so complex. Therefore, God exists.
The argument here is that a baby, sunset, flower or tree is too complex, to intricate, to aesthetically pleasing to have been created by chance. It is improbable that beauty can exist without god making them beautiful. This the argument from improbability. It is also the argument from complexity, which defaults to the argument form improbability. Lets think for a second. I can create a beautiful thing and I am not a god. Why is creating beautiful things only in gods hands? No-one answers this question. If I can create beauty then maybe I'm god...7 - DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Isn't that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful? Only God could have made them so beautiful. Therefore, God exists.
The argument here is that it is improbable that the near certainty of death caused by cancer could repair itself without god. (even though spontaneous remission is a legitimate medical phenomenon). The argument in this example describes a miracle by beating the odds. It is too improbable to beat cancer so god must have done it. This is the argument from improbability.8 - ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES
My aunt had cancer. The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments. My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer. Therefore, God exists.
A rather biased question which needs to be rephrased. We are moral in the face of the chance to be immoral. God claimed to set morals, therefore god makes us moral. This argument supposes that morals are so complex that they can not be created by chance. This is the argument from improbability (and the argument from complexity, which is the argument from improbability)9 - MORAL ARGUMENT
Person X, a well-known atheist, was morally inferior to the rest of us. Therefore, God exists.
This is just another form of the number 9. While it seems like it can't be answered by improbability, the argument is "it is improbable that I could have acted morally without religion". As stated in number 9, it presupposes that morals are to complex to arrive out of mere interaction with good people. Lets take a moment to recognise that religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Far more immoral accusations have been made against the Australian religious community (religious leaders) than the Australian political community (politicians). The argument here is that its improbable to get morals anywhere else other than religion.10 - MORAL ARGUMENT
In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard. That all changed once I became religious. Therefore, God exists.
As Number 10 was essentially a rewording of number 9, i'll throw in number 11
This is yet another bias worded argument. But its meaning is essentially the cosmological argument. the universe is to improbable for even evolution to create. The universe thus must have been created by a some being capable of managing that complexity. It is the argument from complexity and the cosmological argument. Both these default to the argument from improbability.11 - ARGUMENT FROM CREATION
If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists. Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable. Therefore, God exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment