• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How does on deal with the teleological argument?

Ikari said:
We know a great many thing which have been recorded in history, including the fact that the Egyptians built the pyramids.
Click to expand...

But HOW do you know? You weren't actually there, it is just stuff that is written down, and there is no way to know if that is actually how it happened.... :shrug:
 
davidtaylorjr said:
But HOW do you know? You weren't actually there, it is just stuff that is written down, and there is no way to know if that is actually how it happened.... :shrug:
Click to expand...

It jives with various histories and texts and was recorded down. There are many many many pyramids of Egypt, not just the huge ones in Giza so we've had a wealth of information to draw upon. It's all very consistent and within lines of period culture.
 
Ikari said:
It jives with various histories and texts and was recorded down. There are many many many pyramids of Egypt, not just the huge one in Giza so we've had a wealth of I formation to draw upon. It's all very consistent and within lines of period culture.
Click to expand...

Just like Creation and God ;) Have a nice day!
 
davidtaylorjr062206692 said:
He has been observed and recorded, so yes, actually we do.
Click to expand...

Humans and tools are observed and recorded to this day, gods are not. There's no real static and reproducible recordings of any single or consistent group of gods in our history. In fact the measurement of cultures and gods show that our gods have been rather malleable. If a single true god were to exist it would have shown to be consistent through history and present day.
 
obvious Child said:
Oh that one. This is functionally Intelligent Design. Aka, mouse trap can't work in another form.

Major assumption is that the watch cannot function in a less complicated manner. Nature shows this is a load of bullocks with less complex organisms, enzymes and processes all working. What's stopping natural processes from simply moving up the complexity level when it comes to organic subjects? Cliffs of Dover show evolution of shellfish from less complex to more complex. We find primitive bacteria in caves. That alone should rip out the main support of the watchmaker in terms of biological context. And when some fool tries to call you an atheist as to why you're wrong, there's nothing saying a Deist God started life and let it go on its own. There's no watch maker there in that the primitive organic material was divine in origin, but what happened after that was completely natural. The complex or nothing argument is garbage independent of what someone believes. There isn't any real argument after you dismantle the notion that organisms cannot survive or operate at less complex levels.

Then you get the argument that where that original organism come from? Start throwing out the dozens of abiogenesis theories and hypothesizes that are all natural in origin and point out that not knowing does not equate to the supernatural. Don't know = Goddidit it stupid
Click to expand...

That's weak. It still doesn't deal with what is the cause of existence itself.
 
obvious Child said:
Vague comments pointing to God's plan hardly explains anything well.

We aren't God. We don't know it's actual plan.

Thus, what is "right?"
Click to expand...

Are you just seeking to irritate me?
 
phattonez said:
That's weak. It still doesn't deal with what is the cause of existence itself.
Click to expand...

Don't need to. All you have to do is point out that the argument for everything needs an origin is a hypocritical stance that Creationist take. They invalidate natural processes because they're no creator, but they give a free pass to their own God in not needing a creator. They operate their own set of rules that do not apply to themselves. One merely needs to point out that raging double standard to remove it as an argument. You cannot in good faith argue that your belief is wrong because there's no creator, but my belief is right despite having no creator.

And if they aren't willing to discuss honestly, why discuss at all? You merely need to point out to your audience that your opponent is dishonest and is fast and loose with the criteria they apply to you as opposed to themselves and thus because of their refusal to accept the same rules, they aren't a credible opponent.

Furthermore, matter does appear from nowhere. We've recorded it in quantum physic experiments. Particles appear out of thin air.
 
Last edited:
davidtaylorjr said:
He has been observed and recorded, so yes, actually we do.
Click to expand...

Still unaware of what faith means do you?

If God has been observed and record, there is proof. Faith is a belief in something without proof. You claim there is proof and likely believe on that proof. Therefore, you do not have faith.
 
obvious Child said:
No, I'm just pointing out we don't have a real notion of what "right" is and thus we can't honestly make claims about God getting it right the first time.

We're not God. We don't know what he actually wants.
Click to expand...

Oh I think I see your point. I completely misunderstood you. Sorry about that.

But let me check:
In response to a comment that some believers of creationism will claim that God was responsible for evolution, I made the comment that often people misunderstand evolution because they view it in retrospect. That in fact it is all by chance and that traits that help better our chances of surviving in-turn increase the likelihood that that being will reproduce and those traits will get passed on as opposed to it being thought out in advance and the evolution being designed to suit a need. So when I said, why would God get it right the first time. I was saying evolution takes a lot of shots until one sticks seems like God would get it right (meaning select the evolution that betters chances of survival and procreation) out of the gate.

Are you suggesting that God could take several shots at what is needed to evole for reasons that we do not understand?
 
Last edited:
opendebate said:
Oh I think I see your point. I completely misunderstood you. Sorry about that.

But let me check:
In response to a comment that some believers of creationism will claim that God was responsible for evolution, I made the comment that often people misunderstand evolution because they view it in retrospect. That in fact it is all by chance and that traits that help better our chances of surviving in-turn increase the likelihood that that being will reproduce and those traits will get passed on as opposed to it being thought out in advance and the evolution being designed to suit a need. So when I said, why would God get it right the first time. I was saying evolution takes a lot of shots until one sticks seems like God would get it right (meaning select the evolution that betters chances of survival and procreation) out of the gate.

Are you suggesting that God could take several shots at what is need to evole for reasons that we do not understand?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that evolution is chance. It's not chance that a particular phenotype is favored in a certain environment. That's not chance at all. It's chance in that mutations cause the creation of new genes, but the active selection of these genes either for success or failure is by all means, not chance. Mammals survived the Cretaceous Extinction event because they had genes that coded for certain traits that were very much favored over their reptilian competition (aside from the transitional dino-birds, crocs and alligators).

What I'm saying is that there is a huge range of possibilities for what God considers "right" and the process itself of getting could be part of being "right." Many religions have stories of struggles to achieve greatness. What's to say that Evolution is not one of these struggles? That life must go through eons of struggling to achieve what God wanted and that the process of struggling is what makes the end being right. God can't simply just plop down the right ending because the travel is so essential.

I think it's seriously arrogant to believe that mankind is what God wanted from the start as what is "right." It's possible, but we don't know.

I had this conversation a year or two back about God and perfection. Basically my logic was that perfection is the absence of flaws. For God to be perfect, it has to be free of flaws. Thus, God's will is free of flaws. And what is free of flaws cannot willingly create imperfection. Thus, God is only capable of creating perfection. Thus, we see this world as anything but perfect and therefore God cannot be perfect if he created it. Someone pointed out that our definition of "perfect" may be wrong and the conglomeration of what we perceive as flaws may in fact be what perfection actually is. God intended it to be perceived as imperfect because that was part of being perfect. Not sure I buy that argument, but it's relevant here in that we are assuming we know what perfection, or in this case "right" is when we do not.

Ultimately, trying to define something that exists outside of logic is futile, but it does make for some provoking ideas.
 
obvious Child said:
Still unaware of what faith means do you?

If God has been observed and record, there is proof. Faith is a belief in something without proof. You claim there is proof and likely believe on that proof. Therefore, you do not have faith.
Click to expand...

You are the one who does not understand what we are to have faith in, or what faith really is.
 
obvious Child said:
Oh that one. This is functionally Intelligent Design. Aka, mouse trap can't work in another form.

Major assumption is that the watch cannot function in a less complicated manner. Nature shows this is a load of bullocks with less complex organisms, enzymes and processes all working. What's stopping natural processes from simply moving up the complexity level when it comes to organic subjects? Cliffs of Dover show evolution of shellfish from less complex to more complex. We find primitive bacteria in caves. That alone should rip out the main support of the watchmaker in terms of biological context. And when some fool tries to call you an atheist as to why you're wrong, there's nothing saying a Deist God started life and let it go on its own. There's no watch maker there in that the primitive organic material was divine in origin, but what happened after that was completely natural. The complex or nothing argument is garbage independent of what someone believes. There isn't any real argument after you dismantle the notion that organisms cannot survive or operate at less complex levels.

Then you get the argument that where that original organism come from? Start throwing out the dozens of abiogenesis theories and hypothesizes that are all natural in origin and point out that not knowing does not equate to the supernatural. Don't know = Goddidit it stupid
Click to expand...

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.
 
opendebate said:
Oh I think I see your point. I completely misunderstood you. Sorry about that.

But let me check:
In response to a comment that some believers of creationism will claim that God was responsible for evolution, I made the comment that often people misunderstand evolution because they view it in retrospect. That in fact it is all by chance and that traits that help better our chances of surviving in-turn increase the likelihood that that being will reproduce and those traits will get passed on as opposed to it being thought out in advance and the evolution being designed to suit a need. So when I said, why would God get it right the first time. I was saying evolution takes a lot of shots until one sticks seems like God would get it right (meaning select the evolution that betters chances of survival and procreation) out of the gate.

Are you suggesting that God could take several shots at what is needed to evole for reasons that we do not understand?
Click to expand...

:shrug: He seems to delight in complexity and design - the idea that He would make a system that would function in that manner is not inconsistent with what else we know of Him.
 
Juiposa said:
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?
Click to expand...

Lets see, lemme dust off some of my philosophy class discussions

If you took all the parts of a 747 passenger airplane, and dumped them all in a giant cement-mixer-truck-like rotating drum, so that everything was being mixed and jumbled, there is a very very small chance that a fully assembled and functional aircraft will fall out. If time is effectively infinite, given enough attempts, pure chance will give you a fully assembled functional aircraft eventually. Pair this idea with that of evolution and you should have absolutely no problem putting a big enough hole in the intelligent design bucket to ensure no water makes it to the trough.
 
shagg said:
Lets see, lemme dust off some of my philosophy class discussions

If you took all the parts of a 747 passenger airplane, and dumped them all in a giant cement-mixer-truck-like rotating drum, so that everything was being mixed and jumbled, there is a very very small chance that a fully assembled and functional aircraft will fall out. If time is effectively infinite, given enough attempts, pure chance will give you a fully assembled functional aircraft eventually. Pair this idea with that of evolution and you should have absolutely no problem putting a big enough hole in the intelligent design bucket to ensure no water makes it to the trough.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you are joking......
 
shagg said:
do you deny the airplane parts in a drum theory?
Click to expand...

Yes, they will never come to a fully working plane and it is idiotic to think that they ever would. Besides, who made those parts in the first place? A designer. ;)
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Yes, they will never come to a fully working plane and it is idiotic to think that they ever would. Besides, who made those parts in the first place? A designer. ;)
Click to expand...

A much simpler version of this theory would be to say that you could solve a Rubic's Cube by making completely random moves and keeping at it long enough. If you can't grasp the concept the conversation isn't worth having.
 
shagg said:
A much simpler version of this theory would be to say that you could solve a Rubic's Cube by making completely random moves and keeping at it long enough. If you can't grasp the concept the conversation isn't worth having.
Click to expand...

The Cube is already put together, AND it was designed, AND must have something controlling the pieces even still. That is not random chance of it coming together and happening. That is still a being controlling the cirucmstances.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
The Cube is already put together, AND it was designed, AND must have something controlling the pieces even still. That is not random chance of it coming together and happening. That is still a being controlling the cirucmstances.
Click to expand...

you're missing the point. Its about any given pattern emerging from random changes given enough time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom