• 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?

davidtaylorjr said:
God did not have a beginning, God is eternal, that is why he is God.
Click to expand...

and there we have it. For some reason god gets an exemption from the teleological argument, but everything else just has to have a creator. Not the creator himself and all of his complexity - oh no he just magically is. Question where subatomic particles come from, and argue that they just cannot come to be, and play the infinite regression game there, but not for this supposed creator - he can just simply be and can somehow have existed and or came from nothing himself.

It is a lame cop out in my opinion and the argument is self defeating when applied consistently and honestly.
 
Ikari said:
How do you know they were witnesses? Were you there?
Click to expand...

another example of an argument that does not get applied consistently. when dealing with evolution, or geology, or timescales that dispute the retrofitted biblical timeline the "where you there" argument gets tossed out at a whim. When questioning the veracity of the bible, or the so called "witnesses" to gods existence it is not applied or even considered by many.
 
marduc said:
another example of an argument that does not get applied consistently. when dealing with evolution, or geology, or timescales that dispute the retrofitted biblical timeline the "where you there" argument gets tossed out at a whim. When questioning the veracity of the bible, or the so called "witnesses" to gods existence it is not applied or even considered by many.
Click to expand...

C'mon, you know full well that Creationists play fast and loose with the rules. The second a Creationists gets pinned is the second they lose. The Hovind Hop is the only way they can stay alive, by constantly changing the rules and the subject.
 
marduc said:
and there we have it. For some reason god gets an exemption from the teleological argument, but everything else just has to have a creator. Not the creator himself and all of his complexity - oh no he just magically is. Question where subatomic particles come from, and argue that they just cannot come to be, and play the infinite regression game there, but not for this supposed creator - he can just simply be and can somehow have existed and or came from nothing himself.

It is a lame cop out in my opinion and the argument is self defeating when applied consistently and honestly.
Click to expand...

It was another of Aquinas' "Proofs", arguments from causation and movement. God ends up defined as the uncaused cause or the unmoved mover, and must exist by necessity. Its solid in its own way but horribly morphs the definition of god in the process, and you end up with a "god" that could be almost anything. St. Ansem did the same thing. It was most likely part of their pursuit of sainthood. Many of us read it and chuckle now, because its a very childish attempt to prove the unprovable.
 
head of joaquin said:
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.
Click to expand...

We are talking about the existence of God per the title of the Thread.
 
marduc said:
another example of an argument that does not get applied consistently. when dealing with evolution, or geology, or timescales that dispute the retrofitted biblical timeline the "where you there" argument gets tossed out at a whim. When questioning the veracity of the bible, or the so called "witnesses" to gods existence it is not applied or even considered by many.
Click to expand...

It will also be soundly ignored. You'll notice that they won't respond to it.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
We are talking about the existence of God per the title of the Thread.
Click to expand...

You were attempting to use the universe to "prove" God's existence; methodological naturalism does quite well explaining things we are about without reference to supernatural events, and in any case, presuming supernatural beings doesn't help in the slightest, since God, being transcendent, cannot lead to any useful prediction. Gdd works in a religious context. He's irrelevant to explaining black holes and the formation of moons.

So much for that "proof".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom