There are 6 choices, 10 votes for PsychotikPoet's debate

what is more irrational to you?

What is more irrational? Believing in a God you can't see or being offended by a God you don't even believe in?


  • Telelogical argument eh?

    Okay, first of all, William Paley is the person most associated with the watch analogy, though it did not orginate with him. He presented the argument in his book Natural Theology, which was published in 1802. There are a few flaws in this argument:

    1) If everything in the universe has a designer, then someone must have designed God. It is illogical to say everything does, and then only stop at the answer you want. The answer of "God existed" does not account for how he was created just like someone could come along and easily say "The watch just exists". You've entered a cycle now. If something or someone made God, then logically, who made that? And the next thing? And the next one?

    2)Even if the world were designed, there is no need to suppose either a single or a wholly good creator - it may have been the result of a committee or even an incompetent designer. The existence of evil in the world as well as certain defects also suggest that such a designer could be far less than perfect.

    3)If you view the creation of the world as Gods biggest achievement, Gaskin's arguement comes into play which goes like this:

    i)The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable. ii)The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and ( the ability of its creator. iii)The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. iv)The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence. v)Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing. vi)Therefore God does not exist.

    4)And since we only have one universe to judge by, it may be that they occur naturally and do not require design. Why is it hard to believe that the universe is random? By saying "Only a fool wouldn't think so" does not justify why evolution and other options are not equally valid. If you can bat off these critisms, with structured logical arguments and without using faith as an excuse, then I shall consider myself a fool.

    5) Darwin's critism of the teleological argument:

    To detect order in something does not necessarily mean that that order is the result of some purposive activity. As difficult as it is to accept sometimes, the intricacy of relations among things can be explained naturalistically (without having to appeal to supernatural causes). Things are as they are because that is the way they have turned out, not they have turned out that way because of what they are. The world may exhibit order (as a result, for example, of random variations that prove to be adaptive to environments), but that does not mean that it exhibits purpose or design.

    Thanks for helping me revise my philosophy course

    30%  Voted for by Kegger, ennoia, sinful-cinnamon.
    View 3 comments
  • :

  • How can you say there is no proof?

    How can you honestly say that we cant see the effects of God in the world? Its blatently obvious. Like I told cosmosis in an IM, Its only logical for God to exist. Here, ill show you. If you were walking along a beach and you found a watch, you would assume that someone made it, and you would think someone an idiot to say that it just appeared there, right? Well, thats the same way with the universe. Everything that has a design has a designer, and the universe obviously had a design. Only a fool wouldnt think so. I mean, if the earth were a few hundred kilometers off of its orbit from where it is now, life on earth wouldnt be possible. And evolution is impossible due to irreducible complexity, which shows that there are some things that couldnt evolve, since the things neccesary for survival had to appear at the same time, like the bombadier beetle, or the giraffe; even the very cells of your body. Anyway, to get back on track, if the universe has a design, and everything with a design has a designer, then God must have existed to design and create the universe. Also, on a related topic, A discovery in 2001 (i think) by a man named Roger Aspect showed that electrons communicate at faster than the speed of light. That completely shatters the laws of physics. And without those, the universe collapses. That means that on a base level, something, or in this case, Someone, has to be holding the universe together. And without God, the entire universe would collapse. Just look around with an open mind. You will see the evidence.

    20%  Voted for by manofomens2, Jesusquest.
    View 7 comments
  • :

  • irrational: being offended by someone who doesn't believe in the God you can't see

    i think it’s funny that a lot of people got fired up but almost no one answered the question. i don’t really think either are irrational. having faith means you don’t need “proof.” i don’t think that’s wrong or weird, but i also don’t think it’s wrong or weird when someone feels infringed upon by another’s religion. i mean, no one wants to be painted black by other people of their religion, but let’s face it, there’s a general stereotype for christians. when someone has had a bad experience with one christian, it probably is going to affect how they view other christians or christianity in general. maybe that’s not the most logical thing in the world, but then ‘logic’ doesn’t have a big role in faith either.

    20%  Voted for by gobuggy99, CrazyRebel.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • wow

    ok first things first manofomens2 umm cosmosis is right we can SEE ATOMS... and we can see visible effect that can only be explained by their existance what has god done that can only be explained in this manner...MindOphelia you just made my day thank you so much!!! Oh and think about this... it is ok to talk to God but when he talks back your crazy... what dose that tell you about modern society??? that we are not religious enough or we are more practical now case im definately voting for the second one... im not saying there is no God(s) in fact i believe there are several gods that balance each other out and thus we see no evidence but look at what people believed a thousand years ago and look at how we have proved them wrong...im not affended but people worshipping a different god(s) then me but i am offened by the church that thinks people like me who dont believe in their god (although they say there tolerant) are malicious and hypocritical and once again thank you MindOphelia that was great!!!

    Voted for by cerokhol.
    View 8 comments
  • :

  • ...

    How can you be offened by a God you don't believe in?

    Voted for by Boomhower.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • No Sub-Plot, The Actual Answer

    Ok, first things first, who wants some ego-cake?... no wait, the current entrants for this debate have already ate it all.... besides that final guy who simply asks, "how can you be offended by a god you dont believe in?"... that is the only answer here that relates to the question. So let's all put our ego's in a littlel tub in the middle of the room and stop trying to make a pedantic argument based on who created our universe, that was NOT the question....

    Now for the debate. I will answer this impartially. Believing in God seems to me to be nothing more than having faith. Faith in the human character, faith in good will, and faith in themselves. To have these facets to your personality is by no means a flaw, it's a vulnerability, but not a flaw. To be offended by a God you do not believe in is, in my humble opinion, to have too damned big an opinion of yourself to believe that you are someones creation. Whybe offended by someone/something that has never told you you're anidiot, has never stolen from you, or raped your sister? God is/may be idealistic, and wants for nothing more than the best of ourselves as people while we occupy this land.

    On this basis i believe to be offended by a God you do not believe in is more irrational, as it closes the doors to corridors that you simply do not have the ability to close.

    NOTE: I AM AN ATHEIST, AND DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.

    Voted for by anonymous-dead.
    Add a comment
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →