The God Delusion: A Logical Fallacy?

Discussion in 'Spirituality & Religion' started by Solid444, Feb 24, 2009.

  1. chrisinho

    chrisinho Member

    Apr 24, 2002
    Back in HelLA
    • An anthill is made of natural material rather than plastic, steel and glass
    • An anthill is the product of instinct rather than forethought and planning
    • An anthill is made by ants don't have souls rather than men who do

    I think you're over thinking this. Simply put, anything made by man isn't natural. Anything not by man is made by God and therefore natural.

    In other words, if God made the ant and the ant makes an anthill out of natural stuff like dirt and rocks because God instilled it with the instinct to do so then God (the Great Designer btw) made the anthill too. It's natural. But man has a soul and was made in God's image. This means that man has the capacity to create, design and synthesize the components to make a skyscraper. After all, it's not like construction workers simply quarry their materials straight out of the ground, jam it together and voila, Sears Tower. No, the skyscraper is man-made and therefore not natural.


















    :p
     
  2. Gordon EF

    Gordon EF Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 15, 2004
    Edinburgh
    Squabbling over what definition of "natural" we want to use is absolutely pointless. Surely we would all agree that one definition of natural would cover everything which doesn't involve human intervention. It's sensible to be able to say that some chemical reactions are naturally occuring, for example, as opposed to reactions which have only been observed in the lab.

    But seeing as humans are a part of 'nature' (the physical world/universe) just as much as every other animal, plant, rock or molecule, there has to be some definition of natural which includes everything we do, are and every impact we make on the world around us.

    I'm sure everyone on this thread would agree so why won't you accept it?
     
  3. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    because there is such a difference between phenomena that are the result of intelligent intervention in naturally occurring events and phenomena that proceed without any intelligent intervention.

    if you cause something to happen that would not otherwise happen other than the most extraordinary coincidences, it's not natural.

    that humans are part of the natural world does not make all their activity part of nature.

    we talk about the possibility of intelligent design, and you claim that there is no such thing. you cannot prove there is no such thing. you simply don't accept that what appears to have been the result of intelligent design is just that.

    so, when you say, "why can you not accept...", my answer is that what you seem to want me to accept falls outside what can be determined except by definition.

    i don't accept your definition.
     
  4. Gordon EF

    Gordon EF Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 15, 2004
    Edinburgh
    I'm quite sure that's almost exactly the point I was making in my previous post.

    The fact that I can't disprove it doesn't mean a thing. If I am 100% right then there will never be any evidence for or against intelligent design. Looks good so far.

    What appears to be the result of intelligent design? No natural being substance or phenomenon that I've ever seen.

    ...because you don't want to.
     
  5. Foosinho

    Foosinho New Member

    Jan 11, 1999
    New Albany, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Coming back to the thermonuclear device issue, I'd also like to point out that the Greek root of the word "physics" means "nature". Think physics vs metaphysics.

    The problem here is that it appears StiltonFC is trying to use the casual definition of the word "natural" in a scientific sense. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(philosophy)
     
  6. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    i don't want to because it's a lousy definition.
     
  7. Gordon EF

    Gordon EF Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 15, 2004
    Edinburgh
    Surely you'd have to agree that there's space for some kind of definition of natural events which are driven by 'intelligent purpose' though. Humans - natural. Raw material of car - natural. Why does the 'intelligent' and 'purposefull' process of building a car from the raw materials somehow take the whole thing outside of nature?
     
  8. Pathogen

    Pathogen Member

    Jul 19, 2004
    Like you care.
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I've struggled with this thought for a while.
     
  9. benztown

    benztown Member+

    Jun 24, 2005
    Club:
    VfB Stuttgart
    I still don't see the qualitative difference between an ant hill and a skyscraper.
    Both ants and humans take materials found in nature and build something out of them.

    If the difference is supposed to be "intelligence", then I'd like to see a proper definition thereof...unfortunately there is none and all attempts that I've seen so far usually include both, the ant colony as well as human beings. So the question remains: Where is the qualitative difference?
     
  10. Foosinho

    Foosinho New Member

    Jan 11, 1999
    New Albany, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And, of course, some ant hills are more sophisticated than others. Leaf-cutter ants have remarkably sophisticated setups. They have road systems outside the hill, have arranged the entrances to ensure good air movement, and actually cultivate their food source inside the hill (ie, the leaves they cut aren't food for themselves, but for their garden).
     
  11. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    the naturalness of the some raw materials of many cars would test common sense. we don't think chrome plating is a natural process. in order to get chrome onto some other metal (or plastic), you have to use electricity, normally.

    now there is "natural" electricity, but i think it would be very difficult to wait around for the "natural" sort to be useful to chrome plate something.

    then there is rubber. rubber is a natural material, but the process through which the raw materials for rubber become useful for car manufacturing purposes requires an orderly sequence of steps. that orderliness of the sequence isn't a natural phenomenon.

    monkeys + typewriter = Yugo.
     
  12. Ombak

    Ombak Moderator
    Staff Member

    Flamengo
    Apr 19, 1999
    Irvine, CA
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    Monkeys + typewriters = sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

    Apparently (min 4:20): [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98OTsYfTt-c"]YouTube- It *could* just be coincidence[/ame]
     
  13. Gordon EF

    Gordon EF Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 15, 2004
    Edinburgh
    That really is a horrible example of sidestepping the issue.

    he carwas just an example obviously but the pont stands for any example, a simple or complex as you like. There's simply more steps which require intelligent purpoe to get to the car than there is for other examples.

    I'll assume from your reply that you realise the ridicuous, and unceccesary, lengths you're going to and just don't want to admit it?
     
  14. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    maybe you should type these posts when you're sober.

    if you use an example, it really should stand up to a certain level of reasonable scrutiny. if i say that dog turds are an example of intelligent design, i think we'd all have to say that maybe they are a natural phenomenon. but something that is manufactured from raw materials? nature doesn't manufacture. manufacture connotes that something diverges from natural process.
     
  15. Foosinho

    Foosinho New Member

    Jan 11, 1999
    New Albany, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes it does. It's not as sophisticated, but it is there. Birds collect materials to build shelter. Many primates manufacture simple tools. Bees take raw materials and build complex hive structures. Other insects build complex structures (often with amazing qualities that we are only just learning to duplicate).

    Some of the most intriguing discoveries are being made in architecture and urban planning. In Harare, Zimbabwe, architect Mick Pearce, working with engineers at Arup Associates, constructed a midrise building modeled after termite mounds, which maintain a nearly constant temperature of 31 degrees Celsius even as the outside temperature varies from 3 to 42 degrees. Pearce’s design requires no air conditioning and uses 90 percent less energy than a conventional building its size.​
     
  16. gmonn

    gmonn Member+

    Dec 8, 2005
    I think the point is that everything on Earth, including anthills, human reasoning and religion, consciousness and cars, are natural processes of electrons, protons, and neutrons, quarks, leptons and bosons, and forces unknown.
     
  17. Gordon EF

    Gordon EF Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 15, 2004
    Edinburgh
    From your posts, it doesn't seem like you're capable of applying "reasonble scrutiny" to much. You just keep trotting out the same old mantra without addressing any of the specific points being put across.

    There is obviously a difference between hydrogen being prduced in a star or a dog turd and a car or an ant hill. The difference is conscious, intelligent purpose. Since consciousness occured naturally and so did the raw materials, I've yet to hear a good argument for why these are unatural processes. You continually saying it doesn't count btw.
     
  18. peledre

    peledre Member

    Mar 25, 2001
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The problem is Stilton is trying to espouse a certain philosophical definition for the term "natural" whilst everyone else is using the scientific definition.
     
  19. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    and herein lies the problem. if you define consciousness as having developed naturally, obviously, everything that issues from consciousness is natural.

    same with raw materials.

    anyone who thinks there was a Creator will question whether intelligence/consciousness is "natural".

    the existence of Life is a mystery. it's easy to see that it could be the result of a supernatural process, if such things exist. it's preferable from a purely scientific point of view to think Life developed naturally, but it's the best guess at this point. any other guess involves hocus-pocus.

    of course, Life as a natural process hasn't been fully explained in scientific terms, meaning that we don't really know what happened conclusively. we think we know, but we don't have any concrete method of verifying our theory yet.

    it seems to come down to what someone chooses to believe, since either explanation lacks fundamental proof.
     
  20. Gordon EF

    Gordon EF Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 15, 2004
    Edinburgh
    I suppose so. Although if you believe that a creator created life, supernaturally, then you probably believe that the same creator created the whole universe, by supernatural means. So if you're then going to define everything intelligent life does as 'unnatural' then why isn't everything else unnatural?

    Leaving aside the 'creation/origin' question, then either everything in the universe was created by a creator or everything arose 'naturally'. Either way, intelligent life isn't in another fundamental category of matter or existence than anything else in the universe. We're either 'natural', like everything else or were created supernaturally in what is, essentially, an artificial universe. Either way, it doesn't make sense to define what we do as unnatural and everything else to be natural.

    IMO it's just another kind of remnant of the human-centric, 'God must have created us so we must be special and it's all here for us' type of muddled thinking that doesn't really make sense unless you start from the arbitrary and baseless position that God created everything.
     
  21. gmonn

    gmonn Member+

    Dec 8, 2005
    On the other hand, a beginning-less God who created everything is no more arbitrary and baseless (or even supernatural) than a beginning-less natural reality that created everything. With either one, we're asked to believe in two preposterous alternatives: either something came out of nothing, or it didn't.
     
  22. Ombak

    Ombak Moderator
    Staff Member

    Flamengo
    Apr 19, 1999
    Irvine, CA
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    Except that God adds an extra step.
     
  23. gmonn

    gmonn Member+

    Dec 8, 2005
    "Something" can't go back forever, and it can't have come out of nothing, so there must have been a magician. Makes as much sense as anything else.
     
  24. Ombak

    Ombak Moderator
    Staff Member

    Flamengo
    Apr 19, 1999
    Irvine, CA
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    Well no. It may or may not be that something can come from nothing, we don't know. It may also be that something has always been.

    Whether or not one or the other makes sense, in either instance saying "A Magician did it" or "A Magician was always there" add an extra step to the explanation.
     
  25. gmonn

    gmonn Member+

    Dec 8, 2005
    My point is that no explanation is ultimately possible because "always been" and something from nothing are both impossible. God as a shortcut actually saves an infinite number of scientific steps. Something useful can come out of the attempt, but they'll never get to the bottom of it.
     

Share This Page