Logical Theism
I've been following the "Blasphemy Challege". I think that it is a good calalist for discusion. I think it's a good wake up call for Christians everywhere that people are no longer buying the "it's true because the Bible says so" mentality that most Christians have. Most Christians just believe in the Bible because that's what they've always been taught. I think that's why there are people who see us as air-headed, irrational, fanatics. I want people to know that we are not all that way. I do not believe Christianity just because that's what I'm told. I am a logical person who can think for myself. I have examined my beliefs. I know why I believe in a Creator. I believe in a intelegent designer because of the complexity of the human body and mind. I don't think that we just happened by random chance. I don't think that's possible. The chance of this world full of natural laws and order just evolved by itself is unbelievable. I also don't believe that the human sense of morality and love just happened randomly with no real purpose. How did our complex human mind and emotions come about? How do they figure into the idea of evolution? Where does the desire for purpose come from? If there is no God then there is no purpose to life. Why do humans have the desire for relationships with other humans? Animals don't have that desire. What makes us so different from animals? There are so many questions that science just can't answer. I am not a naive follower of Christianity. I do think that my beliefs are rational.
- logicaltheist's blog
- Login to post comments
I would suggest you read
I would suggest you read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
His "Ultimate 747" gambit explanation might be of interest to you.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I've heard of his book,
Susan,
I've heard of his book, thank you. I plan on reading it so I can understand both sides of this argument. I suggest to you The Answers Book, Refuting Evolution, and check out answersingenesis.com
logicaltheist wrote: I do
By 'logical person', I assume you mean that you understand the principles of logic, including such things as logical fallacies and why logical fallacies are not good logic. Let us see how far you get in your 'logic'...
First logical fallacy: Straw man. Evolution does not imply that we happened by random chance. You have not studied evolution from an unbiased source.
Question: Can you explain to me the straw man fallacy and why it is not a logical mode of reasoning? If you are a 'logical person', you should be able to explain this no problem.
Second fallacy: Argument from Personal Incredulity (a specific form of Argument from Ignorance). Whether or not evolution makes intuitive sense to you is *irrelevant* to whether or not it is true. The proper way to resolve such arguments is to look at the evidence.
Question: Can you explain the personal incredulity fallacy and why it is not valid reasoning? Again, being a 'logical person', this should be easy for you.
A combination of several fallacies here. Can you list them and explain why they are not valid logical reasoning?
Evolution within a niche that favoured a highly social animal. There is a good case to be made that our big brains are the result of co-evolution between the sexes, specifically competition over sexual politics (who's in charge, the male or the female?). Co-evolution is a mechanism where two competing groups cause each other to evolve much faster due to intense competition.
From our natural ability to understand the purposes of other humans (theory of mind) and to anthropomorphize inanimate objects, which may have been an important adaptation to allow for tool-use; if you don't think of an object as having a purpose, it's hard to come up with the idea to use it.
Fallacy: False dichotomy. There are many ways to have a purpose to life, having an ultimate universal purpose is only ONE way of having purpose. Purpose could also be self-assigned. Thus, presenting the dichotomy as "universal purpose or no purpose at all" is fallacious reasoning.
Can you explain why false dichotomies are invalid logic?
Because we are social creatures, which gives us the ability to act in groups, a definite biological advantage.
Yes they do. Argument from Ignorance. Many social animals have desires to be with other animals in their group. Dolphins, chimps, gorillas, dogs/wolves, etc.
Our big brains which allow us to have an independently evolving culture.
This is a fallacy. Let's see if you can identify which one. I'll give you a hint: Just because science has many questions it can't answer (yet) does not mean that a) it will never find the answers b) it is wrong or useless, or c) Christianity has actual answers for these questions either.
Would you call arguing from ignorance a form of naivety?
This is definitely a naive statement.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Hey logicaltheist, this
Hey logicaltheist, this video destroys the argument from intelligent design. I suggest you watch it, because nobody here is going to take you seriously unless you ACTUALLY educate yourself on the topics you discuss: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Thank you very much for
Thank you very much for that exposition, natural
By all accounts, your arguments and that video back up what I have been saying all along. Intelligence, Irreducibility, teleological purpose, are all fallacy. I am very interested to see how logicaltheist replies to my article. I am frankly appalled by how little the average theist understands about ToE. Most of them "understand" evolution the way a fish "understands" a game of chess.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Check out the thread I just
Check out the thread I just started on the myths of evolution
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism