I was discussing with my Islamic studies professor about some arguments that "atheists" use that refute the concept of God (yes, I am a closeted atheist). He referred to the teleological argument; where everything is grand and perfect to the microscopic level, hence it must be created. I referred to him the basic refutation: "If such a grand universe is created, then such a grand thing that created the universe must be created", the atheists would say, I said. He "tried" to refute this argument by saying: "If the creator is created, then he's not the creator." I'm not an expert in philosophy but this seems to be related to logic and I ended the discussion from there. If someone can please elaborate on his refutation, and explain to me a refutation for his refutation. Thank you.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@ Asclepius
First, welcome to our little corner (in)sanity. The air here is the freshest you'll find anywhere. The temperature is a nice 15,412°C. Ask your professor. We are here for any and all rational free thinkers. So dive right in, but realize it is "at your own risk" since we have no lifeguards.
That is the "something from nothing" argument that the Religious Absolutists always harp on. They will say that us rational free thinkers claim the universe came from nothing. However, none have EVER claimed such. Only the Religious Absolutists claim that. Since their "god" has always existed, then it must have come from nothing. "What existed before god?" Nothing. Then god was.
I would write more, but I have to get. Got a plane to catch.
rmfr
"Where everything is grand and perfect to the microscopic level, hence it must be created."
1. Obviously he knows nothing about quantum physics. Nothing is near or organized at all on the microscopic level. Physics breaks down at Planck time. Time runs both backwards and forwards and backwards, causality breaks down. If there was organization we would know for a fact how the universe got here. There would be a direct causal relationship and there is none. WE DON'T KNOW.
2. Your professor is engaged in a "God of the Gaps fallacy" and then "Moving the Goal posts." If he asserts that everything has a cause, then it logically follows his God must have a cause. However' when he asserts that the caused God can not be the real god, he is simply moving the goal post and that leads to an infinite regression of gods.
'Who created your god?"
"If this god was created it is not the real god."
"How do you know that?"
"God must be greater than his creation."
"How do you know that?
"Everything has a cause."
"How do you know that? We have no idea at all if the universe had a cause or not."
WE DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL PAST PANCK TIME. NOTHING. Anything the professor asserts past this time is an unfounded assertion and requires facts and evidence supporting the assumption. Once you get "WE DON'T KNOW" you can see his assertions as what we do know as complete bullshit.
3. Professor is making an illogical leap from the known world to the unknown world and asserting that they are the same. I can assert anything as the cause of the universe. Little blue creator bunnies obviously created the universe. Who created them, more little blue creator bunnies. Who created them? It's little blue creator bunnies all the way down to the first little blue creator bunny.
Your professors arguments are simplistic and juvenile.
You are just allowing him to make assertions without demanding evidence for the assertion being made. His responses to you are vacuous. You need to get it in your head that NO ONE KNOWS. Then when he starts his rambling bullshit you can ask the question "How do you know that?"
"Everything is grand and perfect to the microscopic level, hence it must be created." How is the appearance of organization an indication of creation?" To assert everything is organized is cherry picking. Stars are blowing up, disease, infant death syndrome, brain damage, deformities, how in the hell is any of this organized?
How do you know things are organized? If one thing was different we would not be here. So something else would be here. What's your point. He is putting the cart before the horse. The question is How do you know that in every case.
What he's using is a logical fallacy called a special pleading fallacy. As you point out his original claim that perfection requires a creator logically dictates that a more perfect creator also requires creating, and this leads to infinite regress. Though I'd ask him to evidence his claim that "everything is grand and perfect to the microscopic level", what did he compare our universe to in order to come to this conclusion? It seems to me a perfect world created with humans in mind, need not include things like earthquakes, tsunamis, or deadly diseases at every turn. I'd also wonder why a perfect world needs to have ubiquitous suffering?
They all make sense when you view the world and universe as products of uncaring and insentient processes, but not when someone insists it is the product of a perfectly merciful,omnipotent and omniscient deity.
Ewww... Special pleading - I like that one too, Your professor can not just assert bullshit without proving it.
Seems to rely on the hidden premise: Only "the creator" can create anything.
----------------------------------
Here I would take what he says as true (for the sake of argument). Then ask them why you got less than a perfect grade on your assignments in his class. Since everything is perfect to the microscopic level, shouldn't your work receive perfect scores? Shouldn't even just a blank piece of paper with your name on it receive a perfect score?
In short: if they claim that everything is perfect, then they can't complain about anything, ever again.
If there is some metaphysical principle responsible for the existence and nature of the universe, why would it need to be conscious and volitional? All examples of consciousness and volition that we know of are very much connected with physical processes. What reason is there to think that consciousness and volition can exist in the absence of physical processes?
If there is some conscious and volitional entity behind it all, why should it have any interest in religion? The overwhelming majority of the universe, and by that I mean quite a few decimal places, is utterly inimical to life of any sort much less things like ourselves. What reason is there to think that we are anything other than a side effect and not noticeably important to this hypothetical creator?
If somehow this creator entity really does care about religion, what reason is there to think that in this unimaginably vast universe, that the one and only religion that matters is the one practiced by a fraction of one species on one planet among the myriads of possible intelligent species, and practiced only for a really tiny fraction of the age of the universe?
Need I get into the numerous variations and schisms within that ‘one true religion’?
In short, let's say that there is a metaphysical principle responsible for the existence and nature of the universe. So what?
Asclepius,
Throughout time assorted con men in all societies around the world have invented "gods" as a way to control their more superstitious buddies and as a way to gain power, status, and wealth. All deities are imaginary. Not one of any kind since the first con man created it has ever done anything godly. In ancient times ignorant people said that their favorite deity was hurling lightning bolts, making it rain, causing earthquakes, storms, wars, sicknesses.
We live in more advanced times. It is time to put away silly beliefs in such things as gods because they are not real. Con men use the belief in them to enrich themselves. Everything that has happened or will happen has already happened billions of times and no god of any kind has had anything to do with it.
The first part of his argument, that "where everything is grand and perfect to the microscopic level" can be challenged. Why volcanoes and earthquakes? Why poisonous snakes? Why do some animals have to kill others to survive? Why cancer? Why is it that our sun will die in a few billion years?
When you step back, it is against very long odds that we are here because basically 99% of the universe will destroy us. The more one learns and examines this universe and the laws of physics, the more his argument falls apart.
The second part is the special pleading argument. If everything had to be created, then who/what created god? If this god exempt from this very argument?
You will discover that theists' arguments disintegrate in the face of logic and common sense.
Asclepius
Arguments for God
I was discussing with my Islamic studies professor about some arguments that "atheists" use that refute the concept of God (yes, I am a closeted atheist). He referred to the teleological argument; where everything is grand and perfect to the microscopic level, hence it must be created. I referred to him the basic refutation: "If such a grand universe is created, then such a grand thing that created the universe must be created", the atheists would say, I said. He "tried" to refute this argument by saying: "If the creator is created, then he's not the creator." I'm not an expert in philosophy but this seems to be related to logic and I ended the discussion from there. If someone can please elaborate on his refutation, and explain to me a refutation for his refutation. Thank you.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Your Islamic studies professor is right, the creator is not created. This is especially true if the creator does not exist.
The statement: "The teleological argument; where everything is grand and perfect to the microscopic level, hence it must be created", is a bold, bald assertion. Anyone may assert anything. Merely asserting something does not make it the truth. What your Islamic studies professor used there is the logical fallacy, called "The Argument From Ignorance". In such an argument, the person asserts something, by saying: "I cannot see how this could have happened by other means, so I shall just insert an explanation".
Wise or knowledgeable people would avoid using arguments form ignorance - it implies that they hope their audience is ignorant as well.
Those who are a little more crude might say . . .
They're pulling 'stuff' out of their ass, and metaphorically they are.
Mu.
Hairy Scrotum. Nice. :)
Asclepius: "If the creator is created, then he's not the creator."
Your professor is just playing with words and ignoring logic. He may want his god to be an uncreated creator because the prospect of infinite regression gives him a dizzy headache. But that doesn't make his claim valid or meaningful.
I was created in general through evolution and specifically through an act of sexual reproduction. I have written poetry and prose, drawn pictures, and landscaped gardens. So I am a creator, and I was created.
I would argue that everything follows a causal path of natural phenomena.
Every link in the chain from human evolution, yo Earths formation, all the way to the big bang is natural process preceeded by natural process...
Where is the causal link to the supernatural?
Everything in the universe conforms to laws of nature and physics without the need for 'magic'... so i would challenge your professor to demonstrate a causal link that evidences how a natural causal link is proceeded by a supernatural phenomena with out appealing to the god of the gaps logical fallacy.
What I like about these morons that try to argue for the existence of god is the utter moronic stringing together of apologetics they have heard in incoherent stream of consciousness writing. I just finished replying to DNA is a code, the argument for fine tuning, minimal facts, God of the gaps, straw man, and a few others all wrapped up in the same jumble of verbal BS. Just one fallacious assertion after another all thrown together with no common sense what so ever. What is really frustrating about the theists is that they use these arguments they have heard by professional apologists without a clue as to their veracity. Their assertions are so frigging retarded that you know responding to them is a waste of energy. Nevertheless, we do respond in the hopes that some other Theist will come along some day and actually get what has been said.
Asclepius: There is a possibility of an eternal (outside of time) god. Such a god would not be created, just exists without creation. That fits in nicely with the doctrine of Eternalism and theory of relativity.
"If the creator is created, then he's not the creator." - not exactly sure what he means. Possibly he is thinking of the prime mover argument where there must logically be an uncaused first cause?
Why is there something rather than nothing? Something pretty miraculous has occurred in order for there to be something. Something must have always existed (because you can't get something from nothing) so that also fits in nicely with the idea of an eternal (outside of time) god.
Eternal (inside of time) god is impossible as it would require such a god to have existed for an actual infinity of years, which is impossible because actual infinity does not exist.
"There is a possibility of an eternal (outside of time) god. "
No there isn't unless you can demonstrate objective evidence to support your claim.
"Such a god would not be created, just exists without creation."
Special pleading fallacy.
"Something must have always existed (because you can't get something from nothing) so that also fits in nicely with the idea of an eternal (outside of time) god."
Or eternal (outside of time) pixies
Or eternal (outside of time) mermaids
Or eternal (outside of time) unicorns
Or eternal (outside of time) anything really, so this is woeful nonsense. you;re trying to define your deity into existence, without being able to demonstrate any objective evidence for it.
If as you claim "Something must have always existed " then the universe could always have existed by your own admission. Otherwise it's a special pleading fallacy.
"Eternal (inside of time) god is impossible as it would require such a god to have existed for an actual infinity of years, which is impossible because actual infinity does not exist."
Christians and Muslims won't like this news. However you have offered no evidence that any deity exists, so this claim gets Hitchens's razor like all your other unevidenced claims.
@Dan
"There is a possibility of an eternal (outside of time) god. Such a god would not be created, just exists without creation."
This is known as the "special pleading" argument where one constructs an argument, but it is built on the subset belief that the god is exempt from the argument.
Why is this god exempt? And if a god is exempt, is it not possible other things are also exempt?
Of course, there is absolutely not an iota of evidence to support this position.
@Dan
"Why is there something rather than nothing? Something pretty miraculous has occurred in order for there to be something. Something must have always existed (because you can't get something from nothing) so that also fits in nicely with the idea of an eternal (outside of time) god."
Please prove that something came from nothing. And before you start to roll your ball down th ehill, be aware that the scientific community doe snot hold the beliff that pre-big bang there was "nothing".
And if you can't get something from nothing, where did your god come from?
David Killens,
"be aware that the scientific community doe snot hold the beliff that pre-big bang there was "nothing"."
What kind of matter do you think existed before the "Big Bang" that caused it to blow up?
@Asclepius,
Whether you are a closeted Atheist or not, should not matter if you are trying to refute your Islamic studies professor. To address your easiest point, "If the creator is created, then he's not the creator." You do not need to be an expert in Philosophy or any field to understand basic logic. If a women gives birth to her son, the son cannot be the mother, simple. Also. Full disclosure before I proceed, I myself am a Muslim and do also believe that “everything is grand and perfect to the microscopic level, hence it must be created.” With that said I am not here to convince you to believe your professor rather, I humbly suggest you try looking at things in your own and unbiased way to see if things truly are “perfect to the microscopic level”. Now, I can tell you are not a world renowned biologist (or any kind of scientist) so for us (average people) to try and analyze things on a “microscopic level” is beyond our own intellect. So, my suggestion is begin by looking at things at a surface level. Since you and your professor were generally talking about “everything is grand” start by searching things such “what would happen is frogs went extinct “or “what would happen if bees went extinct” or any important aspect of the food chain/nature. Heck, even search “what would happen is snakes went extinct” or “if there was no salt water”. Look up things for yourself and try reaching your own conclusions. I read 1 or 2 replies to your OP and can quickly tell you that they are baseless, brain damaged and emotional responses due to their hate for religion that are simply looking to argue and do nothing else. As I said, do your own research so when you actually have a question, you are asking the right question rather than just looking for someone to tell you how to think and speak. In my personal experience, seeing how everything fits and works together perfectly and is more than enough evidence for a creator. People will say “oh but what about evolution” my answer is that evolution is NOWHERE near answering any questions or “we have had 100s or 1000s of things extinct before” my answer there is keep researching and you’ll see how flawed that question is. If you are like some people on these forums looking for a 2 minute answer and not willing to put in the work or effort to find an answer and actually have a meaning conversation then don’t waste your time.
Edited to add : Just because we as humans do not understand everything does not mean we are right or should automatically refute it and assume it's wrong.
Oh you wannt to pretend to have answers again, well then:
What is the penalty for apostasy in Islam?
Is it ever moral for a man in his 50's to rape a nine year old child?
Is it moral for gay people who are consenting adults to love each other and have sex? If not what should happen to thiise that do?
Can a horse ever fly?
Is it ever moral for one human to own another as a slave?
Is it ever moral for a Muslims to kill someone for being a non Muslim?
Is it ever moral for Muslim to lie to a non Muslim.
Don't pretend to have any answers on here when you have shamelessly dodged these questions for months.
And I guess your brainless inanity is a hatred for critical thinking, deductive reasoning, logical reasoning, analytical thought, rational thought, and the importance of how to think versus being told what to think.
All of your posts prove you violate what you state later: "As I said, do your own research so when you actually have a question, you are asking the right question rather than just looking for someone to tell you how to think and speak."
You do not do any research whatsoever. You are happily content on what your preacher tells you to think. Again, you prove it in every post you make. And here is further proof you do no research:
All you ever do is dodge these question because of two reasons:
So much for "searching for truth" when you are too afraid of it.
rmfr
@Searching for Truth: If a women gives birth to her son, the son cannot be the mother, simple.
If the woman gives birth to a daughter, and the daughter goes on to give birth to another daughter, then they are both creators.
A creator is simply an agent who creates something. That doesn't preclude that the creator was himself created. Now if we are talking about a first creator or a creator of all things, that's a different question. But without such a precise definition of terms, the professor's argument, and yours, are meaningless.
In my personal experience, seeing how everything fits and works together perfectly and is more than enough evidence for a creator.
How can you say that when over 99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct? The biosphere is frequently thrown into imbalance and only regains temporary equilibrium after widespread chaos, suffering, and destruction. There's nothing elegant or designed about the continual repetition of ice ages, mega-volcano eruptions, impact events, mass extinctions... Life is precarious, and there's no evidence of any divine design, guidance, or protection.