After a long break from ThinkAtheist I am back and would really appreciate some help! So thank you to anyone that responds :)
I got the following comment on my (scientifically basic) post about evolution on my blog (http://messiahmyth.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/guide-to-evolution-for-...) and I simply don't know exactly how to tackle it. The simple fact of the matter is that I'm very much in my infancy of knowledge when it comes to logic and critical thinking, so before I go and make a mess of a rebuttal, I thought I'd come to you guys and ask your opinions!
"Great article, I have enjoyed your blog. However I am not sure if you are employing the dysteleological argument here as an objection to the existence of a Creator, or an objectio
Hey Deluded Students,
This is why I don't like TOE ... because it draws this stuff like this in. Let me go read it and post again.
Hey Deluded Students,
Great article, I have enjoyed your blog. However I am not sure if you are employing the dysteleological argument here as an objection to the existence of a Creator, or an objection to the existence of creationism – the view that man was assembled in its’ current state in a short period of time by an intelligent designer. Either way, the dysteleological argument does not work.
Are you, Deluded Students, saying that the universe was created without an explicit purpose? In other words, do you believe that the causality chain of events leading to the Big Bang had a purpose or that it did not. That would address the Creator part. Let me know and I’ll answer for you.
The second part, about "creation", is the same thing applied to the creation of human beings. Do you believe that the causality chain of events leading to homo sapiens sapiens had a purpose?
Both applications invoke the notion of willful, or volitious causes. Most atheists, like Dawkins, would be considered dysteleological because they reject purpose in these kinds of causal chains of events.
If you can answer that for me I can come up with an answer for you.
If the conclusion of this argument is indeed that God does not exist or that creationism is not true, then since you are submitting the argument, you also bear the burden of proof in your premises. The defense of the premise that design is poor is not fully defended.
This is backward. The positive claim is that God exists, therefore, the burden falls on the actor positing that existence to show the existence of “God”.
The polar bear has thumbs that humans would consider suboptimal for our requirements. However the bear uses its’ thumbs to shed bark, and in this case, it would be our thumbs that are suboptimal, and the bears that are optimal! It is inappropriate to call a design suboptimal unless we know the intention of the designer.
This is why I HATE TOE. How do you even respond to this? What is his point? All he is doing is supporting the core ideas behind natural selection. I don’t get his point here.
In this absence of this knowledge, this premise is rendered unproven and the dysteleological argument is therefore invalid.
No, it isn’t; not by the “argument” presented.
Let me know where you stand and I'll write up something for you. I've got some good material on this.
The minute you see people tossing two cent words like that out like fish bait you know you are dealing with an intellectually insecure chump. Be forewarned.
I've commented and its awaiting your moderation.