RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
February 21, 2016 at 4:20 pm
(This post was last modified: February 21, 2016 at 4:26 pm by Cecelia.)
Okay, let's assume for a moment that there was a designer. Who is the designer?
The Christian God? Unlikely. Most of the works of the Christian God are claimed to require faith, which has about as much power (maybe less so) as wishful thinking. Nothing in this world requires faith to work. You don't need faith to have your skull shaped correctly, or faith to have nerve endings in your fingers. In fact Jesus is claimed to break the rules of the universe quite frequently.
Another God? Again, unlikely. All of those gods are personal gods, who have origin stories that don't match up with science.
At most you'd have an impersonal designer. An argument for Deism at best, and a poor argument for theism overall.
Still you have yet to prove a designer. All you've done is state that it looks designed, therefore it must have a designer. This isn't the case. Something can have an appearance of design, and not actually be designed. There could be any number of explanations for appearance of design. Assuming a supernatural cause doesn't give you an answer.
Take this image:
![[Image: b4Ks4m5.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2Fb4Ks4m5.jpg)
You can make out a dog. Does this mean that it was designed? Of course not. There's another explanation possible. But it gives the appearance of design.
The Christian God? Unlikely. Most of the works of the Christian God are claimed to require faith, which has about as much power (maybe less so) as wishful thinking. Nothing in this world requires faith to work. You don't need faith to have your skull shaped correctly, or faith to have nerve endings in your fingers. In fact Jesus is claimed to break the rules of the universe quite frequently.
Another God? Again, unlikely. All of those gods are personal gods, who have origin stories that don't match up with science.
At most you'd have an impersonal designer. An argument for Deism at best, and a poor argument for theism overall.
Still you have yet to prove a designer. All you've done is state that it looks designed, therefore it must have a designer. This isn't the case. Something can have an appearance of design, and not actually be designed. There could be any number of explanations for appearance of design. Assuming a supernatural cause doesn't give you an answer.
Take this image:
You can make out a dog. Does this mean that it was designed? Of course not. There's another explanation possible. But it gives the appearance of design.
The whole tone of Church teaching in regard to woman is, to the last degree, contemptuous and degrading. - Elizabeth Cady Stanton
