RE: Why I'm not an Atheist and believe in what I believe.
June 8, 2012 at 1:46 pm
(This post was last modified: June 8, 2012 at 2:02 pm by Simon Moon.)
(June 6, 2012 at 4:51 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The teleological argument coupled with first cause argument if both valid just prove a Creator is extremely likely but tell us nothing of his qualities except his ability to create.
Neither is valid.So they don't even get close to proving a creator is likely. The both fail miserably.
The first cause argument has a big fat equivocation fallacy (I'm surprised more people don't notice) that destroys the modus tolens of the argument. The fallacy doesn't disprove the conclusion, it only discredits the first cause argument as being a valid argument for it.
The teleological argument fails on several levels. Hume and Voltaire handled refuted it many years ago. The teleological argument is an argument from ignorance.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
