Telephones Prove God's Existence
February 4, 2014 at 6:53 am
(This post was last modified: February 4, 2014 at 6:55 am by Mudhammam.)
This is an actual argument my brother made for theism:
Design and Naturalistic Belief.
The last argument that I put forth (Naturalism vs. Naturalism) attempted to argue that the idea of naturalism arising in the mind provided a rational defeater for naturalism. The thrust of this argument, which still seems right, emphasized that the naturalist is constrained to hold logically that naturalism (and then atheism) were held as a result of a physical event causing a brain event that causes the mental event and thus naturalistic belief or atheism. This being the case, the idea of naturalism likely being true for the person considering naturalism is certainly lower than .5 which then does not provide a rational justification for believing in naturalism as the chances of obtaining that belief in that way would be much lower if naturalism were true. The idea of naturalism is sufficient to provide a rational defeater for naturalistic belief. I was thinking about naturalism and determinism and the sorts of absurdities that we find ourselves in if we are to take this position through to various conclusions. Here, I want to apply it to teleology. An atheist will want to argue that there exist no design in the universe. The universe is not designed for anything. Organisms only appear to be designed but in reality can be explained, or will be explained, as a result of laws, energy, and physical processes. If we are serious naturalists and apply determinism (or even apply uncertainty) to the laws, energy, and physical processes, we also must hold that all committed actions result of prior physical events as well. Consequently, this article, your ability to read it, and long before this, our computers, us bringing them home from the computer store, the computer store itself, the truck delivering the computers, the factory where they are made, and the blueprint and the "designers" of the the blueprints, who only appear to be designed, are entirely the result of physical processes. Simply put, if organisms are not designed, then St. Peter's Basilica, the Taj Mahal, and every event from a Beethoven symphony to Einstein's theory of General Relativity were developed precisely the same way that they think organisms were made: through physical processes alone. Consequently, for the naturalist, nothing is designed or at least not in a sense that is distinguishable from a bomb exploding an asteroid breaking through the atmosphere or a stone rolling down a hill. All events are the result of physical events. When a naturalists holds that an organism is not really designed but that their vehicle or telephone was, are they not talking nonsense and showing what they really understand to be the sort of universe that we live in? It is all or nothing. If organisms are not designed than neither was the Empire State Building. If anything is designed including a telephone, naturalism then is false. Or I think, that if anything is designed including a telephone, God exists.
Design and Naturalistic Belief.
The last argument that I put forth (Naturalism vs. Naturalism) attempted to argue that the idea of naturalism arising in the mind provided a rational defeater for naturalism. The thrust of this argument, which still seems right, emphasized that the naturalist is constrained to hold logically that naturalism (and then atheism) were held as a result of a physical event causing a brain event that causes the mental event and thus naturalistic belief or atheism. This being the case, the idea of naturalism likely being true for the person considering naturalism is certainly lower than .5 which then does not provide a rational justification for believing in naturalism as the chances of obtaining that belief in that way would be much lower if naturalism were true. The idea of naturalism is sufficient to provide a rational defeater for naturalistic belief. I was thinking about naturalism and determinism and the sorts of absurdities that we find ourselves in if we are to take this position through to various conclusions. Here, I want to apply it to teleology. An atheist will want to argue that there exist no design in the universe. The universe is not designed for anything. Organisms only appear to be designed but in reality can be explained, or will be explained, as a result of laws, energy, and physical processes. If we are serious naturalists and apply determinism (or even apply uncertainty) to the laws, energy, and physical processes, we also must hold that all committed actions result of prior physical events as well. Consequently, this article, your ability to read it, and long before this, our computers, us bringing them home from the computer store, the computer store itself, the truck delivering the computers, the factory where they are made, and the blueprint and the "designers" of the the blueprints, who only appear to be designed, are entirely the result of physical processes. Simply put, if organisms are not designed, then St. Peter's Basilica, the Taj Mahal, and every event from a Beethoven symphony to Einstein's theory of General Relativity were developed precisely the same way that they think organisms were made: through physical processes alone. Consequently, for the naturalist, nothing is designed or at least not in a sense that is distinguishable from a bomb exploding an asteroid breaking through the atmosphere or a stone rolling down a hill. All events are the result of physical events. When a naturalists holds that an organism is not really designed but that their vehicle or telephone was, are they not talking nonsense and showing what they really understand to be the sort of universe that we live in? It is all or nothing. If organisms are not designed than neither was the Empire State Building. If anything is designed including a telephone, naturalism then is false. Or I think, that if anything is designed including a telephone, God exists.
