Proof of existence of God

[jain.rahul]

Hello everyone,
I recently had a conversation with a theist, and he gave a proof that God does exist. The conversation went something like this :

Theist : Consider that i show u a Microprocessor controlled temperature system and then tell you that nobody made it . It is eternal and unassembled. It has its own properties that it reads the temp and give the output in fan or heater. Will u then believe me? Answer with appropriate reason.
Me : No, I will not believe you. It requires intelligence of a human to put together various non-living pieces in such a way that it performs systematic work.

Theist : Does it have enough inteligence to buy a battery or search for a power supply and start itself? Can it work on its own without being assembled, organised, set by any external intelligent power?
Me : No, It does not have that intelligence. A human does have to insert the battery, or the power supply. It should have been assembled and organized by a human. A non-living thing like mcts, can-not work on its own.

Theist : If non living things are dependent on external intelligence to perform some systematic work, how can you believe that this whole universe, where each mass systematically exerts gravitational force, where charge systematically exerts coulumbic force, where everything is so systematic, can come to existence naturally? How can you believe that no-one created it.
Me : <answerless>

I need a good argument to counter his reasoning, something is flawed in this, and I can't seem to find out what is wrong in this reasoning. Can anyone help me?

[Jackalope]

It's a clear appeal to credulity.

[jain.rahul]

It's a clear appeal to credulity.

can you elaborate?

[Jackalope]

It's fallacious logic. "I can't imagine how it could happen otherwise." is the crux of his argument. He actually hasn't supported his argument at all.

[Phil]

Besides being fallacious it's incredibly arrogant to think "if I can't figure it out nobody can - therefore goddidit."

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

It's fallacious logic. "I can't imagine how it could happen otherwise." is the crux of his argument. He actually hasn't supported his argument at all.

There are two logical fallacies in the argument:


(2) Argument from incredulity/lack of imagination:

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
It is obvious that P is true (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false); therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

I suggest read the entire articles linked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_fr...magination



(2) The associated fallacy is the teleological argument,aka,argument from complexity and watchmaker's argument. This often refuted argument is the basis for the intelligent design/creationist position.

Watchmaker analogy
William Paley's "watchmaker analogy" is one of the most famous teleological arguments

The watchmaker analogy, framing the argument with reference to a timepiece, dates back to Cicero, who used the example of a sundial or water-clock in his reasoning that the presence of order and purpose signify the existence of a designer. It was also used by Robert Hooke[37] and Voltaire, the latter of whom remarked: "L'univers m'embarrasse, et je ne puis songer Que cette horloge existe, et n'ait point d'horloger";[38] "I'm puzzled by the world; I cannot dream The timepiece real, its maker but a dream".[39]

William Paley presented the watchmaker analogy in his Natural Theology (1802).[40]

[S]uppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think … that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for [a] stone [that happened to be lying on the ground]?… For this reason, and for no other; namely, that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.
—William Paley, Natural Theology[41]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

[Welsh cake]

In a nutshell the theist is asserting:

Toasters can't turn themselves on,
Therefore god exists.

Probably the shittiest ontological argument for an intelligent creator/designer I've heard all week.

[genkaus]

Hello everyone,
I recently had a conversation with a theist, and he gave a proof that God does exist. The conversation went something like this :

Theist : Consider that i show u a Microprocessor controlled temperature system and then tell you that nobody made it . It is eternal and unassembled. It has its own properties that it reads the temp and give the output in fan or heater. Will u then believe me? Answer with appropriate reason.
Me : No, I will not believe you. It requires intelligence of a human to put together various non-living pieces in such a way that it performs systematic work.

Theist : Does it have enough inteligence to buy a battery or search for a power supply and start itself? Can it work on its own without being assembled, organised, set by any external intelligent power?
Me : No, It does not have that intelligence. A human does have to insert the battery, or the power supply. It should have been assembled and organized by a human. A non-living thing like mcts, can-not work on its own.

Theist : If non living things are dependent on external intelligence to perform some systematic work, how can you believe that this whole universe, where each mass systematically exerts gravitational force, where charge systematically exerts coulumbic force, where everything is so systematic, can come to existence naturally? How can you believe that no-one created it.
Me : <answerless>

I need a good argument to counter his reasoning, something is flawed in this, and I can't seem to find out what is wrong in this reasoning. Can anyone help me?

Your very first answer should've been "I would believe it, but there is a big label saying 'made by Microsoft' on it. Just show me a big label saying 'made by god' attached somewhere and I might just believe you".

[Angrboda]

Another aspect of this argument is that it argues by analogy to the fact that we infer design based on some abstract concept of complexity. I have heard anthropologists and archeologist argue that this is not in fact how they infer design, rather they infer design by resemblance to known artifacts of human construction techniques (a simple spear point has marks similar to a slightly more refined spear point, a refrigerator has sheet steel as do cars and stoves -- similarity, not complexity). As anybody who has read Dembski's work knows, complexity of the right kind is almost impossible to rigorously define.

(Don't get me started on Dembski. One major point about Dembski. His argument rests on the analogy to human design, that complexity cannot arise but by the acts of an intelligent designer. But he missteps by slipping in the assumption that the human designer is not himself a natural process or the result of natural processes [i.e. evolution, rather than God]. Take that out, and his key analogy reduces to: whenever we find complex artifacts, a human designer [who is either a natural or non-natural creation, via evolution or God] is responsible, therefore, if we find complexity in nature, we can infer that an intelligent process was the cause [which, by analogy, may or may not be natural]; so his bedrock analogy, once the assumption is flushed out, becomes the trivial observation that, "either it's natural or it's not." Wow. Pause for effect.)

[NoMoreFaith]

I would definitely add a weak analogy as an additional fallacy. (I don't like using the term false analogy, as an analogy can never be true, otherwise they wouldn't be analogs.)

A is like B.
B has property P.
Therefore, A has property P.

If you simplify the argument in this case, you can see the fault much more easily.

The Universe is like a microprocessor
A Microprocessor needs someone to supply power
Therefore the Universe needs someone to supply power

Why didn't he use the analogy...

The Universe is like a duck
A duck requires a mother duck
Therefore the Universe has a mother universe

It would have been simpler and more apt, since both things occur without noticeable human intervention.

Its a trick, like most arguments of this kind. Get person to accept a tenuous similarity, then enforce a completely different aspect as having to be similar.