What do you think of this argument? Sound? Fallacious? Why?
2007-06-20 07:32:03 · 53 answers · asked by Eleventy 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I'm sorry, let me just jump over this huge gap here.....
AIGGHhhhhhhhhh
*falls to gruesome death*
2007-06-20 07:34:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 21⤊ 0⤋
Laughable.
Exactly the same argument was used for hurricanes, tornadoes lightning and a whole load of other things that science could not explain at some time or another.
I predict that science will come up with an explanation of how the universe came about that will match the known facts. Lets call it the Big E. Then the religious people will just say, O.K. you have shown how the universe happened, but what caused the Big E? It MUST be God !
They never learn.
2007-06-20 07:45:13 · answer #2 · answered by Simon T 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wow! Now that's a crazy conclusion! Fallacious, indeed!
I'm sitting here laughing. God is not a secondary notion that philosophers have fallen backward upon while in a confused, drunken stupor over the origins of the universe. God is not created by man! The Bible tells us that the universe began by God's will and as He spoke everything into being using the elements He originally assembled. He is the source of life, not a creation of the mind.
But, more to answer the question, God does not exist because there isn't another reasonable conclusion; He exists of His own volition and power. He does not depend on us, we depend on Him.
2007-06-20 07:43:42 · answer #3 · answered by Michael 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't follow logic, this is what philosophers would call an argument that is not sound. A sound argument is a deductive argument which is valid and has true premisses. The premisses and conclusion are not related therefore it is absolutely impossible for the premisses to be true unless the conclusion is true also, and vise versa. Scientists may not be 100% sure how life began, but it is irrational to jump to the conclusion that a God exists based on this premise alone.
2007-06-20 07:42:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Its a weak arguement. The conclusion does not flow logically from the pretext. It is no more valid than saying
"Scientists don't know how the universe began. Therefore, God doesn't exist".
It would be logical if the arguement went "Scientists don't know how the universe began. Therefore, Scientists cannot dispute the possibility that God exists".
2007-06-20 07:36:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Posting a science question in the religion and spirituality section often means the asker does not really want an answer. His goal is to ask a question that he believes proves some scientific knowledge to be wrong, or that science does not yet answer, and make the implicit claim that the only other explanation is a god, and specifically, the same god he happens to believe in.
It's the "god of the gaps" - intellectually bankrupt, since it favors ignorance instead of knowledge, and because of the contained logical fallacy.
2007-06-20 07:37:25 · answer #6 · answered by eldad9 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Very Good argument I am very fond of your logic. It seems quite reasonable there must be a reason why scientists can't tell us how it begin. It would have to be because they are trying so desperately to reject Gods explanation that they can't see what is right in front of their face. It had to have been God which created the universe. There is no other Omnipotent power in existence capable of creating such a universe. There is nothing no known power great enough to make an explosion big enough to create such vastness as the univers. The larges nuclear bomb wouldn't even have been a sneeze compared to the mass explosion that would be required to create the universe. Science are gust going to have to come up with something else besides the Big Bang..
Kisses BB
2007-06-20 07:51:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The best minds in the world even in 2007 cannot even BEGIN to explain how lifeless atoms/molecules supposedly assimilated into what is know as "life", not even considering the statistical probability of that event occurring is zero(and the "life" then self-actualizing and knowing,"hey, now I am alive, and I got things to do...like find food, or procreate...hmmmm").
Like both sides, it take a incredible leap of "faith", yet science and God are inexorably linked. When you pick one side, typically you cannot see the other side of the coin.
Seeing little green men on another planet does not validate or invalidate the existence of God.
2007-06-20 07:42:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
My god... after having such a statement, christian people still wonder why they get all the grief?
It's like saying "it isn't raining, therefore the sun is shining brightly." It can just as well be very cloudy.
I would love to say for whoever made that statement to come up with some scientific proof - however I think it would be easy enough for me to ask them to come up with just *proof* - which is not written down in a book written 150 years after Jesus's death and at least - if not more - 6000 years after the actual event.
I would say science has come at least a little bit closer to uncovering the truth than the bible has...
2007-06-20 07:40:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the cosmological argument is their best argument, much better than Pascal's Wager or the Ontological Argument. However, they don't know what caused God. They say he's eternal. Why can't the universe be eternal then? The uncaused cause could be the Aztec god, Quetzalcoatl by this reasoning or any other deity as well.
2007-06-20 07:38:35 · answer #10 · answered by razzthedestroyer 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Definitely fallacious. Typical "God of the Gaps" argument. God was invented to explain the unexplained.
2007-06-20 07:39:19 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋