Response for Haredawg

Ugh, I had such a beautiful response all written up, and then firefox crashed… that’ll teach me.

Brief recap:

*******************************************************************************

I wrote an entry where I argued that the argument:

"It is highly unlikely that something as big and as complex as the universe could just accidentally pop into existence (or always existed).
Therefore,
A rational person can believe "God" or something with the same skill-set has to be the reason for the universe to exist based on this argument."

My argument concluded:

"A being that could conceive of and create the universe with all of its size and complexity must be more complex than the universe itself.

However, it is even more unlikely that something even bigger and more complex than the universe just accidentally popped into existence (or always existed)."

And therefore the argument utterly fails.

haredawg then wrote an entry that covered a number of topics, but eventually got around to saying that he killed ants.

But not just that he killed ants, but that he killed them because he was grossed out by ants… and that perhaps "the act of god tragedies that befall us are because we gross god out…. Doesn’t mean god isn’t basically benevolent, just not so benevolent to gross things." 

Then, "Just because I can slaughter an entire colony of ants with a spray can… doesn’t mean I created the mailbox… Doesn’t mean I’m a bad guy either…I do hold the keys of mortality for them though I didn’t create their world, existence and have no clue as to any afterlife. I am a minimally adequate deity."

Also, "Again, I’m not advocating intelligent design, nor discarding it, I’m still a dyed in the wool tepid with the Holy Spirit agnostic. I’m just saying, or trying too in a roundabout way, both theists and atheists could be full of shit."

To which I wrote the following note:

I always get the feeling that you think that atheists and theists are making symmetric (if opposing) claims…

Beyond that, it appears as though you’re explaining why there is suffering and stuff…but I was under the impression that this was somewhat of a response to my entry – which didn’t mention anything like that.

I guess I’m confused as to which parts of this entry relate to mine. [A Thinking BUM]

*******************************************************************************

A tad more verbosely; my entry was clear and concise. It dealt only with the argument from design. It had nothing to do with suffering, the problem of evil, whether I feel entitled to an existence or anything. It said as clearly as could be that the argument "wow this is complex, I bet it couldn’t come about just on its own… therefore it is most reasonable to assume that a GOD created it" FAILS.

How would arguing that "perhaps God gives us tragedies because he had some good reason… doesn’t mean that he’s bad necessarily" relate to this argument at all?

It doesn’t… as far as I can tell it only relates to the argument from evil.

So haredawg responds:

"You don’t get how the notion that there could both be a god and he/she/it not have been respondsible for creation pertains?"

No, I quite clearly understand how there could be a god and he could be not responsible for the creation. I just don’t see how that has anything to do with my entry.

"You believe it’s ME that sets up the notion that on OD atheists and theists are constantly on opposite sides of the dancehall?"

Is that what you think I asked? Really?

Read it again, "I always get the feeling that you think that atheists and theists are making symmetric (if opposing) claims…"

Symmetric claims was the key part of the sentence… the "if opposing" part was a parenthetical thought. Obviously, I’m opposing the theists…I’ve never denied that. But hell, a theist makes an argument like, "wow universe is complex, i bet something had to design it" — and my response is to say, "that argument fails". Those are not symmetric claims.

The theist is making a knowledge claim based on an argument.
I’m just analyzing the argument, I’m not making a knowledge claim.

Many of the comments that you make on my diary and even in your response entry makes it read like you think that my arguments go something like this:

"Bible believers think they’re right because it’s written in a book.

But I know they’re wrong, because I have science written down in MY book."

Which is a completely wrong way to read my arguments. The entry you just responded to, for example. I took an argument that I actually got the day that I wrote the entry from a theist, saying, "Look, something as big and complex as the universe couldn’t have popped out of nothing for no reason… and it couldn’t have just always existed… therefore I have a good reason to believe in a Creator."

The theist also wanted to make the addition claim that this Creator had to be bigger and more complex than the universe it created — but it was ok for this entity to have existed for all time.

This argument eats itself. There is nothing external that I have to claim — some special revelation, anything. Using the theist’s terms, claims, and arguing on his ground and admitting every premise that he wanted me to admit; I aimed to show that his argument fails.

How about another famous back’n’forth that we had… the time when I aimed to show that theists, if they’re being consistent with their standards of evidence for belief ought to believe in Spider gods, and fairies… specifically, "because you can’t prove that they DON’T exist" is a terrible reason for believing IN something.

My argument again is not from the standpoint, "I know there aren’t fairies. So …" ; but just asking theists to be consistent. If they reject Zeus, why? how? by what standard does Zeus fall, but Allah remains standing?

Your responses were "You’re setting up strawman arguments. No one believes in a Spider god." — which only echoed my point. There are millions of possible Gods that theists do not believe in.

"Are you serious? Did you not read my entry? Have you never read any of your own?"

I read your entire entry twice before I left a note on it.

"Do you need cliff notes or something? [haredawg]"

Ah contempt…I rarely get it in its pure form these days. If you’re going to bring it, you’d better be able to back it up.

"But to simplfy as you seemed to get confused (as per your note "… I’m confused …" the part about minimally adeqaute design (as in the title)…"

No I know, the title had so much promise…

"…pertained to your argument that the theist argument of design and occams razor rationale was invalid (hence the title The Universe Needs a Designer). It seemed self evident to me. I’m I really that opaque? Are you really that obtuse? Or did you just skim my entry for qoutes from your entry? [haredawg]"

"Honestly, and read closely here whoever is still here, to argue against theoretical fiction is the same side of the same coin as arguing for it."

See, again, here’s the bit about thinking theists and I are making the same sorts of claims.

"The argument itself is a supposition that something is valid enough to warrant argument."

I agree, it’s so clearly nonsense that having to argue it at all is ridiculous.

"It’s the height of thinking you know shit to presuppose that PhD in divinity is ignorant because you took all the one hundred philosophy classes and can quote famous atheists."

Damn, it’s a good thing that I don’t presuppose. I wrote on this diary for a LONG time asking questions to any and all about things like why they thought that they knew Jesus’ mom was a virgin and read a bunch of books before I was convinced that there did not exist good reasons to think that.

Of course, I’m always open to the idea that perhaps there does exist a good reason to think that Jesus came back from the dead.