homunculus
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2002
- Messages
- 92
My own approach would be to ask directly what observations, or states of affairs, present such a problem for our ordinary (i.e. non-supernatural) kinds of explanation, as to necessite the invokation of their god.
Now you get to demonstrate how their "explanation" really only shifts the problem, creates a bunch of additional problems - or, as is sometimes the case, that their "problem" is really based on a simple misunderstanding (making their explanation superfluous).
Examples. Most often (going solely on my own experience here) the believer will plump staight for one of the big ones: Namely, one of the various forms of the argument that the very existence of the universe, either at large or in some of its grossest features (for example, complexity, constant motion, etc.) is inexplicable to science.
Most of the traditional proofs (ontological, teleological etc.) fall into this broad category, and all suffer from the same flaw. In order to account for these apparent "problems", the believer introduces something else, which (unless their first premiss is wrong) must suffer from all the same defects!
So, in order for something to come from nothing, something else must have already been there to make it happen? Okay, but what made the something else happen? If in order to be complex, the universe must have been designed, who designed the (presumeably, at least as complex) designer? There is no way to salvage these kinds of argument from such objections, without gratuitious special pleading.
To which we might reasonably respond, why can't the universe be simularly excused? That way we wouldn't have all these added complications, and unnecesary new problems (such as are involved in defining, quantifying, and locating this "god" creature, so that our explanation can itself be understood).
Which brings me to the second flaw in the list. Theists (no matter what line of argument they pursue) tend to be in the unenviable position of being unable to explain their own explanation! This applies wherever invisible forces/entities to which no consistent, measurable effects can be attributed, are introduced. So by default, any testable, physical account which fits the facts, will be more useful and comprehensible. Otherwise we may as well just explain everything by going, "Blaaaaaaaaaaaah", and relinquish the whole enterprise...
As to the last flaw - the "problem" really being based on a simple misunderstanding - this is where the real fun begins. They might mention, for example, the way life defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in which case you can just correct them on what the Second Law actually states (it only applies to closed systems, of which our biosphere is obviously not an example, since it receives constant energy from the sun). It's fun when you get to nitty gritty like this, because you can prove you're right.
If you are defeated whilst debating facts, remember - you still have the first two flaws to fall back on...
Paul.
Now you get to demonstrate how their "explanation" really only shifts the problem, creates a bunch of additional problems - or, as is sometimes the case, that their "problem" is really based on a simple misunderstanding (making their explanation superfluous).
Examples. Most often (going solely on my own experience here) the believer will plump staight for one of the big ones: Namely, one of the various forms of the argument that the very existence of the universe, either at large or in some of its grossest features (for example, complexity, constant motion, etc.) is inexplicable to science.
Most of the traditional proofs (ontological, teleological etc.) fall into this broad category, and all suffer from the same flaw. In order to account for these apparent "problems", the believer introduces something else, which (unless their first premiss is wrong) must suffer from all the same defects!
So, in order for something to come from nothing, something else must have already been there to make it happen? Okay, but what made the something else happen? If in order to be complex, the universe must have been designed, who designed the (presumeably, at least as complex) designer? There is no way to salvage these kinds of argument from such objections, without gratuitious special pleading.
To which we might reasonably respond, why can't the universe be simularly excused? That way we wouldn't have all these added complications, and unnecesary new problems (such as are involved in defining, quantifying, and locating this "god" creature, so that our explanation can itself be understood).
Which brings me to the second flaw in the list. Theists (no matter what line of argument they pursue) tend to be in the unenviable position of being unable to explain their own explanation! This applies wherever invisible forces/entities to which no consistent, measurable effects can be attributed, are introduced. So by default, any testable, physical account which fits the facts, will be more useful and comprehensible. Otherwise we may as well just explain everything by going, "Blaaaaaaaaaaaah", and relinquish the whole enterprise...
As to the last flaw - the "problem" really being based on a simple misunderstanding - this is where the real fun begins. They might mention, for example, the way life defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in which case you can just correct them on what the Second Law actually states (it only applies to closed systems, of which our biosphere is obviously not an example, since it receives constant energy from the sun). It's fun when you get to nitty gritty like this, because you can prove you're right.
If you are defeated whilst debating facts, remember - you still have the first two flaws to fall back on...
Paul.