a rebuttal to a rebuttal [#2688]

[pianodwarf]

http://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-imaginary.html  These guys claim to have rebutted the "god is imagneary argue ments do you have a rebuttal to their arguments?

[jetson]

Well, for starters, the Anthony Flew story turns my stomach, so they lose credibility out of the gate for trying to appeal to the "once I was a staunch atheist, now I believe" bullshit.

Other than that, it's a hodge-podge of wishful thinking and hopes that the credulous will simply accept that they must be right because of the first cause argument.  As usual, it is beyond them to have to explain the existence of a creator, so they simply insist there had to be one, just because there is currently no explanation for the known universe.

they fail to understand what it means to truly explain something, and they are as unwilling as most apologists to admit there is something they simply do not know.  They simply assert, with zero explanation, facts, or evidence, that there must be a creator.

In short, they have nothing.

[Graybeard]

From the site:

even Richard Dawkins (noted atheist) and Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) admit that intelligence had to engineer DNA and life on earth – they just say it was a superior alien race who seeded the earth

A lie. This is quote mining - the Youtube video is out there: listen to what Dawkins actually said.

As far as Crick goes: He said, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children." Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick#Directed_panspermia which suggests  as a vague possibility that the earth could have been seeded by aliens from another planet - not gods, fairies or pixies.

You see what liars theses Christians are? They cheat and deceive. Why would they do that? Because there are no gods, never have been, never will be - but they are making a living out of the poorly educated and gullible.

[screwtape]

From the eternally stupid GotQuestions site:

1. Something exists
2. You don’t get something from nothing
3. Therefore, something necessary and eternal exists
4. The only two options are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator
5. Science has disproved the concept of an eternal universe
6. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists

7. a creator is something
8. the creator cannot come from nothing (2)
9. therefore, this argument is futile.

[pianodwarf]

From the eternally stupid GotQuestions site:

1. Something exists
2. You don’t get something from nothing
3. Therefore, something necessary and eternal exists
4. The only two options are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator
5. Science has disproved the concept of an eternal universe
6. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists

7. a creator is something
8. the creator cannot come from nothing (2)
9. therefore, this argument is futile.

Not to mention which, we don't know that (2) is correct.

[jaimehlers]

I noticed the subtitle of that site.  "The Bible has answers!  We'll find them for you!"

If the Bible "has answers", it would make more sense for the person who has questions to read it themselves.  Imagine if we 'taught' children things like math by giving them the answer outright but never teaching them the underlying concepts.

That is what they're truly offering - easy answers that don't really answer anything.

Even worse, they're not interested in addressing individual points that people make against their assertion.  The only thing they're interested in is pushing their beliefs.  This is the logic of a drug dealer - "I won't address all the reasons people say this drug is bad for you.  Instead, I just want you to try it for yourself and then decide."  Sickening.

[Aaron123]

"Stuff exists, therefore, someone created them."

"So what created the creator?"

"The creator has no creator, so shut up!"


I see nothing wrong with this argument...

[wigglytuff]

From the eternally stupid GotQuestions site:

1. Something exists
2. You don’t get something from nothing
3. Therefore, something necessary and eternal exists
4. The only two options are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator
5. Science has disproved the concept of an eternal universe
6. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists

7. a creator is something
8. the creator cannot come from nothing (2)
9. therefore, this argument is futile.

why do you call it enternally stupid?

[Brakeman]

Wow, that guy is really slow, I bet kindergarten was a real challenge for him. He couldn't see the basic flaws in his rebuttal.

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
The big bang with no intervention created these, the singularity had no time therefor there is nothing before the singularity.

• He must be powerful (incredibly).
Since he did nothing evident or measurable, it is just as likely that he would be incredibly weak.

• He must be eternal (self-existent, because there is no infinite regress of causes).
Nope, he could have disappeared.

• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
Does not follow. I can create a fence that will keep myself out.

• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
Mass and Space created time, God wasn't shown to be involved at all.

• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
This is only required since we cant find him with todays technology. It is just an excuse.
It does not follow since Jacob physically toughed god. Moses saw god. The Isrealites heard god. Thus god was not immaterial.

• He must be personal (the impersonal can’t create personality).
Teh stupid.. it burns..

• He must be necessary as everything else depends on Him.
Nope- nothing depends on him - physics has passed that stage.

• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
up/down and right/left are infinites..

• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
??DNF

• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
DNF  - A mentally challenged woman can give birth to a very intelligent child.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
Too stupid..

• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
The god of the bible isn't moral...WTF?

• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
The god of the bible isn't caring...WTF?

[screwtape]

why do you call it enternally stupid?

Because they will never, ever get any smarter. 

Do you think I should have used a different adjective?  Fabulously stupid?  Preposterously stupid?  Vulgarly stupid?  Stupid in the special way only fundamentalist xians can be stupid?

Great.  Now you've got me all insecure about my post.

[Hatter23]

why do you call it enternally stupid?

I would call it so because regardless of what information or evidence they are exposed to, they will always choose the answer that they want(which is wrong), rather than what the evidence points towards.

[Hatter23]

After reading a few paragraphs, I think they need to understand they open with the Anthony Flew crap. I don't care if Richard Dawkins became a fundamentalist...an appeal to authority is an appeal to authority.

Furthermore, the core of their argument is an appeal to ignorance, we don't know how they universe arose, therefore God. Contained within this argument is a case of special pleading, the universe cannot arise from nothing(which contains the assumption there was nothing- also an appeal to ignorance) but God cannot.

Then, just as all creationists do, they pull God the Creator, the Deist god, means Bible God equivocation. They ignore the fact that the Bible is an unreliable source, i.e. ignoring the counterevidence.

Just like all arguments for God, it is merely a string of logical fallacies made that they think is reasonable. They cannot be honest when constructing their argument because no honest argument for God can be created without tripping over various logical fallacies.

[Anfauglir]

Wow, that guy is really slow, I bet kindergarten was a real challenge for him. He couldn't see the basic flaws in his rebuttal.
• He must be powerful (incredibly).
Since he did nothing evident or measurable, it is just as likely that he would be incredibly weak.

This got me thinking....and may be a useful argument that sidesteps the created/uncreated issue.

Suppose there was, before the universe, a god.  That god created the universe - or, rather, created in some way the super-condensed singularity that the universe expanded from.  All (sorta!) well and good so far. 

However, there is nothing to say that the uncreated creator continued to exist after that point of creation.  Perhaps the new physical laws made it impossible for him to continue to exist - quite likely, if his "natural" state of being is one that is supported without any of the "natural" laws we NOW experience.

Or perhaps he WAS the big bang - perhaps the creator herself became the explosion, giving her life so that her universe could come into being.

Perhaps its too much of a step towards accepting their position - but I found the two "perhapses" above to be interesting.

[wigglytuff]

why do you call it enternally stupid?

Because they will never, ever get any smarter. 

Do you think I should have used a different adjective?  Fabulously stupid?  Preposterously stupid?  Vulgarly stupid?  Stupid in the special way only fundamentalist xians can be stupid?

Great.  Now you've got me all insecure about my post.

soory

[ParkingPlaces]

Something (or some things) actually happened to create the universe. I am assuming that we are not merely figments of our imagination here. And so while science is trying to figure things out, it may well be that we will never have enough information to figure the whole thing out.

The christian book, written by people for more perplexed by reality than we are, came up with a story about how the world began. Hindus have stories in their books. People without books have stories in their cultures. A bunch of those stories are real cute, but none of them seem to match observed reality.

The "something can't come from nothing" from gotquestions.org doesn't come from the bible. It comes from human incredulity. It is an assumption based upon our early experiences and our feeble definition of "nothing" rather than a meaningful and accurate insight.

Humans are limited. We have a bad habit of increasing our limits via voluntary ignorance. Bible-botherers are particularly susceptible to stupid conclusions, because they're used to them and think such results are normal.

We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it.

[Ivellios]

I once read part of a book called God's Debris, it amounts to, "God was bored, didn't like how he knew everything and decided to pop and let whatever happens, happen." The thing that's "All-Powerful" that you cannot excape from? Probability.

Nice idea, I thought. At least it was different.