Bad argument

goddidit

In my quest to help JWs wake up I came up with this (at least I think I came up with it myself, can't be sure).

I was hoping someone could help me refine it to be as easy as possible to understand and as hard as possible to weasel out of by some semantics.

Just to be clear, I'm an atheist. This is written for the context of JW beliefs.

Premise 1: Even if a position is true, it is possible for an argument in favour of it to be a bad argument, e.g. I know it’s raining because my wife’s hair is wet (It actually is raining but her hair is wet from the bath she took).

Premise 2: God created a system in which a small collection of cells becomes a human being in 9 months.

Premise 3: Whether he did so or not, God certainly has the ability to create a system in which animals can evolve into other species.

Conclusion: Using complexity to argue against evolution is a bad argument.

goddidit

Alternate Premise 2: God created a system in which a small collection of cells (complex) becomes a human being (much more complex) in only 9 months.

bohm

Objection to 2a: The systems is allready part of two (and later one) human, this does nothing beyond prooving the rule, "life can only come from life", hence we can be confident life was the work of a creator.

Objection to 2b: But surely there is a difference between a pond of hot mud and a mums delicate belly offering a controlled enviroment? Jehovah created an enviroment where life could be created -- a perfect enviroment -- but it does not logically follow that therefore he could have made a pond of hot mud a favorable envoriment. You could just as well argue he could have made the ice surface of Pluto a favorable enviroment for life to spring from.

Objection to 2c: But if you agree god made life (one way or another), why not accept the explanation he wrote in the bible (after all he was there), that he made man out of dirt on the 6th day? was you there?

goddidit

Premise 1: God created the universe, the earth and the laws of physics, chemistry & biology.

Premise 2: Even if a claim is factual , it is possible for an argument in favour of it to be a bad argument, e.g. I know it’s raining because my wife’s hair is wet (It actually is raining but her hair is wet from the bath she took).

Premise 3: A small collection of cells (complex) becomes a human being (much more complex) in 9 months by natural forces of chemistry.

Premise 4: Whether he did so or not, God certainly has the ability to create a system in which animals can evolve into other species.

Conclusion: Using complexity to argue against evolution is a bad argument.

Better?

Larsinger58

Christ was prophesied to appear in the flesh in the body of the prodigal son sometime in 1992-1993. That happened. I'm the Christ. I saw and spoke with God. So from my perspective, I'm not in a position any more to speculate whether the God of the Bible is real or not. He actually exists.

But my personal experience and personal contact with God is just that, personal and not transferable. Thus I believe in God because of direct manifestation but others continue to doubt based on the fact that God is not revealing himself this directly to them.

Thus atheism prospers because of the concept that God doesn't exist and isn't manifesting himself to others. But in fact, God could be manifesting to many others, but if they are sworn to secrecy, then the atheist will still presume God does not exist based on just his personal knowledge of the absence of God in the world at this time.

So in conclusion, I don't blame atheists for being atheists, but God has taken his elect out of that loop as far as linking evolution and other atheistic issues with whether God exists are not. We may not be able to explain around the evidence for evolution, but it doesn't matter because we have an independent confirmation of the existence of God, so it just doesn't affect our worship. We can table the questions to some other time. It doesn't challenge our faith at all which has been confirmed by God's direct interaction with us.

Plus, God doesn't seem that interested in trying to convert someone who had already made up their mind not to believe in God. In fact, he goes out of his way to make it even easier to believe there is no god!

ACTS 13:41 "Behold it, you scorners, and wonder at it, and vanish away, because I am working a work in your days, a work that you will by no means believe even if anyone relates it to you in detail."

I'm fortunate to know for sure, I realize that.

steve2

Why would you need to help JWs wake up? If they're happily snoozing, leave 'em be, I say. Your use of the 'logic' of reasoning

presumes that is a potential way to wake them up; however, your approach could aid them into a deeper slumber. Have you thought of that? You would not be the first person devastated to see your target audience slump over with boredom at the intricacies of well constructed arguments.

As any effective marketer would tell you: To reach your target audience, you've got to create a need.The best way to do this is to speak to their emotional needs. I recommend some introductory books on the principles of marketing and persuasion and fewer excursoons into sleep-inducing Reasoning.

bohm

goddidit: God has the ability to do any number of things, that does not provide an argument he did any one in particular. A JW could argue that god would have made the world in the fashion which was most compatible with his overall plan and intent; hundreds of milliions of years of suffering or design?

He could also argue from the bible; "god tells us how he made the world"

or he could argue the complexity of life show the best explanation is intelligent design and not "chance". This hold true regardless of God being able to arranged nature to produce life.

Better yet, a jw would jump between all three objections.

jwfacts

A baby is one of the strongest arguments for evolution IMO. It shows that a code can evolve life.

For people that may counter that God is the source of that life, is God's spirit really responsible for the formation of the child? If he is, is his spirit responsible for children with birth defects? No. So a baby actually evolves from a single cell into a complex organism through genetic code.

DesirousOfChange

LARS: I'm the Christ.

Then, please go feed the hungry and heal the sick and quit wasting time f***ing off on this anti-cult bulletin board.

Oh.......and please PM me for the first couple of resurrections you intend to perform.

[Sorry for the minor "highjacking" of the thread, but really, this doesn't deserve one of its own.]

Doc

BluesBrother

Definition:

"Macroevolution refers to evolution at a grand scale. It focuses on the progression of species or entire clades from a common ancestor to descendent clades over the course of numerous generations."

On this basis your logical argument does not address "evolution" . Your premises support the complexity of living things but do not show a change to another species. Any Witness could agree with all three premises and see creation at work.

NB Dubs do not support the fundamentalist old fashioned view that all sub-species, even species, were individually created. Adaptation is acknowledged

Bad argument

Share this