"It's not random, therefore God did it." (hell, quote, evolution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When proving God's existence, theists often use arguments along the line of "It's not random, therefore God did it".
This is a fallacious way of making an argument (aside from other problems). "random" and "God did it" are not "mutually exclusive and exhaustive" events, so they are not either one or the other.
Then, what are "mutually exclusive and exhaustive" events? "God did it" and "God did not do it"; or "random" and "not random" -- but not cross-mixing of them.
God has always been used as an explanation for something we didn't understand at a certain point in time. That's why "God did it" actually made sense to people centuries ago when they experienced thunder and lightning and didn't have a clue what it was. As more and more natural phenomenon have become explained there seems to be much less for God to do but of course there are still many unknowns in our universe and that's where believers will insert God as an explanation.
When we listen to creationists trying to present their point of view I don't think there's as much emphasis on randomness as there is on probabilities and by that I'm referring to the fact that they assert that the possibility that complex life could have originated on it's own is impossible because life is just too complex and there's too many things that we don't understand. Of course this is just a misunderstanding of evolution.
From my point of view the universe and the origins of life are actually based on random events and there is no design or purpose involved at all.
I don't know if you understand the logic rules I explained. That type of logical deductions got problems -- it's like you've made math errors, then things don't add up.
So Carl Sagan claims there is no God (in a way about the randomness substantiality). Heaven and Hell on the other hand are the stability of certain truths from the nineteenth century civilized MAN.
This is a fallacious way of making an argument (aside from other problems). "random" and "God did it" are not "mutually exclusive and exhaustive" events, so they are not either one or the other.
Yeah, this frustrates the hell out of me too.
If that is as broad a view of the world that can be had then I guess I can sympathize because that is an incredibly narrow view.
For example, there are some people who seem to think that The Answer To Everything can be found in the debate between Creationism and the writings of Charles Darwin. If that's all there is then why even bother thinking at all?
When proving God's existence, theists often use arguments along the line of "It's not random, therefore God did it".
This is a fallacious way of making an argument (aside from other problems). "random" and "God did it" are not "mutually exclusive and exhaustive" events, so they are not either one or the other.
Then, what are "mutually exclusive and exhaustive" events? "God did it" and "God did not do it"; or "random" and "not random" -- but not cross-mixing of them.
Cross -Mixing YES in a way, but remember, religion is a black and white issue, all or nothing (FOR EXAMPLE: If you do not believe exactly as we do, you are going to hell as quick as we can get you there)
I have had so many religious people tell me that their diety/religion is A Black and White issue, all or nothing, so in their line of thinking God did DO eveything because EVERYTHING is of God, therefore nothing is Random......
(Can God come over and change the Lightbulb on the front porch for me? Or by MY changing it, is God changing it THROUGH me? If so, why would God have me change it, being that it works just fine already ???!!! Or does God know it is about to burn out and when it does, is the breaking of the filament inside and act of God, or just the natural physical degradation of the metalloid filament? )
One theory shows God did it, one says NO It just happens after time, one other theory does not care either wayhow or why, It just needs to be fixed....
Last edited by LargeKingCat; 02-12-2009 at 08:39 AM..
Reason: added something
When using sentences like "is not, therefore is", the two things must add up to a whole, and there is no intersection between the two things.
Example: "random" and "non-random" add up to a whole, and there is not interaction between them. That type of sentences will always work. "It is not random, therefore it is non-random"; "It is non-random, therefore it is not random". It's one or the other, but no both.
Same example can be made about "God did it" and "God did not do it".
Now, if someone want to establish something between "non-random" and "God did it", a separate logic deduction must be made, but that's not automatic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
