From: 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Arguments for the existence of God ...
Date: 21 Jan 93 03:20:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan18.035249.27834@rp.CSIRO.AU> ahaig@rp.CSIRO.AU (Albert Haig) writes:

[much stuff deleted]

>The important thing about these arguments, which is often not appreciated by
>either thiests or athiests, is that they are inductive. Therefore,
>like any inductive argument, they can if successful only render the
>hypothesis (in this case that God exists) *probably* true.

[I felt a moral obligation not to delete that part]

>Here then are versions of two common arguments, the argument from design
>and the `first cause' argument, in that order.

>THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN: The universe we live in is a remarkable place.
>The conditions of the universe are such that they are just right for
>producing and maintaining intelligent life.

...as we know it.

[more deleted]

>Oxford philosopher
>Richard Swinburne tells the following story to illustrate the point. Suppose
>that a mad scientist kidnaps a man and ties him to a chair with a bomb
>underneath. In clear view is a clock. The scientist says that he is going
>out of the room to draw a card from each of ten packs of cards. Unless all
>ten cards are the ace of spades, when the clock strikes twelve the bomb will
>explode. Otherwise he will let the man go. Now the clock strikes twelve, and,
>to the mans immense relief, the bomb doesn't go off. Initially the man can't
>believe his luck and thinks that the draw must have been rigged. But the mad
>scientist says to him that he sould not at all be suprised, since if he
>had not drawn all aces of spades, the man would not be around to know about
>the fact or comment on its occurance. Who is right? I think the man in the
>chair.

How does a story about a known quantity (the mad scientist) apply
to a question of an unknown quantity (this "God" concept)?

next......

>THE `FIRST CAUSE' ARGUMENT: We have two options. 

Why only two?  This sounds like the "Excluded Middle" fallacy.

>One is that the universe
>exists uncaused, and the other that God exists uncaused and created the
>universe.

Why not an infinite sequence of creators?
Why not a finite sequence of creators?

> Now a basic principle in inductive reasoning is that the simplist
>hypothesis, all else being equal, is the most probable. The hypothesis that
>the universe exists uncaused, however, is decidely unsimple. Why just this
>particular universe and not any of the other possibilities? 

Why not this universe?

Or, to use a similar argument to yours... Why is the paperclip on
my desk in its current position?  There are an uncountable number
of positions it could possibly be in, so there is a low probability
that the paperclip is in its current position.  Therefore the
paperclip is probably somewhere else.


>On the other hand, the
>hypothesis that God exists uncaused is the simplest possible - a being
>infinite in power, knowledge, and goodness.

NOW WAIT A MINUTE HERE.  Up until now you have been dealing with
issues of creation, which I have not had a problem with (other than
the nit-picking I have done above).  Why are you bringing nouns
like "power", "knowledge", and "goodness" into it?

You, sir, are sliding into irrelevant topics.

In any case (to play along with your irrelevant topics), the
idea of an "infinitely powerful, knowing, and good God" is
most definitely NOT the simplest hypothesis.  Need I remind you
of the Problem of Evil and Can_God_Create_A_Rock_He_Cannot_Lift?

The <simplest> hypothesis would be to assume a <Creator>.
That's it.  No extra baggage like omnipotence, omniscience,
and omnibenevolence.


[rest deleted]
--
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Null - 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
                                               --------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc