I've found myself in a creationism debate

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2005-09-22 02:03pm

I need a bit of help. My family can not seem to come to terms with my new found atheism.

The conversation last evening proceeded into evolution. My step father came at me with the argument that intelligent design is a fact, because the something had to create the universe.

I was at a bit of a loss for a rebuttal. I don't believe that a god or something with qualifications similar to that of gad created anything, but I just couldn't seem to get the point across that nothing "had" to create a universe.

I reviewed Mike's page
http://www.creationtheory.org/Database/Article2

But I felt it lacking in trying to express to someone that nothing had to create the universe. Any suggestions would be helpful.

The Nomad · Post by **The Nomad** » 2005-09-22 02:29pm

My step father came at me with the argument that intelligent design is a fact, because the something had to create the universe.

That's quite simply a Leap in Logic / Red Herring combo ( see the Essay "Debating Fallacies" ).

1) linking evolution to cosmology, which is a Red Herring
2) "since the Universe has a beginning, it must have been created, therefore it is proof of God's existence"

You find a rebuttal to 1) in the article you linked to.
For 2), see Leap in Logic :
"Our opponent makes an absurd leap from "the universe had a beginning" to "it must have been created by God". Why couldn't it always have existed, since time would not have passed before the Big Bang? Why couldn't it have been produced by natural processes in some other universe? Why must we leap to the conclusion that some sentient, omnipotent being created it out of his thoughts?"

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2005-09-22 02:31pm

Perfect, thanks.

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2005-09-22 02:39pm

My mother continues to go on about how people have always had religion and a higher being and that this must mean something. I can handle a counter to that on my own, its just bloody annoying.

It's a bit unsettling to see my family members in this light. I love them but its hard to accept that they belive these things.

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2005-09-22 03:07pm

Evolution doesn't care how life was initially created. It could be chance, probability, God, space aliens, whatever.Evolution is the study of how life has evolved (changed) over time. If the initial "life" came from bacteria in Xenu's urine that he pissed 3 billion years ago while visiting Earth, so what? Still doesn't stop the fact that evolution has taken place since then.

Aibogenisis is the study of how life got started (this work will be important is trying to figure out how likely is it that aliens exist).

Intelligent design is nothing more than saying "God did it" and then pulling a curtain down to disguise God (calling it a designer)

Steven Snyder · Post by **Steven Snyder** » 2005-09-22 03:16pm

Zed Snardbody wrote:My mother continues to go on about how people have always had religion and a higher being and that this must mean something.

I might mean something if humanity as a whole held on to one religion since the dawn of time...

But instead it means that many humans are either too lazy to seek the answers for their own questions and/or are terrified about the prospect of their own mortality.

Lucifer · Post by **Lucifer** » 2005-09-22 03:18pm

Zed Snardbody wrote:My mother continues to go on about how people have always had religion and a higher being and that this must mean something. I can handle a counter to that on my own, its just bloody annoying.

It's a bit unsettling to see my family members in this light. I love them but its hard to accept that they belive these things.

You can tell her it's because that is something she wants to hear. But there is a difference between what you want or expect, and what actually happens. I don't expect that would work, but that's my two cents.

CoyoteNature · Post by **CoyoteNature** » 2005-09-22 03:20pm

Its true people have always had a higher being in their lexicorn, its just such a multiplicity of beings, many of them having nothing to do with God and Christianity, etc. Each was quite certain in the rightness of their beliefs, nearly all of them fell by the wayside as a more agressive religion came along. If religion is that fluid, then a atheist might argue that they are all wrong.

As to what created the universe, one could go into the childlike argument what created God, and who created them, then a religiousos might say like Teilard proposed that God is outside of time and didn't need a creator.

Well then why not the universe too?

I doubt you'd win the argument, most religious arguments aren't about reason but about emotion; and who you grew up with how you feel about it. Rather then trying to convert them, just try to get them to accept your beliefs whatever their own beliefs on it to the contrary. And just leave it at that.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-09-22 07:26pm

CoyoteNature wrote: As to what created the universe, one could go into the childlike argument what created God, and who created them, then a religiousos might say like Teilard proposed that God is outside of time and didn't need a creator..

We could likewise argue that logically causality must be immune to itself without needing to be outside of time. Moreover ask them to show evidence that God is outside of time without resorting to circular reasoning.

CoyoteNature wrote:
I doubt you'd win the argument, most religious arguments aren't about reason but about emotion; and who you grew up with how you feel about it. Rather then trying to convert them, just try to get them to accept your beliefs whatever their own beliefs on it to the contrary. And just leave it at that.

You most likely won't win in the sense you won't convert them. Personally I think the debate is won when the opponent's data is shown to be incorrect or their logic fallacious. I also find the purpose of a debate is not to convince hard core people, but fencesitters. Since Zed isn't likely to have any fencesitters in this debate, all he can do is demolish the opposing arguments and if he utilises a mild form of SD.net style of debating the opposition may start feeling stupid.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2005-09-22 07:31pm

Zed Snardbody wrote:My mother continues to go on about how people have always had religion and a higher being and that this must mean something. I can handle a counter to that on my own, its just bloody annoying.

Appeal to popularity fallacy. And doesn't she realise that people who lived centuries ago were complete idiots so why would anyone appeal to anything they believed?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-09-22 07:45pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Zed Snardbody wrote:My mother continues to go on about how people have always had religion and a higher being and that this must mean something. I can handle a counter to that on my own, its just bloody annoying.
Appeal to popularity fallacy. And doesn't she realise that people who lived centuries ago were complete idiots so why would anyone appeal to anything they believed?

You could also just point out that people who lived hundreds of years ago believed that the earth was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, and that bloodletting was a feasible cure. Their intelligence is highly questionable, needless to say.