causality and uniformity in nature

[SkepticalGorilla1985]

I was recently proposed the argument that you can attribute creation/causality, and the uniformity in nature to god. Now it seems ive heard this argument from christian apologists in the past. And my question to everyone is how could a person respond to this argument. Ive read an acedemic paper about the causality and the logical impossibility of a divine cause. And it seemed like using this as a defence for a divine creator is a special pleading argument or just a logical fallacy. But i was having a hard time following the paper does anybody have a simpler explanation or response to this kind of argument.

[miniboes]

It really depends on how they phrase it. Iron chariots is always a good source:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_design

Another good idea is reading "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, or listening to the audiobook. He is quite good at explaining complicated things in an understandable way.

[brimstoneSalad]

It really depends on how they phrase it.

Right. Good advice.


Do you have an example? It seems like a very general subject, so it's hard to give specific advice about replying.

[SkepticalGorilla1985]

It really depends on how they phrase it. Iron chariots is always a good source:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... rom_design

Another good idea is reading "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, or listening to the audiobook. He is quite good at explaining complicated things in an understandable way.

It was put to me that there was no justification for the uniformity in nature with an atheistic world view and that you cant explain causality without god or a creator...

thank you I will check those sources out!

[brimstoneSalad]

It was put to me that there was no justification for the uniformity in nature with an atheistic world view and that you cant explain causality without god or a creator...

This just sounds like a bald assertion. Was any actual argument made?

When Christians say this, maybe you should just put to them:

There is no justification for god or a creator or any kind of theistic world view in the context of a universe in which causality exists.

[SkepticalGorilla1985]

It was put to me that there was no justification for the uniformity in nature with an atheistic world view and that you cant explain causality without god or a creator...

This just sounds like a bald assertion. Was any actual argument made?

It pretty much was just an assertion, i argued that because a position of skepticism is the default position that the idea of a divine creator was an extraordinary claim that required extraordinary evidence. and from then on it was "you cant explain causality, or account for the uniformity in nature..." nanananabooboo type childishness. so no wasnt much of an argument... but it did get me thinking about what kind of arguments there actually was there

[miniboes]

Your argument holds against that without any elaboration. "We don't know" is often the correct answer to a question, thus not being able to explain something is not an argument against atheism. It's better to admit you don't know than to make up an answer.

[brimstoneSalad]

Your argument holds against that without any elaboration.

Technically, yes, because the other didn't make any argument, just an unsupported assertion. However, it may not actually be very convincing to others.

It's better to admit you don't know than to make up an answer.

Is it really, though? Sometimes making the opposite assertion can be more useful.

Consider the fallacy of the middle ground.

One person says "God certainly exists" One person says "I don't know if god exists"
What's the middle ground between those? "God probably exists"?

It's not correct, but it's how many people think.