They make a vast difference to those who live in Marxist regimes…
Well “existential” just describes the content of the premises, not the structure of the argument those premises find themselves in. You can take nearly any set of premises and put them into a deductive argument. Swinburne is just saying these teleological arguments can’t make good deductive arguments: logically valid arguments whose premises are relatively uncontroversial.
Even if we grant this, it doesn’t follow that an explanation should be expected of atheists now. They typically work from the bottom up with their explanations.
I don’t think talk of probabilities like this makes sense. I deny the principle of indifference (and the variations of it I’ve seen…like in Robin Collins’ piece in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology).Compatible but extremely improbable when extreme complexity is taken in conjunction with purposeful activity. The onus is on the proponent of non-Design to explain how extreme complexity taken in conjunction with purposeful activity originated…
An infinite regression is logically possible but can you imagine any scientist abandoning research on the ground that there may be an infinite regression of causes?
That is a very poignant point. There are multiple proofs for the existence of God: from Aquinas, Anselm, Descartes, and Spitzer, to name a few. One can reject them, of course, which the non-theist does. But, there are really no coherent proofs for the non-existence of God for the theist to reject!
Nim:Ask them what the end result of (a Godless) Evolution will be with the incorporation of mechanical devices and the CPU chips that Scientists are inserting into brains for improved memory etc. . Will we all end up like Darth Vader? Will we all end up as Cyborgs? Perhaps completely Robotic. I have discussed this with many Atheists and many think this is mighty fine with them.
Perhaps, but I don’t think the atheist will be bothered by that.
Of course.
I’m not sure I follow.If that is the case cosmology is nonsense…
I suppose personal struggles have more of an impact on how much one does or does not care about these things. To people to which I spoke have more concern with things such as retaining current or seeking new employment, matters concerning their children’s grades, and so on. Matters of philosophy don’t seem to get high priority for their mental bandwidth.
But you can invite them to join you at a different one.
Depending on what you mean by “debate” - you may have demonstrated my point. It usually implies winning a argument.
I wouldn’t worry about turning tables or winning arguments with atheists.
Perplexity:
Well said, I agree. But, I’m not sure the objectivity of a purpose for life crosses the average Joe’s mind. Certainly, we’re all about purposes though.
Cute, but not comparing like with like. The reason you don’t spend more time talking about the tooth fairy is because you don’t run across many people who believe in the tooth fairy. Were there as many people believing in the tooth fairy as believe in God, I bet you’d find yourself in more of those conversations.
Shredderbeam:
Uncompelling, to say the most.
Why, Being, of course. But, this would no doubt be trivial to the non-theist as the thinking sapien (to borrow someone’s handle) has the relative specialness of a tree, and maybe less.
How many elements are on the Chart of Elements? Which of them, by themselves, or in combination, is sufficient reason for the existence of living being(s)? Of course you will point out that life formed spontaneously. But, in order for that to be a sufficient reply to Tonyrey’s incessant question, you will have to admit that the process was started by unadulterated chance, with no asymmetrical directedness whatsoever, by inert chemicals. That it occurred in this way is highly, highly, highly improbable. (And we haven’t yet mentioned the creation of what, about 20, give or take, exquisitely fine, fine, fine-tuned anthropic necessities.)
Yes, I know, I just wanted to protect that point.
But, perhaps neither of us should take the average Joe in too much disregard. Recall, there are almost 7 billion people on the planet. Half of them are kids. So, there’s about 3.5 billion adults. Allowing for no non-theist children, as kids are more than likely areligious, at that age, there are estimated to be only about 200 hundred million professing Atheists. (Of the half billion professing non-religious people, 300 million claim to be agnostic.) The average Joe is buried somewhere in the middle of 3 billion religious, or pseudo-religious people on Earth. So, nearly half of the adult population on earth have had teleological thoughts, that is if we postulate that the other half are not in any way akin to Christianity.Sure, big difference lol. I don’t think these statistics affect my point though. That is, I don’t think atheism’s inability to offer an objective purpose for life is good reason to doubt atheism. But, perhaps I should narrow my claim since none of us are really in a position to know what the average Joe thinks.Yes, I know, I just wanted to protect that point.
jd
Actually, many years ago, when I was following my atheistic leanings, I believed that the end of man was merely a natural end. That our bodies were recycled. That the power was shut off. That there would be no more thought or awareness. That the most poignant thing would be to be missed (hopefully). Like a bug.