The worst argument in the world?

[markeverett49]

The late Australian philosopher David Stove announced a contest some years ago to find the world’s worst argument. Each submission was to be judged by the same two criteria: 1) the badness of the argument and 2) its acceptance by philosophers. (In effect, Stove sought the worst argument with a wide following.) Despite the many submissions he received, Stove gave the prize (-I’m not sure there actually was a prize other than being declared the winner) to himself for submitting the following specimen:

We can know things only as they are related to us,
under our forms of perception and understanding,
insofar as they fall under our conceptual schemes,
etc.
So, we cannot know things as they are in themselves.<<<<<<

Here’s a link to an article about Stove’s discovery of the world’s worst argument.
web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/worst.html

That settled, which arguments do you think might rate a “dishonorable mention”?

 

[Semper_Zelare]

A tree doesn’t make a sound in the forest if we are not there to hear it.

Or… maybe this one rather popular with atheists today:

We can’t prove anything because we could just be a brain in a jar somewhere… and we’re basically living in the Matrix. Therefore there’s NOTHING we can know for certain.

 

[sedonaman]

… there’s NOTHING we can know for certain.

How would we know that?

 

[George_Stegmeir]

All that the above says to me is that self-styled philosophers-whether or not they are Academics- need publicity to justify their mere existance. Other than that, who cares? When was the last time any secular “philosopher” contributed anything towards your material or spiritual existance?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

A tree doesn’t make a sound in the forest if we are not there to hear it.

If NOBODY, plant, animal, or human, is around to hear it, a tree makes no sound. Sound is how our brain interprets vibrations detected by our eardrum. With no ears around to translate the vibrations into what we know as sounds, they remain what they are-vibrations, and nothing more. No sound.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Or… maybe this one rather popular with atheists today:

We can’t prove anything because we could just be a brain in a jar somewhere… and we’re basically living in the Matrix. Therefore there’s NOTHING we can know for certain.

Strawman!

I got one:

Atheists only choose to not believe in God because they don’t want to have moral guidance and don’t wish to be held accountable for their actions.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Atheists only choose to not believe in God because they don’t want to have moral guidance and don’t wish to be held accountable for their actions.

That’s not an argument, though. Perhaps if you formulated it like this:

1. ALL atheists (I’m sure this is true of SOME, just like some people are only religious because they’re afraid of Hell or some such thing) don’t want moral guidance or to be held accountable for their actions.
2. God provides moral guidance and accountability for people’s actions.
3. Therefore atheists choose not to believe in God.

THEN you may have one of the worst arguments in the world.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Our “brain in a jar” argument can probably be reformulated a bit better too:

1. There exists the possibility that we are merely brains in a jar somehow having experiences artificially implanted.
2. Therefore since this exists as a possibility we can no longer be sure that anything exists but our own minds.

I’m enjoying myself.

 

[sedonaman]

The taxpayers are not really paying academics anything to come up with these arguments.

 

[markeverett49]

When was the last time any secular “philosopher” contributed anything towards your material or spiritual existance?

Well, there’s David Conway, who wrote “The Rediscovery of Wisdom,” which focuses on the classical conception of philosophy and particularly Aristotle’s argument for a prime mover. This book shaped the thinking of “notorious atheist” Antony Flew, who came, late in life, to believe there is a God. I think that’s a grand contribution. (Conway’s book also helped me understand Aristotle better.)

David Oderberg’s book “Real Essentialism” is a marvel, treating “essentialism” with depth and nuance. I’ll have to re-read it because parts were over my head but I think it’s a bracing defense of realism, which many philosophers deny.

I could go on, but that’s a start.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

If NOBODY, plant, animal, or human, is around to hear it, a tree makes no sound. Sound is how our brain interprets vibrations detected by our eardrum. With no ears around to translate the vibrations into what we know as sounds, they remain what they are-vibrations, and nothing more. No sound.

God is omnipresent. Are you saying that He can’t hear?

… Yeah, I didn’t think so. Nice try though.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

God is omnipresent. Are you saying that He can’t hear?

… Yeah, I didn’t think so. Nice try though.

Nobody is in a room.

God is omnipresent. Are you saying He’s not in a room?

…Yeah, I didn’t think so.

I think it’s pretty obvious that we were referring to sounds as we understand them, if you want to act sarcastic about it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

God is omnipresent. Are you saying that He can’t hear?

… Yeah, I didn’t think so. Nice try though.

Wait a minute-this is totally wrong anyway! I said, as a thought experiment, specifically NOBODY was in a room-God included, since He would be included in the “Nobody”.

 

[Bradski]

Good thread Mark.

The number one has to be any argument associated with Creationism.

Then some arguments used to decry evolution: There are still monkeys, therefore we cannot have descended from them; there are no transitional fossils; there’s no crocaduck etc.

Children die of cancer, therefore there is no God.

Ray Comfort and his banana argument.

Lots more, but I have to mention one that came up last week in a thread on another forum. The discussion was gay marriage, the slippery slope argument was brought out and it included paedophilia and bestiality. ‘Consenting adults’ was used to try to discount such acts: an animal can’t give consent to sex. The argument was: ‘Yes it can. You can’t say it isn’t giving consent if it isn’t struggling’.

 

[atheistgirl]

Atheists can’t chose to give up their life for someone out of love for that person, or sacrifice their life in the service or protection of others, out of love, because, well, because they’re atheists.



Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

A man can marry a man, and this is legal.

A woman can marry a woman, and this is legal.

Therefor there is nothing wrong under the law with me marrying my mother/father/child/dog/cat/rabbit/car/purse.

 

[markeverett49]

Good thread Mark.

Then some arguments used to decry evolution: There are still monkeys, therefore we cannot have descended from them; there are no transitional fossils; there’s no crocaduck etc.
.

Funny you should mention evolution. David Stove, the philosopher mentioned in the OP, was not a religious man at all, period. But he wrote a good book called “Darwinian Fairytales” that pointed out many common evolutionary claims that are obviously false. Here’s his short list, though I recommend the book for a full treatment.

s8int.com/darwinian-stove.html

 

[Bradski]

Funny you should mention evolution. David Stove, the philosopher mentioned in the OP, was not a religious man at all, period. But he wrote a good book called “Darwinian Fairytales” that pointed out many common evolutionary claims that are obviously false. Here’s his short list, though I recommend the book for a full treatment.

s8int.com/darwinian-stove.html

Here’s a quote from his publisher:

He is a theological skeptic who admits Darwin’s great genius and acknowledges that the theory of natural selection is the most successful biological theory in history.

What Stove argued against is what he might have described as ‘social darwinism’ probably better described now as evolutionary psychology. Plenty of contentious stuff in that area, but it doesn’t detract from evolution itself.

I’d suggest that if anyone uses the term ‘darwinism’ in a negative context, they are not talking about evolution as we know it today.

 

[Bradski]

Atheists can’t chose to give up their life for someone out of love for that person, or sacrifice their life in the service or protection of others, out of love, because, well, because they’re atheists.

Case in point, not a few minutes old:

Oh I see you’re an atheist…what the heck are you talking about…there is no love, or you…there are just temporary arrangements of atoms.

An atheist can’t love.

 

[atheistgirl]

Case in point, not a few minutes old:

Too funny

By the way, I loved your responses

Sarah x