A very good article about arguments used on the ICR website to prove the existence of God – and how they can be refuted.
ICR stands for the Institution for Creation Research, probably one of the most famous – or rather notorious – sites on the internet, promoting creationism and other religious true believer bullshit.
Rounaqb is, as I have written before, an unusually clever blogger and, as such, also good at logical reasoning, which you all can see, if you read his newest blog article, which is now reblogged my me.
Because the most important of the ICR God arguments revolves round cause and effect, I think my own comment, given in the comment field below rounaqb’s blog, can be seen as a kind of summary of what is at issue here (at least some aspects thereof). So I choose to re-use the content of my comment also here in this “introduction”, to my own readers, of rounaqb’s refutation arguments.
I wrote: If something has a cause it’s pretty easy to believe that this same cause also has a meaning.
Why being a cause without having a meaning as well?
Being a cause, which is often bothersome in itself, without any meaning at all, wouldn’t that be “meaningless”, almost a waste of time and energy?
I think evolution has given us a brain that is constantly searching for causes. AND, therefore, meaning, too
If you can’t find any visible cause while looking around you, then the brain tries to invent Hidden Causal Agents (HCAs).
Your brain seems to prefer HCAs capable of also conveying, at the same time, an “attached” message of meaning.
It looks, according to your brain, like the HCA does this to you to reward or punish you.
Thereby you can imagine – and feel – there is a locus of control located inside yourself. Or in other words, it seems, at last partly, that it’s up to you if the HCA causing/originating the cause will choose to reward, or punish, you for your deeds.
When in doubt, you can always ask the sage of your tribe/group/community.
That sage has often many similarities to a medicin man, a shaman or a priest (a.k.a. god interpreter).
With that said, I hope you are going to acquaint yourselves with rounaqb’s own arguments.
I’m sure you won’t be disappointed.
Googling ‘evidence for God’, the first suggestion Google gives(at least in my location) is the official website of The Institution for Creation Research. The title seemed quite interesting to me, probably because I thought that here I will get most of typical theistic arguments, well presented. It didn’t disappoint me in that sense. I got what I expected. There are three ‘lines of evidences’ ICR has proposed. The law of causality, “the triune universe” and “design and purpose”. So, I am introducing this series, through which I will try to refute the proposed arguments from ICR. So, let’s begin.
1.Everything has a cause.
The article starts with “In ordinary experience, one knows intuitively that nothing happens in isolation”. This statement is true, as it clearly mentions ‘ordinary experiences’ and ‘intuition’. Of course, our ordinary experiences always tell us the an effect must have a cause, like…
View original post 622 more words