Mr. God-is-not-a-cause strikes again!

[conuly]

Today we went over some complaints against the teleological argument (um... basically creationism/intelligent design), the most popular, and obvious being the theory of evolution. We went over evolution, and Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is probably the correct one). And then he speaks up. Evolution, he says, is crazy. Darwin, he says, is crazy. Everybody who disagrees with him is, by implication, crazy, and if he says that again I'm smacking the crap out of him because it is FUCKING RUDE.

Once again, the professor (who does have a name, I'm sure) got irritated and said "we could've all been made by martians, that's one theory, but it means we have to assume the existance of martians" prompting the reply:

Martians do not exist. ALIENS exist, but not martians.

Nobody, at this point, could hold in the giggles.

I agree, the odds for extraterrestial life are probably greater than the odds against it. But, at the moment, we have no proof. We have more proof for the existance of God, and most people just take that on faith! And how does he know there are no Martians? Can he prove it? No more than I can prove there's no god.

It's funny, sure, but not as funny as it would be if we didn't have only a MONTH to learn the subject.

Comments

[redlami.livejournal.com]

I have to wonder why someone who is so sure of his faith even needs a philosophy class. I mean, every question that comes up, can then be answered "It's part of God's plan, and we can't expect to understand it" so why even bother trying?

What a pain in the ass.

[minkhollow]

If he's that sure there are no Martians, presumably he's been to Mars.

[dandelion.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but he's that sure that there's a God and I'm doubting he's been to Heaven.

[minkhollow]

Someone ought to ask him how he knows all this stuff.

[conuly]

Required course.

[conuly]

Maybe all the Martians were hiding?

[conuly]

...

*hugtackles your icon*

[eofs.livejournal.com]

Maybe they were on holiday in Arkansas.

[dandelion.livejournal.com]

Probably to avoid having to hear him give God credit for creating the universe, when blatantly the Martians did it. Always annoying to have someone else get credit for your work.

Seriously. If you had the whole of Mars to hide on, I bet you'd avoid people like him too.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

It's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, but quite possible to prove that something does.

So while we can't prove that God exists, there's no possible way to prove his lack of existence. Unless we DO prove that he exists, which belies faith, which will make him disappear in, as Douglas Adams put it, a puff of logic. Then we'll be back to square one.

I just felt like saying that. ^^

I had people like that in my philosophy class, I still can't fathom why. They had such moral absolutes and when confronted on them the world was wrong. Buh-wha?

[moroveus.livejournal.com]

Exactly! Why bother taking a course if you're not going to approach the material academically. I have some pretty hard-core beliefs, but I took a Phil. of Religion course and really enjoyed arguing both sides of the issue. What struck me as particularly bizarre about a lot of the pro-deity theories is that they all seemed to start off very carefully planned and logical, but then just devolve as the argument progressed. For example, Aquinas' famous First Cause argument:

1. Every effect has a cause. (OK, I follow you).
   
2. Every cause preceds it's effect. (Well, quantum mechanics is beginning to show that certain particles may actually move backward in time, but I'm still with you in a general sense, Aquinas ol' boy).
   
3. There cannot be an infinite causal chain. (Why not?)
   
4. So there must be a First Cause. (Umm...okay)
   
5. And that first cause is God! (Really? How'd you come up with that? Why isn't the first cause The Big Bang? Or Homer Simpson for that matter?)

[ladytalon.livejournal.com]

I teach intro geology. At pretty much every college/university, basic science is required. Geology is, of course, known as "rocks for jocks," so people take it because it's easy (at least, compared to physics, I guess). But I've had people take it because they're creationists, because they heard that phrase "know thy enemy" or something. They nitpick just about everything I say... Some people enjoy taking classes just to argue. =\

[redlami.livejournal.com]

I have to wonder why someone who is so sure of his faith even needs a philosophy class. I mean, every question that comes up, can then be answered "It's part of God's plan, and we can't expect to understand it" so why even bother trying?

What a pain in the ass.

[minkhollow]

If he's that sure there are no Martians, presumably he's been to Mars.

[dandelion.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but he's that sure that there's a God and I'm doubting he's been to Heaven.

[minkhollow]

Someone ought to ask him how he knows all this stuff.

[conuly]

Required course.

[conuly]

Maybe all the Martians were hiding?

[conuly]

...

*hugtackles your icon*

[eofs.livejournal.com]

Maybe they were on holiday in Arkansas.

[dandelion.livejournal.com]

Probably to avoid having to hear him give God credit for creating the universe, when blatantly the Martians did it. Always annoying to have someone else get credit for your work.

Seriously. If you had the whole of Mars to hide on, I bet you'd avoid people like him too.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

It's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, but quite possible to prove that something does.

So while we can't prove that God exists, there's no possible way to prove his lack of existence. Unless we DO prove that he exists, which belies faith, which will make him disappear in, as Douglas Adams put it, a puff of logic. Then we'll be back to square one.

I just felt like saying that. ^^

I had people like that in my philosophy class, I still can't fathom why. They had such moral absolutes and when confronted on them the world was wrong. Buh-wha?

[moroveus.livejournal.com]

Exactly! Why bother taking a course if you're not going to approach the material academically. I have some pretty hard-core beliefs, but I took a Phil. of Religion course and really enjoyed arguing both sides of the issue. What struck me as particularly bizarre about a lot of the pro-deity theories is that they all seemed to start off very carefully planned and logical, but then just devolve as the argument progressed. For example, Aquinas' famous First Cause argument:

1. Every effect has a cause. (OK, I follow you).
   
2. Every cause preceds it's effect. (Well, quantum mechanics is beginning to show that certain particles may actually move backward in time, but I'm still with you in a general sense, Aquinas ol' boy).
   
3. There cannot be an infinite causal chain. (Why not?)
   
4. So there must be a First Cause. (Umm...okay)
   
5. And that first cause is God! (Really? How'd you come up with that? Why isn't the first cause The Big Bang? Or Homer Simpson for that matter?)

[ladytalon.livejournal.com]

I teach intro geology. At pretty much every college/university, basic science is required. Geology is, of course, known as "rocks for jocks," so people take it because it's easy (at least, compared to physics, I guess). But I've had people take it because they're creationists, because they heard that phrase "know thy enemy" or something. They nitpick just about everything I say... Some people enjoy taking classes just to argue. =\

[griffen.livejournal.com]

Found you through a mutual community, and just from these posts, I think I love you. (grin) May I add you to my friends list?

[griffen.livejournal.com]

Intro geology? Ooo! I'm taking that class this semester because I've been a rockhound since I was a kid.

I know what you mean about people taking classes just to argue. I've had the "God is the first cause" folks show up in my anthro, sociology and geography classes. *rolls eyes*

[conuly]

Yes, you can. Though from these posts, I must give credit where credit is due. No, not to god - to his deranged follower. *sighs*

Mostly I'm more political.

[gentlesatyr.livejournal.com]

If you can prove something is logically impossible, you CAN prove it doesn't exist.

[bioillogical.livejournal.com]

Not everything that exists is based on logic. So just because something is a logical impossibility doesn't mean it's not an illogical propability. Also, something may be a logical impossibility on Earth, but we only really have knowledge OF Earth. Who's to say that things that are assuredly impossible here, aren't possible or even common in an entirely different environment? The universe is a VAST VAST place, and we certainly cannot say we know everything about it. So, it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

[gentlesatyr.livejournal.com]

I am not talking about "impossible" things like magic carpets. I am talking about LOGICAL impossibilities. Like a round square. And yes--you can actually say those don't exist.

[bioillogical.livejournal.com]

Prove to me that 112000 lightyears away, in some other solar system where telekinesis is as common as being woken up by your neighbour's car alarm here, 2+2 still equals four, and I'll agree with you. All you can really say is that within your own frame of reference, as far as you or anyone in your species can say, such-and-such does not exist. But really, humans are rather provincial. A thousand years ago, the Earth was-a flat, like-a pancake!

[active-apathy.livejournal.com]

Which is rather funny, since two thousand years ago, the Earth was convex. There's a passing reference to it in Pliny's Natural History.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

Found you through a mutual community, and just from these posts, I think I love you. (grin) May I add you to my friends list?

[griffen.livejournal.com]

Intro geology? Ooo! I'm taking that class this semester because I've been a rockhound since I was a kid.

I know what you mean about people taking classes just to argue. I've had the "God is the first cause" folks show up in my anthro, sociology and geography classes. *rolls eyes*

[conuly]

Yes, you can. Though from these posts, I must give credit where credit is due. No, not to god - to his deranged follower. *sighs*

Mostly I'm more political.

[gentlesatyr.livejournal.com]

If you can prove something is logically impossible, you CAN prove it doesn't exist.

[bioillogical.livejournal.com]

Not everything that exists is based on logic. So just because something is a logical impossibility doesn't mean it's not an illogical propability. Also, something may be a logical impossibility on Earth, but we only really have knowledge OF Earth. Who's to say that things that are assuredly impossible here, aren't possible or even common in an entirely different environment? The universe is a VAST VAST place, and we certainly cannot say we know everything about it. So, it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

[gentlesatyr.livejournal.com]

I am not talking about "impossible" things like magic carpets. I am talking about LOGICAL impossibilities. Like a round square. And yes--you can actually say those don't exist.

[bioillogical.livejournal.com]

Prove to me that 112000 lightyears away, in some other solar system where telekinesis is as common as being woken up by your neighbour's car alarm here, 2+2 still equals four, and I'll agree with you. All you can really say is that within your own frame of reference, as far as you or anyone in your species can say, such-and-such does not exist. But really, humans are rather provincial. A thousand years ago, the Earth was-a flat, like-a pancake!

[active-apathy.livejournal.com]

Which is rather funny, since two thousand years ago, the Earth was convex. There's a passing reference to it in Pliny's Natural History.