Language and Logic (General)

by David Turell , Monday, April 14, 2014, 15:23 (3655 days ago) @ dhw

ROMANSH (to David): Your general argument for god is that you cannot see how a universe unfolds as it does
> Is this not an argument from incredulity?
> Wiki
> and
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
> 
> dhw: The "incredulity" argument is most frequently used in a derogatory way by atheists (the link example is typical) who don't realize they are shooting themselves in the foot. Yes of course the design argument goes together with disbelief in the ability of chance to create the complexities of life and consciousness. And by the same token, when a theist points out that humans have failed to explain, let alone replicate any of these complexities, which suggests that they have been designed by an intelligence even greater than that of humans, the atheist will express his incredulity at the very idea of such a creative, non-human mind. And the incredulous atheist will probably not even realize that if he does succeed in explaining and replicating all these complexities, and duly collects his Nobel Prize, he will only have demonstrated that it requires immense intelligence to do so. Nobody knows the truth. So what is the "incredulity" argument meant to prove?-Yes, the complexity is what makes chance so incredible. As dhw so aptly points out, it is a simple dichotomy of chance vs. design. And simply put, logic tells us the more complexity is found the less chance for chance.