Re: Looking for constructive criticism.
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2021, 04:43:17 pm »
Sure, you could call it a Cosmological or Contingency argument. I don't really care what it is called. And we still have P1-P3 to fall back on.

Okay, cool. That makes more sense. As for P1-P3...

P1. God would have knowledge of what I need to stay alive.
P2. God would have the power to give me what I need to stay alive.
P3. I have what I need to stay alive.
C. Therefore, God exists.

The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. For example, what if you have what you need to stay alive (P3) from some source other than God? P1 and P2 need to be qualified with "Only God would have the power to give me what I need to stay alive."

That's an easy fix, of course.

Then this updated argument is vulnerable to all the objections to a basic Cosmological Argument. What if the basic building blocks of mater, energy, space, and time have provided you with what you need to stay alive?

I feel like your premises that you presented for my argument doesn't capture the desire aspect. It also doesn't give a negative premise for the argument.

I also made the wording as "would" which works in combination with the negative premise.

If those are in place i.e. the "would" arguments in combination with the negative argument, then we don't really need to bother with a cosmological or contingency argument at all.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2021, 04:45:33 pm by True Counterphobia »

1

Tom Paine

  • ***
  • 3101 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Looking for constructive criticism Experience.
« Reply #16 on: March 05, 2021, 11:28:40 am »
I have an argument for God's existence I would like to have looked at.

I call it the 'Argument from Personal Experiences'.

It goes like this:

P1. God would have knowledge of what I need to stay alive.
P2. God would have the power to give me what I need to stay alive.
P3. I have what I need to stay alive.
P4. If God does not exist, then there is no reason for me to stay alive.
P5. I have reason to stay alive.
C. Therefore, God exists.

How are P4 and P5 true in any sort of objective way? P4 is NOT true for me, and any reason I would give for believing P5 have nothing to do with God. There are also very plausible evolutionary explanations for why most people subjectively feel that P5 is true. I also don't see any logical connection between P1-3 and the rest of the argument.

2
Re: Looking for constructive criticism Experience.
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2021, 01:02:36 pm »
I have an argument for God's existence I would like to have looked at.

I call it the 'Argument from Personal Experiences'.

It goes like this:

P1. God would have knowledge of what I need to stay alive.
P2. God would have the power to give me what I need to stay alive.
P3. I have what I need to stay alive.
P4. If God does not exist, then there is no reason for me to stay alive.
P5. I have reason to stay alive.
C. Therefore, God exists.

How are P4 and P5 true in any sort of objective way? P4 is NOT true for me, and any reason I would give for believing P5 have nothing to do with God. There are also very plausible evolutionary explanations for why most people subjectively feel that P5 is true. I also don't see any logical connection between P1-3 and the rest of the argument.

If God does not exist, If there is no ultimate meaning to life, then there is not really a reason to stay alive objectively. You can say you are programmed to care about living, but that would just be an illusion.

I think I already covered why P1-P3 matter.

3
Re: Looking for constructive criticism Experience.
« Reply #18 on: March 07, 2021, 12:04:11 am »
I am going to reformulate the argument like this:

P1. Either God provides what I need to survive or it is an accident that I have what I need to survive.

P2. I have what I need to stay alive.

P3. It is not an accident that I have what I need to survive.

C. Therefore, God provides what I need to survive.

4

Mammal

  • ****
  • 5500 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Looking for constructive criticism Experience.
« Reply #19 on: March 07, 2021, 01:17:26 am »
As I already said, many people don't have what is necessary to survive. Arguments are not valid if they only apply to some people in some circumstances.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

5
Re: Looking for constructive criticism Experience.
« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2021, 01:25:26 am »
As I already said, many people don't have what is necessary to survive. Arguments are not valid if they only apply to some people in some circumstances.

But at the point that they are dead, it doesn't matter anyways, right?

Just because God gives life, doesn't mean he doesn't take it away as well. God cause things to live and to die. I could actually frame this argument about death as well.

6

Mammal

  • ****
  • 5500 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Looking for constructive criticism Experience.
« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2021, 01:40:59 am »
P2 is false. People don't all have what they need to stay alive.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

7

lancia

  • ****
  • 6123 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Looking for constructive criticism Experience.
« Reply #22 on: March 07, 2021, 05:20:38 pm »
I am going to reformulate the argument like this:

P1. Either God provides what I need to survive or it is an accident that I have what I need to survive.

P2. I have what I need to stay alive.

P3. It is not an accident that I have what I need to survive.

C. Therefore, God provides what I need to survive.

I think P1 is false. It presents a false dichotomy.

You seem to be implying in the second clause of P1 that our needs are fixed and independent of the environment in which they developed, such that it would be an accident if our environment just happened to provide for our needs. But our needs are not independent of the environment in which they developed. We have what we need to survive because we are suited to the environment in which we have developed.  A different developmental environment could have produced different needs in us. For example, our life could be silicon-based instead of carbon-based, or it could depend upon ammonia or methane as the common solvent instead of water.

Thus, given basic biological reasoning, one cannot logically say, as an alternative, it is an accident that we have what we need to survive.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2021, 05:32:23 pm by lancia »

8
Re: Looking for constructive criticism Experience.
« Reply #23 on: March 07, 2021, 05:45:48 pm »
I am going to reformulate the argument like this:

P1. Either God provides what I need to survive or it is an accident that I have what I need to survive.

P2. I have what I need to stay alive.

P3. It is not an accident that I have what I need to survive.

C. Therefore, God provides what I need to survive.

I think P1 is false. It presents a false dichotomy.

You seem to be implying in the second clause of P1 that our needs are fixed and independent of the environment in which they developed, such that it would be an accident if our environment just happened to provide for our needs. But our needs are not independent of the environment in which they developed. We have what we need to survive because we are suited to the environment in which we have developed.  A different developmental environment could have produced different needs in us. For example, our life could be silicon-based instead of carbon-based, or it could depend upon ammonia or methane as the common solvent instead of water.

Thus, given basic biological reasoning, one cannot logically say, as an alternative, it is an accident that we have what we need to survive.

I think these possibilities don't reflect reality. We are made of carbon and need certain things because those things seem to fit us. Saying "It could have happened another way" is postulating things we don't know about life or how that life could exist.

9

lancia

  • ****
  • 6123 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Looking for constructive criticism Experience.
« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2021, 05:51:18 pm »
I am going to reformulate the argument like this:

P1. Either God provides what I need to survive or it is an accident that I have what I need to survive.

P2. I have what I need to stay alive.

P3. It is not an accident that I have what I need to survive.

C. Therefore, God provides what I need to survive.

I think P1 is false. It presents a false dichotomy.

You seem to be implying in the second clause of P1 that our needs are fixed and independent of the environment in which they developed, such that it would be an accident if our environment just happened to provide for our needs. But our needs are not independent of the environment in which they developed. We have what we need to survive because we are suited to the environment in which we have developed.  A different developmental environment could have produced different needs in us. For example, our life could be silicon-based instead of carbon-based, or it could depend upon ammonia or methane as the common solvent instead of water.

Thus, given basic biological reasoning, one cannot logically say, as an alternative, it is an accident that we have what we need to survive.

I think these possibilities don't reflect reality. We are made of carbon and need certain things because those things seem to fit us. Saying "It could have happened another way" is postulating things we don't know about life or how that life could exist.

But that misses the point of my criticism. Our needs are not independent of the environment in which they developed. We have what we need to survive because we are suited to the environment in which we have developed.

So it would not be an accident if we have what we need to survive.

10
Re: Looking for constructive criticism Experience.
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2021, 05:58:36 pm »
I am going to reformulate the argument like this:

P1. Either God provides what I need to survive or it is an accident that I have what I need to survive.

P2. I have what I need to stay alive.

P3. It is not an accident that I have what I need to survive.

C. Therefore, God provides what I need to survive.

I think P1 is false. It presents a false dichotomy.

You seem to be implying in the second clause of P1 that our needs are fixed and independent of the environment in which they developed, such that it would be an accident if our environment just happened to provide for our needs. But our needs are not independent of the environment in which they developed. We have what we need to survive because we are suited to the environment in which we have developed.  A different developmental environment could have produced different needs in us. For example, our life could be silicon-based instead of carbon-based, or it could depend upon ammonia or methane as the common solvent instead of water.

Thus, given basic biological reasoning, one cannot logically say, as an alternative, it is an accident that we have what we need to survive.

I think these possibilities don't reflect reality. We are made of carbon and need certain things because those things seem to fit us. Saying "It could have happened another way" is postulating things we don't know about life or how that life could exist.

But that misses the point of my criticism. Our needs are not independent of the environment in which they developed. We have what we need to survive because we are suited to the environment in which we have developed.

So it would not be an accident if we have what we need to survive.

What I am saying is that it is not reasonable to assume life could have developed another way.

11

lancia

  • ****
  • 6123 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Looking for constructive criticism Experience.
« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2021, 06:06:29 pm »
I am going to reformulate the argument like this:

P1. Either God provides what I need to survive or it is an accident that I have what I need to survive.

P2. I have what I need to stay alive.

P3. It is not an accident that I have what I need to survive.

C. Therefore, God provides what I need to survive.

I think P1 is false. It presents a false dichotomy.

You seem to be implying in the second clause of P1 that our needs are fixed and independent of the environment in which they developed, such that it would be an accident if our environment just happened to provide for our needs. But our needs are not independent of the environment in which they developed. We have what we need to survive because we are suited to the environment in which we have developed.  A different developmental environment could have produced different needs in us. For example, our life could be silicon-based instead of carbon-based, or it could depend upon ammonia or methane as the common solvent instead of water.

Thus, given basic biological reasoning, one cannot logically say, as an alternative, it is an accident that we have what we need to survive.

I think these possibilities don't reflect reality. We are made of carbon and need certain things because those things seem to fit us. Saying "It could have happened another way" is postulating things we don't know about life or how that life could exist.

But that misses the point of my criticism. Our needs are not independent of the environment in which they developed. We have what we need to survive because we are suited to the environment in which we have developed.

So it would not be an accident if we have what we need to survive.

What I am saying is that it is not reasonable to assume life could have developed another way.

Life could have developed differently if the environment were different. Needs develop in accord with the environment. That's an important point that you continue to miss.

We have what we need to survive because our needs are suited to the environment in which we have developed.

Thus, because it would not be an accident if we have what we need to survive, the second clause of P1 is false.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2021, 06:14:03 pm by lancia »

12
Re: Looking for constructive criticism Experience.
« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2021, 06:18:35 pm »
Life could have developed differently if the environment were different.

My question is, "Based on what?"

13

lancia

  • ****
  • 6123 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Looking for constructive criticism Experience.
« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2021, 06:38:09 pm »
Life could have developed differently if the environment were different.

My question is, "Based on what?"

It's based on reality--i.e., on knowledge of organisms that live in environments very different from what we usually think of. For example, most organisms live on energy ultimately derived from the light of the sun. But there are deep-water hydrothermal vents in which sunlight is not the ultimate energy source. Sulfur compounds are the ultimate energy source for life there. The primary producers in that environment get their required energy through the process of chemoautotrophy (not photoautotrophy like primary producers on the earth's surface), and other organisms use these chemoautotrophs as food, forming a food web that does not depend on light from the sun.

Again, needs are suited to the environment in which an organism has developed. Thus, because it would not be an accident if we have what we need to survive, the second clause of P1 is false.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2021, 08:25:55 pm by lancia »

14
Re: Looking for constructive criticism Experience.
« Reply #29 on: March 07, 2021, 09:52:58 pm »
Life could have developed differently if the environment were different.

My question is, "Based on what?"

It's based on reality--i.e., on knowledge of organisms that live in environments very different from what we usually think of. For example, most organisms live on energy ultimately derived from the light of the sun. But there are deep-water hydrothermal vents in which sunlight is not the ultimate energy source. Sulfur compounds are the ultimate energy source for life there. The primary producers in that environment get their required energy through the process of chemoautotrophy (not photoautotrophy like primary producers on the earth's surface), and other organisms use these chemoautotrophs as food, forming a food web that does not depend on light from the sun.

Again, needs are suited to the environment in which an organism has developed. Thus, because it would not be an accident if we have what we need to survive, the second clause of P1 is false.

As far as I understand what you are saying is that life could be holey different. We don't have anything that looks like that in nature. All life on earth requires the same things. That's why it's not practical to say we could be helium creatures, for example.