[thomaskurian89]

Religious people go "There is so much complexity in the world, surely it couldn't have come out of nothing, so God exists". However, God apparently doesn't need a creator.

Why don't religious people recognise this fallacy?

[Agenda Suicide]

(Original post by thomaskurian89)
Religious people go "There is so much complexity in the world, surely it couldn't have come out of nothing, so God exists". However, God apparently doesn't need a creator.

Why don't religious people recognise that this is a fallacy?

This is sometihng I have found to be such a basic flaw but never answered adequately other than 'We don't know' or 'He didn't need to be created.'

[Alpharius]

Because God is "supernatural".

It's like playing the race/faith card.

[PandyAndy]

Special pleading; the creator doesn't have to be created for no reason other than they say so.

[ugk4life]

because thats the very nature of god - he is all powerful etc.

[Trollin]

(Original post by thomaskurian89)
Religious people go "There is so much complexity in the world, surely it couldn't have come out of nothing, so God exists". However, God apparently doesn't need a creator.

Why don't religious people recognise this fallacy?

Religious people tend to believe that God has always existed (i.e. he was never 'created') wheras atheists don't believe that our complex universe has always existed. So there isn't really a contradiction here.

[Alpharius]

(Original post by ugk4life)
because thats the very nature of god - he is all powerful etc.

There we go, the "supernatural" card...

[KingMessi]

(Original post by Agenda Suicide)
This is sometihng I have found to be such a basic flaw but never answered adequately other than 'We don't know' or 'He didn't need to be created.'

Exactly, which is such a stupidly weak argument it stuns me that they expect it to hold sway with anyone with functioning critical faculties.

(Original post by thomaskurian89)
Religious people go "There is so much complexity in the world, surely it couldn't have come out of nothing, so God exists". However, God apparently doesn't need a creator.

Why don't religious people recognise this fallacy?

Well, were they able to recognise this fallacy, they most likely wouldn't be religious in the first place...

[Trollin]

(Original post by Alpharius)
There we go, the "supernatural" card...

Well duh, by the very definition of religion you're going to find that.

[KingMessi]

(Original post by Trollin)
Religious people tend to believe that God has always existed (i.e. he was never 'created') wheras atheists don't believe that our complex universe has always existed. So there isn't really a contradiction here.

That may be the reasoning used to alleviate the cognitive dissonance that surely must occur from being religious today, but simply because they've postulated an answer to the contradiction doesn't mean it's at all logical. 'God has always existed' is a spectacularly nebulous, vague, untestable notion.

[Trollin]

(Original post by KingMessi)
That may be the reasoning used to alleviate the cognitive dissonance that surely must occur from being religious today, but simply because they've postulated an answer to the contradiction doesn't mean it's at all logical. 'God has always existed' is a spectacularly nebulous, vague, untestable notion.

And? If it is 'untestable' as you say then what you're admitting is that there's no proof either way. Therefore believing either option is equally valid.

[RollerBall]

Sac magique.

But then, who created the sac?

[G8D]

(Original post by Trollin)
And? If it is 'untestable' as you say then what you're admitting is that there's no proof either way. Therefore believing either option is equally valid.

I wouldn't argue equality of belief. There is evidence to suggest that things for which a god is deemed necessary can and have happened without any sort of intervention.

It's not yet watertight proof but it's certainly more than is present for the existence of a deity.

[KingMessi]

(Original post by Trollin)
And? If it is 'untestable' as you say then what you're admitting is that there's no proof either way. Therefore believing either option is equally valid.

No. It's not 'equally valid'. There may indeed not be conclusive proof either way, but one can always postulate the likelihood of an event/notion/etc based on prior knowledge and reasoning.

[Trollin]

(Original post by G8D)
I wouldn't argue equality of belief. There is evidence to suggest that things for which a god is deemed necessary can and have happened without any sort of intervention.

It's not yet watertight proof but it's certainly more than is present for the existence of a deity.

(Original post by KingMessi)
No. It's not 'equally valid'. There may indeed not be conclusive proof either way, but one can always postulate the likelihood of an event/notion/etc based on prior knowledge and reasoning.

Ok, maybe 'equally valid' was a poor choice of words. My point was that since there's no conclusive proof/evidence one way or another, and the notion is 'untestable' (There isn't going to be any proof one way or the other) then the OP's point is wrong, regardless of the relative probabilities.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Trollin)
And? If it is 'untestable' as you say then what you're admitting is that there's no proof either way. Therefore believing either option is equally valid.

I haven't seen my flat since this morning, so a number of things could of happened that I don't know about. Seeing as all possible options are "equally valid", then the probability that it has burnt down in the mean time is 50:50, right?

At least you're upfront about your trolling. I wish all religious people were equally honest.

[Alpharius]

(Original post by Trollin)
Well duh, by the very definition of religion you're going to find that.

Well, the troll has done what every troll would and fell for the bait. Here comes the rant...

Anything that is described as supernatural does not exist. Some will say that everything we cannot yet explain is supernatural, but this is not true. If this was the case, then bacterial infections 200 years ago would have been "supernatural."

What I'm saing is that everything that exists/can be demonstrated, even if so far not understood, is natural. Therefore anything that cannot be demonstrated to exist is supernatural (does not exist).

Therefore, whenever a believer claims their creator to be "supernatural," they are actually admitting this creator does not exist (without realising it, of course).

[KingMessi]

(Original post by Trollin)
Ok, maybe 'equally valid' was a poor choice of words. My point was that since there's no conclusive proof/evidence one way or another, and the notion is 'untestable' (There isn't going to be any proof one way or the other) then the OP's point is wrong, regardless of the relative probabilities.

Maybe the OP is incorrect that it's the 'ultimate argument', but I'm certainly inclined to agree that it is a logical fallacy to suggest that 'something can't come from nothing' to rebutt one group of people's explanation for the universe, then to in the same breath postulate that something can come from nothing in order to support your explanation for the universe.

[Trollin]

(Original post by py0alb)
I haven't seen my flat since this morning, so a number of things could of happened that I don't know about. Seeing as all possible options are "equally valid", then the probability that it has burnt down in the mean time is 50:50, right?

At least you're upfront about your trolling. I wish all religious people were equally honest.

I've already mentioned that 'equally valid' was a poor choice of words. All I meant to say was that it was a possibility and therefore the OP's statement about it being a fallacy. (And yes, honesty is the best policy )

[py0alb]

(Original post by Trollin)
Ok, maybe 'equally valid' was a poor choice of words. My point was that since there's no conclusive proof/evidence one way or another, and the notion is 'untestable' (There isn't going to be any proof one way or the other) then the OP's point is wrong, regardless of the relative probabilities.

You have misunderstood the OP's critique of the commonly used religious argument, which goes:

A: Everything must have a creator
B: Therefore the universe itself must have had a creator
C: The creator of the universe is the entity we call "God"
D: God does not have a creator

A and D are contradictory, therefore the argument is invalid. Normally religious people attempt to obfuscate this by saying something like "yeah but god is magic/unknowable/transcendent" but that's just bull****.