Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Philosophy and God » Argument from incredulity

Argument from incredulity

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Argument from incredulity on Tue May 06, 2014 5:27 am


Argument from incredulity

Incredulity is based on human experience and on what we actually know. For example, the belief in abiogenesis can be strongly doubted, one can be skeptical of it, because it has never been observed and all proposals have lead to a dead end so far. So its more than rational to look somewhere else.  What has been observed is biogenesis, life coming from life. What we know is that the complexity in the natural world of living organisms is similar to, in fact much greater than, the complexity of intelligently created devices, such as the clock or the computer. You might implie that incredulity is an unreasonable position, but it is in fact a foundation for all critical thought. Sensible people do not believe things without evidence. Consider the opposite, credulity; there is no context in which that is not a pejorative word! Considering what atheists are willing to believe, can indeed be classed as credulous.

It is also quite proper for a person of one religion or philosophy to be skeptical of the beliefs of another one. The religion of naturalism, which is the basis of evolution, can properly be rejected by a biblical theist. The evolutionist system may be dominant in some parts of the world, but that says nothing about whether it is true. Many have looked at it and found it inadequate; they have found good reasons to be skeptical of it, especially since theism better explains very many features of the natural world.

When i say that something is unbelievable or inconceivable,  i give good reasons. If my whole argument were simply an unsupported statement of unbelief, you would have a good point; to say something is unbelievable without giving a reason is not a good argument. But the problem is that you oversimplify; you do not address the reasons for incredulity.

Incredulity is an argument of scepticism about a certain point of view, and the evolutionist and atheist are not innocent of using such an argument. Incredulity, doubt and scepticism about God and special creation, are implicit in every naturalistic explanation  about abiogenesis and many other facets of their  view points.

This kind of arguments are frequent :

  how can a perfect deity create such a messed up world? (translation: it is inconceivable that a perfect deity could create such a messed up world, therefore, since evolution is a theory of messed-up, random natural forces and actions, it must be true)
  how can (a certain part of a living organism, e.g., the human eye) be designed when it has this mistake or that problem? (translation: it is inconceivable that an intelligent divine designer could create that supposedly malfunctioning part of the living organism; therefore it must have been formed through random, unintelligent, natural forces, i.e. evolution)

All of these arguments could be accurately classed as arguments of incredulity. If no reason is given, any argument from incredulity is weak.

When a person accuses opposing arguments of
incredulity when they are actually guilty of it themselves, (disbelieving and
being skeptical of what is true and repeatedly proven) and they make attempts
to evade the current evidence and observation instead of dealing with alleged
evidence by refuting it and acknowledging that it exists.
IOW, my argument is not in disbelieving what is objectively factual, it is
actually your argument that is doing this in the face of what we DO observe.

Last edited by Admin on Sun Jul 26, 2015 8:10 am; edited 3 times in total

View user profile

2 Re: Argument from incredulity on Fri May 30, 2014 4:34 am


"Incredulous" basically means "I don't believe it". Well, there's a big difference between "not believing" that an actual animal, plant, phenomenon etc. *exists*, versus believing a certain "just so" story about HOW it came to exist.That is the THING that we are incredulous about - a *certain scenario* (Neo-Darwinism and abiogenesis , and that irreducible complex  biological systems, and coded , instructed or specified complex information could emerge naturally ) that's only *imagined* about how various amazing abilities of animals and plants happened all by themselves, defying known and reasonable principles of the limited range of chance, physical necessity, mutations and  Natural Selection. The proponent naturalism is "incredulous" that a intelligent creator/designer could exist, beyond and behind our entire space-time continuum, who is our Creator. But there is nothing ridiculous about that - especially if you can't personally examine reality to that depth - how do you know nature is all that exists ? What IS ridiculous (IMO) is trying to imagine a *naturalistic origin* of these things.  ORIGIN is not the same as OPERATION. To study how biology works today, is entirely different from giving a *plausible* account of how it came about to be in the first place.

If someone is giving you an *implausible* story of how something could have happened, you have every right to be "incredulous" about the story, until its shown how it's plausible.

There is a big difference between 'not believing' something that can be demonstrated every day, and 'not believing' something that has NEVER been demonstrated - ever - such as Abiogenesis or macro change .

THE proponents of naturalism are the ones who have the explaining to do, after they have removed (for purely philosophical reasons) all the abilities of Intelligent Agency (God) out of their toolkit. They are just left with primordial gases, and lots of time for things to bump around.

They are the ones who need explain all we see today, on the basis of that empty toolkit. Its not wrong  to ask that from them.

View user profile

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum