|
ninetailschris said: I did a report on this in college for a paper it was really fun. If you want some peer-review work or other experiments I will gladly help. But as you can see the argument falls flat from here. But I like to add the God of the bible says it is possible that everyone can come into a personal relationship with him not that everyone will sadly. If someone rejects God's it's part of there free-will to do that if they wish. 4.No one is born resistant to God. But they can turn resistant by influence of whatever comes there way. 5. Nothing factual supports this therefor is an assumption. 6. 4 and 5 as stated have not proved there case and by the evidence it would suggest the opposite. 7. Deductive reasoning needs to be fully investigated before arguing anything like this. This why you rarely see anyone who are professional philosophers use an argument like this in a peer-reviewed paper. I had fun having this conversation I hope we can converse some more.
(Disclaimer Dr. Barrette isn't claiming that evolution isn't true. He is claiming a person raised neutrally is more likely to believe in creationist arguments than evolutionist. Manly believe it's less complex than the other.For personal note I'm a theist-evolutionist.)
Thank you! |
Ignorance is not a good argument for a belief in God.
Dr. Barrette's argument is rather elementary and riddled with sophistry.
Essentially: If we leave children to educate themselves, they will seek for an explanation for things rather than simply say well I don't know. And this type of logic will lead them to manifesting some sort of supernatural force or being.
This type of argument would lead to all types of examples of absurdities such as god controls the wind and the tides and the weather, all of which we know is simply untrue due to our education.
It is no coincidence that arguments from ignorance are commonplay with the religious.
By the way, apparently you missed Jay's clarification on "non-resistently unaware." (even though it's just a few posts above yours)
According to Wikipedia, its "non-belief that exists through no fault of the non-believer."
Supplant that definition and I suspect you'll struggle to argue against the posted logic.
