# The theological strawman game. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 19, 2002, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835 "2002-12-19T17:37:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/1 "2002-12-19T17:37:16Z")
Possibly this is IMHOish, but it involves religion. Here are the rules: You take a fallacious argument for or against theology, and explain why it is wrong. I hope to be able to skim out some of the weaker arguments and leave future religious debates richer and meatier. Ex: Pascal’s wager: If you believe, and God exists. If you don’t believe, and God exists, you’re buggered. If god exists, it doesn’t matter either way. So, why not believe? Rebuttal: From the perspective of atheists, the threat of divine buggery is no scarier than being impaled by unicorns. Besides, there are many, many gods, many of which are exclusive. This means that you all will be just as buggered as we if you’ve chosen the wrong god. First cause/divine cause: Everything had to come from somewhere. Where did the big bang come from? Rebuttal: Did God have a cause? If so, what caused God’s cause? Repeat ad infinitum. If God didn’t come from anything (was always around), then things can exist eternally, and the universe needs no cause. Join the fun, and make theology debates better! ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/2 "2002-12-19T17:58:36Z")
“If God had intended for men to fly, he’d have given them wings.” This is fallacious because it takes as its basic assumption the fact that God intended other things to fly, so therefore He gave them wings, whereas Evolution teaches us that things that have wings have them not because God issued them at the moment of Creation, but because… …because… …because they just do, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/3 "2002-12-19T18:09:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\* > First cause/divine cause: Everything had to come from somewhere. Where did the big bang come from? > Rebuttal: Did God have a cause? If so, what caused God’s cause? Repeat ad infinitum. > If God didn’t come from anything (was always around), then things can exist eternally, and the universe needs no cause. > > \*\* If **Lib** stops by, he’ll say that being eternal is a property of only god, that not just anything can possess that property. Really, that response leads to some sort of pantheism where the universe is god, but it’s a response. Personally, I think the only rational response is that each event does have a cause outside itself (since that holds with our observations about causality), it’s all just a big circle, Big Bang, Big Crunch, _ad nauseum_. No need for anything at all to be eternal, except the system as a whole. Events/entities would all still follow traditional conceptions of causality. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/4 "2002-12-19T19:20:44Z")
**Rex** , that’s why i hate thinking about metaphysics, since any “original” thought I have has been thought by someone else. I , too, have thought about **Lib** ’s arguments and also concluded that his assumptions could be satisfied by pantheism as well as omnipotent theism. I dont really have a strawman to post, so back to your regularly scheduled in[s]anity… ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/5 "2002-12-19T19:49:08Z")
Curtain Rises. Assertion: Being gay is wrong because God exists and he says so. Conclusive Refutation: I don’t care how conclusive your evidence for either God’s existence or God’s opinions on homosexuality are: in the end you still have to make your own decision about what is right. You’ve made it, and now I’ll make mine: you’re a big dick. The End. ---
**Author:** ![davidw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@davidw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidw)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/6 "2002-12-19T20:12:13Z")
Assertion: Your arms are too short to box with God. Refutation: There is no conclusive evidence for the length of God’s arms. For all we know, he could have little tiny T-Rex arms. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/7 "2002-12-19T20:13:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ludovic \* > \*\*I , too, have thought about **Lib** ’s arguments and also concluded that his assumptions could be satisfied by pantheism as well as omnipotent theism. > \*\* It’s so tragic: **Lib** is really a Taoist (although a really bad one) but doesn’t know it. 😃 [Argument]: “Religion X has been followed by millions of people over thousands of years, so it MUST be right!” [Rebuttal]: If each generation carefully examined the beliefs and were convinced that they were correct, then the number of believers and endurance of the beliefs is suggestive, but not indicative. If everyone after the first people accepted the beliefs because those who came before them did, then the ‘value’ of the tradition is equal to the meaning and significance of the analytical methods used by the first generation. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/8 "2002-12-19T20:23:02Z")
I like your screen name, **Vorlon** (don’t know to what it refers, but I like it), but I think you ought to consider shortening it. As I’ve seen **Lib** point out, it royally screws up a page when you’re listed as both a thread starter and the last person to post to a thread. Not a big deal, and of course it’s your call, but that’s just my suggestion. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/9 "2002-12-19T20:25:59Z")
Oh, by and by, I had the same kind of reaction to **Lib** ’s ontological proof for God as “necessary existence.” “Okay, let’s say you’re right. I’m an atheist, and it doesn’t change a thing for me. The universe is necessary – I’m fine with that.” ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/10 "2002-12-19T20:41:06Z")
How do I alter the screen name? I don’t see any way to change it in my profile… ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/11 "2002-12-19T21:00:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide \* > **It’s so tragic: Lib is really a Taoist (although a really bad one) but doesn’t know it. 😃** That’s because the Taoist that can be known is not the true taoist…or something like that… 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/12 "2002-12-19T21:02:36Z")
You have to approach an Admin on bended knee to get your screen name changed. ---
**Author:** ![loinburger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/db5fbb/32.png) [@loinburger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/loinburger)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/13 "2002-12-19T21:03:57Z")
I’m not familiar with **Lib** ’s ontological argument. Is it different than the one that Aquinas deals with? **Vorlon** : My guess is that you’ve gotta email/PM one of the mods or admins to change your screen name. ---
**Author:** ![Drastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Drastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drastic)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/14 "2002-12-19T21:03:58Z")
> [@](#): > > How do I alter the screen name? I don’t see any way to change it in my profile… Assertion: with God, all things are possible. The Bible says that if you ask, it shall be given to you. Therefore, you may pray that your name be changed. Rebuttal: no matter how hard you pray to your Magical Sky Pixie, your screen name will remain the same. If you want it changed, you should just email one of the administrators and they’ll do so for you. Not only can they produce tangible results, but they also have coffee mugs. ---
**Author:** ![seal\_cleaner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@seal\_cleaner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/seal_cleaner)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/15 "2002-12-19T21:09:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RexDart \* > **If LibI think the only rational response is that each event does have a cause outside itself (since that holds with our observations about causality)** I believe causality is an inference, not an observation. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/16 "2002-12-19T21:13:41Z")
Assertion: If God is good, and the creator of all, then he would not allow the existence of evil. Since evil exists, God can not exist. Rebuttal a (the easy one): God, by definition, is infinite and his motives can not be completely grasped by finite beings such as ourselves. Rebuttal b: Evil may be necesary to lead to a greater, larger good. The infliction of pain may be considered “evil”, but if the pain is caused by surgery to save a life it may also be considered “good”. Assertion: God can not exist without a basic knowledge of what ‘God’ means. Otherwise we’re talking about a word. The word “God” has no refferent, thus any talk using that word is meaningless, thus there is no concept of God to prove or disprove. There is nothing. Rebuttal: One’s basic knowledge of an entity does not dictate that entities existence or non-existence. A blind man cannot see light, yet may still be sunburned by it. There are fish in the deep sea unkonwn to us. Their existence does not require our knowledge of them. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/17 "2002-12-19T21:13:49Z")
Catholics worship saints. Nope, wrong. Merely hold them up as examples of good Christians and something we should strive towards. Every word that comes out of the Pope’s mouth is infallible. Nope, wrong. The Pope must first declare is he is being infallible, and it’s quite rare. ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/18 "2002-12-19T21:21:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Neurotik \* > \*\*Nope, wrong. The Pope must first declare _is he is_ being infallible, and it’s quite rare. \*\* I do hope it is quite rare for the Pope to use _that_ line. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/19 "2002-12-19T21:24:51Z")
How do you know whether the Pope is fallible when he declares he’s infalliable? What if he’s mistaken? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/20 "2002-12-19T21:26:19Z")
— One’s basic knowledge of an entity does not dictate that entities existence or non-existence. A blind man cannot see light, yet may still be sunburned by it. There are fish in the deep sea unkonwn to us. Their existence does not require our knowledge of them.— I think you missed the boat on that one. The question is not whether or not there is some unknown entity out there (which, as it quite true, our knowledge has no bearing on), but whether we can discuss the existence of something in the abscence of any information about what it is (or how we could distinguish its existence from its non-existence). We can’t. The proper rebuttal is simply to define God in some operationally useful manner, which can most certainly be done for many sorts of Gods. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835.md?page=2)