# 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:** 2
**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, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/21 "2002-12-19T21:32:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*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. \*\* Perhaps I phrased the original assertion badly, but what I was going for was a sneaky semantic variant of the obviously falacious “Unobserved = Nonexistent” argument. ---
**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, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/22 "2002-12-19T21:35:43Z")
Observation isn’t really the correct concept to use. If we substitute ‘Uninteracted’ for ‘Unobserved’, the argument becomes true. ---
**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, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/23 "2002-12-19T21:35:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by scotth \* > \*\*I do hope it is quite rare for the Pope to use _that_ line. \*\* Well, English isn’t his first language… > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Apos_ > **How do you know whether the Pope is fallible when he declares he’s infalliable? What if he’s mistaken?** Why do you think it’s so rare? ---
**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, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/24 "2002-12-19T21:55:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide \* > \*\*If we substitute ‘Uninteracted’ for ‘Unobserved’, the argument becomes true. \*\* “Uninteracted with = non-existent” is a true argument? How so? It seems even worse than the original. Additionally, how can you know of interaction without observation anyway? Or maybe I’m just misunderstanding you. It is conceivable that you meant the old “since God allows free will, and doesn’t interact with the Universe, it is irrelevant if he exists or not”. If so: Rebuttal: Can you see the wind? Senses are limited, and interaction may not be observable. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/25 "2002-12-19T22:59:39Z")
Argument: “Many more people believe in a supernatural deity than don’t. I conclude that the majority opinion is more reasonable.” Rebuttal: “The number of people who live in countries where they are unable to elect their leaders and affect their laws greatly outnumbers the population that is so empowered. Therefore I conclude that democracy is unreasonable and dictatorships are the natural order.” ---
**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, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/26 "2002-12-19T23:05:54Z")
Nope, **Cervaise** , that analogy doesn’t hold. You would have had to state that “Many more people believe that a dictatorship is the best form of government available than don’t, therefore I conclude that the majority opinion is more reasonable.” I don’t think this is the case. And were it the case, then your analogy _still_ doesn’t hold, because if that majority of people truly believed that a dictatorship is the best form of government when presented with the options, then wouldn’t that make it true? ---
**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, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/27 "2002-12-19T23:07:54Z")
Crap, I meant to continue: A better analogy for what you are trying to say is: Argument: More people believe in a deity than don’t, therefore a deity exists. Rebuttal: More people used to believe that the world was flat than didn’t, that didn’t make it so. ---
**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, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/28 "2002-12-19T23:08:05Z")
How bout this variation? A few centuries ago, the majority of the world believed the world was flat, that didn’t make it so. ---
**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, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/29 "2002-12-19T23:09:40Z")
Damn Simulposts… I guess Neurotik will find my acceptable, though. ---
**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, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/30 "2002-12-19T23:10:01Z")
Ha! I corrected myself before you did. ---
**Author:** ![Blivit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/90ced4/32.png) [@Blivit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blivit)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/31 "2002-12-19T23:10:58Z")
I was there in Jerusalem when they busted down the gates, and we killed every god damn one of them and we let out all our hate. Yeah , God sure is a bloody God, God sure is a bloody God, He knows how it is I guess so I do it for the lord. ---
**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, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/32 "2002-12-19T23:11:16Z")
The wording is so similar that it is scary… \ ---
**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, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/33 "2002-12-19T23:27:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beeblebrox \* > \*\*“Uninteracted with = non-existent” is a true argument? How so? It seems even worse than the original. Additionally, how can you know of interaction without observation anyway? > > Rebuttal: Can you see the wind? Senses are limited, and interaction may not be observable. \*\* I interact with the wind. It interacts with other things that I can also interact with. It is meaningful for it to say that it exists. The dimensional plane of Tralglubdalar does not interact with me, or anything I can interact with, directly or indirectly. It is meaningless for me to ask whether or not Tralglubdalar exists. It is fundamentally unreal to me. When I say that something exists, I assert that it can interact with me, directly or indirectly. When I say that something doesn’t exist, I assert that it can’t interact with me, directly or indirectly. ---
**Author:** ![Scupper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Scupper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scupper)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/34 "2002-12-20T00:49:55Z")
Assertion: God answers prayers. Rebuttal: Not mine. A: Your prayers are not pleasing to God because you lack faith, thus He chooses not to answer them. R: What if I pray for faith? Surely that would be something God would be more than willing to give me. A: You have to come into faith on your own. R: So God won’t help me if I ask him to? A: Yes, he will. R: But I asked him to! A: Well, you must not have enough faith … ---
**Author:** ![Azael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Azael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Azael)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/35 "2002-12-20T06:30:01Z")
A: I believe because I am making a leap of faith. That is my choice to make. R: That cannot be true for me unless I make some sort of leap as well. ---
**Author:** ![Azael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Azael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Azael)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/36 "2002-12-20T06:38:21Z")
Lifted from Michael Shermer’s **How We Believe**. Humans are moral and animals are not. We get this moral drive through God; without God there would be no reason to be moral. _What would you do if there were no God? Would you commit deception, robbery, rape, and murder, or would you continue being a good and moral person? If you wouldn’t, what does that say about you?_ ---
**Author:** ![Somnambulist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed655f/32.png) [@Somnambulist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Somnambulist)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/37 "2002-12-20T07:19:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Azael \* > \*\*Lifted from Michael Shermer’s **How We Believe**. > > Humans are moral and animals are not. We get this moral drive through God; without God there would be no reason to be moral. > > _What would you do if there were no God? Would you commit deception, robbery, rape, and murder, or would you continue being a good and moral person? If you wouldn’t, what does that say about you?_ \*\* Assertion: As humans we behave in a ‘moral’ manner because of and in order to appease God. This in itself is proof of God (implying it is the only explanation of such behaviour). Rebuttal: The existence of God is not the only possible explanation of such behaviour. It is mutually beneficial for us to live in civilised societies without the threat of deception, robbery, rape, etc. By agreeing to abide by the laws of society we enhance our own security and are deterred from acting immorally by the threat of social consequence. Civilised behaviour could have evolved naturally without a God and therefore is not a proof of His existence. (Alterniative rebuttal: long-winded debate about what constitutes moral behaviour. Do we actually act in such ‘moral’ manner, many animals manage to live in social groups without deceiving, robbing, raping and murdering each other, etc.) ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/38 "2002-12-20T07:38:58Z")
—Why do you think it’s so rare?— Eh? Feh? Mu. I don’t remember having an opinion on the Pope. Though it is an interesting question: if he’s normally faliable, how would we know that he’s infaliable when he says he’s being infaliable? How would HE know? —Perhaps I phrased the original assertion badly, but what I was going for was a sneaky semantic variant of the obviously falacious “Unobserved = Nonexistent” argument.— Well, sure, but who makes THAT argument? Sounds like you’re simply strawmanning the “I don’t observe, so I can’t very well believe” explanation of one’s lack of belief. And the people responding to you likewise don’t seem to be saying “I can’t detect God, therefore I know he doesn’t exist”- they’re saying "We can’t detect God, so how can we discuss the differences between his possible non-existence or existence? The response is simply “well, I detect God, subjectively.” To which one might respond “Okay, so you have an experience of God, I buy that… so what else did you want to discuss?” ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/39 "2002-12-20T15:46:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beeblebrox \* > 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. first off, you’ve got the argument wrong. it goes: a. god is wholly good. b. a wholly good being would prevent evil/strife when he could. c. god is omnipotent. d. god created the universe. e. evil exists in the universe. conclusion: ~a v ~c so either god is not wholly good, or god is not omnipotent. > [@](#): > > Rebuttal a (the easy one): God, by definition, is infinite and his motives can not be completely grasped by finite beings such as ourselves. so why should we even talk about him? surely if he defies logic, you can’t argue logically for his existence. you could go on and on about god’s definition of evil, but i don’t think this is the time to argue semantics. also, manipulating definitions to make arguments trivial is not very meaningful. > [@](#): > > 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”. surely an omnipotent being could create a world where the greater good is available without the “necessary evil”. i mean, he can do anything. he could perform the surgery without a single cut. or make the surgery unnecessary. or anything. > [@](#): > > 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. i think this has been clarified a bit. but it goes directly against your rebuttal a. if we are allowed to speak of god at all, surely we are allowed to use logic to attempt to understand him. ---
**Author:** ![Scupper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Scupper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scupper)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/40 "2002-12-20T16:54:24Z")
Assertion: The Bible is the Word of God, transcribed by human hands by His design. Thus everything in it is either a literal truth or an allegory by which He instructs us in our lives. Rebuttals (take your pick): 1. Which Bible? Which books of which Bible? The various version s of the Bible are assembled from books chosen by human religious leaders who simultaneously rejected others, based on their own convictions. 2. If God made men imperfect, what reason is there to believe that this document, written by men, is not imperfect as well? 3. If God gave the inspiration for the original writing of each book of the Bible, hasn’t every edit and every alteration taken the Bible farther and farther from God’s original message? 4. If God wished to convey His message, why did He need to reduce it to the level of allegory in so many places. Is He not able to sufficiently inspire his human transcribers to create a clear and unambiguous document that also reflects history accurately? 5. If any of the above references to allegory is incorrect (i.e. if one asserts that the Bible contains literal fact), why does so much of it contradict the evidence of science and common sense? Surely a loving God would not intentionally place evidence in our path contradicting His word. Or are we to believe that He not only requires us to have faith _without_ proof, but also to have faith (in His message) _despite_ proof to the contrary? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835.md?page=3)