# 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:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/41 "2002-12-20T18:32:14Z")
> [@](#): > > 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”. Rebuttal: [http://www.mrlizard.com/catgod.html](http://www.mrlizard.com/catgod.html) Mr. Lizard takes an AK with dum-dum rounds to this argument. ---
**Author:** ![racekarl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6bbea6/32.png) [@racekarl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racekarl)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/42 "2002-12-20T19:07:00Z")
> [@](#): > > surely if [God] he defies logic, you can’t argue logically for his existence. Exactly, and I would say that a corollary to that is that you cannot logically argue AGAINST his existence either. This whole thread is an exercise in futility. Trying to debate for or against the existence of God using logic is like trying to get to the moon with swim fins. What does it matter if you can “prove” some argument is wrong? Despite its stated purpose I can see no other point to this thread than as some form of ambush where everyone waits for someone to assert that they believe in God and use one of the favorite “straw men” so the rest of you can jump all over him or her and feel smug about your superior intelligence. Bravo.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/43 "2002-12-20T19:40:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide \* > \*\*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. \*\* Radiation can interact with you, yet you can’t see, smell, feel, or hear it as our senses are limited. My rebuttal was that lack of observation of interaction does not mean lack of interaction. It is possible you are being interacted with but do not know it because you are unable to observe it. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by apos_ > **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.** Isn’t that the point here? All these are strawmen, it’s even in the title. As far as who uses that argument, check out **The Vorlon’s Ambasador’s Aid** > [@](#): > > _originally posted by robertliguori_ > **Mr. Lizard takes an AK with dum-dum rounds to this argument.** Then he needs to check the barrel on that Kalishnikov because he missed, and missed badly. The flaw is obvious; I’m suprised you didn’t see it. Maybe God doesn’t _want_ to communicate with us directly. If this is true, Herr Herpetology’s analogy collapses and his argument washes away like a poorly constructed sand castle. He’s saying that he knows what the God he doesn’t believe in wanted to do, and since God didn’t do that, He can’t exist. Doesn’t that seem a bit ridiculous to you? Additionally, the atheist’s desire to disprove the existance of God is pointless, as the scientific method itself says that this can’t be done. You can not prove a negative. Even if something _doesn’t_ exist it is impossible to prove it so. I’m pretty sure the Yeti doesn’t exist, but I can’t _prove_ it. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/44 "2002-12-20T19:47:53Z")
Oh, and I would like to clarify that I am **not** logically arguing for God’s existence, but doing what the OP requested and pointing out some atheist arguments I consider flawed. I am willing to give the participants the benefit of the doubt and sincerely hope that this is not an self-congratulatory ambush, as **racekarl** fears. If I find that I was wrong to grant the benefit of the doubt, I will not trouble with your childish game any longer. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/45 "2002-12-20T20:17:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ramanujan \* > \*\*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\*\* Cute. Except you have yet to prove that b follows from a. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/46 "2002-12-20T20:40:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beeblebrox \* > \*\*Radiation can interact with you, yet you can’t see, smell, feel, or hear it as our senses are limited. My rebuttal was that lack of observation of interaction does not mean lack of interaction. It is possible you are being interacted with but do not know it because you are unable to observe it. \*\* We can directly detect some kinds of radiation through our senses, but we can detect other types indirectly through its effects on things we can perceive (we develop radiation sickness, DNA is damaged, Geiger counters, etc). > [@](#): > > \*\*Additionally, the atheist’s desire to disprove the existance of God is pointless, as the scientific method itself says that this can’t be done. You can not prove a negative. Even if something _doesn’t_ exist it is impossible to prove it so. I’m pretty sure the Yeti doesn’t exist, but I can’t _prove_ it. \*\* If you can’t prove a negative, then we can’t prove that we can’t prove a negative. Proving a negative is proof positive of a logical error: nothing is ever proven about the world around us, only the worlds we create. ---
**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, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/47 "2002-12-20T23:14:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by racekarl \* > Exactly, and I would say that a corollary to that is that you cannot logically argue AGAINST his existence either. agreed. i never did argue against god’s existence. i recognize that it’s as futile as arguing for his existence. i CAN, however, justify my lack of belief in his existence, or lack of need for such a belief. i don’t see how that is futile. i accept as an axiom that logic is infallible. can’t discuss much of anything without it… i think this discussion is healthy. there is a lot of animosity on both sides for the other side. it tends to be a very touchy subject. by clarifying the points we agree and disagree on, and showing the logical errors in both sides of the argument, we can learn to accept the other side’s belief. provided they can justify it. ---
**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, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/48 "2002-12-20T23:18:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Neurotik \* > Cute. Except you have yet to prove that b follows from a. i didn’t say it did. that’s why it’s an axiom. it does seem reasonable, though, and i suppose it might be justifiable. my major problem with the argument is that it seems ludicrous to claim that an omnipotent being has any desires. or even can exist, noncontradictorily. ---
**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, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/49 "2002-12-20T23:23:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beeblebrox \* > Additionally, the atheist’s desire to disprove the existance of God is pointless, as the scientific method itself says that this can’t be done. You can not prove a negative. Even if something _doesn’t_ exist it is impossible to prove it so. I’m pretty sure the Yeti doesn’t exist, but I can’t _prove_ it. you can prove negatives logically. observe: p - \> q q -\> ~p therefore p -\> ~p therefore ~p. looking for a lack of something does prove somewhat tough though. but the desire (on my part, anyway) isn’t to prove the lack of something’s existence, but to show the logical flaws in some of the proofs of its existence. given some of the sets of premises, it is certainly possible. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/50 "2002-12-20T23:30:30Z")
> [@](#): > > Then he needs to check the barrel on that Kalishnikov because he missed, and missed badly. The flaw is obvious; I’m suprised you didn’t see it. Maybe God doesn’t want to communicate with us directly. If this is true, Herr Herpetology’s analogy collapses and his argument washes away like a poorly > constructed sand castle. He’s saying that he knows what the God he doesn’t believe in wanted to do, and since God didn’t do that, He can’t exist. Doesn’t that seem a bit ridiculous to you? To paraphrase Lizard’s argument, why doesn’t he want to communicate with us? There would be less FUD in the world if God explained Himself. He doesn’t. Therefore, God doesn’t care about the FUD count, and isn’t good by any stretch of the word. (Or, from my perspective, **isn’t** by any stretch of the word.) God has a reason for not explaining Himself? Why doesn’t he explain not explaining himself? Repeat till bored. And, the reason I started this thread was to weed out bad logical arguments both for and against belief in God. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/51 "2002-12-21T05:50:16Z")
**Robert** , all you did is restate Lizard’s argument. It still has the same flaws. Use your logic. Just because He doesn’t explain does not mean He does not care. You are making the same mistake Lizard did. “I don’t understand His reasons, therefore He doesn’t exist” isn’t an argument. God can not be anthropormophisized. _No one_ knows what He wants, so you have a logical gap when you say “therefore, God doesn’t care about …” You don’t KNOW what He cares about. You can’t. He’s God. It’s in His job description. You say you want logic; use it. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/52 "2002-12-21T06:42:08Z")
If you’re going to argue that God is beyond all logic, then you can’t assert that He has any properties other than that: He’s utterly beyond your comprehension. Additionally, if God cannot be anthropomorphized, you can’t talk about what He WANTS or THINKS or VALUES: those are all organism things. God is beyond it. If you don’t know what God cares about, you don’t know that He cares about you. We _are_ using logic. It remains to be seen whether you _can_. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/53 "2002-12-21T07:36:39Z")
**racekarl** was right. As soon as one man, me, took the theist side the thread has gelled to one side and one side, only. The criticisims of atheist strawmen aren’t even being considered, even though flaws are obvious. No logic is being used here, only prejudgement. Worse than arguing with the fundies. I refuse to play the “Is Not!” / “Is Too!” game. Good Bye. Enjoy yourselves. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/54 "2002-12-21T07:40:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beeblebrox \* > **racekarl** was right. As soon as one man, me, took the theist side the thread has gelled to one side and one side, only. The criticisims of atheist strawmen aren’t even being considered, even though flaws are obvious. No logic is being used here, only prejudgement. Worse than arguing with the fundies. I refuse to play the “Is Not!” / “Is Too!” game. Good Bye. Enjoy yourselves. one last thing before you go… cite? ---
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/55 "2002-12-21T10:06:55Z")
robert: > [@](#): > > To paraphrase Lizard’s argument, why doesn’t he want to communicate with us? There would be less FUD in the world if God explained Himself. He doesn’t. Therefore, God doesn’t care about the FUD count, and isn’t good by any stretch of the word. (Or, from my perspective, isn’t by any stretch of the word.) False dilemma. God does not have to choose between either eliminating strife or not caring at all about strife. There could be a reason for not communicating with us that is more important than eliminating strife. Given this, you have no basis for concluding that God is not good. > [@](#): > > God has a reason for not explaining Himself? Why doesn’t he explain not explaining himself? Repeat till bored. Huh? The first sentence answers the second sentence, so there is no need to repeat anything. Also, just because God has not explained himself _yet_, does not mean that he never will. Maybe after you die you get a nice long explanation. Vorlon: > [@](#): > > If you’re going to argue that God is beyond all logic, then you can’t assert that He has any properties other than that: He’s utterly beyond your comprehension. God is not beyond all logic. Nobody here has stated that God can do the logically impossible, such as creating a square circle. The reason why the arguments against God’s existence fail is that they are _not_ logical. Also, your argument here is illogical as well. It may well be that we cannot be sure that our comprehension of God is correct using logic. But that does not make it impossible that our comprehension of him is correct. If we come up with an idea of God through reading and prayer, we might be right. It is not “utterly” impossible. > [@](#): > > If you don’t know what God cares about, you don’t know that He cares about you. We cannot prove logically that God cares about us. But we can conclude that he cares about us based on our experiences. We can’t logically know that we are right. But we could be right. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/56 "2002-12-21T15:47:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nightime \* > \*\*God is not beyond all logic. Nobody here has stated that God can do the logically impossible, such as creating a square circle. The reason why the arguments against God’s existence fail is that they are _not_ logical. \*\* I would agree that God is not beyond logic, but as far as I can ascertain, neither you nor I have any logical reason for thinking this. Is logic part of God’s nature? I don’t know. If it is, then we can reason about the attributes and nature of God; if not, all we can say is that God is beyond logic and stop there. The arguments merely show that certain _kinds_ of Gods can’t exist (we’re drawing conclusions about God’s nature). They’re not attempting to disprove all “possible” Gods (although since we haven’t really defined what we mean by “God”, you could argue that this whole discussion is pointless. > [@](#): > > **Also, your argument here is illogical as well. It may well be that we cannot be sure that our comprehension of God is correct using logic. But that does not make it impossible that our comprehension of him is correct. If we come up with an idea of God through reading and prayer, we might be right. It is not “utterly” impossible.** It’s not whether we’re right or wrong, it’s whether we can know that we’re right or wrong, and justify our position accordingly. If I want to know what the ten-thousandth digit of pi is, I could pick a number randomly from zero to nine. It’s not impossible that I could pick correctly – the chance is one in ten – but until I calculate pi to ten thousand digits, I have no way of knowing whether I was correct. If we can’t justify claims about God, we can’t truly say that we know anything about Him. > [@](#): > > \*\*We cannot prove logically that God cares about us. But we can conclude that he cares about us based on our experiences. \*\* Illogical. Our experiences show us that God does not care about us in any humanly-comprehensible way (His actions are not consistent with the generally-accepted definitions of concern and love), but that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t “care”, for some definition of that word. > [@](#): > > **We can’t logically know that we are right.** Exactly. If we can’t know logically, we can’t know: there are many ways of asserting, and countless ways of believing, but there’s no other way of _knowing_. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/57 "2002-12-21T15:52:47Z")
> [@](#): > > There could be a reason for not communicating with us that is more important than eliminating strife. Why doesn’t God tell us that reason, then? And saying that there might be a reason for him not telling us why He’s stopped talking to us is the logical equivalent of “It’s turtles all the way down.” ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/58 "2002-12-23T12:39:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. > > Rebuttal a (the easy one): God, by definition, is infinite and his motives can not be completely grasped by finite beings such as ourselves. This is not a theological argument. Perhaps you need to find out what theology is. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beeblebrox \* > 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”. On what basis you make this assertion? Why do an omnipotent being cannot create perfect specimens in the first place? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beeblebrox \* > 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. Their existence indeed do not require our knowledge but talking about their existence without any such knowledge is nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835/59 "2002-12-23T12:44:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by racekarl \* > This whole thread is an exercise in futility. Trying to debate for or against the existence of God using logic is like trying to get to the moon with swim fins. What does it matter if you can “prove” some argument is wrong? Are you agreeing that your god is illogical? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by racekarl \* > Despite its stated purpose I can see no other point to this thread than as some form of ambush where everyone waits for someone to assert that they believe in God and use one of the favorite “straw men” so the rest of you can jump all over him or her and feel smug about your superior intelligence. If you know it is a fallacy (strawman is one of the fallacies), why do you use it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-strawman-game/143835.md?page=2)