Debunking Ray Comfort’s bogosity

[Tom S. Fox]

Have you heard of Ray Comfort's supposedly scientific proof of god's existence?
It goes as follows:

A painting proves that there was a painter who painted a painting.
A building proves that there was a builder who built the building.
Therefore, the universe proves that there was a creator who created the universe.

I would like to explain why this nonsense.

While it may sound logical that a painting proves that there was a painter, upon closer examination it turns out to be a tautology (a tautology is a form of circular reasoning without in-between steps; in other words, you say the same thing twice but word it differently).
For you see, a painting is by definition something which has been painted by a painter.
If something has not been painted by a painter, you cannot rightfully call it a painting.
So by calling something a painting, Ray Comfort already assumes his conclusion, namely that the object he is referring to has been painted by a painter.
The same goes for the building.
So now it becomes obvious why Ray Comfort's analogy is flawed: In order to conclude that the universe had a creator, he has to presume that the universe is a creation - the same way he presumed that something is a painting or building before - which is the very thing he is trying to prove, which makes his reasoning circular.

I hope everyone understood that.

[Textra1]

Ray Comfort is such a nimrod. This argument is a variation on the watch-maker argument*.  There's a reason you'd assume that a watch had a creator; we know watches are created. If watches appeared naturally then we might have a genuine mystery on our hands. Watches aren't self replicating systems.

Like Tom said, Comfort is assuming the conclusion in his premise. We know that paintings have painters. Who has never seen someone painting? We know buildings have builders. Who has never seen builders at work. The universe however is something that is just there. We don't know why or how really. We've never seen other examples of a universe being "created", so we cannot assume anything about it. We have to study it to figure out how it came to be, or even IF it came to be. We can go back to within a certain time limit (Planck time) 'after' the theoretical Big Bang, but before that limit, we can make no assumptions.

People like Ray Comfort revel in their own ignorance. They wear it like a badge of honour. For him, not knowing is better than knowing, because then he can inject his god into the gaps of his knowledge. Take his 'Atheists Nightmare' banana example. He is obviously completely unaware, a least at the time he first made the video, that modern bananas are an artificially selected species; a domesticated plant. Wild bananas bear very little resemblance to the domestic banana, which completely blows his stupidfest out of the water. I'm certain this would have been pointed out to him by now, so if he insists on making that same argument, he has not only revealed his ignorance, but he has reveal his unwillingness to learn; commonly known as wilful ignorance.

Why anyone gives Ray Comfort any air time is beyond me. He prays on ignorance. He prays on people who just don't know any better or are to lazy to investigate for themselves. Comfort pisses in the well of human knowledge and thinks he's offering us Champaign. 

*For those not familiar with the watch-maker argument see this wiki.

[MrBogosity]

Yeah, the banana thing was pointed out to him on a radio show, and his only response was that the video as it exists on the internet was "taken out of context." But if you look at the whole WOTM video, it doesn't say anything else about the banana, and he never gave the proper context for which he meant it. So yeah, he's weaseling.

[Textra1]

Yeah, the banana thing was pointed out to him on a radio show, and his only response was that the video as it exists on the internet was "taken out of context." But if you look at the whole WOTM video, it doesn't say anything else about the banana, and he never gave the proper context for which he meant it. So yeah, he's weaseling.

Ray Comfort weaseling? No way!

[Tom S. Fox]

I have read that Ray Comfort has given up on his banana argument (however, his followers still love to use it).

Anyway, what did you think of my rebuttal? Good? Bad? Found any mistakes?

[Textra1]

I have read that Ray Comfort has given up on his banana argument (however, his followers still love to use it).

Anyway, what did you think of my rebuttal? Good? Bad? Found any mistakes?

I thought your rebuttal was spot on. It pretty much lays bare the fallacy in Comfort's argument. As you said, Comfort assumes that the universe was created and therefore concludes it requires a creator, while he ignores the fact that at no point has he explained why we should assume the universe was created. It's more a begging the question fallacy than a circular argument, though the two are related.

[Tom S. Fox]

It's more a begging the question fallacy than a circular argument, though the two are related.

Are those two not the same?

[Textra1]

Are those two not the same?

They're similar, but not entirely the same. A circular argument generally requires basing two conclusions on each other. A circular argument might look like,

Person A: 'The Bible is inerrant.'
Person B: 'How do you know?'
Person A: 'Because God wrote it.'
Person B: 'How do you know that?'
Person A: "Because it's written in the bible.'

Whereas begging the question is more like, 'Who created the universe?' The 'who' part is the begging the question part, since there's no reason to assume a 'who'.
Edit: Actually, is more like saying, 'The universe was created',  since that implies a creator; begging the question, 'Who created it?'.

Check wikipedia for a better explanation.

[Real Captain Olimar]

Ray Comfort weaseling? No way!

YES WAI!

[BZ987654]

I don't what you guys are thinking....this logic seems flawless to me.

[yt]7sanplNTr6c[/yt]



Edit, see if that works.

[Tom S. Fox]

BZ987654, the YouTube ID is faulty.

[BZ987654]

BZ987654, the YouTube ID is faulty.

Thanks, I fixed it, must have messed up coping it.

[FelleAndersson]

I don't what you guys are thinking....this logic seems flawless to me.

[yt]7sanplNTr6c[/yt]

It's flawless indeed. I mean, we all know that bananas aren't grown on trees, but a god makes them

[BZ987654]

It's flawless indeed. I mean, we all know that bananas aren't grown on trees, but a god makes them

I wish things were that easy.

Hypothesis: Cancer arises from a number of mutations that cause several checkpoints in the cell cycle to be lost leading to uncontrollable cell division. We believe gene X may be mutated at a high rate in this (insert cancer type).

Answer: God did it


That was really easy.

[Textra1]

I wish things were that easy.

Hypothesis: Cancer arises from a number of mutations that cause several checkpoints in the cell cycle to be lost leading to uncontrollable cell division. We believe gene X may be mutated at a high rate in this (insert cancer type).

Answer: God did it


That was really easy.

It's great isn't it. One doesn't need to know anything at all. You can just inject Magic Man Dunnit and away you go.

[yt]KdocQHsPCNM[/yt]