Talk:Argument from trees

From Iron Chariots Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Delete this article

"Wednesday exists, therefore sneezing is heavier than purple."

There is no such thing as the argument from trees. If we allow an unsupported statement to be called an argument, the above is the Argument from Wednesday, and another argument exists for every noun. IMO, this article is pointless and should be deleted.

Though if anyone really wants to, we could have an article on people who just make a statement but don't offer any evidence or arguments to support it, because they are really just trying to confirm to themselves or their group that they believe it, not actually convince you of its correctness. *shrug* --Jaban 03:26, 15 August 2009 (CDT)

I vote for a redirect to argument from design --Zurahn 12:23, 15 August 2009 (CDT)
There are a lot of people who, when asked to provide evidence for their god, say "Well, just look around you, at the trees and birds and stuff!"
No, this isn't a formal argument (or a good one, or a logical one), but it's very common, so it belongs on this wiki. On the other hand, the current version of the article is so short, and the "argument" so insubstantial, that it's probably best to roll it into argument from design, as Zurahn suggests. --Arensb 18:07, 15 August 2009 (CDT)
I'm not saying people don't say it, I'm saying that it is not their argument. It's (a) meant as a lead-in for an actual argument, such as the argument from design, and (b) a way to avoid an argument until you make the obvious connection between <noun> and design, thus allowing them to dismiss you without having to support the argument from design itself.
This goes further than not being a formal argument. It has no argument. It's something people say to lead in to their actual argument, and to mask their method of avoiding the core issue... and perhaps to dismiss you without having to think.
I could agree with redirecting to Argument from Design.
Side bar: I remember people doing this when I was a Christian. You're basically saying that you want the atheist to address the connection you've made between trees and designed objects without addressing the argument from design itself. Most people I remember making it did so to get a sense of self-satisfaction, to impress their friends with how effectively they knocked the silly atheist off his feet, not to actually prove their point to the atheist. --Jaban 13:18, 17 August 2009 (CDT)

Delete or redirect — No useful content. mrx 10:43, 18 August 2009 (CDT)

Personal tools
wiki navigation