An Unsolicited Independent Analysis of the Harpt - Lesley Debate

I think you did a pretty good job. The only thing that kept Chris Lesley in the debate was that he didn't realize how many times he had contradicted himself. I just thought I'd try to bring a few of his inconsistencies to light and make them really obvious. A few times he contradicted himself within a space of only two responses. For example, do you remember this part of the debate? Here Mr. Lesley tells you that your version of the argument from design can't reach a conclusion because it doesn't reach a completely sure conclusion:

Chris:
You cannot draw that conclusion, because you don't *know* for sure. You can never know, unless the architect tells you what he had in mind.

However, only two responses later, Chris contradicts himself when you ask him what things we can know for sure:

Chris:
Nothing, at least in science. No need to shut down anything; science is working precisely as designed.

In other words, according to Chris, you cannot draw a conclusion on something until you absolutely know it for sure, but you can't know anything for sure. If this were true, it would mean that you can't make any conclusions. Yet Chris attempts to make his own conclusions throughout the argument (all of them faulty), and he feels that we should keep using science, which is actually just the art of drawing likely but unsure conclusions from the evidence at hand. Obviously, this makes no sense. What does Chris really think? Probably something like this: "You can't draw conclusions if you disagree with me, because you can't know for sure. It's okay to do if you agree with me, though." So Chris is guilty of self-contradiction, bad logic, and probably a double-standard too.

Later on Chris contradicts himself again, and on a very related point too.

Chris:
And as I said, even if the pillars are holding up the roof, it does not necessarily mean that that was their purpose. In order to know the purpose of the pillars, one must know the intentions of the architect.

Mark:
True. But were cannot talk in absolutes in this argument...

Chris:
Indeed...yet you wish to conclude "absolutes", i.e., you wish to go from "safe assumption" to "gospel truth" so gradually that no one will notice. This cannot be done.

Mark:
I set out to show in my paper that one can determine beyond a reasonable that God exists and that the "reasonable assumption" that God exists is the best explanation around.

Chris:
Hmm...
"We think it's a reasonable assumption that in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." --- Genesis 1:1, Mark's Version (MV)
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; it's a pretty reasonable assumption that no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." --- MV (Can't remember the chapter and verse)
"I think it's a reasonable assumption that I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." --- Revelation 22:13, MV
They just don't have the same impact, do they?

Do you see what just happened here? At the beginning of this exchange Chris says that trying to make your argument which is only capable of safe assumption status, into a "gospel truth". In other words, he thinks your argument is trying take on a degree of absolutism that cannot be attained by an explanation like yours. However, after you inform him that you are not if fact trying to make an absolute statement he rewrites a few Bible verses to illustrate that your argument isn't absolute enough! The only solution to this that prevents self-contradiction from being immediately apparent is that Chris thinks that any proof of God must be absolute, and that yours, while being successful as a reasonable assumption, is not absolute enough to fit the bill. If this is the case, Chris has introduced the same double standard that I mentioned above - that absolute proof is needed to make a conclusion that God exists, but not to make conclusions that Chris doesn't have a problem with. Obviously, this is not the case. If non-absolute evidence can be used to scientifically conclude other things beyond a reasonable doubt then there is no reason that it can't be used to do the same for God. Chris tries to give a reason by attempting to make it seem that your argument, if accepted, subtracts from the weight of Scripture (and, later on, by pretending that making a reasonable assumption would "offend" God). This, of course, is only true if one who accepts your argument must accept it as a replacement, rather than a complement, for the Bible.

I think the last important flaw in Chris's argument that begs for pointing out is the idea that we can't assume the universe to be made by God based on design, because our own standards of human design don't necessarily apply to God.

Chris:
The problem with your argument (and there are many) is that you want to extrapolate from a *reasonable assumption* about HUMAN technology to *factual assertions* about DIVINE "technology". What gives you the right to impose human qualities, intentions and restrictions on God?

This is nothing more than an attempt to confuse the issue by redefining the word "design". Whether you're talking about God design, human design, or "alien" design the definition is still, "something made or set up intentionally." It doesn't matter what the designer's idea of "technology" is. It is still improbable that complex side effects will arise as a result of a different intention. In the case of all the constants that are needed to make our lives possible let's call that *extremely* improbable (Even a roof balanced on pillars is an extremely unlikely side effect. Multiply the odds against that by a few trillion trillions to get the universe.). Without ever being ludicrous enough to say it in as many words, Chris keeps implying that perhaps God could have some sort of other way of designing things such that complex side effects with a strong illusion of purpose are made probable. The only remotely probable way that this could happen, of course, is if God actually intended for there to be such a rule governing his side effects, which actually makes them part of his intent and not side effects at all. Otherwise there would be nothing that could conceivably cause these side effects to come about. There is absolutely no evidence that such a standard for God's design exists; therefore Chris is making an unreasonable assumption in assuming that there is one if God exists. It was apparent to me that this is what you meant when you asked Chris what he based his "as-yet-undiscovered natural law" on, although he didn't seem to get it:

Mark:
I deal with what is reasonable. It is "conceivable" that I dreamt up the Internet after eating Mexican food and am still dreaming. Oh, and please give me supporting evidence for your assumption that some as-yet-undiscovered natural law exists...

Chris:
Please give me supporting evidence that I ever assumed one exists.

How come Chris doesn't know what you're talking about here? I won't accuse Chris of intentionally trying to hinder the argument by lying and pretending not to know what you mean. More likely is seems that he just misunderstood the logic as he did in the other parts of the argument that I have pointed out, and couldn't figure out what relevance his "as-yet-undiscovered" natural law had on the other things he had said or why he needed evidence to back it up. What this reveals is that the condescending arrogance Chris demonstrated throughout the debate is not matched by his intelligence (I do not think that he is stupid. I am just showing that he is not impervious to error, which is what it would almost take considering the magnitude of his arrogance.) . There is one thing I can say for Mr. Lesley, though. He didn't lie during this discussion. While his arguments were broken, self-contradicting, and lacking in the evidence that he demanded of you, the only person he was deceiving was himself.

Return to the Argument Index