Of Time Travel, Doppelgängers, and Weak Inference

Steve Articles 1 Comment

This is part two of a four-part series titled Worst Apologetics Arguments Ever. Check out the accompanying podcast episode!

Every now and then, I waste time on the internet looking at random things. I tell myself that it’s not a waste of time because I’m really looking for stuff I can use for Apologetics Canada. Today is one of those days when I get to redeem myself. Lately, I’ve been checking out celebrity doppelgängers, that is, celebrity look-alikes. Here’s one I really enjoyed:

Leonardo Dicaprio doppelganger

I would like to make the modest proposal that this image proves Leonardo DiCaprio, the star of the Titanic fame, is in fact a time traveling woman from the 1960s named Judy Zipper!

Now, you are probably chuckling at this. Why? Regardless of whether you think time travel is possible, the conclusion that DiCaprio is a time traveler seems too premature of a conclusion to draw from the similarities in appearance alone. The inference is too weak.

A little while ago, an argument for God’s existence was brought to my attention. I looked into it and found a video where a well-known evangelical pastor gives this argument. “And I’ll tell you how you can know tonight that God will always hold you together no matter what,” he said with intensity in his eyes. “It’s by looking a little deeper into the human body.” Then he threw a picture similar to this one up on the screen behind him:

laminin

What you are looking at is a protein called laminin which is crucial to holding all of our cells together. The pastor cited Colossians 1:17 in support, “He [Jesus] is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

The conclusion that this proves God’s existence,1Granted, this was not the pastor’s point. His point was more that this shows God’s loving commitment to us, but I have seen it used as an argument for God’s existence. Either way, the inference is far too weak and the conclusion too premature. argued from the similarity between the shape of laminin and that of the cross alone is far too premature. This is essentially the same as my argument that DiCaprio is a time traveler based on the similarity of appearance between him and Judy Zipper. There may be other factors that are involved which disprove my (and the pastor’s) point. Contrast is the mother of clarity.

There are other serious problems with this argument. Check out this week’s episode of Apologetics Canada Podcast for more.

 

About the Author

Steve

Steve is a follower of Christ with a heart for apologetics. In his early 20s, Steve experienced a faith crisis due to intellectual undernourishment. Through this experience, he has come to see apologetics as the "intellectual care of the soul" and now feels a personal burden to walk with others who may be struggling with doubt and/or seeking sincerely. Steve holds a diploma in Worship Arts and a BA in Biblical Studies from Columbia Bible College in Abbotsford, BC. He has completed a master's degree in Christian Apologetics through Biola University. Steve lives in Edmonton, AB with his wife and two children.

Notes   [ + ]

1. Granted, this was not the pastor’s point. His point was more that this shows God’s loving commitment to us, but I have seen it used as an argument for God’s existence. Either way, the inference is far too weak and the conclusion too premature.

Comments 1

  1. Pingback: AC Podcast 062 - Worst Apologetic Arguments Pt. 2, Doritos Superbowl Ad - Apologetics Canada

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.