I became a Christian in fifth grade at ten years of age. I had been attending a Christian school for a few weeks by that point, but I wasn’t exactly a practicing Christian. I was sitting in my “science” class as the teacher gave a lecture on the age of the universe, the Bible and its correlation with science, etc. Her misinformation eventually got to me. I became a Christian right then and there, believing fully in the many pseudoscientific claims that my teacher had made.
I am now very relieved to say that I am, in fact, an atheist – due in part to Prof. Myers. But we’ll get to that in a bit.
As a new believer in Christ, and a frequent internet user, I began to come across challenges to the veracity of the Christian faith online. It was inevitable that I would soon find some sort of weird Biblical explanation to this “dogma” that scientists were proclaiming. Indeed, one day I discovered the lectures of one Kent E. Hovind. My mind was easily indoctrinated by Hovind’s BS, and it remained that way for years.
During this time my religion troubled me very deeply. I didn’t want the rapture to occur – I wanted to stay here on Earth, to live, to grow. My search for truth was shrouded by religious presuppositions, which undoubtedly led to many sleepless nights as I wondered how certain facets of Christianity could be true in light of reality. I was being internally tortured by the ideas that had been planted in my head, and I lived in fear of the wrath of God.
Thankfully, everything changed. One day, I discovered a collection songs on Youtube – the Symphony of Science. Each song was composed of remixed snippets of audio and video from various shows, presentations, and talks relating to science. One of these songs was entitled “A Wave of Reason,” based on a talk given by Dr. Richard Dawkins. The musical piece was essentially about skepticism and reason.
My discovery of this song was the spark that led me to investigate further into science and the natural world. I watched the entirety of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos during this time. My search pressed on as I came across lectures and discussions by Dawkins, Sam Harris, Prof. Myers, and many others.
As I became more and more educated, I saw more and more flaws in religion. And eventually, thankfully, relievedly, I shed the childish concept of religion that had held me captive. I am a much happier individual because of it.
Thank you, Prof. Myers, for playing a vital role in my leaving religion. I cannot thank you enough.
Anonymous
Anonymous makes two points:
1. The information obtained from Christians, specifically pertaining to the material universe, doesn’t correspond with reality..
2. The claims of scientistic, Philosophic Materialists do correspond with the material universe
Sometimes it seems that Christians are the worst enemy of Theism. Specifically those whom I have called “unarmed Christians”, those who rely on biblical allegories and metaphors to be factual accounts. Some of these seem to focus on rationalizing science into the shapes that fit the biblical interpretations. That is not necessary, especially as an argument regarding a first cause, which is the first issue of Theism. And even worse, it forces a decision to be made between science and Theism, when no such decision is necessary.
Christians, along with everyone else, should be taught the fundamental philosophy and axioms underlying science. They should be taught logic and how rational thought is tested and grounded. They should be made aware of the limits of philosophy (it’s just someone’s opinion) and the limits of science, both functionally and temporally.
Only when fully armed with this education is a Christian really qualified to deal with issues of science (as scientism), and philosophy (as opinion), and skepticism (as anti-knowledge). Until then, unarmed Christians should not even talk with Atheists about anything of any weight.
Anonymous seems susceptible to dogmas, and has now accepted scientism and Materialism as the dogma of choice, that which is preached by Dawkins, Meyers, et al. It’s really too bad, because his science teacher could have instilled a more complete understanding of how knowledge is obtained, how its truth value is determined, and how to use grounded rational processes in the pursuit of knowledge and truth. In the absence of that, Anonymous depends on others to think for him, and that is a loss.
Summary: Left Christianity at an unknown age, under the influence of Dawkins, Meyers, et. al.
89 comments:
"Christians, along with everyone else, should be taught the fundamental philosophy and axioms underlying science." Yes!!!!
Proposal- Mandatory course on the philosophy of science in evey college and university.
First class. Does science=truth?
'Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has' Martin Luther, 1569.
Teach school-children how to identify logical fallacies... and religion may disappear in a few generations.
Luther referred to reason in two different manners. He referred positively to reason as a path to the apprehension of a deity. He also referred to the reason of philosophers as false (in the ungrounded, rationalized opinion sense). The "reason" to which he refers is the opinion of philosophizers, which is mostly Radical Skepticism (anti-knowledge).
So the bumper sticker approach to wisdom has failed to capture the essence of Luther's ideas, in the spirit of perverting them in one direction only. Atheists must fall for this quite easily, since this quote is commonly used by Atheists to "prove" that religion (aka Christianity) is against reason. Even the slightest actual research shows that the opposite is the case.
And that is one of the basic fallacies of Atheism: never probing past the simplistic Materialist mantra. If a sound bite seems to fit the conclusion, then use it as a premise; whether it is valid or true is of no consideration: rationalization of the conclusion is the objective. And that is the perversion of reason to which Luther objects.
Teaching school children how to identify logical fallacies would come after teaching them actual logic and its grounding principles; that coupled with fallacy identification would put Philosophical Materialism out of business (non-coherence), as well as to marginalize all philosopher's opinions (ungrounded in anything but circularity or infinite regress). Certainly the fallacy of rationalization would be rejected, and especially when the premises are false, as are the above. Atheism would be seen as what it really is: ungrounded, rationalized personal opinion based on rejectionism, without grounding in material fact (failing Materialist criteria), and without grounding in logic (no argument can "prove" that there is no first cause).
Without either material evidence or logical support, Atheism fails its own claims to "reason" and "logic". So Atheism resolves to a religious ideology, taken purely on faith.
Given universal education in logic, the questions which philosophers ridicule and which science cannot measure would become released from PC denigration and once again be allowed to be asked in the quest for legitimate answers rather than sequestration and discrimination for having asked.
Religious ecclesiasticism (man-made secondary religious interpretations) might well disappear, but not the implication of deity and the impact of that on human lives. After all, given that Atheism is non-coherent, then what is true?
Luther had two phases. The relativity sane part of this life and the later crazy part. This explains a lot of contradictions in his writings. Early in his life he wanted to convert the Jewish people, later he was of a more kill'em all approach. (These later writings had a big influence on Hitler!)
Early in his life he tolerated knowledge and reason, later he denounced them as vile.
The point is that the early Luther is very different than the later Luther.
Without either material evidence or logical support, Atheism fails its own claims to "reason" and "logic"
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. You have been fighting a strawman. If there is no evidence of somethings existence then some people think a lack of belief in that something is justified.
As an agnostic atheist, I don't believe in gods. I don't believe in things unless there is a reason to believe. The default state is not to believe in everything unless you can disprove it.
marginalize all philosopher's opinions (ungrounded in anything but circularity or infinite regress).
Don't you based your entire world view on a (fallacious) philosophical argument? Are you admitting your world view is "ungrounded"?
given that Atheism is non-coherent, then what is true?
It's not a given that disbelief in gods is non-coherent.
”The point is that the early Luther is very different than the later Luther.”
That’s not the point of circulating that specific quote. The point of circulating that quote is to give the false impression that Christianity is at war with rationality and is therefore not rational itself. The entire Luther “issue” is an ecclesiastic position which has nothing to do with arguments for the existence of a non-material first cause. Atheism is at war with Christianity, and wishes to defame it while making dishonest claims for its own beliefs:
”Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods.”
This is patently false. It seems that every Atheist now denies his own belief. it is this type of false projection which makes Atheists appear untrustworthy to non-Atheists: If you deny your own worldview in order to prevent having to defend it, then you will also deny any other inconvenient fact: this is blatant dishonesty, and it is readily apparent to non-Atheists. Not only is it dishonest, but Atheists either cannot apprehend the dishonesty of it, or they do not care that it is dishonest. Neither case is an attractive feature of Atheism.
Atheists have a specific belief concerning the Christian God specifically: they specifically believe that the Christian God does not exist.
They deny this because they have been made aware that their belief is non-defensible.
”You have been fighting a strawman. If there is no evidence of somethings existence then some people think a lack of belief in that something is justified.
As an agnostic atheist, I don't believe in gods. I don't believe in things unless there is a reason to believe. The default state is not to believe in everything unless you can disprove it.”
(I think you meant “prove it”, rather than “disprove it”).
The demand for [material] evidence of the existence of a non-Material entity is a logical fallacy: Category Error. The denial of a first cause is voluntary ignorance.
As for default state, ignorance is the default state. And “lack of belief” would be ignorance. But that is not what you really have. You are not ignorant of the arguments for a deity. You actively reject them. You actually activelyreject belief, a positive proposition of a negative existence, until someone can provide the material evidence which your Radical Skepticism demands.
”Don't you based your entire world view on a (fallacious) philosophical argument? Are you admitting your world view is "ungrounded"?”
Valid arguments based on true premises are grounded in the first principles, which are known valid by self-evidence; self-evidence is the concept that says this: If concept Q is false, then the universe cannot exist as we know it. In other words, concept Q can only be true. Truly logical arguments admit to the necessity for absolutes to ground them. The existence of absolutes suggest a source which is also absolute. That is why many if not all Atheists reject the existence of absolutes, which means that relativism is the necessary basis for Atheist logic and worldview. And relativism rejects the consistency which is necessary for honesty and trust.
The right column of this blog has articles which explain the first principles and their necessity for valid logic.
“ ‘given that Atheism is non-coherent, then what is true?’
It's not a given that disbelief in gods is non-coherent.”
Now you admit to disbelief? Well, the fact is that Atheism has a major defect: it is de facto Materialist. Materialism requires material proof of anything which is to be believed. However, Materialism cannot provide material proof of its own most fundamental belief: it cannot prove with material evidence that non-material entities do not exist. (It cannot even support its own premise). Therefore Materialism (aka Naturalism) is internally contradictory, and therefore non-coherent.
Because Atheism is Materialist by default (again, ignorant of non-material entities or in denial of non-material existence), Atheism is also internally contradictory and non-coherent.
But Atheism is also non-coherent on its own. The belief that there is no deity, including no first cause level of non-physical existence cannot be shown to be valid. Atheists cannot prove “no deity”, which is their actual belief. Because Atheists (a) demand proof in order to believe a thing, yet (b) believe in something without even a hope for proof, their belief contradicts their demand, and thus the Atheist worldview is internally contradictory and self-refuting: non-coherent.
In fact it is based on faith that the fundamental precept of their belief is valid, even without evidence: a religious faith.
"Materialism requires material proof of anything which is to be believed. However, Materialism cannot provide material proof of its own most fundamental belief: it cannot prove with material evidence that non-material entities do not exist."
A lack of evidence of non-material beings is exactly the basis for dismissing such claims.
Claiming it is a category error to expect material evidence of non material beings solidifies the position that such things simply do not exist. Ie: You have no evidence.
YOU are making the claim of positive existence. YOU provide the evidence.
"The right column of this blog has articles which explain the first principles and their necessity for valid logic."
d. However, if the First Principles are true, then intuition of truth is assumed a valid technique;
This is logic and rationality?
Well I intuitively know you are wrong. And since intuition is a valid means of determining truth, we can all intuitively know your arguments are built upon a pile of sand.
"In fact it is based on faith that the fundamental precept of their belief is valid, even without evidence: a religious faith."
I love it when theists say that atheists have faith and are religious because it is a tacit admission that faith and religiosity are irrational and detrimental.
”YOU are making the claim of positive existence. YOU provide the evidence.”
The Category Error stands. My claim is that Atheists cannot provide material evidence that there is no existence which is non-material.
You have misrepresented my claim. Now that you have in front of you, where is your evidence? Do you believe something without material evidence to support your belief?
” This is logic and rationality?
Well I intuitively know you are wrong. And since intuition is a valid means of determining truth, we can all intuitively know your arguments are built upon a pile of sand.”
You are intuiting a truth, and you are stating it as a truth. So you must believe that there is such a thing as truth. That then confirms the statement you are attacking, and is self-refutation of your “rebuttal”.
But your statement is not an actual argument it is just an attempt at sarcasm which fails under the slightest scrutiny.
” I love it when theists say that atheists have faith and are religious because it is a tacit admission that faith and religiosity are irrational and detrimental.”
When that faith is based on a non-coherent principle, and yet is religiously held to, then that particular faith and religiosity are, in fact, irrational and detrimental. That is the case for Atheism.
But of course that says nothing about principles which are, in fact, coherent.
Jotunn,
YOU are making the claim of positive existence. YOU provide the evidence.
We do! But as soon as we do, the evidence is shoved aside as not being "material" or "scientific" in nature, and thus illegitimate. The existence of a first cause is ruled out by the rules of the game.
"My claim is that Atheists cannot provide material evidence that there is no existence which is non-material."
Your claim is nonsensical. Really. This is the lamest argument for theism/against atheism that exists. "You can't prove my unfalsifiable claim wrong! Checkmate atheists!"
Well of course I can't! It's unfalsafiable!
And if you don't make the positive claim that god exists, there is nothing further to discuss.
Your site seems a monument to incoherence.
"But your statement is not an actual argument it is just an attempt at sarcasm which fails under the slightest scrutiny."
That's exactly right. The claim that truth can be determined via intuition alone fails at the slightest scrutiny. So you might want to rethink your first principles.
Your claim of atheist holding to religious principles is a joke as well. If you had evidence, atheists would change their minds. But you don't, so the best you can come up with is to shoe-horn your deity into a crack so small it may as well not exist anyways.
Unfalsafiable? Untestable? Unobservable? Check, check, check. In what way is your god real?
Martin,
You think this is evidence? It is barely an argument. It is an obvious case of special pleading.
I'm also not rejecting a first cause. I'm rejecting theism. I can readily admit the possibility, even likely hood of a first cause, and you still have ALL your work ahead of you to get to Jesus.
"I'm also not rejecting a first cause. I'm rejecting theism."
uhhh.....What?
Hmmm. First cause....Theism....uh there might be a connection.
”Your claim is nonsensical. Really. This is the lamest argument for theism/against atheism that exists. "You can't prove my unfalsifiable claim wrong! Checkmate atheists!"
Well of course I can't! It's unfalsafiable!”
And by Popper’s criterion for unfalsifiable, it falls outside the purview of science. So the proposition which falls outside the purview of science cannot be challenged to produce scientific, empirical, material evidence. It’s good that you understand that you can’t prove your own claim for the non-existence of a non-material entity.
So that leaves the question open, and any proposition which challenges the question cannot reasonably demand material evidence.
”And if you don't make the positive claim that god exists, there is nothing further to discuss.
Your site seems a monument to incoherence.”
My claim is that Atheism is internally contradictory, and I show, over and over and over, why that is true. Your charge of incoherence is without basis in evidence; you need to show the non-coherence and then we can discuss it. Open charges made without evidence are merely Ad Hominems.
”That's exactly right. The claim that truth can be determined via intuition alone fails at the slightest scrutiny. So you might want to rethink your first principles.”
Nowhere did I make the statement that truth comes from intuition alone. That’s what the rest of the first principles are about. The existence of truth is generally denied by Atheists who insist on relativism because of their fear of absolutes. What that statement is intended to relate is that intuition is shown to be a valid indicator that truth actually exists, for the reasons stated.
You should be made aware that sarcasm indicates a poverty of logical ability in argumentation.
(continued)
”Your claim of atheist holding to religious principles is a joke as well. If you had evidence, atheists would change their minds. But you don't, so the best you can come up with is to shoe-horn your deity into a crack so small it may as well not exist anyways.”
You have apparently not noticed. This is not an evangelical site trying to prove God to irascible Atheists. This site is devoted to analyzing Atheist propositions, logic, beliefs and accusations. So your accusation of shoe-horning is false. All that I do, is to compare Atheist statements to logic. In your case, you keep demanding “evidence”. And you say that if someone provided Atheists with this “evidence” they would change their minds. But PZ Meyers has specifically stated that no amount or type of evidence would change his mind. That is a religious dedication to a false principle.
But as for you, the demand for evidence is unqualified, so we must presume that you mean what most Atheists mean: physical, material evidence for the existence of a non-physical, non-material entity. This is clearly a logical fallacy: Category Error.
It is this type of logical failure that persists throughout Atheism. Atheism cannot produce a single piece of material evidence in its own defense. But Atheism is believed in a religious fashion: faith without evidence; consuming devotion to unprovable principles.
”Unfalsafiable? Untestable? Unobservable? Check, check, check. In what way is your god real?”
This statement is a manifestation of your Philosophical Materialism, which is demonstrably internally contradictory and non-coherent. The demand, once again, is a logic fallacy: Category Error. The basis for the demand, Philosophical Materialism – which insists on material evidence – cannot produce material evidence to show that material existence is all that there is, thereby failing its own fundamental premise: Materialism, as well as Atheism, are both unfalsifiable, untestable, and unobservable because they address the same issues which theism / deism address. This is yet another failure of Atheist logic.
Three logic failures in one Atheist concept would seem to be a lot. My guess is that you will remain unfazed by logic, however, based on your willingness to violate it in your comments. Still you seem to claim to be a deist (without actually making a straightforward claim) and now you want evidence for Jesus. That is outside the purpose of this blog; there are other places to find that. Actually what you want is to ridicule, rather than to make head-on refutations using logic, and that’s Ok, it is an expectation of Atheists these days.
For example your comments concerning “lameness” and “joke” and “nonsensical” are merely ridicule made from your self-perception of intellectual superiority. Yet your failure to use logic, even when charging “special pleading”, demonstrates otherwise. If you charge fallacy, then demonstrate how the targeted argument exercises the supposed fallacy. If you fail to do that (which you did), you are making an empty charge without evidence for support, using words that sound like “logic words”, but which in fact are meaningless.
Jotunn,
You think this is evidence? It is barely an argument. It is an obvious case of special pleading.
See what I mean? Never fails. Atheists either redefine "evidence" as "material scientific evidence" so that only materialism can possibly pop out the other side, or lob vague generalities at it.
What do you mean special pleading? Where? I'll bet money that you are applying what you heard from other Internet atheists to it, like "everything has a cause", which the argument does not and has never stated.
I'm curious, Stan. Have you ever shared these ideas with anyone who has qualifications in philosophy?
Have you ever thought about taking a course in philosophy?
That's interesting. I have pushed Massimo on the source of grounding for his theories so as to avoid circularity and / or infinite regress, and he claimed not to need grounding because philosophy merely critiques arguments for validity. When I asked him about his criteria for assessing validity he became defensive, so I quoted several paragraphs on first principles from a logic text book by Copi to him. He never released that from moderation; he was through discussing it with me. And I couldn't make it through moderation to push the issue.
That's when I became convinced that Philosophy and philosophers are merely opinion and opinionators who refuse any grounding and make stuff up out of thin air.
I became even more convinced after watching Massimo (again) pontificate on what is moral and what is not. He is no more a moral authority than any other human.
Everyone is a philosopher, and everyone is capable of reading the famous philosophers, especially in compendiums such as the excellent one by Bertrand Russell, or by Will Durant, or those put out by Oxford for example. And books of orignal philosophy are inexpensive and easy to read (and fun) - one of my favorites is Locke. Hume's books are short and not difficult. I generally have up to a dozen books going at the same time, and I have bookshelves full.
No I haven't and won't take an official philosophy class, although I did take one over PBS.
Even if I had no books I could still educate myself via plato.stanford, which I also use extensively.
One of the habits developed by long time R&D engineers is the need to constantly self-educate in order to stay ahead of the bleeding edge of technology and science. There is little taught in class rooms that cannot be self taught with applied due diligence.
There is a final issue: professors these days tend to insist on Atheism as a goal for student development. I think that I would adequately aggravate a professor to the point that I would fail on ideological grounds.
Maybe I should also point out that I did take mathematical logic in engineering classes, and used it in digital design, which is logic based. That's one of the reasons that I became interested, as an Atheist, in why it is that Atheists claim to love logic, rationality, science and technology, yet they are ignorant in every one of those fields and it shows blatantly in their arguments.
Gotta cut it off here, I could go on and on about this...
Logical failings of atheists?
Just because something is unfalsafiable, does not make it real. Argue that god is real and we have something to discuss. Something that hasn't been refuted a thousand times already would be nice.
Claiming that atheism is incoherent because they lack physical proof for the non-existence of the supernatural is the grossest bastardization of logic I've ever encountered.
Theists claim gods exist, and then because they can't back that up (and no Martin, your Prime Mover Argument wouldn't be accepted as evidence of anything but 'sophisticated' word play .. it demonstrates nothing) they charge atheists with the burden of proof of demonstrating the non-existence of something.
'But that's - I'm sorry, but that's completely ridiculous! How can I possibly prove it doesn't exist? .. you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist!‘
You wonder why atheists come off as self-superior? Because your argument is demented. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.
And no, I'm not a deist. There is no evidence for a deistic god, so I don't believe in one. I do think it is entirely plausible that the universe had an originating cause.
”Just because something is unfalsafiable, does not make it real. Argue that god is real and we have something to discuss. Something that hasn't been refuted a thousand times already would be nice.”
Actually, the unfalsifiability of a proposition removes the proposition from the realm of accessibility by empirical, experimental, reproducible scientific investigation. Read Karl Popper for more information on the real limitations of science, and the criteria for separating the accessible subjects from the inaccessible.
” Claiming that atheism is incoherent because they lack physical proof for the non-existence of the supernatural is the grossest bastardization of logic I've ever encountered.
Theists claim gods exist, and then because they can't back that up (and no Martin, your Prime Mover Argument wouldn't be accepted as evidence of anything but 'sophisticated' word play .. it demonstrates nothing) they charge atheists with the burden of proof of demonstrating the non-existence of something”
You have not refuted anything whatsoever so far. Your claims are merely wild accusations without any support. You cannot falsify the Prime Mover Argument by merely ridiculing it, you must make actual counter arguments which disprove it conclusively.
” 'But that's - I'm sorry, but that's completely ridiculous! How can I possibly prove it doesn't exist? .. you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist!‘”
Yes one could do that, but that is not what is done here. What we do here is to point out that Atheists claim to believe something which they cannot prove, violating their own strict need for proof if one is to believe a thing. In other words, blanket denial without proof is irrational: “if I can’t see it, then it does not exist." Atheism is irrational.
” You wonder why atheists come off as self-superior? Because your argument is demented. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.”
And we make just one claim: Atheists cannot prove their own claims.
Can you prove otherwise? Empirically of course, experimentally and repeatably.
Now the claim made here (just above) has the Burden Of Proof, and your response is proof, thanks. Atheists have the Burden Of Rebuttal, which requires the same theory of evidence as is required of those with the Burden Of Proof. If Atheists require Material Proof from those making the original claim, then they also are required to provide Material Proof to support their counter claim (rebuttal).
Generally though it appears that Atheists prefer Special Pleading for themselves in order to exempt themselves from the requirements which they insist upon placing on others. Here it is stated openly:
” And no, I'm not a deist. There is no evidence for a deistic god, so I don't believe in one.”
There is evidence of course, but you reject it with the tool of ridicule, which is not logic; ridicule is evidence of lacking a logical response. You require evidence, yet again you cannot prove your belief with evidence. While you are entitled to your belief, you are not entitled to claim that it is evidence-based, nor that it is scientific, nor that it is logical, nor that it is rational.
Jotunn, Stan's position is that atheism is not a lack of belief in gods but instead that atheism asserts that gods don't exist. It's an attempt to shift the burden of proof from those making positive assertions to those lacking belief in those assertions.
As an interesting aside, if you put the phrase "Burden Of Rebuttal" into Google you get 28 thousand results, the first hundred are about reverse onus in a court of law and high-school debating.
If you put "burden of proof" into Google you get almost 8 million results. Most are about science and logic. (Disclaimer: Google results depend on location and may be different to other searchers)
Jotunn,
your Prime Mover Argument wouldn't be accepted as evidence of anything but 'sophisticated' word play .. it demonstrates nothing
Vague generalities, with no specifics. What exactly are your objections to it? It proceeds logically to a God with the classical attributes, and you have not given a single specific objection to it.
"Actually, the unfalsifiability of a proposition removes the proposition from the realm of accessibility by empirical, experimental, reproducible scientific investigation."
And straight into the realm of imagination. Ie: "You're not even wrong".
The only comment science can make upon such, is to point out there is no evidence it actually exists.
"What we do here is to point out that Atheists claim to believe something which they cannot prove, violating their own strict need for proof if one is to believe a thing."
Atheists don't claim proof, they say "There is no evidence". You are completely misrepresenting the viewpoint. Purposely I'm sure. Surely you can tell the difference between believing something exists, and believing something does not exist. . . ?
Prove there are no unicorns. You can't. However you are completely justified in believing there are no unicorns because there is not a shred of evidence to the contrary.
"Atheists have the Burden Of Rebuttal"
You've given me nothing to rebut. You refuse to make a positive case for god.
In response to Martin,
http://ebooks.riderdownload.com/5-way-criticism-of-st-thomas-aquinas/
http://www.blazingtruth.com/prime-mover/
You want an exhaustive argument as to why there is almost certainly no god?
http://whynogod.wordpress.com/
"You've given me nothing to rebut. You refuse to make a positive case for god."
Rebut the actual argument given to you. You want to rebut a claim not being made. But I am not going to make a claim just so you can use your pre-canned rebuttal. I am making a specific claim, for which you provided evidence.
So you have a claim, and evidence for it:
Go ahead and rebut it.
Nats,
So basically his entire position is a gigantic straw man?
Does he not understand the ridiculousness of attempting to prove a negative? Especially something as ephemeral and varied as a god concept? Does he not recognize that theists make the positive claim, and thus the burden of proof is solely on the theist?
Stan,
"And we make just one claim: Atheists cannot prove their own claims."
Atheism is the claim that theistic arguments are not a compelling reason to accept the proposition that a god exists.
An atheistic claim is in its very nature a rebuttal.
I'm not sure if you are genuinely mistaken or have arrogantly taken this unfalsifiable position in order to make yourself feel superior. I don't know how you feel, but it makes you seem rather foolish when you claim atheists must prove there is no god..
Refer to the http://whynogod.wordpress.com/ link.
Points 20, 22 & 23 seem to apply to you. Although I think it would be very enlightening for you to read the entire thing.
Nats,
Interesting. Burden of rebuttal is about fairness in arguing and counter-arguing. If the burden is all on one side, with the second side reserving Special Pleading for immunity from evidentiary standards, then the argument is being made under that logical fallacy, which is unfairly applied.
In the case of Atheists demanding immunity from their own requirements, it decorates not merely the burden fallacy, but the evidentiary fallacy as well, both of which are asserted from the Atheist side.
The evidentiary fallacy is that Atheists demand material evidence of a non-material existence. Clearly a Category Error, one that the Atheists refuse to let of, regardless of how many times the error is illuminated.
So it is only fair to apply the same identical Category Error back to the rebutting Atheists.
But at that point, the Atheists always scream "unfair" and/or "irrational". But only because their same fallacy is applied to themselves, do they complain. So it turns out to be a fallacy, equally applied to both sides, which is fair, but which really upsets the Atheist who must rebut.
Atheists seem to think that playing unfair, which works when bushwhacking unsuspecting believers, will work when in an environment which stresses logic, too. But it doesn't. And it won't.
Jotunn,
Does he not understand the ridiculousness of attempting to prove a negative?
This is ridiculous folk logic. There is absolutely no support for this in reality. It's just Internet logic that gets bounced around the echo chamber. You can prove a negative 100%: there are no square circles or married bachelors. You can prove a negative inductively (less than 100%): there are no microbes with frontal cortexes, and no fairies. Your unicorn example is perfect. We have positive evidence against such a thing: from what we know of the horse family tree, there are no such things. Leprechauns are similar: the end of a rainbow is viewer relative; you can never get to the end of it.
It isn't LACK of evidence against these things, but POSITIVE evidence AGAINST them.
"And we make just one claim: Atheists cannot prove their own claims."
Atheism is the claim that theistic arguments are not a compelling reason to accept the proposition that a god exists.
An atheistic claim is in its very nature a rebuttal."
You are compounding your errors:
1. The proposition is not that "a god exists".
Until you rebut the actual argument, you are flailing in the wind.
2. You are now using the weasel word: "compelling".
There is no measurable standard for the mass/energy of "compelling". "Compelling" is merely opinion, not proof, or even an argument. It is a dodge. But no matter, you are not addressing the issue presented to you, and that also is a dodge.
This isn't dodge ball. We are here for discussion of the logical premises behind Atheism, which views itself as ("superior" of course), logical, rational. But arrogance doesn't cut the bacon. You must either argue the proposition given, or admit that you cannot. In fact you seem to have admitted that you cannot, is that correct?
As for being "superior", a worldview based on an Argument from Ignorance is no reason to project one's superiority. Merely saying "Ain't no God" is not a path to wisdom, nor an indicator of intelligence, nor a rational argument.
"Atheists demand material evidence of a non-material existence."
If your non-material existence can affect the material existence then material evidence would exist.
If your non-material existence can not affect material existence then why bother thinking about it?
So what is it?
Some simplistic ruminations.
I presume that the atheist accepts the possibility of theism. If that's the case, then he accepts the possibility of reality beyond spacetime.
If that's actually true, how does invoking empiricism make sense?
But I don't think that is true. If you believe that science is the sole method of understanding reality, then materialism is the only show in town.
If positivism is your worldview, hasn't the "discussion" ended before it has even begun?
Which comes first, the epistemology or the ontolgy.
Assuming that you are talking about singularities in the operation of the universe, where laws of physics are suspended briefly, then those things have happened, leaving evidence (e.g.: the new spring out of the rock cliff at Lourdes, and the testimony of the villagers). No Atheist accepts this or any similar evidence, not because it is not valid, but because it fails the Atheists secondary evidentiary requirement: experimental replicability.
As evidence is presented, the evidentiary stakes go up. That is the mark of covert Radical Skepticism, where in finality no amount of evidence would be accepted, because it is not congruent with the atheist ideology.
Why bother thinking about it indeed? Why would you be here, unless you wish to assert further skeptical anti-knowledge?
Lourdes is an example of an event with historical documentation and existing physical evidence, which, if it were in reference to physical existence, would not be questioned under historical credibility standards.
It is not unlike the Japanese bunkers on Sentosa Island, Singapore: Few today saw Japanese in those bunkers, but the historical documentation along with the physical remnants renders the credibility of Japanese occupation very high.
The denial of credibility for Lourdes and other singularities is not based on the credibility or validity of the events: the denial is an ideological rejection, which renders that ideology irrational. The rejection is Special Pleading for extra evidence not demanded of other historical events. And the extra evidence is of a replicable physical nature which is the standard Category Error under which Atheism operates.
I'm asking if you believe the non-material has ever affected the material world.
Because the purpose of this blog is to examine Atheist propositions and beliefs, I do not publish my beliefs here, other than the belief in the self-evidence of the first principles and the subsequent value of logic as the basis for disciplines such as science, mathematics, and philosophy - leading to logical worldviews.
And I believe that every individual should study logic first, then the philosophy of science, then science, and only then derive his own worldview.
So it would be interfering if I tried to project my views on specific questions onto a person who is capable of a logical approach to his own views.
Alright Stan, so by your lack of rebuttal you are not contesting that the non-material has affected this here material universe and material evidence of this non-material being should be found.
Therefore you have abandoned your manta of 'evidence is a category mistake!'
Congratulations.
Also note well that atheist here haven't said evidence must be material.
Read...
You have not read the prior comments. Up only three comments above yours is a discussion of Lourdes, and why Atheists have consistently denied that it is evidence outside the auspices of science, even without any manner of discrediting the historical provenance.
As for what kind of evidence is required by Atheists, stick around. Atheists are de facto Philosophical Materialists; Materialists believe that no knowledge can exist which is not supported with material evidence. Hence, in Atheist speak, "evidence" always means Material Evidence. Even when the proposition is purely a logical argument, Atheists ultimately demand material evidence, as they come to realize that they are losing.
So claiming not to be demanding material evidence is just the first move in a word game.
Martin said...
"You can prove a negative...
Your unicorn example is perfect. We have positive evidence against such a thing: from what we know of the horse family tree, there are no such things...
It isn't LACK of evidence against these things, but POSITIVE evidence AGAINST them."
Lack of knowledge about unicorns is positive evidence against unicorns? Have you thought about what you're saying? Does anyone agree with this idea? Stan? By the way, the unicorn does not belong to the horse family, it just resembles a horse.
I agree with the concept:
"You can prove a negative 100%: there are no square circles or married bachelors. You can prove a negative inductively (less than 100%): there are no microbes with frontal cortexes, and no fairies."
The unicorn straw man can lead to some fun.
If you have DNA evidence regarding unicorns not being horses, then presumably you will present it.
However, using the Atheist standard for evidence, you cannot "know" that it is not a horse without material evidence. And under Atheist evolutionary standards of evidence it is not only fair but mandatory to create speculation based on appearance alone and then declare that speculation to be scientific evidence for genetic descent. The appearance of "horseness" allows classification as a horse, unless or until genetic reclassification using DNA occurs.
The appearance of the unicorn is defined as either (a) a horse with a single horn, (b) a single horned creature, with the frontal part of a horse, a stag's legs, and the tail of a lion.
The first definition would require a serious series of mutations within equus. This has not been observed, nor is it expected. There is no deduction from evolutionary theory of such a creature descending from horses.
The second definition would require the interbreeding of incompatible species. Chimera or radical hybrids would require two creatures of identical genetics, of opposite sex, occurring at the same time, in order to breed and further the chimeric lineage. Probability of that is negligible, if not zero.
Usually such creatures would be expected to fail to thrive. A triple hybrid (horse / stag / lion) has a probability which is negligible, if not zero. Especially if the combination is predator - prey.
In fact that concept of a unicorn would also require explanation of the single horn, which would be either a mutation or a fourth hybrid component, say a rhinoceros. Scientific expectation = zero.
But most deadly to the concept of a chimeric unicorn is the fact that it would have been a physical, material creature, which left no physical, material evidence. There is no Category Error in the expectation of physical, material evidence for a physical, material existence.
So, combining the scientific expectations (which are concerning a subject which is within the purview of science, being material existences and are valid), and the logical coherence of the expectation for physical evidence of a physical creature, then it is acceptable to assert non-belief until physical evidence arises.
However, it is not acceptable to use the proposed existence of a physical chimera as a logical analog to the proposed existence of a non-physical entity with the resources and ability to create a universe. That analog is a Black and White Fallacy. And the underlying requirement for physical evidence for a non-physical entity is still a Category Error.
The unicorn objection to the existence of a deity fails at all levels. Even its most basic concept is a Category Error, which is used to create a false association in order to imply a false legitimacy for categorical denialism based on ideological physical evidence.
Now, wasn't that fun?
"And the underlying requirement for physical evidence for a non-physical entity is still a Category Error."
No. If this non-physical entity has ever affected the physical world then you are wrong.
You believe this entity HAS affected the physical world therefore you are wrong. And from your dodging of questions before, you already know you are wrong.
You agree with Martin?
So a summary of what you call "positive evidence" of a negative (no unicorns) is:
-not observed
-low probability
-scientific expectation = zero
-unfound evidence
I must say that this response was illuminating.
"The unicorn objection to the existence of a deity fails at all levels". It was Martin's example for positive evidence for proving a negative. Please don't pretend it was an objection to the existence of deities.
I take it that with your repeated cries of "Category Error" you are saying that deities have never affected our natural universe in any way. Also illuminating.
"Now, wasn't that fun?" You said it.
Nats,
Just to refresh, here are the comments:
Martin said,
"Your unicorn example is perfect. We have positive evidence against such a thing: from what we know of the horse family tree, there are no such things.
I took it further, after looking at possible science for material existence of unicorns: Zero probability based on scientific notions for material existence.
Then we looked at the logical coherence of material unicorn proposals: No Category Error. Coherent use of science for material claims.
Then we looked at the logical coherence of the target of the analog: non-physical existence. To compare proposed unicorns (physical) to a proposed deity (non-physical: Category Error.
"Please don't pretend it was an objection to the existence of deities."
Really? It almost always comes up as an analogic proof regarding deity rejection. And in fact, it came up in Jotunn's comment at 1:41 p.m. on 11/11/11. He was attempting to demonstrate that the Argument From Ignorance regarding non-material existence is a valid argument, using unicorns as the analog.
"I take it that with your repeated cries of "Category Error" you are saying that deities have never affected our natural universe in any way. Also illuminating."
This is deja vu: just had this very conversation two or three weeks back. Let's see how it goes this time.
Proposition:
The non-physical category is not the same as the physical category. The entity in the non-physical category created the physical category, thereby having access to it. And in fact, the argument regarding Lourdes has been ignored totally: the Lourdes situation contains propositions which contain both historical and physical evidentiary claims of interference in the physical world by a non-physical entity.
The implied challenge for Atheists is to support their disbelief by proving, materially, scientifically, that this did not happen in the manner historically recorded.
Read... Book:
Please see the comment just above for a discussion of your concerns.
the Lourdes situation
I was thrown by your references to Lourdes because I thought you were making fun of it. A girl seeing a vision telling her to dig a hole and drink the water? Stories about ghosts spreading many years ago?
Is this your evidence?
Stan,
Talking about Radical Skepticism:
here's some proof that some people, while or after assimilating Radical Skepticism as ideology, become evidence manipulators.
Kind Regards.
slomo,
Actually your response is my evidence. You give no indication of comprehending the proposition, but you ridicule it anyway, and without contradictory evidence to support your view. Ridicule is your response, not evidence.
The conclusion is that Atheists will not even attempt to counter the evidence they demand - and are presented - they will merely ridicule and deride as if that is some sort of intellectual response. Ridicule is merely an indicator of an attempt to Poison the Well, a form of Red Herring Fallacy. But that only works when the ridiculed is willing to be cowed by such antics; you will not find that to be the case here.
So either provide your proof, or admit that you cannot. Show us your material evidence which nullifies the evidence provided. Any other response is worthless.
I'll repeat that for your benefit:
So either provide your proof, or admit that you cannot. Show us your material evidence which nullifies the evidence provided. Any other response is worthless.
Maybe one more time:
So either provide your proof, or admit that you cannot. Show us your material evidence which nullifies the evidence provided. Any other response is worthless.
yonose,
That link doesn't seem to work...
Stan,
Oops!!
My bad, the link was not implemented correctly :P
Mea culpa. I forgot to use the protocol prefix label properly (I mean using http:// before the complement of the URL).
This should work.
Kind Regards.
Learn to use the internet, grandpa! Yonose's broken link should be
www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Carter_Wiseman.pdf
Which works.
Now go back to murdering logic and reversing standards of evidence, Stan.
Myers, not Meyers.
Anonymous,
Please choose a moniker and quit hiding behind the skirts of "anonymous".
And Yeah, Atheists don't like to have their "standards" applied to themselves... that is obvious.
But rather than provide evidence, as they demand of others, they merely whine when the same demand is made on them.
And as for pointing out their logic errors, such as the ever-present and fundamental Atheist use of the Category Error, no Atheist seems to get beyond juvenile ridicule when addressing that.
Ridicule is an indication of being out of ammunition for logical argumentation, and/or stasis in an arrested juvenile emotional stage. PZ says over and over that "ridicule works", and it does, in a bushwhack or gang-bang situation; but it is ineffective in competition with educated, logic-based arguments which are not vulnerable to mere antics and acting-out.
I agree with Stan. Check out my above link to Aquinas. Jotunn ridiculed it twice, but when I pressed him for his opposing evidence, he didn't provide any. Ridicule is a warning flag that the opposing side has nothing to say but really does not want something to be true anyway. Or, as Cicero puts it: "When you have no basis for argument, abuse the plaintiff."
Martin,
Love the quote. Here's one from Alinsky out of "Rules For Radicals":
Fifth Rule (tactical): "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage". RFR, p128.
Unfortunately for Atheists, the well-armed opposition is not fazed in the least by ridicule.
Using your method, how do you distinguish between the non-material and the conceptual or the imaginary?
Nats,
Excellent question. Just as the material realm contains arguments which are either valid or non-valid, the same goes for the non-material realm. We can validate this by observing that the areas of logic, mathematics, and philosophy (including the philosophy which underlies science) are all non-material entities, yet which can be known to be valid or non-valid.
Part of every logic text is devoted to probability theory as related logically to philosophy (amongst other things). Probability is a method of discernment when evidence is deduced, rather than physical.(Note 1)
Valid argumentation, along with discernment of the likely truth value of the premises of the argument, yield a knowledge of potentialities, which is not the same as absolute knowledge, yet can be seen as "probable" knowledge.
Probable knowledge can be tested by asking "what would the universe be like if this 'probable knowledge' were actually false?"
For example, the First Principle of Non-Contradiction (coherence): If contradictory existences were observed, the universe would not be as it is, and science, math, and logic would not be possible. If we accept the proposition that coherence actually exists in the universe, then subsequent questions arise:
First question then:
"Why should the eruption of a universe from the potentialities contained in a singularity produce coherence?"
Possible Answers:
1. I don't know and neither do you; science will answer all questions, so the question is illegitimate outside the hegemony of science.
2. An effect with characteristic X would suggest a cause which could produce characteristic X and therefore internally contains the capacity for X itself.
A proposed cause would place a boundary condition of X (coherence) on the effects of the eruption. Since X (coherence) is a limiting factor which exists outside of physical law, there is no reason to expect that the singularity and subsequent release from singularity into an expansion placed that limit on itself. That would suggest that the singularity had agency and self-limited.
It is more likely that the cause (agent) for the release from singularity into expansion was also the cause which placed the limiting factor of coherence onto the rules for the universe.
This is an argument made without hope of material evidence, and any demand for material evidence is not only a Category Error, it is beside the point.
The argument may legitimately be analyzed for coherence and for probability, and then a decision can be made concerning whether it fits into rationality vs whether it is insane (irrational).
Notice that potential answer #1 (scientism) does not defeat the second potential answer because it does not address it, it merely declares it illegitimate under the aegis of an ideology (Materialism).
This has been long and yet too brief; if / when you question this, I'll try to be more complete.
NOTE 1: Even physical evidence has probability attached due to the Inductive Fallacy and its companion, the Deductive Fallacy.
Thanks for that question...
Stan
Nats & Stan,
I also like the way the Nats' question was made:
Try to use coherent concepts which apparently seem to be so simple that may be easily ignored, but at the same time, understanding that those very same concepts make reality so self-implicated and complex, that makes imagination look like one of the pieces of the whole jigsaw, and that this imagination is not meant to be in a delusional way, if that was, what you tried to imply.
To do so, please try not to assume aforehand that some points made by philosophical materialism and philosophical idealism as totally separate and opposite worldviews, or just as the "mere sum of their parts", because some basics of philosophical idealism have also their own objectiveness. In other words, don't focus just in the thesis or just in the conclusion each one has to offer separately, but in the way they were constructed and how might be "intertwind", and look for the spot those ideologies begin to part ways. In short, to have a little bit more holistic view of both, because when you don't do so, it is possible that the first principle you try to apply to you view, would be flawed witin some few iterations.
Again, distinguishing something right from wrong is a matter of knowledge –which you might not like the way I write it, is done by practice as well (rituals are not obligation, is enough by looking for evidence without much bias, then you decide)– and logic to back it up, but not logic alone.
If you dismiss spirituality and some important points of philosophical idealism without deeply evaluating them because you don't feel to do so (to honestly introspect), then accepting philosophical materialism in some sort of false dichotomy (as if it were impossible to apply both of them in a way is it reasonably possible),
What kinds of criterion you have to say that you may know how to distinguish "non-material 'rights' from "non-material 'wrongs'"?
Kind Regards.
Storm,
What is immediately noticeable on WeAreSMRT is the abundance of Ad Hominem and the lack of actual argument either for or against any serious topic.
When people visit here and then don't engage (I answer virtually all commenters) but rather go back to their dens of like thinkers to denigrate, it seems to verify the image they project that they cannot make a rational refutation or logical argument.
Groups of these cluster into congregations of story swappers, feeding each other's egos without the need for intellectual accomplishment.
Martin,
I posted two links addressed to you. Both which philosophically dismantled the Prime Mover argument.
I personally find the Prime Mover fails as an argument simply because it is utterly unconvincing.
Ohhhh, there can't be an infinite series of potentiality, therefore God! Pure actuality cannot exist. You claim God to be pure actuality, therefore God cannot exist.
Stan,
I said atheist claim there was no compelling reason to believe god exists, and rather than present one, you jumped all over my use of "compelling".
I will concede there are many uncompelling reasons to believe god exists. However I am only interested in compelling reasons.
I furthermore linked to a website which exhaustively dismantled every common theistic argument (and noted which ones you were using), which you didn't bother to address at all.
Dodgeball? No, you're pouring a bunch of dead fish in a barrel and then crowing about what a good shot you are.
Interesting. You insist on a "compelling" reason, without any definition of what compelling would be. Just like your ethic, you may choose whatever fits your needs for the moment, and then change in a flash, when necessary. There is no such thing as Atheist logic for this very reason; there is no absolute base, no grounding for any Atheist "thought". So when pinned down, Atheists are forced into ridicule or into ignoring the issue at hand, say refuting the singularity at Lourdes.
As for ignoring evidence, here are my prior comments regarding a non-physical interface with the physical universe, and the physical and historical evidence provided at Lourdes, and the lack of Atheist refutation:
"So either provide your proof, or admit that you cannot. Show us your material evidence which nullifies the evidence provided. Any other response is worthless.
I'll repeat that for your benefit:
So either provide your proof, or admit that you cannot. Show us your material evidence which nullifies the evidence provided. Any other response is worthless.
Maybe one more time:
So either provide your proof, or admit that you cannot. Show us your material evidence which nullifies the evidence provided. Any other response is worthless."
Dodge much? Your silence (other than ridicule) is deafening.
Yes, I went to the website you recommend. It is a list of links off to an infinite regress of other links going off to yet other links. However, I will address the creation of the universe portion, after I have followed sufficient links. That website provides no proofs, only implications.
In return, you are invited to refute this list of reasons to believe in God (50 of them):
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=50_reasons_to_believe_in_god
We await your refutations with breath abated.
Oh? I didn't define compelling for you? Yes such a complicated word. Try a dictionary.
Yeah there is no such thing as atheist logic because you'd just be repeating yourself. That's why they call it Christian Science, because it departs dramatically from actual science.
Nor did I ignore the issue. I quite succinctly outlined why it is a fools request for material evidence to prove the non-existence of something. If something exists, we tend to expect evidence of its existence. Things that do not exist, we do not expect evidence. The fact that you cannot present any evidence of your gods existence is very much evidence of its non-existence.
Did you actually read that link you cited? The refutations are included with the link. Hell, the link IS the refutations to those arguments. Thanks for doing all my work for me. Maybe you should read actually it. I'm laughing my ass off here.
Maybe you just need a bigger list?
ARGUMENT FROM MULTIPLICITY (V) (recursive internet edition)
(1) There exists a web page (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm)
(2) That page has hundreds of purported proofs of the existence of God.
(3) They can't all be wrong.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
Oh. Why do those mean atheists make fun of you poor, poor theists?
It's like when you are in 5th grade and the 3rd graders tell you not to be naughty otherwise Santa will bring you coal for Christmas. Why did those mean mean 5th graders laugh??
"Just like your ethic, you may choose whatever fits your needs for the moment, and then change in a flash, when necessary."
Yeah, today I'm gonna not eat babies. Tomorrow? Who knows! I'm a craaaaazy atheist. (Which is not a proper noun and thus should not be capitalized FYI).
”I quite succinctly outlined why it is a fools request for material evidence to prove the non-existence of something. If something exists, we tend to expect evidence of its existence. Things that do not exist, we do not expect evidence. The fact that you cannot present any evidence of your gods existence is very much evidence of its non-existence.”
Your refusal to acknowledge or attempt to refute the obvious Category Error of that position, while ignoring the material issue of Lourdes indicates that there is nothing more for you to say in regards to material evidence for your belief.
” "Just like your ethic, you may choose whatever fits your needs for the moment, and then change in a flash, when necessary."
Yeah, today I'm gonna not eat babies. Tomorrow? Who knows! I'm a craaaaazy atheist. (Which is not a proper noun and thus should not be capitalized FYI).”
You have again resorted to ridicule in response, which indicates a lack of ammunition for rational argument. There is no reason to continue conversation with juvenile responders, so I hope you do better on your responses to the Lourdes issue, which you have STILL not addressed. Lacking that, then there is no rational reason to continue this conversation.
Atheism is capitalized because it represents a belief system with a specific viewpoint on deity, which is based on no material evidence, and which is then accepted as a truth statement in a worldview, the worldview being based on nothing of material empirical support whatsoever, which therefore is blind belief in unsubstantiated personal opinion: a religion. Part of its dogma is that it is not a religion.
I am going to spell this out very slowly.
If there is no evidence that something exists, that is evidence it doesn't exist. Not conclusive. Not exhaustive, but leaning towards the probability.
When you respond with "Category Error", you are essentially agreeing that such things do not physically exist.
If this thing does not physically exist, it has no bearing on our physical existence. Otherwise that would be a true Category Error.
This is NOT what religions claim.
People claim their god interacts with the world PHYSICALLY. Here is your Category Error.
There is no evidence to support this assertion.
Thus the rejection of this assertion is reasonable, logical and consistent.
If this doesn't get through to you, I give up. I don't know if you are a complete idiot, or just incredibly intellectually dishonest. Your grammar and spelling is bounds above your typical theist so I will wager the latter.
I like how you totally ignored the iron chariots wiki thing! Kudos for sticking dogmatically to your position and not investigating any other answers!
I have no idea what you expect about Lourdes. I'm gathering it is another claim that is completely unfalsifiable, and thus according to you, true.
I also enjoy how you denigrate religion in your last paragraph! Seems the best you can do is to claim atheists hold their position on god as irrationally as theists. Well atheism is a religion too! Nice.
Jottun,
It's amazing how badly those links get the argument. They think Aquinas does not provide any reason to think the regress cannot be infinite, but if you actually LOOK at the infographic I provided, you will see exactly why he reasons this way. Atheists screw up the theistic arguments as badly as creationists screw up evolution.
”I am going to spell this out very slowly.
If there is no evidence that something exists, that is evidence it doesn't exist. Not conclusive. Not exhaustive, but leaning towards the probability.
When you respond with "Category Error", you are essentially agreeing that such things do not physically exist. “
Yes, that is right.
”If this thing does not physically exist, it has no bearing on our physical existence. Otherwise that would be a true Category Error.”
This is incorrect. (I have several Atheists coming in at the same time, so I don’t remember who argued what or to whom I responded.) There is no reason that a non-material entity which has the ability to make a material universe cannot interface materially with that universe which is its creation. The non-material set is separate from the material set, but the entity which resides in the non-material set is not restricted from accessing its own creation.
The Category Error occurs when denying non-material existence based on the need for material evidence for the non-material existence.
”This is NOT what religions claim.
People claim their god interacts with the world PHYSICALLY. Here is your Category Error.
There is no evidence to support this assertion.
Thus the rejection of this assertion is reasonable, logical and consistent”
And here we have your unjustified assertion. Prove, using materialist evidentiary requirements that the proposed interaction at Lourdes is false. I have asked for this so many times now that ignoring it is no longer an option. I don’t see how this conversation can continue when you ignore evidence which you demand. Your position taken above depends on this proof. If you cannot make this proof, then your entire position collapses.
”If this doesn't get through to you, I give up. I don't know if you are a complete idiot, or just incredibly intellectually dishonest. Your grammar and spelling is bounds above your typical theist so I will wager the latter.”
And I suspect that you will, indeed, give up without addressing the issue of Lourdes or any other miracle proposition.
Your charge of intellectual dishonesty is interesting considering your inability to produce a syllogistic, logical defense of your position. You merely charge fallacies against the requirement that you prove your own beliefs, and now you are reduced to personal Ad Hominems. Your failure here is obvious by your reduction to insults.
(continued)
(continued)
”I like how you totally ignored the iron chariots wiki thing! Kudos for sticking dogmatically to your position and not investigating any other answers!”
I have not ignored it. I am trying to find confirmation for their assertions that quantum mechanics provides truth statements via unproven theorems (Bell's theorem as truth for a worldview). When I have finished, I will give you an answer. In the meantime, your continued ridicule is acknowledged for what it is.
”I have no idea what you expect about Lourdes. I'm gathering it is another claim that is completely unfalsifiable, and thus according to you, true.”
You cannot look it up, say on wiki? You asked for evidence, I gave it to you, now you can’t seem to address it. Interesting. Your disinterest in the evidence you requested seems to indicate a sudden problem you have in dealing with it. But it is necessary for you to refute it, since your position depends on it. Without a refutation, you demonstrate the truth of the proposition that Atheists cannot prove their own beliefs.
”I also enjoy how you denigrate religion in your last paragraph! Seems the best you can do is to claim atheists hold their position on god as irrationally as theists. Well atheism is a religion too! Nice.”
Your refutation is…. What? “Religion” is a catch-all term for belief systems of a certain type. Atheism qualifies. That’s why I capitalize it. And yes, much of the accumulated body of “religions” is just man-made ecclesiasticism. Not necessarily all of it. But, that has no bearing on the fundamentals of theism. Still, your comment is not a refutation. I presume you cannot refute it, since you did not.
re: Lourdes
I'm just going to address this because you seem to be throwing it in everyone's face.
What you are doing is proposing yet another unfalsifiable claim, and crowing victory when no one can falsify it.
I find it interesting that the religious can immediately recognize the ridiculous claims of faith not their own, yet insist their own extraordinary unfalsifiable claims are valid until proven false.
Here is the story.
http://www.skepdic.com/lourdes.html
Your claim is that the mother of the creator of the universe appeared to a 14 year old girl.
Your evidence? The girl's story.
Okay? I think that's enough right there to dismiss the claim. No evidence but the story of a 14 year old girl. Perhaps now you'll protest that wasn't the miracle you were referring to. Well too bad, everyone asked you to make the argument and you told us to go look it up, so now you can defend this claim or admit it is a ridiculous proposition to accept.
Despite which, even presenting such a claim violates your argument! This would be material evidence of a non-material being. It appeared! Photons reflected off it and entered the eyes the girls. It affected the material world. We could have theoretically recorded the apparition. What did it weigh? What was it's chemical composition? Did it emit sound or communicate telepathically? All things materially subject to investigation.
There is no reason that a non-material entity which has the ability to make a material universe cannot interface materially with that universe which is its creation.
This creates material evidence. If it interfaces materially with the universe, that is material evidence. Your Category Error argument is shot to hell.
Martin,
The entire argument is centered around creating an infinite regress and then positing god to solve the created dilemma.
I'll prove it in a more simpler and direct manner.
Provide an example of pure actuality that is not god. Since this is impossible, recognize that you are just replacing the word "god" with "purely actual". Ie: You are arguing in circles.
It's also a pure argument from ignorance. I don't understand how this is possible, therefore god.
It is further contradictory in that if God is immutable/unchangeable. The act of creation requires change.
Finally, the argument concludes with "This everyone understands to be God" with a picture of Yahweh.
Is this a reasonable assumption?
I've read the bible. I can provide examples of things God cannot do, mistakes God made, God changing his mind, and even allusions to other gods. Ie: Not omnipotent, perfect, immutable, or singular.
So no, Aquinas's argument doesn't apply to Yahweh. I can't believe arguments like this convince anyone.
”What you are doing is proposing yet another unfalsifiable claim, and crowing victory when no one can falsify it.”
Jotunn, please, please read the actual use of falsifiability in Popper’s work, ”The Logic of Scientific Discovery”. Falsifiabiity is the demarcation criterion which separates issues which are accessible to empirical science, from those issues which lie outside the accessibility to science. The inability to falsify is an indication that there is a corresponding inability to verify (even under empirical inductive contingency). This is a clear indication that a subject is not suitable for investigation be science - not that the subject is automatically false. It is important to understand the limits of science before one adopts science as sole arbiter of facts, much less Truth.
The insistence on falsification is a tenet of Logical Positivism, which is now discredited even amongst philosophers.
So what the inability to falsify the claims at Lourdes illuminates is the inherent limitation of science as a source for determining the validity of claims outside the limited authority of science.
” I think that's enough right there to dismiss the claim. No evidence but the story of a 14 year old girl. Perhaps now you'll protest that wasn't the miracle you were referring to. Well too bad, everyone asked you to make the argument and you told us to go look it up, so now you can defend this claim or admit it is a ridiculous proposition to accept.”
Ah. Now I get it. You may redefine the situation / proposition to suit your own prejudice, so you don’t have address the actual situation. Here is the rest of the story: The physical evidence is the spring which spurted forth from a rock face of a cliff, never having been there before, and never ceasing to flow ever since.
The demand from you Atheists was for physical evidence for a proposed non-physical intervention. I recommended that you examine and refute the proposed miracle at Lourdes, which you ignored and ignored until you no longer could. Then you went, not to a Lourdes site, but to an Atheist site, which makes only the claim that it didn’t happen, and totally ignores the appearance of the spring and the testimony of the villagers. And that is your evidence now, merely rejection, with no material evidence that refutes the occurrence of a new spring where one previously did not exist. You reject based on your opinion, and nothing more.
And here’s the thing: you are happy with that sort of rejectionism which you feel is some sort of logic, a logic which you appear to feel makes you superior somehow.
(continued)
(continued)
” Despite which, even presenting such a claim violates your argument! This would be material evidence of a non-material being. It appeared! Photons reflected off it and entered the eyes the girls. It affected the material world. We could have theoretically recorded the apparition. What did it weigh? What was it's chemical composition? Did it emit sound or communicate telepathically? All things materially subject to investigation.”
You are illuminating the fact that you did not in any way investigate what the original claim was, nor did you even try. Instead, you went to a website that distorted and corrupted the claim, and because it is an Atheist web site, you accepted that corruption as an ideological TRUTH. It is the spring which is the material evidence, and you would know that if you made an objective investigation on your own.
Investigate it for yourself, then refute it using empirical methods.
If you believe it is wrong, and you cannot prove it wrong using empirical experimental replication, then empiricism is limited and ineffectual for these situations. More to the point, you harbor beliefs which are unsustainable using empirical replicable science, therefore you hold beliefs on faith, not on evidence.
Your comments are becoming increasingly angry sounding, apparently because you cannot refute even the claim that your beliefs are without evidence and are therefore faith-based. But it is inevitable, because Atheism and Materialism and Scientism all cannot prove the basis for their own propositions, and so they are non-coherent, and all propositions founded on Atheism, Materialism and Scientism will thus necessarily also be non-coherent.
” Despite which, even presenting such a claim violates your argument! This would be material evidence of a non-material being. It appeared! Photons reflected off it and entered the eyes the girls. It affected the material world. We could have theoretically recorded the apparition. What did it weigh? What was it's chemical composition? Did it emit sound or communicate telepathically? All things materially subject to investigation.”
The fact is that you cannot use empirical science, today, to refute the claim, can you? Hard data, experimentally replicated, objectively obtained? Of course not. Not even in the presence of existing material evidence.
” ‘There is no reason that a non-material entity which has the ability to make a material universe cannot interface materially with that universe which is its creation.’
This creates material evidence. If it interfaces materially with the universe, that is material evidence. Your Category Error argument is shot to hell.”
Your shot from the lip is premature and is based on lack of due diligence on your part in investigating the proposed interface, which, had you done it, you would have known that material evidence exists for you to investigate freely. (One suspects that that is the reason that your Atheist website sluffed off the spring with a wave of the hand: existence of material evidence which is not empirically refutable).
Your use of an Atheist source rather than direct access to the proposition for your own investigation and conclusion indicates even more clearly that your beliefs are ideologically based, and not evidence based. Had you wanted evidence, you could have accessed it.
I looked it up on wikipedia as well. That article was no more sympathetic to your claim than the skeptic article. The skeptic site just focused more on why to claim is a not a miracle, rather than more general information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_water
It hasn't stopped flowing because they fill the damn thing back up with a pump. Facepalm. Nice miracle.
Gee, I wonder why I feel so superior? I'm not angry at all. Maybe a little irritated at repeating myself and investigating ridiculous claims. Boggled at how someone can possibly accept such parlour tricks as evidence of Yahweh.
I think you should think very carefully about your stance here.
You have repeatedly criticized for creating a Category Error for demanding physical evidence of a non-physical being.
You have repeatedly asserted that material evidence exists and we are all just ignoring it.
These criticisms/propositions contradict each other. Figure out which one you want to stick with and I'll get back to you.
”The entire argument is centered around creating an infinite regress and then positing god to solve the created dilemma.”
It starts with an observation concerning a physical characteristic, which leads to an infinite regress unless it is terminated. There is nothing non-coherent about this; it is a deduction made from a physical starting point, the same technique as is used for scientific hypotheses.
”Provide an example of pure actuality that is not god. Since this is impossible, recognize that you are just replacing the word "god" with "purely actual". Ie: You are arguing in circles.”
Pure actuality is deduced, it is not in the premises, so it is not circular.
”It's also a pure argument from ignorance. I don't understand how this is possible, therefore god.”
How can a deduction made from a physical observation be a Fallacy of Argument from Ignorance? Every scientific hypothesis is an Argument form Ignorance? It is a standard technique of inquiry. Your accusation does not fit the situation, so it is rejected.
”It is further contradictory in that if God is immutable/unchangeable. The act of creation requires change.”
First, the act of creation does not require the change of the agent: do you change when you change the oil in your car? But more to the point, you are arguing against a point not posited: pure actuality suggests agency and change. So you are arguing against a straw man.
”Finally, the argument concludes with "This everyone understands to be God" with a picture of Yahweh.
Is this a reasonable assumption?”
The argument is for the necessity of only one deity; YHWH is posited to be the one true deity. They match up.
”I've read the bible. I can provide examples of things God cannot do, mistakes God made, God changing his mind, and even allusions to other gods. Ie: Not omnipotent, perfect, immutable, or singular.”
How you interpret the bible is a subjective thing of course. But here are some comments:
Omnipotence does not suggest the ability to perform irrational stunts or internally contradictory tasks.
Pure actuality changes its mind in merely deciding to create something, like a universe. Immutability does not mean not changing its mind.
Other gods refers to false gods which are believed in as if they were real.
As for perfection, the YHWH of the bible once decided to change an earlier decision based on the performance of the agents resident in his creation (an evidence based decision). And several times he eliminated agents which consistently behaved poorly. He has not revoked agency nor is the bestowal of agency considered to be an error. Is changing a decision based on new data an indication of nonperfection?
So if you have other examples of failures of the “pure actuality”, then please provide actual evidence, rather than vague, evidence-free accusations.
"I looked it up on wikipedia as well. That article was no more sympathetic to your claim than the skeptic article. The skeptic site just focused more on why to claim is a not a miracle, rather than more general information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_water"
It hasn't stopped flowing because they fill the damn thing back up with a pump. Facepalm. Nice miracle."
Are you serious?? You did not even read what it said. They ran water FROM the spring TO pools WITH a pump. That is what it actually says, and what actually happened. That was discontinued and the “water walk” was installed, instead. There is an actual photo there of the rock cliff and the spring. Sheesh.
”Gee, I wonder why I feel so superior? I'm not angry at all. Maybe a little irritated at repeating myself and investigating ridiculous claims. Boggled at how someone can possibly accept such parlour tricks as evidence of Yahweh.”
You are right to wonder about your superiority...
The claim remains the same, and it is that you can’t materially disprove the Lourdes proposition with empirical evidence.
””I think you should think very carefully about your stance here.
You have repeatedly criticized for creating a Category Error for demanding physical evidence of a non-physical being.
You have repeatedly asserted that material evidence exists and we are all just ignoring it.
These criticisms/propositions contradict each other. Figure out which one you want to stick with and I'll get back to you.”
No, that’s not the position. Let me re-state it for you: the proposal is that it is not non-coherent that a non-material agent residing in a non-material realm and having the ability to create a physical, material creation would also have the ability to interface with that creation. It is the non-material realm that is not measurable by the scientific methods of the material realm because non-material entities are not accessible to material investigation, and to expect otherwise is a Category Error. There is no contradiction.
In terms of ignoring Lourdes, yes, you have not yet apprehended the actual facts of the proposition, and in terms of refutation your argument is against an error, a non-fact, a misreading which got you an undeserved facepalm. You have not refuted the actual facts of the proposition because you do not yet acknowledge them, and that because you do not objectively investigate them.
Jotunn,
The entire argument is centered around creating an infinite regress and then positing god to solve the created dilemma.
It doesn't posit "god" to solve the created dilemma. Show me EXACTLY which frame it does that in.
So no, Aquinas's argument doesn't apply to Yahweh. I can't believe arguments like this convince anyone.
So then either the Bible is a heavily anthropomorphized conception of God, or it is all bullshit and Yahweh is just a Canannaite storm deity. Doesn't affect the argument in the slightest bit. Forget the Bible.
I feel sorry you have the same fools (or atleast one of them) who troll Ray Comfort 24/7 from We are SMRT/DUMB(Small Minded Relentless Troll) or (Deluded Unbelievers Mocking Believers)
They spawn idiots like Jotunn who makes brilliant comments like this:
"If there is no evidence that something exists, that is evidence it doesn't exist."
High display of Atheist Logic™ with the argument from ignorance being "valid". Hitchens tried the same garbage and got destroyed by craig:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHIIjfxr4o0
Actually I enjoy having folks like Jotunn show up here. Their conversation usually lasts maybe one to two weeks, after which they either realize that their position is untenable and disappear, or they turn radically irrational and vicious and have to be removed.
Either way, they demonstrate for all to see, the lack of rationality which masquerades as superiority within the Atheist mind. And that's why I'm here.
I've only been to Comfort's site once, and he appeared not to challenge the juvenile irrationality in his commenters. I think that is unfortunate. The endemic irrationality is a hallmark of Atheism, and it should be highlighted and challenged.
I hope you stick around and help me do it!
Stan
Stan,
I'm enjoying it too. Just this one comment thread has been very informative and a real eye-opener.
Your time and effort is very much appreciated.
Fred,
Thanks. It's my pleasure.
Stan
I already responded yesterday, but my comment has not been posted.
To summarize the previous response:
The claim:
The physical evidence is the spring which spurted forth from a rock face of a cliff, never having been there before, and never ceasing to flow ever since.
The evidence contradicting the claim:
The description of the event " The next day, she said the apparition asked her to dig in the ground and drink from the spring she found there."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Lourdes
This contradicts Stan's description, falsifying his version of events.
Furthermore, it is extremely common to find water when you dig, especially in an area with a high water table ... like almost all of France.
Martin,
Around frame 10. "Since the chain must have a first member at the head of it, that member must be purely actual."
Purely actual = god.
Unless you can note something else which is "purely actual"?
But hey, if you want to accept that Yahweh is as false as the millions of other dead gods in our collective culture, I don't think we really have that much to argue about. But .. that does seem to contradict your conclusion. Ie: The big picture of Yahweh.
Jotunn,
Purely actual = god.
Riiiiggght. ??? And? So you don't have a problem with the argument up to that point?
Some quibbles perhaps, but prior to that point you just seem to be defining your terms.
So? Can you name something besides a god that is purely actual?
Jotunn said,
"Can you name something besides a god that is purely actual?"
The more interesting question here is can you? Refutation is your job.
Jotunn,
Some quibbles perhaps, but prior to that point you just seem to be defining your terms.
OK, so you agree then that the argument proceeds logically to something of pure actuality? Forget the baggage-loaded term "God." Just go with the argument up to that point. All good? You agree?
"So it is up to you, the Atheist, to produce the hard data which refutes the situation at Lourdes."
"Notice that no one here has chosen to even address the Lourdes issue, despite having requested physical evidence."
"...evidence such as Lourdes is overtly ignored in support of the Atheist ideology."
ಠ_ŕ˛
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻)
Presumably your cryptograms are some sort of sarcasm, but highly ineffective as arguments in your favor.
Still no "compelling" material evidence in your favor, regarding the several propositions which are in your court for refutation.
Martin,
Well if we forget "God", then we have nothing to debate about.
I could ask for some clarifications however. Maybe we'll find something to argue over.
For instance, frame 3; "Change" means the conversion from "potential" to "actual".
frame 4; 1. Potentials do not exist.
Seems to contradict itself ..? Potentials certainly do seem to exist. Maybe you mean potentials do not self-actualize?
Again, it seems rather irrelevant. The main contention I have with is:
1) Since the chain must have a first member at the head of it, that member must be purely actual.
2) "This everyone understands to be God"
*Yahweh shown pictured*
So .. Can you name something besides a god that is purely actual? I do believe I can, but I'm interested in your answer.
Jotunn,
If you don't have much to disagree with, then you agree that there is a single omnipotent, perfect, eternal, immutable, incorporeal creator and sustainer of everything that happens.
You are no longer an atheist by any normal definition of the word.
Whether that being is Yahweh or not is incidental. I only put the picture up because Aquinas was arguing from within the Catholic church, but you could allow him to be mistake about the Bible, the identity of the unmoved mover, and all the rest but it wouldn't affect the argument at all and your atheism is now kaput.
Can you name something besides a god that is purely actual?
You can see from the second to last frame why that is impossible.
I said if we forget god..
And frankly, if you just want to concede that this is no argument for yahweh, I'll take that. Or maybe you could actually address the contradiction I pointed out?
I stated previously the contradictions inherent in your description of god. Ie: perfect, immutable, etc.
Gravity would be an example of pure actuality as it has no potential to be anything else.
If by your reasoning there can be no other pure actuality, then concede that your argument can be summarized as:
Things have potential, therefore god.
Stan, I would appreciate it if you acknowledged that your claim of the events at Lourdes does not match the accepted depiction of events.
Jotunn,
This much I know because I have been there: the spring emerges from cracks in solid rock near the bottom of the grotto at the back wall. Whether that matches your accepted depiction or not, that is the fact of the situation. I saw one account that said she scratched in the mud, apparently at that time there was mud on the floor of the grotto, perhaps the wall.
The best photo I've found of the spring at the back of the grotto is a travel photo found here: http://www.galenfrysinger.com/french_lourdes_grotte.htm
The floor has been paved to accommodate invalids.
When do you plan to actually refute this?
Jotunn,
Stephen Hawking claims that gravity has the potential to become universes.
However, since we don't know what gravity is, it is a leap to say what it isn't.
It does not match the wikipedia article. Maybe they removed all the dirt to the bedrock?
Regardless, it is not a miracle to dig in the ground and find water. Go out side and try it. Google "water table".
Hawking says that because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can form from nothing. He doesn't say gravity turns into a universe.
You are right, that is what he said. So, is gravity a law or is it a potentiality? Or is it a physical thing such as an "open string" just waiting to...? Since it is not defined or understood it is still an unjustified leap to declare it to be pure actuality.
As for digging in the dirt, I have yet to hear of a child digging a few strokes down to bedrock (at the side of a grotto) and striking a spring which never before existed and has not quit since.
The account is here:
http://www.catholic.org/clife/mary/app.php?id=9
Your association with hitting groundwater by digging three handfuls of dirt is not a disproof. It is a rather too-easy dismissal based on a very short Just So Story (It coulda happened this way). But that is not evidence for falsification. This is a specific piece of material evidence which occured with many witnesses and which still exists. It is just the ticket for Atheist refutation, using material, empirical, scientific methodology.
As for not corellating with a web article, I couldn't be less concerned. (Especially Wiki...)
As for a physical empirical falsification of a physical claim with physical evidence... still waiting for that.
So again, When do you plan to actually refute this?
It's interesting that when material evidence of interference is actually presented, it is denied because it is not non-material any more, and is therefore a natural occurence. That way the actual refutation can be avoided in another run-away scenario. But that sort of intellectual self-deception only works for the already-Atheist crowd, because it is not a straight ahead analysis / refutation and is easily seen to be so.
Yeah, it was probably Jesus. That makes more sense.
I've provided a naturalistic explanation for the emergence of a spring. A very common method of creating a spring. You may continue to claim that it is more plausible that the creator of the universe intervened in this particular instance. One of us is certainly deceiving ourselves...
Seems more unjustified to claim God is pure actuality. At least we can justify the belief in gravity.
Post a Comment