The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[super animator]

Younger people are not believing because there is access to information that wasn't as readily available 20 years ago and is now at anyone's finger tips on the internet. These numbers will change dramatically in the next 10 years.

I think it has less to do with the information that can be access and more to do with indoctrination. Young people are being asked that they never thought of asking before and to examine their own beliefs when discussing.

 

[super animator]

Just what exactly make things "supernatural'? Being unexplainable can't be a criteria cause your relying of the god of gaps.

 

[Elioenai26]

Atheists just happen to think that it's more likely that we don't have the technology to find the answers yet than it is that a higher power will send us into a fiery pit after death if we touch, and we're confident enough in that logic to state that deities don't exist, in the same way that most people state definitively that unicorns don't exist.

This is why I'm an agnostic atheist, though. I recognize that we can't disprove the existence of a higher being and that we don't yet have the ability to give a flawless scientific explanation. And I want there to be unicorns.

So you believe that it is more likely that one day, philosophical naturalism will be vindicated and be shown to be the more probable explanation for the existence of the universe than the hypothesis that a transcendent cause is the best explanation of the universe.

Several things to note:

1. Barring a precommitment to philosophical naturalism, there is no good reason to hold this position in light of our current scientific understanding of the cosmos.

2. Your belief in the above is demonstrative of your being a woman of faith. You have faith in scientists and philosophical naturalism. You believe that one day, philosophical naturalism will be vindicated. There is absolutely no way you can prove that one day philosophical naturalism will be proven true. You assume, take for granted, hope, believe, have faith that one day it will.

3. In light of the above, your position begs the question for philosophical naturalism and as such is fallacious.

 

[Elioenai26]

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

Asking someone to prove a negative? lol. Will you be using this one in your "debate"?

I am simply asking him to demonstrate why we should accept his view that philosophical naturalism is true.

This would entail providing a good argument as to why he believes that all that exists or has ever existed or ever will exist can be explained exclusively by natural forces. He must do this while keeping in mind the currently accepted view of the scientific community that the universe had an absolute beginning approximately fifteen billion years ago.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There is no contradiction if there are two different realms.

The contradiction remains.

When speaking of existence, it doesn't matter which "realm" one is talking about. The question doesn't focus on either the natural or the "supernatural". One isn't asking "Why is there the natural instead of nothing?", but "why is there something rather than nothing"? Unless you've suddenly become an atheist, you believe that God exists as something (as God), and so "Why is there something rather than nothing?" includes such potential questions as "Why is there God rather than nothing?"

So, you are the one in error.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

I think it has less to do with the information that can be access and more to do with indoctrination. Young people are being asked that they never thought of asking before and to examine their own beliefs when discussing.

I think that is part of it, yes. it is more culturally acceptable (every day) in the United States to examine the claims of christianity, were in the past, it was much more taboo. The momentum is moving strongly towards what has already happened in many other countries over the last 30 years.

Look at how churches throughout the US has tried to adapt to this threat. They realize the old traditional church tactics of cramming scripture down people's throats etc, has run its course and fewer people are buying that any longer. They have evolved into more liberal churches, that are mega churches, which aim as much to entertain people as they do to teach them about the bible (because they know the bible doesn't sell the way it used to).

 

[Elioenai26]

No, it would be up to the proponent of "a supernatural realm" to demonstrate that there is such.
Besides, I have yet to see how anything is explained by the assumption of a "supernatural". "The supernatural realm" is usually claimed to be beyond our understanding, and as such doesn´t and can´t explain anything. E.g. owhere is it explained how God could manage to create anything. Breathing stuff into existence is not an explanation, it´s an appeal to the unexplainable.

Mark implied in his post that there is only one realm of existence I.e. the natural.

Since this amounts to a claim of knowledge, he must support it.

Saying that philosophical naturalism is true without supporting that view is like me saying that "a transcendent creator created the universe" without supporting that view.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Mark implied in his post that there is only one realm of existence I.e. the natural.

You read something into my post that isn't there. I made no such implication.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

Mark implied in his post that there is only one realm of existence I.e. the natural.

Since this amounts to a claim of knowledge, he must support it.

Saying that philosophical naturalism is true without supporting that view is like me saying that "a transcendent creator created the universe" without supporting that view.

No its not. He is stating naturalism is all we can confirm with objective evidence. If we can't confirm something else without verifiable evidence, what is wrong with stating; "we can't show it exists" If evidence becomes available where it can be shown to exist, then that is a different story.

You are making a claim that there is another realm of existence, so the burden would be on way to show us why.

 

[quatona]

Mark implied in his post that there is only one realm of existence I.e. the natural.

No, he didn´t.

Since this amounts to a claim of knowledge, he must support it.

No, he doesn´t have to. Unless someone comes up who can demonstrate that there´s a supernatural realm, there is no reason to take that a hypothetical realm the existence of which isn´t demonstrated, into consideration.

Saying that philosophical naturalism is true without supporting that view is like me saying that "a transcendent creator created the universe" without supporting that view.

This is not what Mark did, to begin with.
Apart from that your line of reasoning throws every reasonable approach out of the window. If any hypothesis would have to explain how everything that any crackpot has wildly fantasized about does not exist, we wouldn´t get anywhere.
Even if your claim that there´s a "supernatural realm" would explain anything (which it doesn´t), and even if you could demonstrate that a "supernatural realm" exists (which you can´t) according to your reasoning I could reject your explanation simply on basis of the fact that you haven´t demonstrated that there isn´t a meta-supernatural realm that caused the "supernatural" realm, or a super-meta-supernatural realm.
Your ongoing attempts of shifting the burdon of evidence are becoming desperate.

 

[Cearbhall]

So you believe that it is more likely that one day, philosophical naturalism will be vindicated and be shown to be the more probable explanation for the existence of the universe than the hypothesis that a transcendent cause is the best explanation of the universe.

I believe that day is long past.

2. Your belief in the above is demonstrative of your being a woman of faith. You have faith in scientists and philosophical naturalism. You believe that one day, philosophical naturalism will be vindicated. There is absolutely no way you can prove that one day philosophical naturalism will be proven true. You assume, take for granted, hope, believe, have faith that one day it will.

It's not faith. It's logic. I see a history of scientific theories turning out to be correct and religions admitting they were wrong a few generations later, so I presume the pattern will continue.

3. In light of the above, your position begs the question for philosophical naturalism and as such is fallacious.

That's about what I was expecting.

 

[Davian]

I am simply asking him to demonstrate why we should accept his view that philosophical naturalism is true.

No, you said "In order for this argument to be sound, you would have to demonstrate that there is no supernatural or transcendant realm..."

That is asking someone to prove a negative.

It is too much to ask for some intellectual honesty?

This would entail providing a good argument as to why he believes that all that exists or has ever existed or ever will exist can be explained exclusively by natural forces. He must do this while keeping in mind the currently accepted view of the scientific community that the universe had an absolute beginning approximately fifteen billion years ago.

If something in particular in philosophical naturalism is demonstrated to not be accurate, then it will change accordingly. I would ask, what other 'pony' is in this 'race'? You will need to do more than pencilling in "goddidit" or "supernatural" onto the 'race form'.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So you believe that it is more likely that one day, philosophical naturalism will be vindicated and be shown to be the more probable explanation for the existence of the universe than the hypothesis that a transcendent cause is the best explanation of the universe.

Several things to note:

1. Barring a precommitment to philosophical naturalism, there is no good reason to hold this position in light of our current scientific understanding of the cosmos.

2. Your belief in the above is demonstrative of your being a woman of faith. You have faith in scientists and philosophical naturalism. You believe that one day, philosophical naturalism will be vindicated. There is absolutely no way you can prove that one day philosophical naturalism will be proven true. You assume, take for granted, hope, believe, have faith that one day it will.

3. In light of the above, your position begs the question for philosophical naturalism and as such is fallacious.

I disagree with your assessment, in fact I think there's good reason to assume the universe as we know it arose from natural means. We know the big bang happened and we have a good understanding of when the big bang happened. We have plausible explanations as to what caused the formation of the universe as we know it.

Can we say for sure the exact process in all possible steps? No. But we have no reason to appeal to the supernatural, and we can say quite definitively that the Christian God is not the correct answer to this problem.

 

[Elioenai26]

It's not faith. It's logic. I see a history of scientific theories turning out to be correct and religions admitting they were wrong a few generations later, so I presume the pattern will continue.

That was my main point. You presume, believe, trust that one day science will give us an answer regarding what caused the universe to come into existence based on what science has given us thus far.

This is what is called methodological naturalism which falls under philosophical naturalism.

But it is my contention that metaphysical naturalism is demonstrably fallacious and self defeating. I can also defend my position if you would like to debate me on it.

And besides, I have not seen you present a good reason as to why we should presuppose it in the first place.

I can formulate your position into a syllogism as follows:

1. If we observe a history of scientific theories coming true, then metaphysical naturalism is true

2. We observe a history of scientific theories coming true.

3. Therefore, metaphysical naturalism is true.

Premise 1. is false. This is one argument why.

Just because we can look back and see a pattern of validation of scientific theories, it does not follow that therefore all that exists is natural forces. That line of reasoning is an example of a non-sequitur. There could be a transcendent agent who is the source and superintendent of said forces. In light of our current knowledge of the cosmos as well as our knowledge that the past can not be infinite, I would say that the alternative hypothesis I mentioned is far more probable.

Premise 2. Is contestable.

It is true, we see a pattern of scientific theories coming true over a period of time. We also observe a pattern of scientific theories being proven false over a period of time. All this shows is that the scientific method is limited to the degree of knowledge that scientists possess.

 

[Elioenai26]

I disagree with your assessment,

I hope you have an argument and or good reason(s) to support your view.

in fact I think there's good reason to assume the universe as we know it arose from natural means.

I am all ears...

We know the big bang happened and we have a good understanding of when the big bang happened.

I can agree with that....

We have plausible explanations as to what caused the formation of the universe as we know it.

What are these "plausible explanations?"

Why are they plausible?

Can we say for sure the exact process in all possible steps? No.

I agree.... continue...

But we have no reason to appeal to the supernatural, and we can say quite definitively that the Christian God is not the correct answer to this problem.

Ok Dave, I saw no argument, no good reason(s) that you gave to demonstrate why you were correct in disagreeing with my statement.

I saw no good reason at all. You made no argument at all. All you said was that we have several plausible explanations.

That is not an argument, that is not evidence, that is not a reason to assume the universe came to exist by purely natural means.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, you said "In order for this argument to be sound, you would have to demonstrate that there is no supernatural or transcendant realm..."

That is asking someone to prove a negative.

It is too much to ask for some intellectual honesty?

What is entailed in building a case for metaphysical naturalism? This is what he must do in order for his argument to be sound.

He assumes there is one and only one realm, the natural. But how could he prove that?

Davian, that is my point, he can't!

If something in particular in philosophical naturalism is demonstrated to not be accurate, then it will change accordingly.

You mean to say: "It will be changed...". Philosophical naturalism is not something that can change into something else. It is people (naturalists) that change their views and or their their ideas based on an ever increasing understanding of the world.

I would ask, what other 'pony' is in this 'race'? You will need to do more than pencilling in "goddidit" or "supernatural" onto the 'race form'.

I assume by 'pony' you mean "competing hypotheses".

I think you know that the traditionally held hypothesis with regards for the existence of reality as we know it is a 'necessarily existing transcendent creator'.

Actually, there is a very small pool of competing hypotheses regarding this matter:

1. The universe has a transcendent creator as its cause.
2. The universe popped into existence, uncaused, out of nothing ...
3. The universe has a curved geometry spacetime boundary (rather than the singularity that is called for in the Standard Model) that has always existed from which it spontaneously generated itself from (quantum gravity models)..
4. The universe has a black hole which formed in the preexisting stating vacuum space and collapsed to the maximum allowed values of such quantities [ of strings (tiny, one-dimensional strings of energy) ] set to increase in quantities before rebounding in the current expansion as its cause (M-theory i.e. one of two string scenarios) ...
5. The universe has a cause but we do not know. :o

 

[Elioenai26]

The contradiction remains.

When speaking of existence, it doesn't matter which "realm" one is talking about. The question doesn't focus on either the natural or the "supernatural". One isn't asking "Why is there the natural instead of nothing?", but "why is there something rather than nothing"? Unless you've suddenly become an atheist, you believe that God exists as something (as God), and so "Why is there something rather than nothing?" includes such potential questions as "Why is there God rather than nothing?"

So, you are the one in error.


eudaimonia,

Mark

When the contemporary, secular philosopher Derek Parfit said that

"No question is more sublime than why there is a Universe: why there is anything rather than nothing." Derek Parfit, "Why Anything? Why This?" London Review of Books 20/2 (January 22, 1998), p.24

He did not think it one of the most silly of all philosophical questions. When Aristotle,Kant, Hegel, Descartes, Fichte, Leibniz, Rousseau, Kiekergaard, Maritain, Wittgenstein, Weil etc. etc. pondered the question, they did not think it silly either. In fact, I can think of no one, besides you, who thinks it a silly question.

You think it silly because you over analyze the words that Parfits used. The academics who ask the question do so out of profound and sincere interest in what constitutes the reason for our existence. That is it. When the question is asked, the person is not here assuming that God exists at all, for many atheists have asked the very same question. Here the word "something, anything etc. etc," simply refers to the universe and all that is contained within it...

​

 

[HitchSlap]

Do you have an objective, demonstrable example of something that is "supernatural?"

 

[Elioenai26]

Do you have an objective, demonstrable example of something that is "supernatural?"

No. Why do you ask?

 

[HitchSlap]

No. Why do you ask?

Then it's not logical to explain the universe terms of supernatural origins. It's reasonable to start with what we can measure and observe, naturally.