The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I'm not connecting anything! Look, let's make it simple. I have already conceded there is possibly life on other planets. I don't say there is for sure because there is no observable evidence of that claim --only a mathmatical possibility. You can say probability if it makes you feel better.

Someone mentioned the issue with alien life and I simply was asking why an atheist would say "there's probably life on other planets based on mathmatics"
even though there is no hard core evidence of it yet use the same criteria for God (being there's no evidence for God). It makes perfect sense from a theist POV to ask why someone would believe alien life is probable with no evidence (that can be put in a test tube or looked at or smelled or touched) but believe that God is NOT possible?? Considering there is the same amount of empirical evidence for both I didn't understand why alien life was "so much more believable" when there was the same amount of evidence but I understand what the argument is (concerning life) but I still don't fully buy into it. Sure, there's all the probability and so forth but probability does not equal actuality. Has one observed alien life? Some think they have. Considering most alien appearances have been debunked doesn't fill me with confidence.

If your answer is because of the mathmatical probability then fine. You are supposedly adding weight to your belief because there is life on this planet. Okay, so I understand your answer then. Thank you for responding.

Life 1/1
God 0/1

Now, in your opinion, which of these two is more probable elsewhere in the cosmos?

 

[Cearbhall]

I'm not connecting anything! Look, let's make it simple. I have already conceded there is possibly life on other planets. I don't say there is for sure because there is no observable evidence of that claim --only a mathmatical possibility. You can say probability if it makes you feel better.

Someone mentioned the issue with alien life and I simply was asking why an atheist would say "there's probably life on other planets based on mathmatics"
even though there is no hard core evidence of it yet use the same criteria for God (being there's no evidence for God). It makes perfect sense from a theist POV to ask why someone would believe alien life is probable with no evidence (that can be put in a test tube or looked at or smelled or touched) but believe that God is NOT possible?? Considering there is the same amount of empirical evidence for both I didn't understand why alien life was "so much more believable" when there was the same amount of evidence but I understand what the argument is (concerning life) but I still don't fully buy into it. Sure, there's all the probability and so forth but probability does not equal actuality. Has one observed alien life? Some think they have. Considering most alien appearances have been debunked doesn't fill me with confidence.

If your answer is because of the mathmatical probability then fine. You are supposedly adding weight to your belief because there is life on this planet. Okay, so I understand your answer then. Thank you for responding.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. It seems we understand each other now. I think you're just struggling to see this from a non-religious person's point-of-view, which is fine and totally understandable. To us, bringing belief in God into this discussion comes across as "You think there's probably life on more than one of the infinite number of planets in the universe, so why don't you accept that there could be an invisible leprechaun that follows you around and doesn't want you to wear the color yellow?" That just seems completely illogical and irrelevant to me.

 

[Joben]

I see no conflict at all in a meaningless, amoral universe containing a species that displays ethics and morality. That is, if one makes that assumption about the universe in the first place. (My view is different, which I elaborate on below.)

If the human species did not develop ethics and morality (ethics change over time, while morality is usually fixed at the personal and/or group level), civil society would not be possible. Intellect without ethics would (and might) be our unraveling. For instance, our technological potential has had vast ecological consequences, because our sense of ethics is warped on this front.

And, on a spiritual level, I think it is more meaningful for the human species to have created ethics and morality, and not be told to do so.

Let's assume that the universe is neutral, though: this does not mean that humans have to be. And, since humans are a node of the universe, wouldn't it be more correct to say that we are in fact the universe becoming aware of itself? That we render a part or aspect of the universe ethical and moral through our thought and action?

 

[Loudmouth]

Until someone provides proof of alien life you are in the same boat as theists on this one (at least in my opinion).

Two problems. No one is claiming to have an absolutley positive belief in aliens. Everyone is saying that it is very probable, but no one is saying that they do in fact exist.

Second, we already have proof that at least one planet has life. We have no evidence that a single deity exists.

 

[Tnmusicman]

Two problems. No one is claiming to have an absolutley positive belief in aliens. Everyone is saying that it is very probable, but no one is saying that they do in fact exist.

Second, we already have proof that at least one planet has life. We have no evidence that a single deity exists.

I understand this. My only point was about evidence. I know we have life on one planet so there's a possibility of life on another planet and oddly enough you made my point for me which is there is no evidence of life on any other planet. No evidence for aliens but since there is probability we'll go ahead and say "there's probably life on other planets".

God. No evidence (in the atheists opinion) for God. So they say "you are silly for believing in God as there is no evidence". Yes, I know there has never been proof of ANY God existing in the past.

Now, aliens. No evidence for aliens (yes, I know there's proof of life but NOT alien life ). Do atheists say "there's no evidence therefore we shoułdnt believe"? No, some say "it's possibly there's alien life EVEN THOUGH there is NO EVIDENCE for it thus far ".

The only point was about the fact that at this point,irregardless of the fact there is life on this planet, there is NO EVIDENCE YET of alien life.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

God. No evidence (in the atheists opinion) for God. So they say "you are silly for believing in God as there is no evidence". Yes, I know there has never been proof of ANY God existing in the past.

Don't be coy Tnmusicman, if you had evidence for god, you'd have proffered it by now.

 

[Cearbhall]

God. No evidence (in the atheists opinion) for God. So they say "you are silly for believing in God as there is no evidence". Yes, I know there has never been proof of ANY God existing in the past.

Now, aliens. No evidence for aliens (yes, I know there's proof of life but NOT alien life ). Do atheists say "there's no evidence therefore we shoułdnt believe"? No, some say "it's possibly there's alien life EVEN THOUGH there is NO EVIDENCE for it thus far ".

The only point was about the fact that at this point,irregardless of the fact there is life on this planet, there is NO EVIDENCE YET of alien life.

It's called the scientific method. The "probably" is a hypothesis based on past observations that life exists wherever it will be supported and yes, probability. It's hard to apply the scientific method to something that's never happened before, however.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The only point was about the fact that at this point,irregardless of the fact there is life on this planet, there is NO EVIDENCE YET of alien life.

That's right. This is why I don't believe in the existence of alien life. I merely regard it as rationally plausible that such life exists given that life developed on Earth, and that while I don't know the exact probability that there is other life in the universe, the odds are greater than zero.

I can't say the same for deities.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Maybe, if we compared God to Klingons we'd have a better match.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

No replies for the Dude?!

 

[Loudmouth]

I understand this. My only point was about evidence. I know we have life on one planet so there's a possibility of life on another planet and oddly enough you made my point for me which is there is no evidence of life on any other planet.

What percentage of planets in the universe do you think we have searched for life? Last time I checked, we haven't even tested Mars fully yet, and we still have some moons around Jupiter that could harbor life such as Europa.

God. No evidence (in the atheists opinion) for God. So they say "you are silly for believing in God as there is no evidence". Yes, I know there has never been proof of ANY God existing in the past.

It would be a bit different if there was evidence for any god, but there isn't. There isn't even any evidence for a supernatural realm where deities are said to exist. At least with life we know that life does exist in this universe, and we are quickly finding that most stars will have planets moving about them. The comparison isn't even close.

 

[Belk]

I understand this. My only point was about evidence. I know we have life on one planet so there's a possibility of life on another planet and oddly enough you made my point for me which is there is no evidence of life on any other planet. No evidence for aliens but since there is probability we'll go ahead and say "there's probably life on other planets".

God. No evidence (in the atheists opinion) for God. So they say "you are silly for believing in God as there is no evidence". Yes, I know there has never been proof of ANY God existing in the past.

Now, aliens. No evidence for aliens (yes, I know there's proof of life but NOT alien life ). Do atheists say "there's no evidence therefore we shoułdnt believe"? No, some say "it's possibly there's alien life EVEN THOUGH there is NO EVIDENCE for it thus far ".

The only point was about the fact that at this point,irregardless of the fact there is life on this planet, there is NO EVIDENCE YET of alien life.

But there is evidence. Life here on earth. That is kind of the whole point. We have a large amount of empirical evidence for life. We have no empirical evidence for gods. I think you're trying to exclude the fact of life here on earth but that does not work. It is the major piece of evidence we have that gives us reason to believe there might be life on other planets. You can't just dismiss it and then try to point to our stance as being different on two different topics.

 

[Elioenai26]

But there is evidence. Life here on earth. That is kind of the whole point. We have a large amount of empirical evidence for life. We have no empirical evidence for gods. I think you're trying to exclude the fact of life here on earth but that does not work. It is the major piece of evidence we have that gives us reason to believe there might be life on other planets. You can't just dismiss it and then try to point to our stance as being different on two different topics.

We are empirical evidence for God.

Living, breathing, thinking, feeling, emotional, rational intelligences with the capacity for making moral judgments. We are intentional also in the aspect that we are able to think on various things, form intentions, and carry these intentions out.

Look in the mirror, YOU are evidence for God. For you are a contingent being and a contingent being owes its existence to One outside of itself. You do not get mind from matter, nor do you get an "ought" from an "is".

You owe your existence not to mindless matter or an accidental collocation of atoms, but rather to a Necessary Being who formed and fashioned you and imbued you with intrinsic value and worth.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We are empirical evidence for God.

Living, breathing, thinking, feeling, emotional, rational intelligences with the capacity for making moral judgments. We are intentional also in the aspect that we are able to think on various things, form intentions, and carry these intentions out.

Look in the mirror, YOU are evidence for God. For you are a contingent being and a contingent being owes its existence to One outside of itself. You do not get mind from matter, nor do you get an "ought" from an "is".

You owe your existence not to mindless matter or an accidental collocation of atoms, but rather to a Necessary Being who formed and fashioned you and imbued you with intrinsic value and worth.

Or perhaps the concept of God is empirical evidence of living, breathing, thinking, feeling, emotional, rational intelligences with the capacity to conceive of such a being?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think Hawisher raised this point several months ago: if everything is evidence for God, then the cosmological argument is just as convincing as the argument from squirrels.

 

[Elioenai26]

I think Hawisher raised this point several months ago: if everything is evidence for God, then the cosmological argument is just as convincing as the argument from squirrels.

An argument's being convincing is determined by one's subjective disposition towards the thing seeking to be demonstrated by the argument.

Some atheists have an emotional/psychological resistance to God. This is evidenced in their very own words. This emotional/psychological resistance is the impetus for unbelief and their unwillingness to be "convinced" regardless of the weight of the argument.

This may not be your case, but it certainly is for some who are atheists. In their case, they have emotional and psychological reasons for their unbelief and any argument for the existence of God will be violently rejected as an affront to them.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

We are empirical evidence for God.

Living, breathing, thinking, feeling, emotional, rational intelligences with the capacity for making moral judgments. We are intentional also in the aspect that we are able to think on various things, form intentions, and carry these intentions out.

Look in the mirror, YOU are evidence for God. For you are a contingent being and a contingent being owes its existence to One outside of itself. You do not get mind from matter, nor do you get an "ought" from an "is".

You owe your existence not to mindless matter or an accidental collocation of atoms, but rather to a Necessary Being who formed and fashioned you and imbued you with intrinsic value and worth.

Necessary being is nice and well. Forming and fashioning is a quite poetic description of "I have no clue how all this stuff works either." however. (On the other hand you are welcome to shed some more light.) If you want a God out of this, I am afraid you'll have to explain.


(And as an aside, creation took place 13.7 million years ago. Or so I have heard. (But then again I also heard 6.000) Humanity is much younger than 13.7 million. Hmmmm ... )

 

[Elioenai26]

Necessary being is nice and well. Forming and fashioning is a quite poetic description of "I have no clue how all this stuff works either." however. (On the other hand you are welcome to shed some more light.) If you want a God out of this, I am afraid you'll have to explain.

I do not have to explain anything actually. For me, God is a Person who I have a relationship with. So in the same way you do not need to prove how you have a relationship with your best friend, or significant other in order for the relationship to be real to you, I do not need to prove my relationship with God to you.

(And as an aside, creation took place 13.7 million years ago. Or so I have heard. (But then again I also heard 6.000) Humanity is much younger than 13.7 million. Hmmmm ... )

The universe came into existence roughly 13.7 Billion years ago.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I do not have to explain anything actually. For me, God is a Person who I have a relationship with. So in the same way you do not need to prove how you have a relationship with your best friend, or significant other in order for the relationship to be real to you, I do not need to prove my relationship with God to you.

Well ... Maybe, even true. Maybe not every believer has to explain stuff.

But I meant was rather, that if you want to use "us" as evidence for God, then you will have to explain things. You'll have to explain a little beyond "forming and fashioning". And that is what you said:

We are empirical evidence for God. [Etc]​

The same holds true for other God-of-the-Gaps style arguments. Even those about mathematics and morality.

The universe came into existence roughly 13.7 Billion years ago.

Not six thousand years? I mean, it gets thrown around a lot. (But it is probably just some sort of emotional/phychological resistence.)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

An argument's being convincing is determined by one's subjective disposition towards the thing seeking to be demonstrated by the argument.

Which goes back to Hawisher's point that the cosmological argument is as good as the argument from squirrels.

Some atheists have an emotional/psychological resistance to God. This is evidenced in their very own words. This emotional/psychological resistance is the impetus for unbelief and their unwillingness to be "convinced" regardless of the weight of the argument.

How does one have an emotional resistance to a being they do not believe to exist? The emotion canard is convenient because it can be applied to just about anything. For example: "If you don't support clean coal then that must be because you have some emotional reason that prevents you from being convinced by the case for clean coal".

This may not be your case, but it certainly is for some who are atheists. In their case, they have emotional and psychological reasons for their unbelief and any argument for the existence of God will be violently rejected as an affront to them.

Or they have considered the arguments given and have concluded that they do not provide a good reason to believe by faith.