The stumbling block for atheists.

[dysert]

which means you were wrong in your initial assumptions about atheists. They don't deny the existence of non-detectable stuff, they just see no need in taking it into consideration until they detect it.

Huh? If it's non-detectable, then it's not going to be detected.

 

[Nithavela]

I haven't left. I just don't want to get into a spitting contest. To read that you agree there's non-detectable stuff is a good thing I think.

We couldn't detect radio waves until a few decades ago, too. Doesn't make them supernatural.

 

[Speedwell]

Huh? If it's non-detectable, then it's not going to be detected.

No, it just means it hasn't been detected yet. But I observe that the thrust of the theist argument in this discussion is that it is detectable, but that atheists are prejudiced against it because it is not the kind of thing they think should be detectable. Radrook's version of ID, for example, or Kenny's biblical creationism.

 

[dysert]

No, it just means it hasn't been detected yet. But I observe that the thrust of the theist argument in this discussion is that it is detectable, but that atheists are prejudiced against it because it is not the kind of thing they think should be detectable. Radrook's version of ID, for example, or Kenny's biblical creationism.

I see we have different definitions of "non-detectable".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So your first reply is to say "nice argument" on the one thing that deserves argument, when at least my argument was one...where "nice argument" is not.

Sorry to disillusion you, but "... I think I pretty well got it right..." isn't an argument.

Then, even after my pointing out just what you were doing, you dwell on some senseless argument about a term in order top redirect the attention?

The senseless argument was yours; I was pointing that out to you.

 

[Speedwell]

I see we have different definitions of "non-detectable".

If this "stuff" truly is non detectable by any means then what good is it? If we are unaware of its existence or of any influences it has, it might as well be non-existent.

What do you mean by "Non-detectable?"

 

[Freodin]

I haven't left. I just don't want to get into a spitting contest. To read that you agree there's non-detectable stuff is a good thing I think.

If this "stuff" truly is non detectable by any means then what good is it? If we are unaware of its existence or of any influences it has, it might as well be non-existent.

What do you mean by "Non-detectable?"

See, this is why I said "we would need to talk about the concept of 'senses'" earlier. Or you could make it about "detectable" instead.

We could reduce it to "our senses"... human sight, smell, taste, touch... that would still leave a lot of other "senses" that could detect stuff. We could reduce it to the senses of "living" or "conscious" beings... that would still leave a lot of other things that could be used to detect stuff.

If something is really "undetectable"... and it seems that you, dysert, hold to this definition, there is really literally no way
to detect it. That means it doesn't have any influence on the rest of "reality"... or else you could detect it by this influence.

And if something hasn't any influence on reality other than itself... why bother with it? It is indistinguishable from "non-existent".

Considering that you said that the acceptence of something undetectable would result in the appearence of "miracles" and the knowledge of "the Creator God", it seems you didn't come to that conclusion. I would like to know why.

And I would also be interested to find out why you excluded the pink unicorns. Seriously, I do.

 

[Heissonear]

I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

You pointed at their foundation.

 

[Heissonear]

Those who have no understanding about the Holy Spirit and being born again by Him acquire only a physical understanding of this life.

Christianity is a relationship with the One who made all things, not adherence to doctrines.

 

[Tinker Grey]

And here comes the next mistake: Atheists don't believe in god because they want to sin!

It's fascinating, really. Some christians seem to feel the need to act as if everyone obviously believes as they do (in their "heart of hearts"), but those that appear to believe differently are actually rejecting that belief.

Why do YOU not believe in the greek pantheon? Do you fear the punishment of not bringing enough sacrifices before zeus? Or is there another reason?

I don't believe in cops. That way, I can speed.

 

[dysert]

See, this is why I said "we would need to talk about the concept of 'senses'" earlier. Or you could make it about "detectable" instead.

We could reduce it to "our senses"... human sight, smell, taste, touch... that would still leave a lot of other "senses" that could detect stuff. We could reduce it to the senses of "living" or "conscious" beings... that would still leave a lot of other things that could be used to detect stuff.

If something is really "undetectable"... and it seems that you, dysert, hold to this definition, there is really literally no way
to detect it. That means it doesn't have any influence on the rest of "reality"... or else you could detect it by this influence.

And if something hasn't any influence on reality other than itself... why bother with it? It is indistinguishable from "non-existent".

Considering that you said that the acceptence of something undetectable would result in the appearence of "miracles" and the knowledge of "the Creator God", it seems you didn't come to that conclusion. I would like to know why.

And I would also be interested to find out why you excluded the pink unicorns. Seriously, I do.

You make some good points.

Let me try to explain myself without metaphors and the like. I maintain that there is a God who cannot be detected by our senses. He works in the world and in people to accomplish His (long-term) will. The world and people carry on as would be indicated by natural laws, so His work goes undetected. Yet in the end, His will will have been accomplished. This is seen all through the Bible. Take a quick read of the book of Esther to see (the unmentioned) God at work through natural means.

I don't have a good answer for you about the pink unicorns except that I've chosen to believe they don't exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those who have no understanding about the Holy Spirit and being born again by Him acquire only a physical understanding of this life.

Christianity is a relationship with the One who made all things, not adherence to doctrines.

Then why do so many Christians adhere to false doctrines?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You make some good points.

Let me try to explain myself without metaphors and the like. I maintain that there is a God who cannot be detected by our senses. He works in the world and in people to accomplish His (long-term) will. The world and people carry on as would be indicated by natural laws, so His work goes undetected. Yet in the end, His will will have been accomplished. This is seen all through the Bible. Take a quick read of the book of Esther to see (the unmentioned) God at work through natural means.

I don't have a good answer for you about the pink unicorns except that I've chosen to believe they don't exist.

Examples where there is a happy ending for a devout is not evidence for a god, unless examples where there is an unhappy ending for a devout person is evidence against a god. And please, don't raise any variations of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Most theists here do not understand the nature of evidence. The best evidence cuts both ways.

 

[Freodin]

You make some good points.

Thanks. I'm trying to do my best.

Let me try to explain myself without metaphors and the like. I maintain that there is a God who cannot be detected by our senses. He works in the world and in people to accomplish His (long-term) will. The world and people carry on as would be indicated by natural laws, so His work goes undetected. Yet in the end, His will will have been accomplished. This is seen all through the Bible. Take a quick read of the book of Esther to see (the unmentioned) God at work through natural means.

I think I understand that... though I still would disagree that this would mean "undetectable". At least one of "His works" would have to be detectable in this case: the Bible, and God through this. Or else how would you get this whole idea?

But the main point I see here is: you maintain this. Other people don't: they believe something different... sometimes more, sometimes less different, but different.

And still, these people can accept "undetectable" things, or they can reject it. It doesn't seem to have any major influence on their position of what you "maintained" here. Some of these people accept miracles, some don't. Some consider "creator gods" real, some don't.

I think this rather negates your initial proposal for the "fatal flaw" of atheism, wouldn't you agree?

I don't have a good answer for you about the pink unicorns except that I've chosen to believe they don't exist.

Maybe if you accepted the possibility of undetectable things...? Nah, just kidding.

But maybe that point is the "fatal flaw" in your initial conclusion. The acceptence of the existence of a general undetectable thing doesn't lead to the acceptence of the existence of a specific undetectable thing... like The Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHHH).
Nor does the acceptence of the potential existence of a specific undetectable thing lead to the acceptence of the actual existence of this thing.

So... back to the drawing board? Or would you be willing to consider that "we don't see convincing evidence" is atheists giving you their real reason for being atheists?

 

[Freodin]

Examples where there is a happy ending for a devout is not evidence for a god, unless examples where there is an unhappy ending for a devout person is evidence against a god. And please, don't raise any variations of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Most theists here do not understand the nature of evidence. The best evidence cuts both ways.

Nah, to be fair, he didn't make an argument from "happy endings". He just used "God's will"... and that could be anything.

Sure, most believers would imply a positive outcome from their perspective... but this isn't necessary for his argument to work.

 

[Nithavela]

You make some good points.

Let me try to explain myself without metaphors and the like. I maintain that there is a God who cannot be detected by our senses. He works in the world and in people to accomplish His (long-term) will. The world and people carry on as would be indicated by natural laws, so His work goes undetected. Yet in the end, His will will have been accomplished. This is seen all through the Bible. Take a quick read of the book of Esther to see (the unmentioned) God at work through natural means.

I don't have a good answer for you about the pink unicorns except that I've chosen to believe they don't exist.

He also did some pretty unnatural stuff, though. Like, burning bush, cloud around tent, parting the red sea...

Those things seem pretty detectable to me.

 

[quatona]

I think you are both wrong, actually, at least in terms of the more truculent atheists. They have an 'a priori' fear of its implications for them, personally. Implications of restraints on their personal conduct and life-style ; mostly, in terms of their sex life

I find the idea that an Intelligent Designer of the universe would be concerned with my life style and particularly sex life so far fetched that it certainly plays no part in my lack of belief in it.

 

[quatona]

This is a very good "root cause". If you have no reason to believe something... you won't believe something.

...but for some reason the root cause can´t be the root cause when it doesn´t shed a negative light on the person who doesn´t agree with him.

 

[quatona]

which means you were wrong in your initial assumptions about atheists. They don't deny the existence of non-detectable stuff, they just see no need in taking it into consideration until they detect it.

Plus, they do not buy into the equation "undetectable stuff = God".

 

[Larniavc]

I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

Dunno.

I guess you need to demonstrate that magic is real.