What do you say to anti-theists on the formation of the universe?

[Oompa Loompa]

Like this?

View attachment 365429

I have never read it.

 

[AV1611VET]

They want empirical proof.

Proof is for alcohol.

And those demanding it are dipsomaniacs.

And they have their college degrees to show it.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Anti-theists ask for proof, or wisdom they can't knock back, at least to satisfy themselves.

If an atheist asks foe evidence, ask them what would evidence look like to them. You may be surprised to find that what constitutes 'evidence' is very subjective.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have never read it.

I haven't either, but don't you think atheists would find it "respectful and credible," as you put it?

After all, shouldn't the quality go in before the name goes on?

Oh, wait ... !

 

[AV1611VET]

If an atheist asks foe evidence, ask them what would evidence look like to them. You may be surprised to find that what constitutes 'evidence' is very subjective.

Yup ... ask them if they would recognize it if they got it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The anti-theists I encountered are English and in with R Dawkins.

Neither Englishmen, nor zoologists have anything to do with the formation of the Universe..

They have something in common with each other. Cynical guys. The are scientists, logical positivists. Three quarters of them are atheists in the science forum. They believe in God if something about the question of the existence of the universe inspires them.

All irrelevant.

The trend in the universe is entropy, giving a further trend of determining whether or not God exists by the sense of chance order for likeliness. Hawking said he did not believe there could be a god, because before the Universe there were no dimensions, no time to exist in.

The nature of entropy has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of god(s).

These fellows even say and press others to agree, that Moses never existed and Jesus also, never existed. Of course they believe in evolution. And when trying to see things from their point of view you can stumble and they want you to doubt god exists... so I ask what to say for my and younger men's and ladies' benefit.

None of which is relevant to the question you posed in the title.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither Englishmen, nor zoologists have anything to do with the formation of the Universe..

Ares the Ram* may have something to say about that.

* Ares isn't a ram, but a lamb. The Lamb of God. But Ares is taught as being a ram in academic circles.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

They want empirical proof.

Ask them what scientific tool can empirically measure the supernatural and drive the point home that empirical proof of the existence of a supernatural being is impossible with today's technology. But that also means that the existence of the supernatural cannot be disproven either. When Einstein discovered his theory of relativity, the existence of black holes were merely theoretical because of the limits of technology. Regardless, this theory was grounded on a foundation that is trusted. Because the existence of a supernatural deity is unfalsifiable, an atheist may subjectively say, "I do not believe in the existence of God." But this is a faith based claim. If they say "I know God doesn't exist," they are making a truth claim and they then have the burden of proving a negative. Which is scientifically impossible.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I haven't either, but don't you think atheists would find it "respectful and credible," as you put it?

After all, shouldn't the quality go in before the name goes on?

Oh, wait ... !

It depends. The athiest manifesto is a manifesto of the author who is presumably an athiest. He speaks only for himself, not for other atheists. Lee Strobel researched mounds of evidence in his attempt to disprove God. The same evidence that convinced Strobel into believing in God is the same evidence that so many atheists dismissed. Evidence is subjective.

 

[AV1611VET]

It depends. The atheist manifesto is a manifesto of the author who is presumably an atheist. He speaks only for himself, not for other atheists.

And who does the Atheist Republic speak for?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Obviously, not for all but some people, the Universe is evidence of God, and it goes back to opinions and philosophy, ip dixit. And the argument from intelligence... they know philosophical debate.

What use is evidence that only some people use?

I pointed out that there was a field dig and they found that at a point in time people living in Israel no longer ate pork, so no more pork bones, only sheep. And they began to use another type of pottery creation.

What's the point here? That a group had odd cultural practices and the attributed it to religion? (Also, nothing about the Universe.)

People have seen a place on a mountain in Sinai, with evidence of water running out, that was milky with minerals in it. But that is like nothing to my scientismic fellows.

Mineral springs are not evidence of the nature of the Universe.

 

[dlamberth]

I don't agree.

When I was younger, I was taught in school that Pluto was our 9th planet.

I didn't question it.

I accepted it prima facie.

After all, it was my science teacher telling me that, and it was even documented in my science books.

To question everything would have gotten me laughed at -- or worse.

Here's a different perspective.
I remember when I was younger and in my Bible class I was taught that God created everything ex-nihio. After all it was taught in the Bible so it must be truth and so I accepted it full stop. To question it I would have gotten laughed at -- or worse. Especially at the home front.

 

[Neogaia777]

@AV1611VET @dlamberth

Have either one of your guy's experiences created a bias?

Because it's not good to live in the past, etc.

Or let your past experiences influence your present, and therefore affect your future, etc.

Also not to at all mention how it also affects your ability to know the real truth about anything ever at all either, etc.

And while I'm not going to say that this is at all absolutely true about either one of you, etc, a lot of people "are their past experiences", and I think that is sad, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

And who does the Atheist Republic speak for?

Themselves. My point is that a typical deflection tactic by atheist is to say that the only thing atheists have in common is their disbelief in the existence of any supernatural deity. The reason varies from person to person.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a different perspective.
I remember when I was younger and in my Bible class I was taught that God created everything ex-nihio. After all it was taught in the Bible so it must be truth and so I accepted it full stop. To question it I would have gotten laughed at -- or worse. Especially at the home front.

Depends on what you question it with.

Did you question it with science?

If so, I wouldn't have laughed at you, but I would have shaken my head.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have either one of your guy's experiences created a bias?

I sure have.

I'll take a double anchovy pizza over a pineapple pizza any day of the week.

 

[dlamberth]

Depends on what you question it with.

Did you question it with science?

If so, I wouldn't have laughed at you, but I would have shaken my head.

It was when I became interested in the geology of the Earth that I began the process of questioning what I had so firmly believed. I couldn't deny what I could see with my own eyes.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was when I became interested in the geology of the Earth that I began the process of questioning what I had so firmly believed. I couldn't deny what I could see with my own eyes.

Depends on what you so firmly believed.

Did you question it with the Bible?

If so, I wouldn't have laughed at you, but I would have shaken my head.

 

[Fervent]

Arguing with an anti-theist by engaging in scientific discussion(or pseudoscientific discussion) is a fool's errand, since the convention is to shackle science with materialist presuppositions through barring explanations that aren't naturalistic and narrowly defining naturalistic as materialist. If there is cross-faith discussion to be had it's engaging the epistemic questions that are taken for granted so often. Anti-theists deny holding beliefs, and justify that assertion through a circular appeal to methodological naturalism that begins with materialist presumptions. It's like trying to disprove God's existence through appealing to the Bible and assuming it to be God's word at the outset.

That isn't to say that there aren't scientific challenges to materialism, but cosmology is not an area where such challenges crop up. Neuroscience and QM do offer quite a number of scientific challenges to materialism, but attempting to engage in discussions surrounding those fields quickly makes it apparent how deep the materialist blinders go and how unwilling anti-theists are willing to examine their metaphysical assumptions.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Arguing with an anti-theist by engaging in scientific discussion(or pseudoscientific discussion) is a fool's errand, since the convention is to shackle science with materialist presuppositions through barring explanations that aren't naturalistic and narrowly defining naturalistic as materialist.

That's how science works. It only considers the natural. If someone can't handle that, perhaps they should stay away from discussions of science or the relationship between science and alternative explanations.

If there is cross-faith discussion to be had it's engaging the epistemic questions that are taken for granted so often. Anti-theists deny holding beliefs, and justify that assertion through a circular appeal to methodological naturalism that begins with materialist presumptions.

Anti-theists aren't part of a "faith".

It's like trying to disprove God's existence through appealing to the Bible and assuming it to be God's word at the outset.

At least you recognize that.

That isn't to say that there aren't scientific challenges to materialism, but cosmology is not an area where such challenges crop up.

Not from the science.

Neuroscience and QM do offer quite a number of scientific challenges to materialism, but attempting to engage in discussions surrounding those fields quickly makes it apparent how deep the materialist blinders go and how unwilling anti-theists are willing to examine their metaphysical assumptions.

I've seen no evidence to back this claim. There is absolutely nothing in QM that "challenges materialism". I don't know neuroscience nearly as well, but I've seen nothing from that field that does either.