Atheism destroyed with a question

Empiricism plus scepticism, constrained by practicality. Note that this means that you have to accept and be honest about uncertainty. But better that than false certainty. (By that I mean that no-one can be certain in their understanding, although many people falsely claim to be).

variant said:

You can't escape being a pragmatist on the level you are speaking of.

Because you can't get past things like rationality which we use because they work.

So both is fine in this case as there is no distinction.

Click to expand...

Do you realize that, in effect, you are requiring God to be a vending machine?

2PhiloVoid said:

Do you realize that, in effect, you are requiring God to be a vending machine?

Click to expand...

I don't believe in God. If he wants more credit he should speak up.

If I were to believe in God I would be relegated to believing in a God that thought that his positions were well tended by the terrible arguments of the theists I know.

Seems like that would be pretty disrespectful of me too.

variant said:

I don't believe in God. If he wants more credit he should speak up.

If I were to believe in God I would be relegated to believing in a God that thought that his positions were well tended by the terrible arguments of the theists I know.

Seems like that would be pretty disrespectful of me too.

Click to expand...

Actually, no, I don't think you are being disrespectful of Christianity in a direct sense. Being that I take a more Kantian approach to metaphysics, I think it is somewhat normal for people to disbelieve; a person's acceptance of the Bible is contingent on God's spiritual (or internal) enlightenment. If no enlightenment is given to supplement the written record, then it is only natural that a person will not accept the Bible or Christianity. All of which, in turn, seems to comport quit well with the way in which the Bible characterizes God's/Jesus' willingness or unwillingness to condescend to the epistemological approaches and/or requirements of humanity. It seems to me God is very aware of what people would LIKE to see, and why they would like to see it.

Any thread titled "Atheism destroyed with a (insert fallacy claim)" are usually good for a laugh and not much else. I haven't seen an original argument for god that hasn't already been well refuted in several ways in probably years now. My personal favorite was one video made by Ray Comfort and his life partner Kirk Cameron regarding how a banana disproved atheism by displaying design (it does show design, just human design).

It really should be a rule that apologists can't make a claim if that claim has already failed for hundreds of other apologists. In this case, it begins with the claim that everything has a cause, and then fails when that claim is refuted by the claimant who makes god an exception to this rule.

Anyways, I'm just subscribing to watch the OP get shredded.

I must have missed that "one question" in all of the walls of black text on that dark background. That was a difficult video to read.

But from what I gathered, the video author doesn't grasp scientific and philosophical possibilities very well. Science has not proven that the Big Bang as we know it was truly the beginning of physical existence. Science has not ruled out an eternal past.

Furthermore, even if the Big Bang as we know it does represent a beginning, that doesn't mean that it "came out of nothing". It may simply be the beginning of change, and the context of time. There might not be a "before" the Big Bang in which that "nothing" was present (if "nothing" can be said to be present).

The video does not consider this, but instead tries to force the reader into one of two flawed options.

Regarding "fine tuning", it is not at all clear at this point what the odds are that a universe may exist that has the physical properties that ours has. Any reasoning from probability is going to be mired in speculation, not fact.

The probabilities wouldn't even point to an answer. It's like asking if you won the lottery out of random chance or lottery leprechauns. The probability involved does not tell you the answer. You need to consider other information.

So, atheism has certainly not be destroyed here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The egg!

2PhiloVoid said:

Actually, no, I don't think you are being disrespectful of Christianity in a direct sense. Being that I take a more Kantian approach to metaphysics, I think it is somewhat normal for people to disbelieve; a person's acceptance of the Bible is contingent on God's spiritual (or internal) enlightenment. If no enlightenment is given to supplement the written record, then it is only natural that a person will not accept the Bible or Christianity. All of which, in turn, seems to comport quit well with the way in which the Bible characterizes God's/Jesus' willingness or unwillingness to condescend to the epistemological approaches and/or requirements of humanity. It seems to me God is very aware of what people would LIKE to see, and why they would like to see it.

Click to expand...

This I agree with.

I think some atheists are quite justified in holding to their atheistic positions. It's refreshing to see someone else agree with me .

2PhiloVoid said:

So... should we be Empiricists or Pragmatists?

Click to expand...

You can be whatever you want.

dsian said:

Atheism destroyed with a question

Click to expand...

My non-existent belief system has been totally undermined! Heading out to church now...

KWCrazy said:

Everyone has a conscience

Click to expand...

I'm not convinced of that. I do have a conscience, but some people (sociopaths, perhaps) might not have one.

everyone knows good from evil

Click to expand...

Same problem as above, compounded with the problem that people can disagree about just what good and evil have to do with, and precisely which values fall into the good category, and which into the evil category.

and everyone knows in his heart that there is a God.

Click to expand...

I don't know that, and my heart and my mind are in agreement on that. This may be very difficult for you to imagine, but that is the truth. My heart is completely "Godless".

Atheism itself is one big lie. When confronted with the facts, they say that the laws of physics aren't really laws; that they could be violated under certain circumstances... like when it suits them.

Click to expand...

I've never said that, but many theists say that about the universe, especially with respect to God's alleged supernatural powers.

Science holds that everything must have a cause; a point of origination

Click to expand...

Science does not hold that. While every effect has a cause (by definition), not everything that exists is necessarily an effect.

and that the origination of matter / energy is impossible.

Click to expand...

Science does not hold that either.

They simply pretend otherwise and accuse you of being ignorant because you don't understand science.

Click to expand...

You don't understand science. You've just proved that.

It doesn't matter if you understand it better than they do.

Click to expand...

Except that you personally don't.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I really wish there was a size limit for signatures.

2PhiloVoid said:

Actually, no, I don't think you are being disrespectful of Christianity in a direct sense. Being that I take a more Kantian approach to metaphysics, I think it is somewhat normal for people to disbelieve; a person's acceptance of the Bible is contingent on God's spiritual (or internal) enlightenment. If no enlightenment is given to supplement the written record, then it is only natural that a person will not accept the Bible or Christianity. All of which, in turn, seems to comport quit well with the way in which the Bible characterizes God's/Jesus' willingness or unwillingness to condescend to the epistemological approaches and/or requirements of humanity. It seems to me God is very aware of what people would LIKE to see, and why they would like to see it.

Click to expand...

Right, If God exists it doesn't seem to wish to convince me this way. I only have to accept the premise that his argument is well tended by apologetics if that is how I am meant to be convinced.

My hidden point there was directed at the faulty idea that rationalist apologetics is meant to convince people who don't believe.

To me, what rationalist apologetics seem to be mainly about mollifying the rational impulses of the theists brain so they don't feel conflicted about faith.

Even Thomas Aquinas admittedly didn't set out to prove there was a God rationally, he understood God couldn't really be justified that way.

Whether a God exists and intends to convince people through the Bible is a suspect claim to me as well, but that just leads to the atheism again.

poolerboy0077 said:

I really wish there was a size limit for signatures.

Click to expand...

There is an option to turn them off I think,

2PhiloVoid said:

I didn't say that Christian apologetics is the crème de la crème of cognitive considerations. I only mean to imply that Empiricism (or even scientific investigation) doesn't win by default.

Click to expand...

Of course not. There are lots of good reasons to think that science is superior. No need to assume.

KCfromNC said:

Of course not. There are lots of good reasons to think that science is superior. No need to assume.

Click to expand...

Well, this depends on a person's prior assumptions as to the efficacy of scientific investigation. Some scientists are in the "methodological naturalism" camp, while other scientists placed themselves in the "philosophical naturalism" camp. So, whether there is room for God in one's thinking when it is dominated by scientific assumptions depends on which camp a person decides to reside in.

In other words, the epistemic starting point is relative, not absolute (even if reality is absolute and 'other' and real, etc.).

Peace

poolerboy0077 said:

I really wish there was a size limit for signatures.

Click to expand...

In the User Control Panel, you can specify that they are all hidden. It's what I do.

2PhiloVoid said:

Well, this depends on a person's prior assumptions as to the efficacy of scientific investigation. Some scientists are in the "methodological naturalism" camp, while other scientists placed themselves in the "philosophical naturalism" camp. So, whether there is room for God in one's thinking when it is dominated by scientific assumptions depends on which camp a person decides to reside in.

In other words, the epistemic starting point is relative, not absolute (even if reality is absolute and 'other' and real, etc.).

Peace

Click to expand...

As far as science goes, It has more to do with the trouble of finding objective evidence for God, than epistemological assumptions.

Science without objective evidence is something else.

It is not scientists or atheists who wish to define science so that "God questions" are excluded, that is the fault of the theologian and the theist for proposing Gods that are based upon unfalsifiable propositions.

variant said:

As far as science goes, It has more to do with the trouble of finding objective evidence for God, than epistemological assumptions.

Science without objective evidence is something else.

It is not scientists or atheists who wish to define science so that "God questions" are excluded, that is the fault of the theologian and the theist for proposing Gods that are based upon unfalsifiable propositions.

Click to expand...

That's not what Eugenie C. Scott says.

2PhiloVoid said:

That's not what Eugenie C. Scott says.

Click to expand...

We're free to disagree.

If you want to come up with testable questions about God I would love to indulge you.