Teaser question...

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
If the universe is created ex materia, then suggesting God didn't do it and it was cause by something else would mean you would have to provide an explanation on what that other thing is otherwise you are rejecting a reasonable explanation without providing an alternative.
This is why I hate abductive logic. Sometimes the answer is "I don't know". If you walk into a room, find a dead body on the floor, and a man nearby, do you say "That man killed this man! I have to provide an explanation on how this man ended up dead, and I can't reject this reasonable explanation of murder without providing an alternative"?

No, you investigate to find evidence, and sometimes, though it may be disheartening, there is never enough evidence to make a conclusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

Jesse Dornfeld

Slave to Christ
Supporter
Oct 11, 2020
3,348
1,112
37
Twin Cities
Visit site
✟176,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I disagree. It's extremely healthy to have people who look at arguments, examine them rationally and evaluate their truthfulness based on evidence, logic and reason.

No, that is what I actually agree with. What I disagree with is to have people who look at arguments, examine them rationally, and evaluate their falseness based on evidence, logic and reason.

Notices I only changed one word from truthfulness to falseness.

I think you're mistaken. Atheists can be and are any type of human being at all, from the warmest and most loving to the coldest and most ruthless. All it takes to be an atheist is saying "No" when asked if you believe in the existence of any gods.

And I think the former is Good and the later is bad. The problem, as you say, is that atheists don't have the same moral framework to say the later is bad.

If by this you are implying that this therefore points towards God existing, then I suggest you examine your argument. You would disagree with most of these people throughout history, and most of them would disagree with you.

Well, that is not my argument.

Compare the average human from a thousand years ago with one from today, and you will see that it certainly is.

My argument is that people are not more rational, not that they are more knowledgeable.

I'd say that disagrees with history, and is easily disproved.

So disprove it then.

Is that 10, 000 years or 1, 000? In any case, yes, of course we have. We've had the democratic, intellectual and industrial revolutions. We've had the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. We've made enormous progress.
I'm a bit puzzled, to be honest. I can't imagine you mean what you say seriously, so I must assume you are making some point that has escaped me.

My point is that the genetic makeup of humans hasn't changed much so I don't know why you would expect people to be any more rational now. Knowledge increases over time and I have said as much. But knowledge isn't the same as how apt people are at thinking in general.

True enough. But while our capacity to learn as individual has probably changed very little, our capacity to learn and pass on our learning as a society has improved exponentially.

And that's exactly my point.

I'm sorry - I don't understand what you mean.

I's say that the following three points were pivotal:
1. The invention of a spoken language (this is the answer to your question, but the next two were important as well).
2. The invention of a written language.
3. The invention of the printing press.
Is this supposed to be a trick question?

Yeah, my point is that all your examples are examples of knowledge increasing over time, not rationality or the ability to think. We had the capacity for language before we had language, in other words.

I'd say that it was evolution. You're not a creationist, by any chance, are you?

I'm a creationist because I believe God created life. I am agnostic towards evolution.

And quoting others or copying ideas of others is fine, so long as you are able to understand and engage with the arguments.

What do you mean by doing this is "fine"?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jesse Dornfeld

Slave to Christ
Supporter
Oct 11, 2020
3,348
1,112
37
Twin Cities
Visit site
✟176,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I believe Eight Foot Manchild is saying that your definition is erroneous.

I know what he is saying. He has a problem with the concept of the supernatural, not my definition.

I imagine that @Eight Foot Manchild and I have the same problem with the supernatural as we do with God; it is an unsubstantiated claim. Until such time as a believer such as yourself gives us a reason to think that there is any such thing as the supernatural (and no, "unexplained things happen" is not sufficient) it is reasonable to withhold from believing in it.

IDK what to tell you. If you've read the thread, you know my position here.

And he's not wrong. When one person makes an extraordinary claim, it calls for extraordinary evidence. It is disingenuous to suggest that the skeptic "meet them halfway." You claim that God and the supernatural both exist. True meeting you halfway is what we are doing; respecting you by inviting you to present your evidence and giving you a fair hearing. Complaining that we are then not being fair to you by not believing your unimpressive evidence is simply unfair on your part - and makes you, rather than us, look bad.

1. He's wrong from my point of view
2. There's some think about this claim about extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence on probability from Tim McGrew you might find interesting.
3. Atheism isn't skepticism. It's a positive claim against the claims for God
4. There's plenty of things that are not explainable. If you want to say there is an explanation, but we just don't know what it is, then I'm gunna need evidence for that.
 
Upvote 0

Jesse Dornfeld

Slave to Christ
Supporter
Oct 11, 2020
3,348
1,112
37
Twin Cities
Visit site
✟176,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I would strongly disagree. The scientific method has allowed us to develop all kinds of technology that has improved people’s lives immeasurably. Society in western nations (with the exception of America) is safer and more healthy than ever.

WWII wasn't that long ago.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, that is what I actually agree with. What I disagree with is to have people who look at arguments, examine them rationally, and evaluate their falseness based on evidence, logic and reason.
Notices I only changed one word from truthfulness to falseness.
Please explain to me exactly what is wrong with this:
One person makes a remarkable claim, and says they can give evidence for it. A second person evaluates the evidence, finds it insufficient, and so rejects the claim.
What exactly is your problem with this process?
And I think the former is Good and the later is bad. The problem, as you say, is that atheists don't have the same moral framework to say the later is bad.
Sure atheists have a moral framework. It's the same as the one that most people in modern society have, and it's based on empathy and logic.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of Euthyphro's Dilemma?
Well, that is not my argument.
Then I do not understand why you are telling us that most people throughout history have believed in a god or gods.
My argument is that people are not more rational, not that they are more knowledgeable.
Since the last few thousand years have seen enormous changes in our understanding of what rationality is, its importance in mathematics, science and daily life, and the enormous expansion of an education system to make sure all members of society are aware of these things, I would say you are wrong.
So disprove it then.
Sure thing. Look at what we are doing right now. We are having a debate about rationality and logic, claims and evidence. We bandy about words like fallacy, proof and reasoning, with some understanding of how they work. At any time before a few hundred years ago, this kind of conversation would have been the preserve of a minute percentage of the population - those with the education to make use of it. A few thousand years ago, people would quite literally believe anything. Today, we have a school system that ensures that the vast majority of the population has an education our grandparents would have drooled over, and our ancestors could not have imagined existed.
My point is that the genetic makeup of humans hasn't changed much so I don't know why you would expect people to be any more rational now. Knowledge increases over time and I have said as much. But knowledge isn't the same as how apt people are at thinking in general.
But a very large part of the knowledge we pass on to our children at school and college level is the importance of thinking, reasoning and testing. People are, on average, a lot more rational now than they were a few hundred years ago, and light years ahead of where they would have been a few thousand years ago.
I'm a creationist because I believe God created life. I am agnostic towards evolution.
I believe that it can, and without much difficulty; see above.
Evolution resulted in us being large-brained apes. Consequences of our increasing ability to think are the spoken and written languages I spoke of earlier, the development of rational thinking, and the increasing ability to disseminate it through society via printing and education.
What do you mean by doing this is "fine"?
I mean it's quite acceptable to read the arguments of others and integrate them into your own. It's also acceptable to quote others, providing you understand what they are saying. It's less acceptable to simply answer with an article or link, but it can be a good response at times, if you have reasons that you can justify.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
1. He's wrong from my point of view
And you're wrong from his, or mine. Our work now is to examine our points of view and see which one is the more rational.
2. There's some think about this claim about extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence on probability from Tim McGrew you might find interesting.
I'd be interested in a link to an article.
3. Atheism isn't skepticism. It's a positive claim against the claims for God
Not usually. Are you familiar with the term "agnostic atheist"?
4. There's plenty of things that are not explainable. If you want to say there is an explanation, but we just don't know what it is, then I'm gunna need evidence for that.
What exactly are we talking about here? There's plenty of things I don't know the explanation for.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, that is what I actually agree with. What I disagree with is to have people who look at arguments, examine them rationally, and evaluate their falseness based on evidence, logic and reason.
I'm still not exactly sure what you dislike about atheists, although it seems to be a major issue with you.
Atheists do seek truth. And the truth they determine is that they do not believe in God because they have no reason to. Sure, it would be better to know the exact truth - does God exist, or does He not? - but lacking the ability to do that, an atheist can honestly and truly say, "I do not believe in God because I see no reason to."
What is your problem with that?
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I know what he is saying.

No you don't. You have no understanding of the fact that your definition is predicated on an argument from ignorance fallacy, because you have a very poor grasp of the burden of proof...which you're about to prove, again, right now, by saying this,

4. There's plenty of things that are not explainable. If you want to say there is an explanation, but we just don't know what it is, then I'm gunna need evidence for that.

Firstly, just because there may be some things that are unexplained, you don't get to just baldly assert that they are "unexplainable". That is a huge leap, one that you bear the burden of proof for demonstrating. Saying "I don't know what caused this" is not a positive claim, so it does not bear any burden of proof.

Secondly, after you've demonstrated that something is "unexplainable", you still bear the burden of having to prove why the "supernatural" is the necessary explanation. "This thing is unexplainable, therefor it must be supernatural" is an argument from ignorance.

So, get to work. How about you provide us with an example of something that is unexplainable? Not merely unexplained, but categorically, objectively unexplainable. All without begging the question.

After you've done that, you can demonstrate why it necessarily follows that it is "supernatural".

Good luck.

3. Atheism isn't skepticism. It's a positive claim against the claims for God

No it isn't. It's the state of being unconvinced that any gods exist. No positive claim is necessary.

I know that's inconvenient for your apologetics, but that's your problem.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Thank you, @Eight Foot Manchild !
@True Counterphobia , I know you've told us you're a veteran of debates with atheists, but the thing is, you just don't seem very good at this, which is why EFM, I and others seem to be having to correct you on a lot of basic things.
May I ask, have you ever read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion? It's an excellent book that sets out the atheist viewpoint. It might help you to understand your debating opponents.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,271
7,628
51
✟312,683.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
That they are being internally inconsistent with their worldview.
This is what I was talking about. Being a nihilist is not the ultimate fate of an atheist. It may be their ultimate fate but apart from moody teen edgelords I’ve never met a nihilist.

I went through a nihilist phase when I was a moody teen edgelord but now I’m a grown up I’m in no way a nihilist but I am an atheist.

An atheist does not have a God shaped hole in them.
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That they are being internally inconsistent with their worldview.

Atheism isn't a worldview. It's a philosophical position regarding one thing - the existence of gods. Nothing else. One can be an atheist, and have any number of worldviews - atheist Objectivist, atheist humanist, atheist nihilist, atheist spiritualist, atheist Raelian...atheist anything, provided that thing does not entail belief in a god or gods. One can also be an atheist and subscribe to any number of moral philosophies, none of which necessitate belief in a god or gods.

So, you're confused. You, not me, purport to derive your life's meaning and morality from Yahweh. Therefor, your life, not mine, is meaningless and without morality if he doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Matt5

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2019
844
315
Zürich
✟130,372.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't feel inclined to comment too much on your extreme take on things other than to say that I don't ever foresee myself being lined up against a wall to be shot, nor do I see the day that I will be shooting nazis or anyone else for that matter, and I would rather we continued to help erase inequality in the world rather than embrace the religious theocracy that you seem to desire.
Equality is not all about making everyone the same. Equality gives people the right to be different and to have the opportunity to achieve things by their own efforts. It is also called democracy.

You need to listen more closely to the leaders of the equality movement. For example, complaining about the pay gap is not about opportunity. It's about the same stuff. In this case, the same pay check. Everybody already knows there is no pay gap when comparing apples to apples, but they lie anyway.

Too bad democracy in the West is only an illusion. Big money mostly decides who you get to vote for with some exceptions. And if that doesn't work then they do this:

The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election | Time.Com The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election

How the good guys saved the election. But look what was waiting in the wings if this shadow campaign had failed:

"More than 150 liberal groups, from the Women’s March to the Sierra Club to Color of Change, from Democrats.com to the Democratic Socialists of America, joined the “Protect the Results” coalition. The group’s now defunct website had a map listing 400 planned postelection demonstrations, to be activated via text message as soon as Nov. 4. To stop the coup they feared, the left was ready to flood the streets."
 
Upvote 0

Jesse Dornfeld

Slave to Christ
Supporter
Oct 11, 2020
3,348
1,112
37
Twin Cities
Visit site
✟176,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Please explain to me exactly what is wrong with this:
One person makes a remarkable claim, and says they can give evidence for it. A second person evaluates the evidence, finds it insufficient, and so rejects the claim.
What exactly is your problem with this process?

I guess my problem would be that the person would say it's not evidence at all of anything, which is pretty silly. Claims carry the weight of evidence of something. You can say the evidences points to something else, but that doesn't mean the claim isn't evidence of anything.

Sure atheists have a moral framework. It's the same as the one that most people in modern society have, and it's based on empathy and logic.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of Euthyphro's Dilemma?

Right, I call that the moral law written on your heart which is basically just your conscience. This doesn't mean it makes the moral framework of atheists consistent, it means atheists have a moral frameworks they have that they can't defend.

Then I do not understand why you are telling us that most people throughout history have believed in a god or gods.

To show maybe it is not so silly to believe in gods after all.

Since the last few thousand years have seen enormous changes in our understanding of what rationality is, its importance in mathematics, science and daily life, and the enormous expansion of an education system to make sure all members of society are aware of these things, I would say you are wrong.

Sure, but my point is that if you were going to teach the same thing to people thousands of years ago, they would have no problem learning it. Hence, our rationality hasn't actually changed that much.

Sure thing. Look at what we are doing right now. We are having a debate about rationality and logic, claims and evidence. We bandy about words like fallacy, proof and reasoning, with some understanding of how they work. At any time before a few hundred years ago, this kind of conversation would have been the preserve of a minute percentage of the population - those with the education to make use of it. A few thousand years ago, people would quite literally believe anything. Today, we have a school system that ensures that the vast majority of the population has an education our grandparents would have drooled over, and our ancestors could not have imagined existed.

You don't think people debated in the past? Some things philosophers have said thousands of years ago are still just as relevant, or more relevant today, then they were when they said them. How do you figure that?

But a very large part of the knowledge we pass on to our children at school and college level is the importance of thinking, reasoning and testing. People are, on average, a lot more rational now than they were a few hundred years ago, and light years ahead of where they would have been a few thousand years ago.

I'd say a certain kind of thinking was passed on and it remains to be seen if it is actually "better".

Evolution resulted in us being large-brained apes. Consequences of our increasing ability to think are the spoken and written languages I spoke of earlier, the development of rational thinking, and the increasing ability to disseminate it through society via printing and education.

If our genetics haven't changed, what makes you think our capacity for rational thought has changed?

I mean it's quite acceptable to read the arguments of others and integrate them into your own. It's also acceptable to quote others, providing you understand what they are saying. It's less acceptable to simply answer with an article or link, but it can be a good response at times, if you have reasons that you can justify.

Whether it is acceptable or not depends on how you are doing it. It still makes it lazy, however.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jesse Dornfeld

Slave to Christ
Supporter
Oct 11, 2020
3,348
1,112
37
Twin Cities
Visit site
✟176,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I'd be interested in a link to an article.

Here's a YouTube video:


Not usually. Are you familiar with the term "agnostic atheist"?

Yeah, I am familiar with the term. Don't know why it actually exists. Doesn't seem to make any sense. "Gnostic" seems to be a pretty useless term.

What exactly are we talking about here? There's plenty of things I don't know the explanation for.

Then how do you know they have an explanation that isn't supernatural?
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Yeah, I am familiar with the term. Don't know why it actually exists. Doesn't seem to make any sense. "Gnostic" seems to be a pretty useless term.
Is there a difference between these two statements: "I know" and "I believe"?
 
Upvote 0

Jesse Dornfeld

Slave to Christ
Supporter
Oct 11, 2020
3,348
1,112
37
Twin Cities
Visit site
✟176,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I'm still not exactly sure what you dislike about atheists, although it seems to be a major issue with you.
Atheists do seek truth. And the truth they determine is that they do not believe in God because they have no reason to. Sure, it would be better to know the exact truth - does God exist, or does He not? - but lacking the ability to do that, an atheist can honestly and truly say, "I do not believe in God because I see no reason to."
What is your problem with that?

Atheists are largely prudes. That's one problem I have with them.
Atheists say they seek truth, but they dismiss claims altogether, which is intellectually dishonest. That's not all atheists. Some atheists don't believe because they legitimately don't agree with the evidence. But people like you, who know the arguments, and then, perhaps like you, but perhaps not, say there is no evidence, that's just sloppy.
 
Upvote 0

Jesse Dornfeld

Slave to Christ
Supporter
Oct 11, 2020
3,348
1,112
37
Twin Cities
Visit site
✟176,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
No you don't. You have no understanding of the fact that your definition is predicated on an argument from ignorance fallacy, because you have a very poor grasp of the burden of proof...which you're about to prove, again, right now, by saying this,

That's what I am saying. You have a problem that I believe supernatural things happen. This is DIFFERENT then having a problem with my DEFINITION of what supernatural is.

That is why I said for you to give your own DEFINITION of supernatural, which you DID NOT do. You first said you didn't want to provide a definition. THEN you said it's just a literary device. But a literary device still needs a DEFINITION on how it is used within literature, which you didn't provide.

Firstly, just because there may be some things that are unexplained, you don't get to just baldly assert that they are "unexplainable". That is a huge leap, one that you bear the burden of proof for demonstrating. Saying "I don't know what caused this" is not a positive claim, so it does not bear any burden of proof.

Those things are CURRENTLY unexplainable. And that's what I said about my definition, which you seem to reject.

Secondly, after you've demonstrated that something is "unexplainable", you still bear the burden of having to prove why the "supernatural" is the necessary explanation. "This thing is unexplainable, therefor it must be supernatural" is an argument from ignorance.

I don't have to PROVE anything for something to be REASONABLE to believe.

So, get to work. How about you provide us with an example of something that is unexplainable? Not merely unexplained, but categorically, objectively unexplainable. All without begging the question.

You haven't been reading my responses to other people here, because otherwise you would know I have something in mind, I just don't want to tell the person this.

After you've done that, you can demonstrate why it necessarily follows that it is "supernatural".

And if you saw what I said about this experience to someone else, you would know, even I do not have 100% certainty that it was something supernatural. However, I said to this person that I do NOT have a rational explanation for it, so I think it was something supernatural, since every other explanation seems less probably than that it was a miracle.

No it isn't. It's the state of being unconvinced that any gods exist. No positive claim is necessary.

Except its done in the face of huge amounts evidence, to which the atheist has to tie themselves in knots to maintain their unbelief.

I know that's inconvenient for your apologetics, but that's your problem.

I've noticed you like to accuse people of things an awful lot. Do you not have friends or something?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jesse Dornfeld

Slave to Christ
Supporter
Oct 11, 2020
3,348
1,112
37
Twin Cities
Visit site
✟176,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Thank you, @Eight Foot Manchild !
@True Counterphobia , I know you've told us you're a veteran of debates with atheists, but the thing is, you just don't seem very good at this, which is why EFM, I and others seem to be having to correct you on a lot of basic things.
May I ask, have you ever read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion? It's an excellent book that sets out the atheist viewpoint. It might help you to understand your debating opponents.

You will notice, an atheist actually liked my post in my definition of supernatural. So I'm afraid it is not just the default of atheists who don't like my definition.

And most Apologists think Dawkins sucks at philosophy. In fact, a lot of atheists think Dawkins sucks at philosophy and that he should stick to biology.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Psalm 27
Upvote 0