Argument from incredulity and arguments against God's existence

[Silmarien]

1. We have evidence for extraterrestrial life as a consequence of observations of planets in "goldilocks zones", existence of complex life on this planet, reasonable extrapolation of the laws of chemistry, etc.

I would consider this a somewhat inconsistent usage of the term "evidence," since in the context of the question of theism, usually when people demand empirical evidence, they immediately discount any indirect observation as being fallacious in one sense or another. I don't think you can cite "reasonable extrapolation" without addressing the underlying problem of what makes something reasonable or unreasonable, which would involve far more than simply stating that there isn't sufficient evidence.

2. We have evidence that contradicts the possibility our politicians are Martian lizards.

Yes, this is what I've been trying to get at all along. We usually make the claim that something is not plausible when there's reason to believe that it's not true, and that's a very different thing than merely saying that there isn't sufficient evidence to believe that it is true.

So in one thread, you make the statement that the Christian God is not plausible, implying that there are actually reasons to believe that the Christian God does not exist. In this thread, however, when addressing the question of whether arguments against theism actually succeed, you claim instead that the only thing that matters is a lack of meaningful evidence. This strikes me as a significant shift from one thread to the other.

I think that it's fine to say that you think theism (or a particularly brand of theism) is actually implausible, but I'm not sure how you can do that and then dodge arguments like the one the OP is making by focusing instead on an unspecified evidentiary standard. Granted, the reference to evolution was probably unhelpful.

 

[Ophiolite]

I would consider this a somewhat inconsistent usage of the term "evidence," since in the context of the question of theism, usually when people demand empirical evidence, they immediately discount any indirect observation as being fallacious in one sense or another. I don't think you can cite "reasonable extrapolation" without addressing the underlying problem of what makes something reasonable or unreasonable, which would involve far more than simply stating that there isn't sufficient evidence.



Yes, this is what I've been trying to get at all along. We usually make the claim that something is not plausible when there's reason to believe that it's not true, and that's a very different thing than merely saying that there isn't sufficient evidence to believe that it is true.

So in one thread, you make the statement that the Christian God is not plausible, implying that there are actually reasons to believe that the Christian God does not exist. In this thread, however, when addressing the question of whether arguments against theism actually succeed, you claim instead that the only thing that matters is a lack of meaningful evidence. This strikes me as a significant shift from one thread to the other.

I think that it's fine to say that you think theism (or a particularly brand of theism) is actually implausible, but I'm not sure how you can do that and then dodge arguments like the one the OP is making by focusing instead on an unspecified evidentiary standard. Granted, the reference to evolution was probably unhelpful.

I am still not seeing the contradictions that you are finding in my position. I shall reflect on your points for a time and respond over the weekend.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Science is not absolutist in nature, you're mischaracterizing the whole institution as if it changing means it's unreliable in the claims it makes based on studying the evidence we acquire, but that's wholly incorrect. The changes are based on an understanding that we should strive for precision in our knowledge about the world through scientific methods

And this is the kind of thing we should really not have to explain to adults in a debating forum. If people don't know this about science they're probably not ready to get into a debate on it.

 

[packermann]

How so? "I don't understand how that can be true" is absolutely different from "I do understand this and it is false."

Yes, because you conveniently omitted the phrase "and it is false" in the first one. But "I don't understand how that can be true and so it is false" is is not so different "I do understand this and it is false.".

You can counter-argue that atheists are wrong, and that there is no contradiction. But they are not using an argument from incredulity.

The argument from incredulity is when you argue base on opinion and not fact. 2 + 2 = 5 is factually wrong. There are not counter-arguments to it. But you admitting that there can be counter-arguments indicate that even you realize that it is not like saying 2 + 2 = 5.

Yes, exactly the point. Atheists - or at some of them - contend that God's existence is objectively false given his mutually contradictory properties and/or actions.

I used to be a Protestant fundamentalist. I noticed that there is fundamentalism in all the "isms" - Christian fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism, skeptic fundamentalism, etc. There are Christians, Muslims, and skeptics who are not fundamentalists. But when they are fundamentalists the watch out! They see things black and white - they are absolutely right and everyone else is absolutely wrong. They see their beliefs and opinions as being as absolutely true as 2 + 2 not being equal to 5.

Skeptics who are not fundamentalists would agnostics. But skeptics who are not fundamentalist are atheists. I am seeing this on this forum. Just because I think evolution is true an atheist accused me of being contradictory just because I think the other side may have some valid points! For a fundamentalist everything is back and white. The other side can never make any valid points.

Good for them. So truth is just whatever we decide then? Or is there an objective reality?

I though that atheists believed that there is no objective truth?

The categorization of these arguments is your subjective opinion. They think they're making an argument from contradiction.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck then it is probably a duck.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Just because I think evolution is true an atheist accused me of being contradictory just because I think the other side may have some valid points!

Would that be me, by any chance? If so, I must point out that I acknowledged that you accept evolution, and that is in no way contradictory to me criticising you for spreading creationist propaganda by referencing the Discovery Institute's deceptive List of Scientists.

I though that atheists believed that there is no objective truth?

What on earth gave you that idea? I have ten fingers, twenty-seven is the next number to follow twenty-six, and Christian Forums is a website. These are all objective truths.

 

[packermann]

I regularly read research articles on evolution. I do not see the "increasing number of questioning scientists", not in the sense of scientists suggesting evolution is false. What I see, as befits science and scientists, is an ongoing questioning of current understanding of the details. If you have contradictory evidence please provide it.

I have to admit that I was a hasty on including that web site. I looked at it closer and it was obviously biased toward Christian fundamentalism. This is no longer a big issue to me because I do not see it threatening to my Catholic beliefs. In fact, evolution shows that Catholicism is right over against Protestant fundamentalism. The Protestant Reformation was based on the belief that the Bible is simple to understand and the literal interpretation is the right interpretation, and that is why we can read the Bible without the Church. But if evolution is right, and I think it is, then a Christian cannot hold to a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis.

But there is least one respected scientist who does disagree with evolution and who is a self-described secular Jew - David Berlinski. See David Berlinski - Wikipedia .

 

[Tinker Grey]

I highly doubt that one associated with the Discovery Institute is a secular anything.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I have to admit that I was a hasty on including that web site. I looked at it closer and it was obviously biased toward Christian fundamentalism. This is no longer a big issue to me because I do not see it threatening to my Catholic beliefs. In fact, evolution shows that Catholicism is right over against Protestant fundamentalism. The Protestant Reformation was based on the belief that the Bible is simple to understand and the literal interpretation is the right interpretation, and that is why we can read the Bible without the Church. But if evolution is right, and I think it is, then a Christian cannot hold to a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis.

But there is least one respected scientist who does disagree with evolution and who is a self-described secular Jew - David Berlinski. See David Berlinski - Wikipedia .

See David Berlinski - RationalWiki

Despite the source, which you may not be sympathetic to, I think the facts it gives about David Berlinski are clear enough. He is not a scientist, he is a mathematician. He claims not to be a creationist, but uses classic creationist arguments to attack evolution (they eye could not possibly have evolved; how could living organisms have appeared all at once in the Cambrian explosion? How could a cow have changed into a whale?) And he is a valued member of the Discovery Institute, who are desperate for anyone they can tout as being a professional.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yes, because you conveniently omitted the phrase "and it is false" in the first one. But "I don't understand how that can be true and so it is false" is is not so different "I do understand this and it is false.".

One is claiming you understand and still reject, the other is claiming that because you don't understand, it must be false, they can both be fallacious in different manners, but you still have failed to demonstrate that this is somehow a common argument from atheists rather than merely a bad one

I used to be a Protestant fundamentalist. I noticed that there is fundamentalism in all the "isms" - Christian fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism, skeptic fundamentalism, etc. There are Christians, Muslims, and skeptics who are not fundamentalists. But when they are fundamentalists the watch out! They see things black and white - they are absolutely right and everyone else is absolutely wrong. They see their beliefs and opinions as being as absolutely true as 2 + 2 not being equal to 5.

Skeptics who are not fundamentalists would agnostics. But skeptics who are not fundamentalist are atheists. I am seeing this on this forum. Just because I think evolution is true an atheist accused me of being contradictory just because I think the other side may have some valid points! For a fundamentalist everything is back and white. The other side can never make any valid points.

So there are no Catholic fundamentalists? You seem to conveniently not acknowledge that and split this to Protestants being the extreme ones

Do you NOT believe absolutely that your God exists? Seems like faith can manifest in that sense even if you may think it's mistaken

And now you're failing to show that anyone here has engaged in this fundamentalist thinking in regards to not believing in God

I though that atheists believed that there is no objective truth?

Objective truth in the sense that it is absolute and independent from us is quite distinct from objective truth in the sense that we see to be as unbiased as possible in our assessment of reality. If you're going to characterize atheists, define what you think the term in question means rather than assuming it's already agreed upon in the discussion

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck then it is probably a duck.

We don't go with arguments based on feeling and "common sense", we verify and critically examine them. Your assessment is not correct merely because it seems so to you in whatever understanding you believe you have on logical fallacies: at least have the intellectual humility to be willing to be corrected rather than impulsively put something out and then hold onto it regardless of evidence to the contrary, that's fundamentalist

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes, because you conveniently omitted the phrase "and it is false" in the first one. But "I don't understand how that can be true and so it is false" is is not so different "I do understand this and it is false.".

"I don't understand how that can be true and so it is false" is is not so different "I do understand this and it is false."

Perhaps read that again. They are polar opposites. The one is the contradiction of the other. And you're saying they are practically the same.

The argument from incredulity is when you argue base on opinion and not fact. 2 + 2 = 5 is factually wrong. There are not counter-arguments to it. But you admitting that there can be counter-arguments indicate that even you realize that it is not like saying 2 + 2 = 5.

Yes, I'm admitting there can be counter-arguments to some of those. That doesn't mean that the atheists who make such claims think so. In their opinion, "An all-loving God who sends people to hell" is literally just as nonsensical as "2+2=5". And they're not stupid or insane for saying that. Their argument is not structured as an argument from incredulity.

I used to be a Protestant fundamentalist. I noticed that there is fundamentalism in all the "isms" - Christian fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism, skeptic fundamentalism, etc. There are Christians, Muslims, and skeptics who are not fundamentalists. But when they are fundamentalists the watch out! They see things black and white - they are absolutely right and everyone else is absolutely wrong. They see their beliefs and opinions as being as absolutely true as 2 + 2 not being equal to 5.

Are you not also saying that you are absolutely right and those who disagree with you are absolutely wrong?

Skeptics who are not fundamentalists would agnostics. But skeptics who are not fundamentalist are atheists.

No. That's just stupid.

An atheist is a person who answers "no" to the question, "Are you convinced that there is a god?"

I am seeing this on this forum. Just because I think evolution is true an atheist accused me of being contradictory just because I think the other side may have some valid points! For a fundamentalist everything is back and white. The other side can never make any valid points.

Can you show me what was said?

I though that atheists believed that there is no objective truth?

Lol, you are so very confused.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck then it is probably a duck.

After our brief conversation here my initial diagnosis of you is that you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. You definitely seem to think you've got this whole thing figured out. I've been doing it longer. I can assure you that you don't have it figured out.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And he is a valued member of the Discovery Institute, who are desperate for anyone they can tout as being a professional.

Lol, you make it sound like the Disco 'Tute rambles off every qualification of anyone they have, while legitimate institutions take it as a given that their employees have a PhD...

...

...come to think of it, that's kind of uh... exactly how it is.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

See David Berlinski - RationalWiki

Despite the source, which you may not be sympathetic to, I think the facts it gives about David Berlinski are clear enough. He is not a scientist, he is a mathematician. He claims not to be a creationist, but uses classic creationist arguments to attack evolution (they eye could not possibly have evolved; how could living organisms have appeared all at once in the Cambrian explosion? How could a cow have changed into a whale?) And he is a valued member of the Discovery Institute, who are desperate for anyone they can tout as being a professional.

Nice, inferential ad hominem directed at David Berlinski, IA.

Personally, I think Berlinski has some interesting things to say, even if he is a non-Christian Jewish person of a more agnostic bent who works with the Discovery Institute. Have you ever read one of his books or listened to him speak? No?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Personally, I think Berlinski has some interesting things to say

Really. Do share some of them.

even if he is a non-Christian Jewish person of a more agnostic bent who works with the Discovery Institute.

The operative part of that sentence is that he chooses to work for a known association of lying liars. If you're not aware that this is what they are, then you don't know enough to discuss them.

Have you ever read one of his books or listened to him speak? No?

No. Oh, snap! Foiled again!
The fact that Berlinski is a prized voice of the mendacious Discovery Institute, and the fact that that representatives of the National Centre for Scientific Education consider him to be a deceptive apologist for creationism shouldn't really be considered, should they?
I guess I'd better see for myself what the man has to say. Here's a good article by him...

All Those Darwinian Doubts

Wow. What a pile of debunked creationist talking points.
"The defense of Darwin’s theory of evolution has now fallen into the hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when possible and ignoring it when not."

No plausible account for the origins of life?

Missing fossils?

Fruit flies are still fruit flies?

Philo, please. Tell me you're not a creationist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Really. Do share some of them.

Why?

The operative part of that sentence is that he chooses to work for a known association of lying liars. If you're not aware that this is what they are, then you don't know enough to discuss them.

Are they all liars? Every single one of them? Granted, I think they go a little overboard by positing a similar kind of epistemological beginning frame that atheists like Richard Dawkins do on behalf of Philosophical Naturalism, but still they can give us some supplementary things to think about since it might turn out that they're not just 'wrong' through and through about every asserted detail that falls from their mouths.

No. Oh, snap! Foiled again!
The fact that Berlinski is a prized voice of the mendacious Discovery Institute, and the fact that that representatives of the National Centre for Scientific Education consider him to be a deceptive apologist for creationism shouldn't really be considered, should they?

I already know all of this. You seem to forget that I'm a 'reader' of Eugenie Scott. [Or didn't you know that about me?]

I guess I'd better see for myself what the man has to say. Here's a good article by him...

All Those Darwinian Doubts

I'd be glad to read what looks like a brief article from him from 2005. And while I do that, I pull out the book--the only book--I have by him, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions from 2009 and see review, for myself at least, what he had to say in that piece of writing.

Wow. What a pile of debunked creationist talking points.
"The defense of Darwin’s theory of evolution has now fallen into the hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when possible and ignoring it when not."

...and as far as you know, has Berlinski said anything else or modified any of his views since 2005? I don't know, but since you make it sound like you're an expert on him, I'm guessing you would know since I don't at the moment.

No plausible account for the origins of life?

....well, 'plausibility' does seem to be kind of a specious term when applied to something we have to guess at since it happened so very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very very, very, very, very, very, very, very........................very long ago.

Missing fossils?

I don't think fossils are missing myself. To say as such seems to imply a reliance on a cheaply made 1970s Disney movie I saw as a kid.

Fruit flies are still fruit flies?

Sounds like something from Shakespeare, doesn't it?

Philo, please. Tell me you're not a creationist.[/QUOTE] I ain't going to tell you anything that I haven't already told people here on CF already.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Why?

Are they all liars? Every single one of them? Granted, I think they go a little overboard by positing a similar kind of epistemological beginning frame that atheists like Richard Dawkins do on behalf of Philosophical Naturalism, but still they can give us some supplementary things to think about since it might turn out that they're not just 'wrong' through and through about every asserted detail that falls from their mouths.

I already know all of this. You seem to forget that I'm a 'reader' of Eugenie Scott. [Or didn't you know that about me?]

I'd be glad to read what looks like a brief article from him from 2005. And while I do that, I pull out the book--the only book--I have by him, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions from 2009 and see review, for myself at least, what he had to say in that piece of writing.

...and as far as you know, has Berlinski said anything else or modified any of his views since 2005? I don't know, but since you make it sound like you're an expert on him, I'm guessing you would know since I don't at the moment.

....well, 'plausibility' does seem to be kind of a specious term when applied to something we have to guess at since it happened so very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very very, very, very, very, very, very, very........................very long ago.

I don't think fossils are missing myself. To say as such seems to imply a reliance on a cheaply made 1970s Disney movie I saw as a kid.

Sounds like something from Shakespeare, doesn't it?

Philo, please. Tell me you're not a creationist.

I ain't going to tell you anything that I haven't already told people here on CF already.[/QUOTE]

Most amusing. Impressive, even, the way you can spend half a page saying nothing.
Do you have a point to make?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Most amusing. Impressive, even, the way you can spend half a page saying nothing.
Do you have a point to make?

I've already made points here on CF and I've been doing so since well before you came along to roost here.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I've already made points here on CF and I've been doing so since well before you came along to roost here.

As they say, you're only as good as your last debate.

By the way, when was it you joined Christian Forums? I've been here for fourteen years, which seems...quite a while to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As they say, you're only as good as your last debate.

By the way, when was it you joined Christian Forums? I've been here for fourteen years, which seems...quite a while to me.

I don't remember either your name or avatar being here that long. But if you say so.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I've been here for fourteen years,

N00b

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As they say, you're only as good as your last debate.

By the way, when was it you joined Christian Forums? I've been here for fourteen years, which seems...quite a while to me.

So, are you really from Shanghai, or is that a descriptor of your modus operandi?