Argument from incredulity and arguments against God's existence

[Nihilist Virus]

I believe this is offensive because it is presumptuous amateur psychology.



I believe this offensive because it is presumptuous amateur psychology.

It is offensive either way around, surely?

If you would like to apply for a moderator position on this site, you can do so here.

 

[MrsFoundit]

If you would like to apply for a moderator position on this site, you can do so here.

It is just a question.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Are you a scientist?

No.

Could you please provide exact quote and their source?

Already did.

Can you read minds? How do you know how desperate they are?

The antics of the Discovery Institute have been thoroughly exposed over the decades since they were formed. If you don't have even a passing familiarity with the Wedge Document and the Dover Trial, then you're not ready to debate them.

By the way - are you a creationist?

 

[muichimotsu]

I didn't say that Berlinski makes sense, nor did I say he's authoritative. If you think I've actually said either of these things, you may want to produce proof of my having said either of these things. So, where did I say these things?

IOW: Please stop misrespresenting what I've said.

The point remains of how the referencing to particular people is, seemingly, meant to add more credibility to an argument rather than the argument, again, standing on its own merits, because people can think up something without having to read a specific book that enumerates it. That can help, I don't deny that, but there's a tinge of intellectualism that I strive to avoid and have practically most of my life in regards to any argument I make

 

[muichimotsu]

Changes are not just striving for precision. It is at times a total change.

A total change in that the theories thrown out have been found utterly inconsistent with any findings we have and would amount to superstition or the like (humor theory for disease, for instance)

The biggest change can be seen in quantum mechanics. Before this, there was a general belief that there is law and order in the universe. Quantum mechanics blew this out of the water. They found that a photon light beam behaves one way when it is not being observed and another way that when it is observed. So this means that at a subatomic level, particles behave differently depending on whether it is being observed or no. How can this be? How can mindless particles know that they are being watched? It is as if a Mind is controlling them!

There can be order and chaos, they aren't mutually exclusive, they're distinct in their arrangement as we observe them.

The observation aspect is not indicative of a mind behind particles so much as a problem in regards to empiricism having technical limitations in respect to observation as the methodology, it's why we have double blind and the like, it's not suggesting that our observations are innately untrustworthy or that we have to insinuate a mind behind nature, which is really just fallacious application of the anthropic principle, rather than considering that nature can behave in ways we can interpret as a mind behind them.

In the same way we cutely say a cat is kissing someone, that's placing a human understanding onto something that, if taken away in that presumption, is more accurately a cat smelling us, because that's a common method for detailed sense processing for them

Also, you're forgetting that even when we're NOT observing, we are observing in a sense with measurements that we then process, there's necessarily an anthropic aspect to science in the empirical methodology: we just don't extrapolate that to assuming there's a mind behind what we observe in nature

But even more important, this brings into question whether any scientific experiment gives us true knowledge of the world. How do we know that the world does not behave in a different way when it is not being observed? I recall reading that modern scientists would not say that a theory, even substantiated by observations and experiments, is necessarily is a reflection of the real world. They now just say that the theory is workable. It does not mean it is true.

This is a fundamental epistemological problem, you're not bringing up anything that impressive that even a philosophy 101 student wouldn't be able to consider

There's such a thing as object permanence and our observations are more accurate the more we have to some extent. But perfect knowledge is not what science seeks, that's ideologues wanting to make science more than what it is.

A theory is the best explanation scientifically tested against contrary models and conforms to the evidence we have, like, say, the theory of evolution, but more uncontroversial in nature: theories of germs, gravity, etc, are all in the same vein as evolution because they have been thoroughly tested

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The point remains of how the referencing to particular people is, seemingly, meant to add more credibility to an argument rather than the argument, again, standing on its own merits, because people can think up something without having to read a specific book that enumerates it. That can help, I don't deny that, but there's a tinge of intellectualism that I strive to avoid and have practically most of my life in regards to any argument I make

..................................................that's good for me to know going forward.

 

[Astrophile]

Could you please provide exact quote and their source?

Certainly. Here they are.

Before the Cambrian era, a brief 600 million years ago, very little is inscribed in the fossil record; but then, signaled by what I imagine as a spectral puff of smoke and a deafening ta-da!, an astonishing number of novel biological structures come into creation, and they come into creation at once.

Thereafter, the major transitional sequences are incomplete. Important inferences begin auspiciously, but then trail off, the ancestral connection between

Eusthenopteron and Ichthyostega, for example - the great hinge between the fish and the amphibia - turning on the interpretation of small grooves within Eusthenopteron's intercalary bones. Most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged. Where there should be evolution, there is stasis instead - the term is used by the paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in developing their theory of "punctuated equilibria" - with the fire alarms of change going off suddenly during a long night in which nothing happens.

Swimming in the soundless sea, the shark has survived for millions of years, sleek as a knife blade and twice as dull.

The shark is an organism wonderfully adapted to its environment. Pause. And then the bright brittle voice of logical folly intrudes: after all, it has survived for millions of years.

By the way, Berlinski writes as if there was only one species of shark. In fact, according to Shark - Wikipedia , 'There are more than 470 species of sharks split across twelve orders'.

Evolutionary thought is suffused in general with an unwholesome glow. "The belief that an organ so perfect as the eye," Darwin wrote, "could have been formed by natural selection is enough to stagger anyone." It is. The problem is obvious. "What good," Stephen Jay Gould asked dramatically, "is 5 percent of an eye?" He termed this question "excellent."
The question, retorted the Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, the most prominent representative of ultra-Darwinians, "is not excellent at all":

These quotes are from The Deniable Darwin, at https://arn.org/docs/berlinski/db_deniabledarwin0696.htm .

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Certainly. Here they are.






By the way, Berlinski writes as if there was only one species of shark. In fact, according to Shark - Wikipedia , 'There are more than 470 species of sharks split across twelve orders'.




These quotes are from The Deniable Darwin, at https://arn.org/docs/berlinski/db_deniabledarwin0696.htm .

Classic creationist. So impressed with his own nonsensical arguments.

 

[packermann]

Let me get this straight. I've been explaining this to you the whole time, and you've only just now caught up, and then you go on to say that I'm the one who might not be understanding?

Yes, so

Lol, too cute.

Sorry. I don't go that way.

I'm going to explain this one more time. If you don't get it, we can just be done.

I agree. I think we are done.

Argument type and argument structure have *NOTHING TO DO* with validity or soundness of premises.

You are using obfuscation in the following just to hide your using the argument from incredulity.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the atheists are dead wrong when they say that it is a logical contradiction for an all-loving God to send people to hell. This would merely be an unsound premise in a valid logical argument of the form

If X, then not Y.
Y.
Therefore, not X.

If God is all-loving, then we won't go to hell.
We will go to hell.
Therefore, God is not all-loving.

There is NO APPEAL to incredulity. There is no "I don't understand this, therefore it is false." It is a logical argument. Premise 1 is the point in question, but even if it is false, it is still not an argument from incredulity. It would be a valid but unsound syllogistic argument.

Argument from incredulity is not "I don't understand this, therefore it is false.". It is "I don't believe this, therefore it is false."

This dictionary term for incredulous is:

1. not credulous; disinclined or indisposed to believe; skeptical.
2. indicating or showing unbelief

Definition of incredulous | Dictionary.com

The the argument from incredulity has nothing to about not understanding. It is not believing. We Christians believe that an all loving God would send people who refuse to become holy to hell because He is also all holy. You do not believe that. Your disbelief does not mean that this is false any more than our believe means that this is true. It has nothing to do with not understanding it, or understanding it.

Now please, acknowledge that you have been wrong this whole time and the atheists here will respect you more. Because you definitely ARE wrong, and burying your head in the sand is not respectable.

I do not seek the respect of other people. I seek to please God.

Talk to other Christians then. "I know it because I know it because I know it" and "God is absolutely real and this is an absolute fact" and "God is the bedrock foundation of existence."

Unless these are followed with reasonable arguments, these kinds of Christians would be the propositions from fideist Christians. A fideist takes the position that we should not try to defend our faith. If a person is predestined to believe then he will. We should not try to reason with others of the validity of Christianity. We should only quote scripture verses to skeptics. I am not a fideist Christian. If I was a fideist, I would not be in discussion with any atheists.

Yes, fear of hellfire is usually the last thing that fades away since it is typically used as a fear tactic on little children to psychologically lock them into Christianity. Little children often have such imaginations that we have to convince them that there are no monsters, so when the adults that they trust tell them there is something that they have to imagine, they typically believe it.

The scare tactic of telling children that they will eventually be worm food is so much better!

At least the fear of hellfire offers a solution - don't grow up and be a serial killer, or a pedophile, or a wife beater, etc. If you do then you may go to hell. But there is no solution from being worm food - that will happen to you whether you are good or bad. So why be good?

So basically it gets in there deep. Oh, and of course, churches offer absolutely zero exit-counseling for those who want to become atheist.

Do atheists offer exit counseling for those who choose to believe?

In fact, the old scare tactic of hell is typically the first thing they'd mention to a "wandering sheep."

So what? We sincerely believe that there is a hell. It would be unloving for us not to warn them.

So I would speculate that atheists who take comfort in believing they'd go to heaven are just transitional atheists.

I would speculate that they are snowflakes. There are a few Muslims in Arab lands who converted to Christianity. Not only would they go to hell according to Islam, but some were even killed by the other Muslims. See List of converts to Christianity from Islam - Wikipedia

These brave souls did not receive any exit counseling from the other Muslims. They accepted the consequences of their conversions. If wrong they would go to hell. And if they were right, they still might be killed. And these atheists are crying that they don't want to hear that they may go hell???? Why are they not able to have the courage of their own disbeliefs? If they really believe that there is no God, then they should laugh at anyone that tells them that they might go to hell. Be bold and stand for your convictions!

We live in a snowflake society. Everyone is suing everyone! Everyone is easily offended! In other cultures, people are getting killed for their beliefs. Lets keep things in perspective.

Give them a bit of time to work through the unethical psychological manipulation they experienced in their early childhood that is, to no one's surprise, effecting them throughout their entire life.

Oh, these precious snowflakes!

What of the millions of Christians who have been imprisoned and forcefully reeducated in the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea? Don't you think that affected them throughout their lives?

No, not more so. In fact I think that Islam is more likely to be true. It is, of course, the most terrible religion on the planet, but that has nothing to do with the truth value of its claims. But the religion itself seems to be more internally consistent than Christianity, so it is automatically more likely to be true.

This is strange of an atheist to say that any religion is more likely to be be true.

But this shows how atheism loses its moral compass. You say that a terrible religion has nothing to do on whether it is true. I say it would automatically disqualify it. Truth and morals go together.

Most atheists are agnostic and most theists are gnostic.

Gnosticism is held by a minority of people. It holds to salvation by knowledge.

You seem to be an agnostic Christian. Good for you.

I am not an agnostic Christian. That is a oxymoron.

Feel free to ask the other atheists here to explain to you what I've just said. As I mentioned earlier, I will no longer strive with you if you fail one more time at understanding the logical nature of arguments - and I've got my money on you not getting it.

This is the problem I see with atheists. They are skeptical fundamentalists. Christian fundamentalists think they are right and everyone else is wrong. Skeptical fundamentalists (atheists) think they are right and everyone else is wrong. Both are very dogmatic. Both cannot see the validity in any arguments of those who disagree. I have discussed my beliefs with both. In attitude, I see no difference.

Just any God? Why not the Christian God? After all, if you can show that Christ rose from the dead, you pretty much get the whole enchilada.

Look it up. There is evidence.

Merely show me that the "Why die for a lie?" argument is not a lie.

That was not the argument. It was "Why die for what you know to be a lie?" Millions ignorantly die for what they thought to be a lie. But no one dies for what he knows to be a lie. That just takes common sense. Would you die for what you knew to be a lie?

Show me ONE person who is attested to have witnessed the resurrection of Christ, and was later given the opportunity to recant his faith, but refused and faced torture and execution. Do that, and I will seriously consider Christianity. Show me TWO or THREE, and I would be fairly compelled.

You know that you would not. You would then say "Oh yeah? How do I know you are not lying? How do I know that your sources are not lying?" And since that person is dead, I cannot produce him as a witness. You are establishing a criteria that you know can never be met.

But you can't, of course. I already made a thread on that and Christians whined that my expectations were way too high. Lol, pretty sad!

Show me ONE person who is attested to have witnessed the resurrection of Christ, and was later given the opportunity to recant his faith, AND DID RECANT. Do that, and I will seriously consider atheism. Show me TWO or THREE, and I would be fairly compelled.

I wouldn't call that an assertion. You even admitted above that you were confused.

I am trying to be polite. I actually thought you were confusing.

Read it again then. I gave reasons. I said you think you have it all figured out, therefore you are probably experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect. You can disagree with my assessment, as those who are under the effect always do, but that doesn't mean I've provided no supporting evidence.

Yes, it does mean that you provided no supporting evidence.

You are merely stating that my ability to assess my cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory ability that comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability (Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia). In other words, you are saying that I am an idiot. This reinforces what I wrote already. You are a fundamentalist. Anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes, so




Sorry. I don't go that way.



I agree. I think we are done.



You are using obfuscation in the following just to hide your using the argument from incredulity.



Argument from incredulity is not "I don't understand this, therefore it is false.". It is "I don't believe this, therefore it is false."

This dictionary term for incredulous is:

1. not credulous; disinclined or indisposed to believe; skeptical.
2. indicating or showing unbelief

Definition of incredulous | Dictionary.com

The the argument from incredulity has nothing to about not understanding. It is not believing. We Christians believe that an all loving God would send people who refuse to become holy to hell because He is also all holy. You do not believe that. Your disbelief does not mean that this is false any more than our believe means that this is true. It has nothing to do with not understanding it, or understanding it.



I do not seek the respect of other people. I seek to please God.



Unless these are followed with reasonable arguments, these kinds of Christians would be the propositions from fideist Christians. A fideist takes the position that we should not try to defend our faith. If a person is predestined to believe then he will. We should not try to reason with others of the validity of Christianity. We should only quote scripture verses to skeptics. I am not a fideist Christian. If I was a fideist, I would not be in discussion with any atheists.





The scare tactic of telling children that they will eventually be worm food is so much better!

At least the fear of hellfire offers a solution - don't grow up and be a serial killer, or a pedophile, or a wife beater, etc. If you do then you may go to hell. But there is no solution from being worm food - that will happen to you whether you are good or bad. So why be good?



Do atheists offer exit counseling for those who choose to believe?



So what? We sincerely believe that there is a hell. It would be unloving for us not to warn them.



I would speculate that they are snowflakes. There are a few Muslims in Arab lands who converted to Christianity. Not only would they go to hell according to Islam, but some were even killed by the other Muslims. See List of converts to Christianity from Islam - Wikipedia

These brave souls did not receive any exit counseling from the other Muslims. They accepted the consequences of their conversions. If wrong they would go to hell. And if they were right, they still might be killed. And these atheists are crying that they don't want to hear that they may go hell???? Why are they not able to have the courage of their own disbeliefs? If they really believe that there is no God, then they should laugh at anyone that tells them that they might go to hell. Be bold and stand for your convictions!

We live in a snowflake society. Everyone is suing everyone! Everyone is easily offended! In other cultures, people are getting killed for their beliefs. Lets keep things in perspective.



Oh, these precious snowflakes!

What of the millions of Christians who have been imprisoned and forcefully reeducated in the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea? Don't you think that affected them throughout their lives?



This is strange of an atheist to say that any religion is more likely to be be true.

But this shows how atheism loses its moral compass. You say that a terrible religion has nothing to do on whether it is true. I say it would automatically disqualify it. Truth and morals go together.




Gnosticism is held by a minority of people. It holds to salvation by knowledge.



I am not an agnostic Christian. That is a oxymoron.




This is the problem I see with atheists. They are skeptical fundamentalists. Christian fundamentalists think they are right and everyone else is wrong. Skeptical fundamentalists (atheists) think they are right and everyone else is wrong. Both are very dogmatic. Both cannot see the validity in any arguments of those who disagree. I have discussed my beliefs with both. In attitude, I see no difference.



Look it up. There is evidence.



That was not the argument. It was "Why die for what you know to be a lie?" Millions ignorantly die for what they thought to be a lie. But no one dies for what he knows to be a lie. That just takes common sense. Would you die for what you knew to be a lie?



You know that you would not. You would then say "Oh yeah? How do I know you are not lying? How do I know that your sources are not lying?" And since that person is dead, I cannot produce him as a witness. You are establishing a criteria that you know can never be met.




Show me ONE person who is attested to have witnessed the resurrection of Christ, and was later given the opportunity to recant his faith, AND DID RECANT. Do that, and I will seriously consider atheism. Show me TWO or THREE, and I would be fairly compelled.



I am trying to be polite. I actually thought you were confusing.




Yes, it does mean that you provided no supporting evidence.

You are merely stating that my ability to assess my cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory ability that comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability (Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia). In other words, you are saying that I am an idiot. This reinforces what I wrote already. You are a fundamentalist. Anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

I think I've found the source of your confusion. You think that because the logical fallacy was named "argument from incredulity" that it automatically means we are going off of the dictionary definition of incredulity. That's just not the case. The argument from incredulity is defined in its own way - go ahead and look it up.

Now, yes, you can say it's ill-named. But it's not my job to catch you up to speed on the logical arena, argumentation, and the clunky nature of the English language. You later in your post reverse the burden of proof and do other silly things, so I'm writing you off as a lost cause for now until such time that you figure it out on your own. See you then!

 

[packermann]

I think I've found the source of your confusion. You think that because the logical fallacy was named "argument from incredulity" that it automatically means we are going off of the dictionary definition of incredulity. That's just not the case. The argument from incredulity is defined in its own way - go ahead and look it up.

Now, yes, you can say it's ill-named. But it's not my job to catch you up to speed on the logical arena, argumentation, and the clunky nature of the English language. You later in your post reverse the burden of proof and do other silly things, so I'm writing you off as a lost cause for now until such time that you figure it out on your own. See you then!

No, its not ill-named. You just do not understand it.


Here is the definition:

Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

Arguments from incredulity can take the form:

1. 
   
   
   • I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false.
   • I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.
   • Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive 'gut' reaction, especially where time is scarce. This form of reasoning is fallacious because one's inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality.

Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia

The boldness is from me.

SOMETIMES it arises from a lack of understanding. Only SOMETIMES! It can arise from other factor as well.

You previously stated:

There is NO APPEAL to incredulity. There is no "I don't understand this, therefore it is false."

But the argument from incredulity does not arise only from not understanding. It can arise from an inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, or an instinctive 'gut' reaction.

 

[packermann]

Excellent question. A coded message in our DNA? Some bona fide, irrefutable miracles? A personal burning bush? A difference in our fundamental understanding of the universe that pointed towards a Creator.

I appreciate you answering my question on what kind of evidence would convince you that there was a God. I think I asked 4 or 5 atheists and I believe you are the only one to answer it. I would like to analyze each one.

A coded message in our DNA?

I already mentioned the universal constants that has made it possible for there to be life to be anywhere in the universe. I only mentioned one but but there are 5 or 6 others. Even the atheist Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion acknowledges this fact. He explains it away by the multiverse theory, that there could be an infinite number of universes - and the odds are that at least one of these universes to have all the constants right.

Well, if Dawkins can punt to the multiverse theory (in which there is no scientific evidence to support it) then this theory can also be used to explain away a coded message in our DNA, if there was one. With so many parallel universes out there, there is one that would have the DNA's chromosomes arranged by chance that appears to be a message from God.
So I do not see this would convince you.

Some bona fide, irrefutable miracles?

Again, if 6 to 7 universal constants being exactly right for life to exist then I do not know how any miracle could convince.

There will always some alternate explanation to explain any miracle. Maybe it was a mass hallucination? Maybe some super space alien zapped us into thinking it was a miracle for some joke? Maybe some being from one of these other parallel universes was able to jump to our universe with powers he derived from the other universe and could perform amazing feats that would be considered normal in his own universe?

So I do not see how any miracle would convince you.

A personal burning bush?

If you ever had this kind of experience, I for one would not believe it. You are just not the kind of person that God would do this. I mean no offence at this. Neither am I worthy of this. God normally does not perform a parlor trick for some Average Joe. Usually, that person is a saint. God has revealed himself to Moses, and he was used to free the Hebrew slaves. He also revealed Himself miraculously to St. Paul, St. Juan Diego, St. Bernadette, St. Faustina Kowalska. Notice what they have in common. They are all canonized saints. And none of them demanded this from God. It just happened. God initiated it.

You wrote that you had a religious upbringing, and studied the Bible. You must have come across where the Bible said "Do not test the Lord your God". And yet this is what you are doing. According to Catholic thought, this would be a mortal sin - meaning this demand from God would make you go straight to hell unless you confess or repented. I am not saying this to scare you. I am just pointing out that the Catholic God would not give you a burning bush experience because He would then be encouraging others to also test Him.

Also, how could you prove that your personal burning bush was not an hallucination?

A difference in our fundamental understanding of the universe that pointed towards a Creator.

Ah! This has happened! Perhaps you are not aware of it. It happened in quantum physics.
Before quantum physics, with old-fashioned Newtonian physics, the belief was that the universe started with matter. Atheists would usually believe in materialism. But quantum physics has blown this out of the water. This is supported in the double-slit experiment. In the micro world, objects that are not observed behave differently than when they are being observed. It is as if they know that they are being watched! But how can inanimate photons know that they are being watched and act differently because of that? This shows that there is some Mind or Minds in control of their behavior. And this contradicts materialism. Any Mind or Minds would be what we call God or gods. This is perfectly compatible with theism or polytheism. But it is not atheism.

Please study this. You can find fascinating articles on the internet.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, its not ill-named. You just do not understand it.


Here is the definition:

Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

Arguments from incredulity can take the form:

1. 
   
   
   • I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false.
   • I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.
   • Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive 'gut' reaction, especially where time is scarce. This form of reasoning is fallacious because one's inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality.

Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia

The boldness is from me.

SOMETIMES it arises from a lack of understanding. Only SOMETIMES! It can arise from other factor as well.

You previously stated:

There is NO APPEAL to incredulity. There is no "I don't understand this, therefore it is false."

But the argument from incredulity does not arise only from not understanding. It can arise from an inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, or an instinctive 'gut' reaction.

You said that 2+2=5 is definitely false. And I agree. But in general, how do we know whether we are "absolutely 100% certain" something is false or if we just don't understand it?

"The earth cannot be a sphere because I don't understand how Australia wouldn't fall into the abyss" is an argument from incredulity.

"The earth cannot be a sphere because all measurements indicate that the surface of the earth is perfectly flat" is NOT an argument from incredulity.

You still just plain don't get it.

And I keep saying I'm done. I guess I don't get it either.

 

[Ophiolite]

I appreciate you answering my question on what kind of evidence would convince you that there was a God. I think I asked 4 or 5 atheists and I believe you are the only one to answer it. I would like to analyze each one.

Perhaps they have just got fed up with your ill conceived assertion that atheists use the Argument from Incredulity. You seem to be the only person here who does not the the gross breach of logic you are employing in defence of that assertion. I refer you to the last post above by Vir Optimus where he states the case clearly and simply. If you cannot "get it", we are probably done.

I already mentioned the universal constants that has made it possible for there to be life to be anywhere in the universe. I only mentioned one but but there are 5 or 6 others. Even the atheist Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion acknowledges this fact. He explains it away by the multiverse theory, that there could be an infinite number of universes - and the odds are that at least one of these universes to have all the constants right.

Well, if Dawkins can punt to the multiverse theory (in which there is no scientific evidence to support it) then this theory can also be used to explain away a coded message in our DNA, if there was one. With so many parallel universes out there, there is one that would have the DNA's chromosomes arranged by chance that appears to be a message from God.
So I do not see this would convince you.

1. I consider some of Dawkins statements and style as reprehensible as the next to worst Creationist, so an argument this tacitly assumes I feel some kinship with the man will get nowhere.
2. I remain comfortable with the notion that a DNA message would have a powerful potential to convince me.

Again, if 6 to 7 universal constants being exactly right for life to exist then I do not know how any miracle could convince.

There will always some alternate explanation to explain any miracle. Maybe it was a mass hallucination? Maybe some super space alien zapped us into thinking it was a miracle for some joke? Maybe some being from one of these other parallel universes was able to jump to our universe with powers he derived from the other universe and could perform amazing feats that would be considered normal in his own universe?

So I do not see how any miracle would convince you.

If you ever had this kind of experience, I for one would not believe it. You are just not the kind of person that God would do this. I mean no offence at this. Neither am I worthy of this. God normally does not perform a parlor trick for some Average Joe. Usually, that person is a saint. God has revealed himself to Moses, and he was used to free the Hebrew slaves. He also revealed Himself miraculously to St. Paul, St. Juan Diego, St. Bernadette, St. Faustina Kowalska. Notice what they have in common. They are all canonized saints. And none of them demanded this from God. It just happened. God initiated it.

You wrote that you had a religious upbringing, and studied the Bible. You must have come across where the Bible said "Do not test the Lord your God". And yet this is what you are doing. According to Catholic thought, this would be a mortal sin - meaning this demand from God would make you go straight to hell unless you confess or repented. I am not saying this to scare you. I am just pointing out that the Catholic God would not give you a burning bush experience because He would then be encouraging others to also test Him.

Also, how could you prove that your personal burning bush was not an hallucination?

With respect you don't know me, you don't know how your God would make selections, you don't know what he would consider to be an Average Joe, or an Exceptional one. You don't know what his goal might be. I might prove a useful tool. Indeed an Average (or below Average) Joe might be exactly what he needs. Thus I don't find your counter argument significant in this case. That said, if a burning bush did talk to me - and human agency could be readily eliminated - I'd tend to suspect aliens before I suspected God.

Ah! This has happened! Perhaps you are not aware of it. It happened in quantum physics.
Before quantum physics, with old-fashioned Newtonian physics, the belief was that the universe started with matter. Atheists would usually believe in materialism. But quantum physics has blown this out of the water. This is supported in the double-slit experiment. In the micro world, objects that are not observed behave differently than when they are being observed. It is as if they know that they are being watched! But how can inanimate photons know that they are being watched and act differently because of that? This shows that there is some Mind or Minds in control of their behavior. And this contradicts materialism. Any Mind or Minds would be what we call God or gods. This is perfectly compatible with theism or polytheism. But it is not atheism.

Please study this. You can find fascinating articles on the internet.

(Emphasised added.) That's an assertion without support. Assertions lacking support are of limited value. There are explanations for these observations that do not require the Divine.

Please study this. You can find fascinating articles on the internet.

Or I can re-read some of the popular science books on the subject from my personal library.

Now, I don't know what your motives were for reflecting on each of my criteria in turn. It looks as if you think that by invalidating each of them you are demonstrating that nothing will convince me there is a God. Consequently my atheism is, in your view, based upon a refusal to believe, not upon any evidence or lack of evidence. If that was your aim, you missed.

 

[Ed1wolf]

However, looking at these statements in isolation; the first, second and fourth points are essentially the same, i.e., an all-loving God allows or causes suffering. The problem with these statements is not their incredulity; it's their internal contradiction. Being 'all-loving' and, at the same time, allowing or causing suffering, are, arguably, contradictory qualities. Your third point is also contradictory in that an all-powerful God would not need to be worshipped. Such a God would, by definition, have no needs or wants. These arguments demonstrate a common problem, where God is depicted as an all-powerful, all-knowing etc. being who, at the same time, has a set of all-too-human characteristics.

OB

No, being all loving and allowing suffering is not contradictory if it is for a greater good, such as spiritual growth. Or another greater good that we dont know about. And if He is also a just God, then sometimes causing suffering is also good, if the suffering is a punishment for evil doing.

 

[Occams Barber]

No, being all loving and allowing suffering is not contradictory if it is for a greater good, such as spiritual growth.

An all-loving, all-powerful God would be quite capable of encouraging spiritual growth (whatever that means) without using suffering as a motivator.

Or another greater good that we dont know about.

If we're not aware of this "greater good" how can we act in accordance with it?

And if He is also a just God, then sometimes causing suffering is also good, if the suffering is a punishment for evil doing.

So God allows evil doing to exist so that he can cause suffering in order to prevent/punish evil doing?

OB

 

[Ed1wolf]

An all-loving, all-powerful God would be quite capable of encouraging spiritual growth (whatever that means) without using suffering as a motivator.

How do you know? Part of spiritual growth is learning to love God, and true love must be voluntary not forced so free will is necessary. I am sure you know this if you are happily married.

ob: If we're not aware of this "greater good" how can we act in accordance with it?

Another one of His greater goods is the elimination of evil forever. And that can only occur with spiritual growth. Strong faith is needed to fight evil. We also learn from scripture and His other book nature that He operates this universe primarily by natural law. So this must be accomplished most of the time without supernatural intervention.

ob: So God allows evil doing to exist so that he can cause suffering in order to prevent/punish evil doing?

OB

No, because He must allow free will in order for spiritual growth to occur as I stated above. Therefore some are going to freely choose to do evil and therefore they must be punished because He is just.

 

[packermann]

Perhaps they have just got fed up with your ill conceived assertion that atheists use the Argument from Incredulity. You seem to be the only person here who does not the the gross breach of logic you are employing in defence of that assertion.

You mean the atheists here. I have received several "likes" from fellow believers. But it is typical for a skeptical fundamentalists to think that that those who disagree with them do not count in their opinion.

I refer you to the last post above by Vir Optimus where he states the case clearly and simply. If you cannot "get it", we are probably done.

The post before yours was not by Vir Optimus. So I do not know what you are talking about.

1. I consider some of Dawkins statements and style as reprehensible as the next to worst Creationist, so an argument this tacitly assumes I feel some kinship with the man will get nowhere.

So does that mean you reject that the universe is fine-tuned for life or that you reject the multiverse theory to explain it away? This is another obfuscation.

2. I remain comfortable with the notion that a DNA message would have a powerful potential to convince me.

I cannot converse with you on this until you explain the fined-tuned universe for life anywhere on the universe, which so far you have side-stepped.

With respect you don't know me, you don't know how your God would make selections, you don't know what he would consider to be an Average Joe, or an Exceptional one.

I know you are an atheist. From the Christian perspective, you cannot be an atheist and be a holy person. I have a Masters in Divinity as a Protestant, so I think I know what I am talking about.

You don't know what his goal might be. I might prove a useful tool. Indeed an Average (or below Average) Joe might be exactly what he needs. Thus I don't find your counter argument significant in this case.

Jesus said that we are to be perfect, as our Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48). He did not say to be average as our Father in heaven is average.

That said, if a burning bush did talk to me - and human agency could be readily eliminated - I'd tend to suspect aliens before I suspected God.

And that is exactly my point. Remember, you were the one to say that a burning bush would convince you of the existence of God. Now you admit that it would not. So one day it would convince you. Another day it would not.

And this is the problem. There is really nothing that would convince you. Any evidence can be explained away. You wrote that a message in our DNA would convince you. But how can you rule out the possibility of a super-intelligent space alien writing in our DNA? You admitted that you would suspect a space alien before you would suspect God! So any miracle could always be explained by a space alien!

(Emphasised added.) That's an assertion without support. Assertions lacking support are of limited value. There are explanations for these observations that do not require the Divine.

Or I can re-read some of the popular science books on the subject from my personal library.

So you deny the double-slit experiment? Do you deny what quantum physicists themselves have said?

This is what Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics, has said:

Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith'.
Max Planck Quotes

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
Max Planck Quotes

We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.
Max Planck Quotes

And here is a quote from Neil Bohr
Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.
Niels Bohr Quotes

These quotes are from "popular science books". These are quotes from those who started quantum mechanics. They show that any work in science must start with faith. They show that we cannot assume that scientific laws exist. They show that behind all this matter is a Mind. Since it is behind matter, it cannot be material. So there must be an immaterial Mind behind the universe.

You have rejected God and made science to be your God. That is called scientism, the idolization of science. But the founder of quantum mechanics has brought us down to reality. Science can give us some good stuff. That is for sure. But it can never tell us if their scientific findings is related to reality. We can never know for sure that objects only behave in a certain way because we are observing them. That is why it takes faith, just as religion takes faith.

Now, I don't know what your motives were for reflecting on each of my criteria in turn. It looks as if you think that by invalidating each of them you are demonstrating that nothing will convince me there is a God. Consequently my atheism is, in your view, based upon a refusal to believe, not upon any evidence or lack of evidence. If that was your aim, you missed.

Friend, I have no intention to convince you or any other atheists. As with other fundamentalists, I find you to be closed-minded. You may be smart but your pride gets in your way of finding the truth. I know that your pride would never let you admit that you are wrong. I am not writing for you, or any other atheists, but for non-atheists, especially fellow believers. I want to show them that in spite of your air of intellectual superiority, you atheists just do not believe because you do not want to believe. It has nothing to do with the lack of evidence because there is no evidence that could possibly exist which would convince you.

 

[Ophiolite]

I appreciate you answering my question on what kind of evidence would convince you that there was a God. I think I asked 4 or 5 atheists and I believe you are the only one to answer it. I would like to analyze each one.

You mean the atheists here. I have received several "likes" from fellow believers. But it is typical for a skeptical fundamentalists to think that that those who disagree with them do not count in their opinion.

Of course I mean the the atheists here. Whatever your fellow believers did or did not award you is irrelevant to the point that was being addressed. Here's the sequence:

In post#112 you kindly said this: "I appreciate you answering my question on what kind of evidence would convince you that there was a God. I think I asked 4 or 5 atheists and I believe you are the only one to answer it. I would like to analyze each one."

You noted the lack of response from atheists, so in post #114 I offered you an explanation for that failure to respond. It was partly tongue in cheek, but I think it may contain an element of truth.

The post before yours was not by Vir Optimus. So I do not know what you are talking about.

The post above was by Nihilist Virus and thus, via a massive piece of pseudo dyslexia I mis-remembered the name. Sorry for confusing you.

So does that mean you reject that the universe is fine-tuned for life or that you reject the multiverse theory to explain it away? This is another obfuscation.

Rather than accuse me of obfuscation it would be more productive to simply ask me to clarify anything I have written that seems unclear. It can be difficult to convey ones meaning clearly. For example, your clarification request here is clear. Your original point/question using Dawkins not so much.

I neither accept, nor reject the fine tuning argument. I've used it when berating atheists for declaring that there is no evidence for a God, while recognising that it is not strong evidence. It is an interesting idea though, both scientifically and philosophically. While some have attached it to multiverse theory, I generally feel the latter is well above my pay grade.

I cannot converse with you on this until you explain the fined-tuned universe for life anywhere on the universe, which so far you have side-stepped.

There you go again using accusations instead of requests for clarification. I hope you don't choose to proceed in that manner.

Unfortunately, I don't follow what "explain the fined-tuned universe for life anywhere on the universe" actually means. It seems to be missing a word or two, or perhaps one has been misstyped. It's probably not important since, as I have already noted I don't have a decided view on fine tuning.
Option #1 There is only one universe and it is fine tuned by chance.
Option#2 There is only one universe and it is fine tuned by conscious intent.
Option #3 There is no such thing as fine tuning, only - in some instances a vague appearance of it, such appearance vanishing as our knowledge increases.
Option #4 We are in one of the few universes that is fine tuned within the larger multiverse. (Such fine tuning may be the result of chance (#4a) or conscious intent (#5a)

There are probably further options that could be added. Now I don't think the human species yet has the information and perhaps not even the intellect to determine which of these options is real, so it is most certainly beyond my capacity to even attempt such a thing.

I know you are an atheist. From the Christian perspective, you cannot be an atheist and be a holy person. I have a Masters in Divinity as a Protestant, so I think I know what I am talking about.
Jesus said that we are to be perfect, as our Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48). He did not say to be average as our Father in heaven is average

I made no claim, hypothetical or otherwise to being holy. I fail to see what your remarks on perfection have to do with the hypothetical possibility of God using unholy, Average Joe's, such as myself as tools.

And that is exactly my point. Remember, you were the one to say that a burning bush would convince you of the existence of God. Now you admit that it would not. So one day it would convince you. Another day it would not.

And this is the problem. There is really nothing that would convince you. Any evidence can be explained away. You wrote that a message in our DNA would convince you. But how can you rule out the possibility of a super-intelligent space alien writing in our DNA? You admitted that you would suspect a space alien before you would suspect God! So any miracle could always be explained by a space alien!

You seem to have misunderstood me. You asked me several days ago what would convince me there was a God. It wasn't a question I had considered in that format before. I wished to be courteous and give you a reply so I threw out some ideas off the top of my head and am now being given the third degree over them.

My expectation has been for many years that if God existed then evidence would emerge in unanticipated ways from the character of the universe, but I can't list an unanticipated way, for obvious reasons. Fine Tuning is perhaps an example of the sort of thing, but we've already seen it's too uncertain. That's why I threw in the coded message in the DNA. Same rough ball park as Fine Tuning.

You say "There is really nothing that would convince you." Not so far. And of course, if there is no God, then there cannot be any convincing evidence of his existence. But I shall keep an open mind and examine anything new that emerges on the subject.

So you deny the double-slit experiment? Do you deny what quantum physicists themselves have said?

Of course I don't deny the double slit experiment. I do question your cherry picking of opinions on what it signifies, and a like approach to quotations from scientists.

Friend, I have no intention to convince you or any other atheists. As with other fundamentalists, I find them to be closed-minded. I know that your pride would never let you admit that you are wrong. I am not writing for you, or any other atheists, but for non-atheists, especially fellow believers. I want to show them that in spite of your air of intellectual superiority, you atheists,just do not believe because you do not want to believe. It has nothing to do with the lack of evidence because there is no evidence that could possibly exist which would convince you.

May I remind you that I am an agnostic. I very certain of my uncertainty in regard to the existence or non-existence of a deity. It is the Christian God, at least as represented by Christians today, to whom I adopt an atheistic stance.

I deleted a bunch more material here. I've spent too much time plumbing the depths with you. I'm going to the surface to breath in the fresh air of reality. Cheers.

 

[muichimotsu]

How do you know? Part of spiritual growth is learning to love God, and true love must be voluntary not forced so free will is necessary. I am sure you know this if you are happily married.



Another one of His greater goods is the elimination of evil forever. And that can only occur with spiritual growth. Strong faith is needed to fight evil. We also learn from scripture and His other book nature that He operates this universe primarily by natural law. So this must be accomplished most of the time without supernatural intervention.



No, because He must allow free will in order for spiritual growth to occur as I stated above. Therefore some are going to freely choose to do evil and therefore they must be punished because He is just.

If evil necessarily results from freewill and God wants to eliminate evil, seems to me that logically follows that God wants to eliminate freewill to a great degree, if not entirely, because then we cannot choose evil