Atheism destroyed with a question

[dsian]

Since there seems to be many atheists on this "Christian" forum I thought of posting this:

youtube.com/watch?v=KqJKOHFB7IU

And it raises good points especially of the fine tuning of the universe.

"But that's the argument from design!"

Which hasn't been refuted. The fine tuning is agreed upon by physicists. The video uses academic sources for its claims too.

 

[dsian]

And it raises good points especially of the fine tuning of the universe.

"But that's the argument from design!"

Which hasn't been refuted. The fine tuning is agreed upon by physicists. The video uses academic sources for its claims too.

 

[KWCrazy]

I've made the exact same points. It's irrelevant to the atheists. Everyone has a conscience, everyone knows good from evil, and everyone knows in his heart that there is a God. Atheists deny this, and in doing so they lie to themselves constantly. Atheism itself is one big lie. When confronted with the facts, they say that the laws of physics aren't really laws; that they could be violated under certain circumstances... like when it suits them. They hide behind science, but real science is NOT on the side of the atheist. Science holds that everything must have a cause; a point of origination; and that the origination of matter / energy is impossible. They simply pretend otherwise and accuse you of being ignorant because you don't understand science. It doesn't matter if you understand it better than they do. Atheism has nothing to do with truth. It's an excuse to reject the truth.

This thread will probably get deleted because even though this is supposed to be a Christian website we are expected to cheerfully accept atheism as a happy alternative to Christianity and do nothing while the atheists proceed down the road to Hell. Warning them that they will be eternally damned for their rejection of grace is considered hostile and flaming.

 

[poolerboy0077]

And it raises good points especially of the fine tuning of the universe.

"But that's the argument from design!"

Which hasn't been refuted. The fine tuning is agreed upon by physicists. The video uses academic sources for its claims too.

I don't know where you're getting your claim that physicists have "agreed upon" the fine-tuning argument but the reason the argument fails is based on the unwarranted assumptions packed into it. The existence of any universe will have temporal consequences, and life is one of those possible consequences. It requires no more explanation than the pattern of raindrops falling on the sidewalk.

The video might sound profound to the average believer who's never engaged these arguments but to the common online atheist who enjoys philosophical debates, these are rather unoriginal. The video also suffers from severe flaws, claiming the Big Bang is the theory that the ultimate origin of our universe was a first moment of time at which our universe was launched from a state of infinite density and temperature.

I've made the exact same points. It's irrelevant to the atheists. Everyone has a conscience, everyone knows good from evil, and everyone knows in his heart that there is a God.

You're just rehearsing your own biases. I could equally say something useless like "You know in your heart there is no God." This shows absolutely nothing.

Science holds that everything must have a cause; a point of origination; and that the origination of matter / energy is impossible.

Science holds no such thing. It employs methodological naturalism and assumes cause and effect, sure, but it doesn't foreclose on the idea of infinity. If everything must have a cause, as you say, are you prepared to apply that assertion to God Himself? I doubt it.

This thread will probably get deleted because even though this is supposed to be a Christian website we are expected to cheerfully accept atheism as a happy alternative to Christianity and do nothing while the atheists proceed down the road to Hell. Warning them that they will be eternally damned for their rejection of grace is considered hostile and flaming.

Now you've stepped into conspiratorial turf thinking that this site, made by Christians for Christians, caters more to us than to their own people and ideology. This is the height of delusion.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'll start with one of the last points first.

Atheism (at least, not all atheism) is based on non-answered prayers, the problem of evil, and an irrational hate for religion.

I was a committed Christian before, and I fought my doubts for years before I finally lost faith and accepted I was an atheist. This wasn't an easy thing for me... God meant SO much to me, and I begged God to show me a sign.

I lost faith because I no longer saw good reasons to believe. At the arguments are faulty and have gaps. I used similar arguments used in the video when I was a Christian.

---------------

My position on what happened in the beginning is that I don't know. It's very hard for humans to conceive of what is possiby beyond time, and beyond our universe. I do have ideas though.

If you think God is possible, then I suppose you could accept that other timeless states could exist too? Perhaps a simple timeless states allow various universes to pop into existence. ie: Instead of a timeless God, there is a timeless state of reality.

Another thing to consider is that if the universe was a singularity, and that means the universe was timeless at time zero, then there was no time when the universe didn't exist. That isn't to say the universe is eternal, but rather to say that there was never a time when there was nothing, and then the next moment there was a universe. At all times there was a universe because time is part of the universe.

What we are looking for then isn't a cause to make something from nothing, but rather an explanation for why there is a universe rather than nothing.

The videos says that we have observed that nothing does nothing, but then goes on to say that the vacuum is still something. I'd say that we have never observed nothingness then.

The video also says scientists create hypothesise not based on evidence. On the other hand then the god idea isn't either. If it's possible that other explanations could be true, then there is no reason to be theist (or deist).

Another point made is that of fine tuning. I'd say multiple universes or some Theory of Everything we don't currently know could explain the laws.

Finally, I dislike religion because it is false, and also because it gets good people to do or support bad things.

 

[Paradoxum]

I've made the exact same points. It's irrelevant to the atheists.

It isn't irrelevant, it's that I disagree.

Everyone has a conscience, everyone knows good from evil, and everyone knows in his heart that there is a God.

I believe in morality, but mine isn't based on God. I honestly don't know that there is a God.

Atheists deny this, and in doing so they lie to themselves constantly. Atheism itself is one big lie.

I honestly don't know that. I could just as easily say that you know in your subconscious that your god ideas are false.

We could accuse each other of lying, or accept that we simply disagree.

This thread will probably get deleted because even though this is supposed to be a Christian website we are expected to cheerfully accept atheism as a happy alternative to Christianity and do nothing while the atheists proceed down the road to Hell. Warning them that they will be eternally damned for their rejection of grace is considered hostile and flaming.

Personally, I'm happy to talk about this stuff.

 

[Viren]

I don't know where you're getting your claim that physicists have "agreed upon" the fine-tuning argument but the reason the argument fails is based on the unwarranted assumptions packed into it. The existence of any universe will have temporal consequences, and life is one of those possible consequences. It requires no more explanation than the pattern of raindrops falling on the sidewalk.

Yeah, fine-tuning has never been a convincing argument for me. It makes the assumption that everything that exists was destined to become this way.

It like dropping a clump of sand on the ground and saying "what are the odds that every grain would land just this way"?

Also, empty space in a vacuum isn't "something". It's actually is "nothing", but our mind has been trained to only recognized things. Just because you label space as a thing doesn't make it so.

 

[poolerboy0077]

It like dropping a clump of sand on the ground and saying "what are the odds that every grain would land just this way"?

That's a good analogy, actually. It just implies teleology.

Also, empty space in a vacuum isn't "something". It's actually is "nothing", but our mind has been trained to only recognized things. Just because you label space as a thing doesn't make it so.

Exactly. You just reminded me of Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Since there seems to be many atheists on this "Christian" forum I thought of posting this:

youtube.com/watch?v=KqJKOHFB7IU

And it raises good points especially of the fine tuning of the universe.

"But that's the argument from design!"

Which hasn't been refuted. The fine tuning is agreed upon by physicists. The video uses academic sources for its claims too.

Marty covers the point succinctly:

A Response to "Atheism", Chapter 7 - YouTube

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Mary covers the point concisely:

A Response to "Atheism", Chapter 7 - YouTube

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Mary covers the point concisely:

A Response to "Atheism", Chapter 7 - YouTube

I...I ccccan't bbbbelieve it. The guy in the vvvvideo, he...he said apologetics is just mental masturbation. I feel my ffffaith...slipping. I feel so cheap and disgusting.

I guess I should have faith in the Almighty Senses instead.

Oh Heavenly Eyeball, please allow me to see everything that you see! Heavenly Eardrum, allow me to hear everything you hear. Olfactory system, allow me to smell, taste and touch everything you smell, taste and touch. Then, I will experience the absolute truth, and I will be certainly and truly free.

[And now, I'm turning around from the bathroom mirror...and going to bed.]

 

[David Gould]

It is weird that to be sure that they are right in their belief in deity that some Christians have to also believe that everyone in the world secretly believes in deity, too.

Very insecure, it seems to me. Why not simply accept the - to me - self-evident fact that some intelligent people honestly believe differently than you do about the existence of deity?

As to the fine-tuning argument, yes, if things were slightly different then there would be no intelligent life. But if there was no intelligent life, we would not be here to discuss such things. See Douglas Adams regarding the puddle of water.

As to morality, just by observing behaviour it is clear that different people have different moral rules. (Indeed, if you read the Bible, you can see a number of different supposedly deity-sanctioned moral codes in operation). There is no set of moral rules written on our hearts - and even if there was, the question would still be: 'Why should we follow the set of moral rules written on our hearts? Where is the rule that says that rules written on hearts trump other rules?'

As to certainty, it is theists who seem to want certainty. Provisional acceptance of well-evidenced claims combined with a general but practicality constrained scepticism is all that is necessary.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I...I ccccan't bbbbelieve it. The guy in the vvvvideo, he...he said apologetics is just mental masturbation. I feel my ffffaith...slipping. I feel so cheap and disgusting.

Marty's characterisation of apologetics isn't far from the truth. It isn't in the business of advancing knowledge. It's there to defend belief in spite of bad evidence and prevailing counter-evidence. It makes use of transparently self-serving arguments and, wherever possible, it takes the language of science to make beguiling claims to prop up those arguments.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Marty's characterisation of apologetics isn't far from the truth. It isn't in the business of advancing knowledge. It's there to defend belief in spite of bad evidence and prevailing counter-evidence. It makes use of transparently self-serving arguments and, wherever possible, it takes the language of science to make beguiling claims to prop up those arguments.

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

 

[variant]

If someone wants to show us how the universe 'began' and how a God was required, and how that was accomplished, I will convert immediately.

Anything else is an argument from ignorance with the assumption that God is a good explanation. In reality it explains nothing about the phenomena in question.

Special pleading about how God doesn't require an explanation for it's beginning and how it works but the universe does require that explanation is just odd.

If you had an argument for what God is, how it works, and why it is necessary, atheists would be pretty easy to convince, but it's not so simple as the op. You actually would have to know something about the entity you say exists.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

No one said that it wins. It works.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No one said that it wins. It works.

So... should we be Empiricists or Pragmatists?

 

[variant]

So... should we be Empiricists or Pragmatists?

As opposed to defending beliefs in a self serving manner, yes.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As opposed to defending beliefs in a self serving manner, yes.

Let me rephrase the question.

In your opinion, should we be Empiricists, or instead, Pragmatists?

 

[variant]

Let me rephrase the question.

In your opinion, should we be Empiricists, or instead, Pragmatists?

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

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

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