Atheism destroyed with a question

[2PhiloVoid]

We're free to disagree.

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

No, I'm not one to spin my philosophical wheels for nothing. I'm going with Eugenie C. Scott's conclusions (a science educator and atheist, by the way, if you're not already familiar with who she is.)

My point is that there is room for theology if one stakes out in the "methodological naturalism" camp of science rather that the "philosophical naturalism" camp (e.g. Richard Dawkins is in the latter camp). As far as giving you proof of God, that is difficult to do because everyone seems to have their own definition as to what constitutes evidence and/or proof. Ultimately, despite Empiricism and so on, the argument boils down to people's discomfort with the argument from Evil and Suffering; most arguments against God are just some form of 'griping' about an imperfect world.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, I'm not one to spin my philosophical wheels for nothing. I'm going with Eugenie C. Scott's conclusions (a science educator and atheist, by the way, if you're not already familiar with who she is.)

My point is that there is room for theology if one stakes out in the "methodological naturalism" camp of science rather that the "philosophical naturalism" camp (e.g. Richard Dawkins is in the latter camp). As far as giving you proof of God, that is difficult to do because everyone seems to have their own definition as to what constitutes evidence and/or proof. Ultimately, despite Empiricism and so on, the argument boils down to people's discomfort with the argument from Evil and Suffering; most arguments against God are just some form of 'griping' about an imperfect world.

Considering that many theists insist that their deity is Perfect with a capital P, I would say that their "griping" about an imperfect world happens to be perfectly warranted. If theists would abandon their claim to God being perfect and all good, then that criticism would evaporate. Yet to most theists the idea of allowing for an imperfect deity is equivalent to allowing for no deity at all, since most consider their deity intrinsically perfect.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

Of course it doesn't win by default, it wins based on what results it gets.

Science consistently works, apologetics consistently do not.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Sorry. That video did not destroy atheism.

 

[variant]

No, I'm not one to spin my philosophical wheels for nothing. I'm going with Eugenie C. Scott's conclusions (a science educator and atheist, by the way, if you're not already familiar with who she is.)

Your appeal to authority rather than actually proposing an argument is noted.

My point is that there is room for theology if one stakes out in the "methodological naturalism" camp of science rather that the "philosophical naturalism" camp (e.g. Richard Dawkins is in the latter camp). As far as giving you proof of God, that is difficult to do because everyone seems to have their own definition as to what constitutes evidence and/or proof. Ultimately, despite Empiricism and so on, the argument boils down to people's discomfort with the argument from Evil and Suffering; most arguments against God are just some form of 'griping' about an imperfect world.

The best arguments against God are from a lack of evidence or even a worthwhile definition. Not to mention epistemological problems right at the beginning of dealing with the concept.

This leaves us with the problem that no one can speak authoritatively on God as a concept nor for God (which is the point of the concept) so the concept yields little fruit except in the imagination of our theist friends.

There's always room for theology, but we're under no obligation to believe it means anything.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, this depends on a person's prior assumptions as to the efficacy of scientific investigation.

No, not at all. Science works whether or not you believe in it.

 

[durangodawood]

Atheism destroyed with a question

So what is the one simple question that destroys atheism???

(For some reason I could not run the vid)

Thanks in advance.

 

[super animator]

I forgot the name (As always) of the philosophical problem, which I think 2Philvoid that is trying to reference.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

All I need to know about how utterly ill-prepared and unqualified apologists are to deal with atheism I learn from reading stuff like this. Thanks for making an example of yourself, OP.

 

[Ripheus27]

Seriously, Hume and Kant pretty much wiped out the theoretical-argument basis for belief in God hundreds of years ago. Why has this world not moved on yet? Or is this mainly an American, or US American, problem (I don't really know, but I feel as though most of Europe is not hung up on this intelligent-design stuff or w/e--and Asia and Africa probably don't deal with the problem in the same way, and Australia might as well be Europe when it comes to the issue, and South America is mostly Catholic IIRC and luckily the RCC is not so behind on the times all the time)? The only "evidence," or justification rather, for my faith comes from my (admittedly greatly self-chosen) moral standards. Now I have no reason to doubt my moral code (or not much reason), so I'm sufficiently justified by myself in having faith--but to say that others who share not these opinions, who are therefore atheists, are lying to themselves, is to put specks in other people's eyes while running into walls for lack of removing the planks in our own.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

This sort of "something can't come from nothing, therefor God" kind of argument lost its appeal for me before I became an atheist.

The video is right: atheism doesn't have an answer to the question of "where did it all come from" (leaving aside the fact that atheism doesn't need one since it's not a worldview in-and-of itself). But so what? Even if it is true that there needs to be some sort of Ground of Being or unmoved mover that exists eternally by itself, but that isn't necessarily incompatible with naturalism and it doesn't prove the existence of the personal interventionist God that theists typically believe in (I know the OP is a deist, so they're off the hook).

I'd just be quibbling over the use of words (something I find myself doing a lot), but I think that belief in a ground of being/unmoved mover is compatible with atheism. If there was such a thing, I don't know why you'd need to call it "God" rather than seeing it as part of nature or the universe.

 

[Cearbhall]

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 you try to tell people that you know their minds better than they do, it's automatically an irrelevant argument, yes. You're free to hold this opinion, but don't be offended when people insist that they know their own minds.

 

[poolerboy0077]

This sort of "something can't come from nothing, therefor God" kind of argument lost its appeal for me before I became an atheist.

The saddest part is that some people feel this is their strongest argument rather than their weakest.

It also amounts to a contradiction: "I can't explain X, therefore I can explain it!"

 

[Cearbhall]

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.

I suppose that's a necessary belief if a person wants to think that belief in God is truth and not just something that he or she learned from books and people.

 

[keith99]

Where did God come from?

All arguments from an unanswered question seem to ignore that their point works just as well of better for God. Why better? Because one is asking for more to come from nothing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your appeal to authority rather than actually proposing an argument is noted.




The best arguments against God are from a lack of evidence or even a worthwhile definition. Not to mention epistemological problems right at the beginning of dealing with the concept.

This leaves us with the problem that no one can speak authoritatively on God as a concept nor for God (which is the point of the concept) so the concept yields little fruit except in the imagination of our theist friends.

There's always room for theology, but we're under no obligation to believe it means anything.

Please excuse what appears to be my "appeal to authority." Since I've seen people gripe on these forums if I do the 'academic act' of actually citing my sources, I often try instead to be concise. Next time, I'll not assume that with you...I'll do the quote, cite my source, and specifically elaborate my point to remove ambiguity as to my intent.

And Heavens to Betsy, I wouldn't dream of insisting that anyone would actually be obligated to believe based on typical apologetic arguments.

Peace

 

[Jack Hectorman]

Any thread titled "Atheism destroyed with a (insert fallacy claim)" are usually good for a laugh and not much else. I haven't seen an original argument for god that hasn't already been well refuted in several ways in probably years now. (bolded by Jack)

Ana,

"Well refuted."

Who would get the great honor to decide if the argument had been successfully "well refuted" or not? If there was a debate between an atheist and a Christian in front of an audience made up of 500 atheists, then we know how the "majority vote" would go. The Christian would be declared "well refuted." .. lol ..

There are lengthy debates between a Christian and some atheists at William Lane Craig's web site Reasonable Faith. I don't think William Lane Craig would be easy to "well refute" if you [or anyone else] actually had to do it in front of an audience of (say) 500 truly unbiased non-prejudiced people, who later voted on how well you [or anyone else] did.

Google "William Lane Craig Reasonable Faith" and see what you think. (I'd give you a link to a good debate between Craig and Law, but I need to get my post count up to 50 before I do that. (I plan to do that soon, this is a nice site.)

Cheers.

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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

[snip]

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.

As long as you aren't really bringing in God as an explanation to anything there is nothing for the atheist to do. Technically.

(I haven't watched your video, but I doubt that things are explained for a change. It would be out of character too.)


ETA: So I skipped a little through the vid and ... Chicken and Egg Problem. What is this? Kindergarten?

 

[Jack Hectorman]

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.]

... lol .. That was funny, I got a good laugh outta that one.

Cheers.

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

 

[Davian]

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

<snip>

I thought the egg-laying theropods came first.

When a theist picks up Occam's razor, how do they know which end to hold?

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.

Some physicists agree that there may be the appearance of fine tuning, not actual fine tuning. See apophenia:

Apophenia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia