for atheists

[46AND2]

Let's go over this once more.

- I state that Matt Dillahunty's answer is a cop-out because it doesn't take into account the possibility that there are atheists who would reject any and all evidence

Matt Dillahunty was speaking for Matt Dillahunty. These mysterious super-atheists who you claim exist have nothing to do with his quote.

- Other posters strawman my position, claiming that I am saying that all atheists would be immune to evidence

*citation needed

- I clarify that that is not what I meant, as the mere existence of former atheists who have converted to Christianity shows that not all atheists are so intransigent.

Your clarification was not needed, as no such strawman was constructed.

- You start getting offended by the very idea of such converts and pull a bunch of No True Scotsman arguments, completely missing why I even brought the subject up in the first place.

Do you understand now?

Yes, it's been pretty clear for a few pages now that you are confused about what we are saying.

I said that already.

Um...then how can you possibly think any atheist can be immune from such power? And why must such strange opinion be considered by Matt Dillahunty?

If you took a flat earther up in a spacecraft and orbited the earth, they would say it's all fake and refuse to believe it.

Highly doubt that.

Similarly, if God Himself appeared in front of certain atheists, they would do the same.

Even if that is true...so what?

 

[Larniavc]

I see lots of evidence for creation.

Yet you refuse to present it.

It’s getting obvious that you won’t.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's go over this once more.

- I state that Matt Dillahunty's answer is a cop-out because it doesn't take into account the possibility that there are atheists who would reject any and all evidence

Let's go over this once more. It of course is not because he never made a claim that his beliefs are those of all atheists. That was a major failing of yours. For a rare time you made the error of assuming a black and white fallacy. Dillahunty was only talking for himself. He knew that he could not talk for all atheists as some Christians assume that they are talking for all Christians.

- Other posters strawman my position, claiming that I am saying that all atheists would be immune to evidence

No, others pointed out that you were in error because he was only talking about Dillanhunty's standards and the standards of many atheists. A lot of us agree on Matt on many, though I do not think any of us would agree with all of the beliefs of any one atheist. The only central atheist "dogmas" that I can think of is that atheists lack a belief in God and that there is no overarching atheist dogma.

- I clarify that that is not what I meant, as the mere existence of former atheists who have converted to Christianity shows that not all atheists are so intransigent.

And that is a poor example because you can't but help to use loaded language.

- You start getting offended by the very idea of such converts and pull a bunch of No True Scotsman arguments, completely missing why I even brought the subject up in the first place.

No, I got offended by how you tried to justify your error. And I brought up the fact that most, I never said all, supposed ex-atheists that I know of demonstrate that they were at best atheists for bad reasons. If a Christian is a Christian just because of the promise of heaven but do not really follow the teachings of Jesus would you consider that person a Christian? Would you consider the televangilists that scam their innocent flock for millions at times as Christian?

Do you understand now?

Of course, do you understand that you were the one that was always confused?

If you took a flat earther up in a spacecraft and orbited the earth, they would say it's all fake and refuse to believe it. Similarly, if God Himself appeared in front of certain atheists, they would do the same.

Possibly. But that is only a statement that God is neither omnipotent or omniscient.

 

[Skreeper]

If I told you God did miracles in my life would you believe me? Or would you just pass them off as coincidences?

How do tell the difference between a lucky coincidence and a miracle from God?

 

[Freodin]

What, if anything would make you believe that God is or at least may be real?

Staff I am not sure where to put this so if it is wrong please move.

If you allow me the counterquestion: why do you ask?

It seems to me - and I could be wrong here - that you just want to confirm your own view, that atheists are just stubborn and do not want to believe and ask for unreasonable evidence.

As I said: I may be wrong here, so if I am wrong, I would like to hear your reason for that question.

See, I do have something make me consider that he "at least may be real". It is not unreasonable, it is based on biblical promises, it is no game, no "party trick", and I have mentioned here on this very forum several times now over the years. I even had some Christians taking me up on it, and failing to deliver.

And my offer still stands. All I need are answers to these two questions in my "challenge", and I promise to consider God.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If you took a flat earther up in a spacecraft and orbited the earth, they would say it's all fake and refuse to believe it. Similarly, if God Himself appeared in front of certain atheists, they would do the same.

You can keep saying that as much as you want, but until you accept that it makes God non-omnipotent you're missing the point.

 

[dogs4thewin]

If you allow me the counterquestion: why do you ask?

It seems to me - and I could be wrong here - that you just want to confirm your own view, that atheists are just stubborn and do not want to believe and ask for unreasonable evidence.

As I said: I may be wrong here, so if I am wrong, I would like to hear your reason for that question.

See, I do have something make me consider that he "at least may be real". It is not unreasonable, it is based on biblical promises, it is no game, no "party trick", and I have mentioned here on this very forum several times now over the years. I even had some Christians taking me up on it, and failing to deliver.

And my offer still stands. All I need are answers to these two questions in my "challenge", and I promise to consider God.

The reason was I was wondering what the reaction would be IF ( not saying this will happen, but if the virus "fell off the map" I am not talking about slowly getting under control and leaving that way I am talking about a very sudden drop in cases. ( Particularly if no second wave shows up. Not saying it will happen by any means.

 

[xianghua]

What, if anything would make you believe that God is or at least may be real?

these gears for instance:

we know that gears are the product of design. even if they are made from organic components or have self replicating system. (image from A Natural Example of a Functioning Gear Mechanism Discovered in an Insect)

 

[renniks]

Yes I’m a father, I was right there when my son was born.

How is that evidence of God?

As I said, I shall look at any evidence you provide.

Don’t forget: when you asked about DNA and cell membranes I provided you with a detailed paper to explain your queries in my next post to you.

Can you not do me the same curtesy?

I told you from the start that you would refuse to see the evidence. What is the point, if you will just dismiss any evidence for a creator? I see design, you see random processes.

 

[renniks]

Yet you refuse to present it.

It’s getting obvious that you won’t.

I already did on the other thread...it wasn't even commented on.

 

[Paulos23]

these gears for instance:

we know that gears are the product of design. even if they are made from organic components or have self replicating system. (image from A Natural Example of a Functioning Gear Mechanism Discovered in an Insect)

Please, we have gone over this one before. It is something young crickets have to give them an advantage as they grow their muscles, and then they stop relying on it. It has come about by a natural process.

If there are living beings that are full of gears, levelers, and springs you might have something. But this is just wishful thinking.

 

[renniks]

How do tell the difference between a lucky coincidence and a miracle from God?

One is God speaking, the other is the law of averages coming out in your favor.
How do you tell? What is the result? Does it inspire increased trust in the Divine or nothing in particular?

 

[Skreeper]

One is God speaking, the other is the law of averages coming out in your favor.
How do you tell? What is the result? Does it inspire increased trust in the Divine or nothing in particular?

What this tells me is that there is no clearly defined way to tell the difference.
It's just wishful thinking, because the thought of some divine being caring about you makes you feel good.

I'll just stick to reality.

 

[Larniavc]

I already did on the other thread...it wasn't even commented on.

Could you link it for me? I tried searching 'other thread' it didn't help much.

 

[renniks]

What this tells me is that there is no clearly defined way to tell the difference.
It's just wishful thinking, because the thought of some divine being caring about you makes you feel good.

I'll just stick to reality.

And how does one know what reality is? That's the irony. What you assume is reality most likely isn't.
For example, Darwinism isn't objective, it's biased from the start: Darwin was anything but objective:

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.”

Here's the problem with that:
Critics who invoke the problem of evil against design have left science behind and entered the waters of philosophy and theology.

Funny how those who claim to be only scientific and objective aren't in reality.

 

[renniks]

Could you link it for me? I tried searching 'other thread' it didn't help much.

No, but there's lots of other arguments for God.
How many do you want?

1 classic one:

"We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 3, Question 2).

 

[renniks]

Could you link it for me? I tried searching 'other thread' it didn't help much.

David Hume makes up this one so he can argue against it.!

Look round the world: contemplate the whole and every part of it: you will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human designs, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since, therefore, the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed. By this argument a posteriori, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity, and his similarity to human mind and intelligence."

In other words:

1. The material universe resembles the intelligent productions of human beings in that it exhibits design.
2. The design in any human artifact is the effect of having been made by an intelligent being.
3. Like effects have like causes.
4. Therefore, the design in the material universe is the effect of having been made by an intelligent creator.

I found his counter-arguments rather week, of course.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

No, but there's lots of other arguments for God.
How many do you want?

1 classic one:

"We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 3, Question 2).

"arguments" for god are not "evidence" for god. All the most logically sound argument does is propose a logical possibility for what ever you're arguing. It does not bring it into existence nor does it demonstrate its existence.

 

[Larniavc]

No, but there's lots of other arguments for God.
How many do you want?

1 classic one:

"We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 3, Question 2).

That is an assertion that animals are not intelligent enough to be able to survive without God. In what way is that evidence?

An assertion is not evidence.

I just watched my cat stalk a bird. She only moved towards it when it was not looking in her direction. So the cat was making decisions which is an observation of reality contradicting Mr Aquinas' assertion.

Reality trumps assertions.

If that is the best thing you can post when asked for evidence it's truly laughable.

 

[Larniavc]

David Hume makes up this one so he can argue against it.!

Look round the world: contemplate the whole and every part of it: you will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human designs, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since, therefore, the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed. By this argument a posteriori, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity, and his similarity to human mind and intelligence."

In other words:

1. The material universe resembles the intelligent productions of human beings in that it exhibits design.
2. The design in any human artifact is the effect of having been made by an intelligent being.
3. Like effects have like causes.
4. Therefore, the design in the material universe is the effect of having been made by an intelligent creator.

I found his counter-arguments rather week, of course.

You keep posting assertions as if they are evidence- "we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy,".

Why?