Question for atheists. . .

[HitchSlap]

... real sensus divinatis.

Sorry, religious types don't have a corner on the market for a well understood human experience. To be inspired by 'the wonder of it all,' is not evidence for your god. If you think it is, then you must accept the claim that all who are religious claim is true of their god/s.

This thread is a pretty good demonstration of how #team_atheism can quite easily claim that, as individual atheists, they personally don't find a certain fact claim or logical proposition persuasive.

I personally don't find your logical proposition persuasive.

(I deleted the "certain facts" bit, because you haven't provided any.

They can make a brute (special pleading) assertion that something doesn't meet their personal definition of "evidence".

We definitely have differing opinions on what constitutes evidence.

They can merely assert that something ISNT finely tuned,

Are you familiar with the 'anthropic principle?'

that something HAS always existed,

Maybe. Maybe not.

that maximal greatness is in the eye of the beholder,

Not sure what you're trying to convey here.

that morality isn't connected to divinity...etc.

Correct. It's connected to social contracts and cultural mores.

But what they can't do, and haven't done in this thread, or anywhere else, is provide a solid, substantial counter-explanation (rebuttal) of God

Sure I have. Maybe you weren't paying attention.

which is sufficiently persuasive to outweigh the true witness of the Holy Spirit, the sensus divinatis, and real, lived experience of supernatural events that theists have unanimously corroborated for thousands of years.

Richard Feynman said it best,


“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”

 

[Lion IRC]

Sorry, religious types don't have a corner on the market for a well understood human experience.

Its well understood. Theophany.
Atheists dont get to tell me what I did and did not experience.

To be inspired by 'the wonder of it all,' is not evidence for your god. If you think it is...

That's NOT my position. #strawman
It might be the atheists version of religion_lite but "awe" doesn't even come close to the entirety of theist experience of divinity.

then you must accept the claim that all who are religious claim is true of their god/s.

When they say Thor, Allah, Zeus, Ra, Apollo...etc. I know Who they mean. I'm not doing Christian Particularism with you. Im defending theism. AvT.

I personally don't find your logical proposition persuasive.

That's what I said you would do. Gainsaying is easy. Especially, for presuppositional atheists.

(I deleted the "certain facts" bit, because you haven't provided any.

For the sake of brevity, I didn't list all the things atheists typically dispute are factual. Can you concede that there ARE certain fact claims which atheists and theists disagree upon? Thanks.

We definitely have differing opinions on what constitutes evidence

Yep. That's a commonly used device for team atheism.
I dont recall ever seeing apologists screech the "THATS NOT EVIDENCE" canard.

Are you familiar with the 'anthropic principle?'

Of course I am! You think I've missed out on that part of the fine tuning argument?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Glad you've got a rock solid position.

Not sure what you're trying to convey here.

Um. Sorry about that. Consequently I'm not sure what you would like me to clarify. Try being specific and maybe I can clarify what it is you aren't sure about.

Correct. It's connected to social contracts and cultural mores.

Correct? Thanks.
I like being right.

Sure I have. Maybe you weren't paying attention.

Im new here. Please send me the God rebuttal link.

Richard Feynman said it best,
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”

That is so lame!
Accusing your ideological opponent of being a fool, or fooling themself, or not really believing what they say is true.

Its just out and out bad faith dialogue.

Oh Lion IRC...once you stop fooling yourself, then you will see Im right.

 

[HitchSlap]

Its well understood. Theophany.
Atheists dont get to tell me what I did and did not experience.

Never did, never will. You're free to interpret the human experience any way you like. Just know it's not unique to Christians.

That's NOT my position. #strawman
It might be the atheists version of religion_lite but "awe" doesn't even come close to the entirety of theist experience of divinity.

Then I'll repeat your line back atcha'. Christians don't get to tell me what I did and did not experience.

When they say Thor, Allah, Zeus, Ra, Apollo...etc. I know Who they mean. I'm not doing Christian Particularism with you. Im defending theism. AvT.

But you are a 'father, son and holy ghost' type theist, aren't you?

That's what I said you would do. Gainsaying is easy. Especially, for presuppositional atheists.

What's a presuppositional atheist??

For the sake of brevity, I didn't list all the things atheists typically dispute are factual. Can you concede that there ARE certain fact claims which atheists and theists disagree upon? Thanks.

What? Theists and atheist disagree?

Yep. That's a commonly used device for team atheism.

I'm on a team? Cool. What color are our kits?

I dont recall ever seeing apologists screech the "THATS NOT EVIDENCE" canard.

Yeah, I'm not privy to what you're able to recall.

Of course I am! You think I've missed out on that part of the fine tuning argument?

There is no fine tuning. Just because you think you're special, doesn't mean it was created just for you.

Glad you've got a rock solid position.

You're more comfortable if I make one up?

Correct? Thanks.
I like being right.

So no external source needed for morals. Great! On this we can agree.

Im new here. Please send me the God rebuttal link.

Your god is a logical contradiction.

That is so lame!
Accusing your ideological opponent of being a fool, or fooling themself, or not really believing what they say is true.

Judging by your young enthusiastic hubris, I'm guessing you haven't given much thought to how easy it might be to fool yourself. Don't worry, time and experience will take care of that.

Its just out and out bad faith dialogue.

Says the guy who claims I'm on "team atheism." Go on.

Oh Lion IRC...once you stop fooling yourself, then you will see Im right.

I've looked behind the curtain, and the emperor's wearing no clothes. Sorry, but I can't unsee it.

 

[Bradskii]

Its well understood. Theophany.
Atheists dont get to tell me what I did and did not experience.



That's NOT my position. #strawman
It might be the atheists version of religion_lite but "awe" doesn't even come close to the entirety of theist experience of divinity.



When they say Thor, Allah, Zeus, Ra, Apollo...etc. I know Who they mean. I'm not doing Christian Particularism with you. Im defending theism. AvT.



That's what I said you would do. Gainsaying is easy. Especially, for presuppositional atheists.



For the sake of brevity, I didn't list all the things atheists typically dispute are factual. Can you concede that there ARE certain fact claims which atheists and theists disagree upon? Thanks.



Yep. That's a commonly used device for team atheism.
I dont recall ever seeing apologists screech the "THATS NOT EVIDENCE" canard.




Of course I am! You think I've missed out on that part of the fine tuning argument?



Glad you've got a rock solid position.



Um. Sorry about that. Consequently I'm not sure what you would like me to clarify. Try being specific and maybe I can clarify what it is you aren't sure about.



Correct? Thanks.
I like being right.



Im new here. Please send me the God rebuttal link.



That is so lame!
Accusing your ideological opponent of being a fool, or fooling themself, or not really believing what they say is true.

Its just out and out bad faith dialogue.

Oh Lion IRC...once you stop fooling yourself, then you will see Im right.

Too much trouble to cut 'n' paste the square brackets to divvy this up into any kinda coherent step by step answer. But a couple of comments in no particular order...

I'm going all black for team colours. With a big red A on the front.

We can skip Thor and Appolo etc (in fact, anyone who's appeared in a Marvel story). But we could go with Vishnu et al.

Awe is quite a common argument for God. 'Just look around you!' Maybe the most common.

Regarding facts and evidence. Facts (when used in an argument) are claims with which both sides agree. Otherwise the 'fact' remains a claim. Evidence is information that allows us to personally validate the claims. 'Give us an example, Bradskii!' Well, ok.

There is a town called Jerusalem. Claim or a fact? Well, we have evidence for that to which we can both agree - so fact. People were crucified around 2,000 years ago. Claim or fact? We also have evidence for that to which we can both agree - so fact There was a prophet named Jesus who lived at that time. Claim or fact? Let's say that the biblical evidence for that is something to which we can both agree) - so fact. Jesus was crucified, buried and then rose agin from the dead. Claim or fact?

Well, in this case, the evidence for one person will be strong enough for them to declare it a fact. Whereas someone else will say that the evidence isn't strong enough and for them it will remain a claim

In short, if you state a claim is a fact based on the evidence offered and someone else rejects it based on the same evidence, then it is a waste of time maintaining your position in an argument. You'll need to pursuade the person that the existing evidence is strong enough, or find some more. Otherwise...never the twain.

And the anthropic principle? Well, fine tuning has to make the assumption that it was fine tuned for a reason. If you believe that we are the end purpose the it HAS to have been fine tuned. If not, then it makes absolutely no sense at all even to suggest it. It's like saying that the pothole has been designed for the puddle because the puddle is the exact shape of the whole.

I look at it like this. The number of things that needed to go exactly right over the last 100 years for me to exist and be sitting in this garden in Sydney and writing these words to you are practically infinite. Imagine multiplying those odds to allow for 14 billion or so years of the universes existence. It's literally impossible.

But hey, I'm typing right here. So I either believe that the universe had been set up just so that I would end up sitting here or...that's just the way it turned out.

Me, I'll go with Option 2.

 

[Paulomycin]

@Paulomycin : I am glad you had a personal experience that brought you to God. You did say, though, that the philosophical proofs helped you to be even more convinced, so it appears that those proofs are also part of the foundation of your faith.

I do not know of any proofs of the existence of God that I accept as fully sound proofs, holding up to the same kind of scrutiny that we use in our everyday work as mathematicians and computer scientists.

You mean inductive scrutiny, or. . .?

I simply want to know where "persuasive doubt" ranks on the ladder of soundness and scrutiny.

I initially thought this thread was recreational for you as well, a bit of philosophical fun.

I'm never here for "fun." Mine, nor anyone else's, for that matter.

 

[Bradskii]

You mean inductive scrutiny, or. . .?

I simply want to know where "persuasive doubt" ranks on the ladder of soundness and scrutiny.



I'm never here for "fun." Mine, nor anyone else's, for that matter.

I think you've used this term before. I'm not sure I know what you mean by it.

If you are convinced about a particular claim then you have no doubt. The evidence is convincing. Doubt can only enter into the equation is the evidence is less than convincing. So it's 'persuasive evidence' that will cause you to strongly believe in a claim. And less than 'persuasive evidence' will cause doubt.

I guess that my personal doubt may cause someone else to think twice about a claim. And if I strongly doubt something then the other person, based purely on the strength of my doubt, might equally demur. But it still needs to come down to how we determine the strength of the evidence.

I'd hate for someone to seriously doubt something just because I did.

In other words, all belief is based on how strong we think the evidence is.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm never here for "fun." Mine, nor anyone else's, for that matter.

Are you on a mission for god?

 

[Paulomycin]

I think you've used this term before. I'm not sure I know what you mean by it.

You afraid to look it up?

If you are convinced about a particular claim then you have no doubt. The evidence is convincing.

"Convincing" is not a criteria. "Convincing" is subjective persuasion. Subjectivism has ZERO force over an extant object.

Doubt can only enter into the equation is the evidence is less than convincing.

No, because doubt can be forced. Doubt can even be irrational.

In other words, all belief is based on how strong we think the evidence is.

Where did this alleged "rule" come from? Why am I not allowed to be skeptical of your arbitrary rule here? Why can't I say, "I am not convinced Brad's rule is even a thing."

 

[Paulomycin]

Are you on a mission for god?

Do you even know what "missionary" means? Have you not read Matthew 28:18-20?

 

[Paulomycin]

Richard Feynman said it best,


“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”

And yet you somehow automatically assume this doesn't apply to you.

 

[HitchSlap]

Do you even know what "missionary" means? Have you not read Matthew 28:18-20?

Yep, it's a cool position to be in.

 

[HitchSlap]

And yet you somehow automatically assume this doesn't apply to you.

Au contraire, I scrutinize my positions the most.

 

[Paulomycin]

Au contraire, I scrutinize my positions the most.

Oh, then you won't argue my earlier post about scientism after realizing you fooled yourself.

 

[Bradskii]

You afraid to look it up?

"Convincing" is not a criteria. "Convincing" is subjective persuasion. Subjectivism has ZERO force over an extant object.

Where did this alleged "rule" come from? Why am I not allowed to be skeptical of your arbitrary rule here? Why can't I say, "I am not convinced Brad's rule is even a thing."

I did look it up before I posted. I thought I might be missing something. It seems not to exist.

So you're convinced that I'm wrong about 'convincing'. I read somewhere that 'convincing is subjective persuasion'. Seems your personal view of my argument is that it's wrong.

You did see what I did there?

 

[Paulomycin]

I did look it up before I posted. I thought I might be missing something. It seems not to exist.

Of course I have your hand through it. How silly of me. You are referring to scrutiny through the use of inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning itself is always fixed to favor doubt as the highest priority. See: "Problem of Induction."

So you're convinced that I'm wrong about 'convincing'. I read somewhere that 'convincing is subjective persuasion'. Seems your personal view of my argument is that it's wrong.

You did see what I did there?

Does that mean you're going to abandon your position?

- If "no," then by your rules I don't have to be convinced.

- If "yes," then I confess and repent of my double-standard.

 

[HitchSlap]

Oh, then you won't argue my earlier post about scientism after realizing you fooled yourself.

Says the guy who believes in talking snakes.

 

[Bradskii]

Of course I have your hand through it. How silly of me. You are referring to scrutiny through the use of inductive reasoning.

What? I just pointed out that you'd made up a term. You told me to look it up. It doesn't exist outside of your posts. Not really suprising, because it makes no sense.

 

[Paulomycin]

Says the guy who believes in talking snakes.

Snakes don't talk in and of themselves. Not even in the Bible.

 

[HitchSlap]

What? I just pointed out that you'd made up a term. You told me to look it up. It doesn't exist outside of your posts. Not really suprising, because it makes no sense.

Yeah, he comes across as all hat no cattle.

 

[Paulomycin]

What? I just pointed out that you'd made up a term. You told me to look it up. It doesn't exist outside of your posts. Not really suprising, because it makes no sense.

I didn't make up inductive reasoning.