The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[bhsmte]

Then it's not logical to explain the universe terms of supernatural origins. It's reasonable to start with what we can measure and observe, naturally.

That makes way too much sense!

 

[Cearbhall]

That was my main point. You presume, believe, trust that one day science will give us an answer regarding what caused the universe to come into existence based on what science has given us thus far.

This is what is called methodological naturalism which falls under philosophical naturalism.

But it is my contention that metaphysical naturalism is demonstrably fallacious and self defeating. I can also defend my position if you would like to debate me on it.

I'm aware that you're trying to twist my words to make it sound like science and logic are religions with no more credibility than any other belief system, so you can stop beating around the bush.

I'm also aware that you don't agree with my logic. That's why you're Christian and I'm not. The fact that you have a different method of reasoning doesn't change my mind. I don't really wish to debate it. I'm content with my point of view and have no desire to change yours.

 

[Elioenai26]

Then it's not logical to explain the universe terms of supernatural origins. It's reasonable to start with what we can measure and observe, naturally.

You assume it is my view that we should start with a supernatural explanation.

I have never stated that and that is not my position.

We should simply follow the evidence where it leads.

That is my position.

We start from the position that anything logically possible is possible. We neither start by presupposing the supernatural nor do we start by presupposing naturalism.

 

[Cearbhall]

We should simply follow the evidence where it leads.

That is my position.

We start from the position that anything logically possible is possible. We neither start by presupposing the supernatural nor do we start by presupposing naturalism.

I don't see how logic and evidence can possibly lead to the supernatural. It can't be observed. Unless you're a very lucky ghost hunter...

 

[HitchSlap]

You assume it is my view that we should start with a supernatural explanation.

I have never stated that and that is not my position.

We should simply follow the evidence where it leads.

That is my position.

We start from the position that anything logically possible is possible. We neither start by presupposing the supernatural nor do we start by presupposing naturalism.

Yes, by using a "Christian" icon, you adhere to a supernatural explanation, which necessarily precludes you from accepting evidence, wherever it may lead. Put another way, is there any amount of evidence that would change your mind?

As for starting with "anything logically possible is possible," that is absurd. Using Bayesian logic, all you need is one prior occurrence to suggest future probabilities, we have this with the universe. It exists, and we're here to study it, without presuppositions of any kind. It is theologians looking over the shoulders of scientists, who claim their particular "goddidit."

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, by using a "Christian" icon, you adhere to a supernatural explanation,

Correct....

which necessarily precludes you from accepting evidence, wherever it may lead.

Why does me being a Christian necessarily preclude me from accepting evidence wherever it may lead?

Put another way, is there any amount of evidence that would change your mind?

Of course, I can think of a number of things.

As for starting with "anything logically possible is possible," that is absurd.

Why?

Using Bayesian logic, all you need is one prior occurrence to suggest future probabilities, we have this with the universe. It exists, and we're here to study it, without presuppositions of any kind. It is theologians looking over the shoulders of scientists, who claim their particular "goddidit."

How is what you just said pertinent to me saying that we should approach the question regarding the origin of the universe by believing that anything that is logically possible is possible?

An explanation being logically possible simply means said explanation does not contradict the self evident laws of logic.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Why does me being a Christian necessarily preclude me from accepting evidence wherever it may lead?

Unquestionable faith with a liberal mix of irrational reasoning.

 

[Elioenai26]

I don't see how logic and evidence can possibly lead to the supernatural. It can't be observed. Unless you're a very lucky ghost hunter...

Logic and evidence can lead us to the unobservable the same way logic and evidence can lead us to conclusions regarding the unobservable, non-repeatable, events of the past.

By following the laws of logic and allowing ourselves to be guided by the evidence we have, we can draw accurate conclusions and inferences using abductive reasoning about events that are non-repeatable. The coming into existence of the cosmos was a one time event, a non-repeatable event that happened one time, many years ago, yet this does not mean that we cannot know anything about it.

Likewise, when a detective investigates a murder, he utilizes abductive reasoning combined with the available evidence to draw conclusions about an event (a murder) that took place in the past. He cannot get into a time machine and literally go back to observe the murder, but that does not necessarily mean he cannot know what happened, how, and why.

You use this type of reasoning many times throughout the day....

If while at work, you get up from your cubicle to use the restroom and return to find a rose lying on your desk, you don't say: "Gee, since this rose's coming to be on my desk happened while I was unable to observe it, the laws of logic and evidence will not lead me to a conclusion about how it got there!"

No, you begin thinking and using logic which tells you that roses don't just pop into thin air uncaused out of nothing. Logic tells you that there must be a cause or an explanation... so you begin looking for evidence and notice a card lying beside the rose.... you pick it up and read it....all along you take it for granted that roses and cards with love poems on them have causes. The causes are people. People give people roses with poems in cards. More specifically, someone who loves you or likes you....

You determine after using logic and looking at the evidence that your fiance' gave you the rose and card.

In the same way, when discussing the origin of the universe, we know that it could not just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing, that is illogical, not logical....

So we examine the evidence, we look at it, we investigate. This evidence combined with logical reasoning brings us to the conclusion that there must be a cause for the universe. This cause must be supernatural or ultramundane...

 

[Davian]

What is entailed in building a case for metaphysical naturalism? This is what he must do in order for his argument to be sound.

Nope. Your arguments can be shown to be faulty even in the absence of a competing argument.

He assumes there is one and only one realm, the natural. But how could he prove that?

Davian, that is my point, he can't!

He doesn't need to "prove" the absence of anything. We can work with the assumption that there is only one realm until there is evidence that there is another.

You may need presuppose this 'other realm' for a place to put your gods and spirits and immaterial minds, but at this point it provides no explanatory power outside of supporting your presuppositions.

You mean to say: "It will be changed...". Philosophical naturalism is not something that can change into something else. It is people (naturalists) that change their views and or their their ideas based on an ever increasing understanding of the world.

A distinction without a difference.

I assume by 'pony' you mean "competing hypotheses".

I think you know that the traditionally held hypothesis with regards for the existence of reality as we know it is a 'necessarily existing transcendent creator'.

Actually, there is a very small pool of competing hypotheses regarding this matter:

1. The universe has a transcendent creator as its cause.
2. The universe popped into existence, uncaused, out of nothing ...
3. The universe has a curved geometry spacetime boundary (rather than the singularity that is called for in the Standard Model) that has always existed from which it spontaneously generated itself from (quantum gravity models)..
4. The universe has a black hole which formed in the preexisting stating vacuum space and collapsed to the maximum allowed values of such quantities [ of strings (tiny, one-dimensional strings of energy) ] set to increase in quantities before rebounding in the current expansion as its cause (M-theory i.e. one of two string scenarios) ...
5. The universe has a cause but we do not know. :o

Now, how did #1 get there, as a "hypothesis"? Care to provide a falsifiable positive ontology for this "transcendent creator"?

 

[Elioenai26]

Unquestionable faith with a liberal mix of irrational reasoning.

I have doubts just like every other human being.

If Christians have told you they never have doubts or struggle with their faith, they are not being honest.

There are several times in my life when I can remember asking myself: "Why do I believe what I believe?"

This compels me to study, to know, to learn, and to listen to other people and what they have to say. I study, weigh the evidence, learn, and at the end of the day, Christ helps my doubts the same way He helped Thomas who was one of His disciples. Christ helps my doubts like He helped the man who confessed: "I believe, Lord help my unbelief!!"

Christ demonstrated to Thomas that He was real, He let Him touch His nail scarred wrists, feet, and spear pierced side.

He healed the man's loved one who cried out honestly that he had doubts.

With regards to my reasoning, you have yet to demonstrate it as irrational, so I shall simply pass over that.

 

[Elioenai26]

Nope. Your arguments can be shown to be faulty even in the absence of a competing argument.

If saying: "You are wrong..." counts for "showing one's position to be faulty", then yes you are right.

Only internet infidels take that approach however. Most atheists in academia actually try to say a little more than that....

He doesn't need to "prove" the absence of anything.

Strawman. I never said he had to "prove the absence" of anything

We can work with the assumption that there is only one realm until there is evidence that there is another.

I agree.

You may need presuppose this 'other realm' for a place to put your gods and spirits and immaterial minds, but at this point it provides no explanatory power outside of supporting your presuppositions.

You will have to provide good reasons or an argument as to why positing a transcendent creator of the cosmos provides no explanatory power. Just saying so does not make it so.

Now, how did #1 get there, as a "hypothesis"? Care to provide a falsifiable positive ontology for this "transcendent creator"?

Well #1 gets there simply because it is viewed as a hypothesis that has explanatory scope, explanatory power and is parsimonous, and falsifiable among other things.

 

[quatona]

What I am not getting:
When a person makes a claim about unobservable stuff/realms/whatnot - why don´t people just relax, sit back and leave it to him to make his case for his claim?
Why do so many skeptics here invite the positive claimant to push them into the position of the burden of justification?
Why is it you let him get away with never demonstrating or defending any of those things he affirmatively claims, and instead always end up being the guys who have to defend and demonstrate something?
I just don´t get why so many of you let him get away with these tactics but willingly play his game.

 

[Elioenai26]

What I am not getting:
When a person makes a claim about unobservable stuff/realms/whatnot - why don´t people just relax, sit back and leave it to him to make his case for his claim?
Why do so many skeptics here invite the positive claimant to push them into the position of the burden of justification?
Why is it you let him get away with never demonstrating or defending any of those things he affirmatively claims, and instead always end up being the guys who have to defend and demonstrate something?
I just don´t get why so many of you let him get away with these tactics but willingly play his game.

Because unlike you, they realize that they have a position to defend as well.

Whenever someone opens up their mouth to speak, they do so by speaking about something FROM a certain perspective, view, position etc...

This is inescapable.

If I present an argument for the existence of God and a person raises an objection to one of the arguments, they do so by affirming their belief in a view, position, or perspective contrary to mine and that view, position, or perspective then needs to be substantiated and or supported.

If you have ever watched a debate between an atheist and a theist, you will notice that the atheist has to talk during the debate too...

He does not just sit there like a bump on a log and say: "I do not have to say or do anything." No no no, he talks, he tackles the counter perspective, he wrestles with it and tries to demonstrate its inadequacy.

 

[HitchSlap]

Because unlike you, they realize that they have a position to defend as well.

Whenever someone opens up their mouth to speak, they do so by speaking about something FROM a certain perspective, view, position etc...

This is inescapable.

If I present an argument for the existence of God and a person raises an objection to one of the arguments, they do so by affirming their belief in a view, position, or perspective contrary to mine and that view, position, or perspective then needs to be substantiated and or supported.

If you have ever watched a debate between an atheist and a theist, you will notice that the atheist has to talk during the debate too...

He does not just sit there like a bump on a log and say: "I do not have to say or do anything." No no no, he talks, he tackles the counter perspective, he wrestles with it and tries to demonstrate its inadequacy.

Does this help you?

Hitchens destroys God - YouTube

 

[Elioenai26]

Does this help you?

Hitchens destroys God - YouTube

A video of a man who spent a good portion of his life railing against a God he did not believe even existed???

No not really...

 

[Cearbhall]

If while at work, you get up from your cubicle to use the restroom and return to find a rose lying on your desk, you don't say: "Gee, since this rose's coming to be on my desk happened while I was unable to observe it, the laws of logic and evidence will not lead me to a conclusion about how it got there!"

Of course not, because I'm aware that humans are capable of acquiring roses and setting them on desks. How does this help your argument?

I would definitely be considered insane if I entertained the idea that a higher being put the rose on my desk, because there would be no evidence to support that.

 

[HitchSlap]

A video of a man who spent a good portion of his life railing against a God he did not believe even existed???

No not really...

I was specifically responding to your point.

Oh well.

Pearls before swine and all.

 

[super animator]

Does this help you?

No offense, but posting someones argument instead of making your own just seems to be lazy.

 

[Cearbhall]

What I am not getting:
When a person makes a claim about unobservable stuff/realms/whatnot - why don´t people just relax, sit back and leave it to him to make his case for his claim?
Why do so many skeptics here invite the positive claimant to push them into the position of the burden of justification?
Why is it you let him get away with never demonstrating or defending any of those things he affirmatively claims, and instead always end up being the guys who have to defend and demonstrate something?
I just don´t get why so many of you let him get away with these tactics but willingly play his game.

I think it's because people like that tend to do nothing else, so sometimes you have the take the bait to get anywhere, unfortunately.

 

[quatona]

Because unlike you, they realize that they have a position to defend as well.

As long as they haven´t given any affirmative statement to the contrary they don´t have to defend anything.

If I present an argument for the existence of God and a person raises an objection to one of the arguments, they do so by affirming their belief in a view, position, or perspective contrary to mine and that view, position, or perspective then needs to be substantiated and or supported.

As long as they don´t do anything but challenging you to substantiate your claims they don´t affirm anything and consequently don´t have to defend anything.
Even raising an objection to your argument means just raising an objection to your argument (which doesn´t even necessarily imply a disagreement with your position- after all, there can be poor arguments for valid positions; and every intellectually honest person will point out the flaws of an argument even when it´s brought forth in the attempt to substantiate his own position).

If you have ever watched a debate between an atheist and a theist, you will notice that the atheist has to talk during the debate too...

Yes, that´s why I am recommending anyone who doesn´t hold an affirmative (strong) atheist position to abstain from engaging in a debate about the existence of God, in the first place.

Everyone else can simply wait for the positive claimant to make his case, and then scrutinize the validity of his arguments without taking any position on the question at all.