The stumbling block for atheists.

[Ophiolite]

The factor that severely cripples the atheist thinking ability is the total unacceptance of anything that might lead to a conclusion of a creator because they erroneously believe that the acknowledgement of any evidence of an intelligent designer is an acknowledgement of a god or God. The effort to avoid compelling evidence that justifiably leads to such a conclusion forces them to adopt illogical thinking via inconsistency of policy and other fallacies.

Well this is fundamentally a silly argument. These are the facts that make it silly:
1. Many atheists have no particular interest in the purported existence of a god. They are therefore largely indifferent to any evidence that might lead towards the possibility/probability of a god. (You seem to think all atheists are clone of the buffoon Dawkins.)
2. I know of atheists who contemplate intelligent design by alien entities. Most of them just don't think there is significant evidence in favour of intelligent design by any entity, natural or supernatural, alien or ominiscient.
3. While there doubtless are some atheists who match your caricature you have presented zero evidence to demonstrate that this applies to all, or even most of them.

Your arguments might have more traction if they avoided absolutes.

 

[Michael]

For example:

"they *blatantly* ignore every NULL result, and every test is a *failure*. The dogma was never rejected..."​

All results are carefully considered and discussed; to call tests that fail to find a hypothesized entity a failure is a misrepresentation (and misunderstanding) of the scientific method (as I already explained); hypotheses aren't dogma (by definition), and neither are scientific theories - this distinction is fundamental in science.

I see little point in continuing this derail. Thanks for the exercise.

It is falsifiable "dogma" if no NULL results can ever falsify the claim. What effect did any of the *many* negative results have have when they continue to point at the sky and claim that exotic matter did it? Nothing changed about their claims as a results of any "test". The dogma stayed exactly the same, right down the same exact percentages, even when it was revealed that they underestimated entire stars in those galaxies by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. Nothing changed in their exotic matter percentages, not even a single percent as a result of all the revelations of the various flaws in their baryonic mass estimates in 2006. The dogma never changed at all.

 

[Michael]

Michael, please try to stop obsessing long enough to register that I don't have a 'side' in this issue;

You keep telling me that they have some kind of "expertise" that I'm supposed to agree with. I don't see any evidence that their so called "expertise" is real because I don't believe that dark matter exists in the first place. If you had evidence to support your claim, I'd believe you in terms of them having any "expertise". As it stands it's like claiming that astrologers have some special "expertise" that I'm obligated to agree with. Why?

I've explained why it is reasonable to take the mainstream consensus of practitioners as the authority rather than some bloke on the internet,

Well, you allege that, but you've given me no reason to believe that any bloke on the internet who rejects astrology is obligated to agree with astrologers that it has value simply because astrologers say so.

but at least they are working the problem by testing and eliminating hypotheses,

Um, which "hypothesis" have they claimed to have ruled out as a result of any 'tests'? I'm still seeing them rant on about axions and wimps and sterile neutrinos even though every one of those claims failed at least 1 or 2 "tests". What did they eliminate?

instead of ranting on an unrelated forum. I've also explained why your description of what they're doing shows a basic misunderstanding of how science is done - as does your whole approach, it has to be said.

I see nothing valuable about their "approach". It's rooted in pure denial, and confirmation bias. There's simply no way to falsify any part of their four part supernatural monstrosity.

There is no burden on me to demonstrate anything about this - I'm an interested observer, not a physicist working on the problem.

If you expect me personally to believe that astrology or dark matter theory has merit in the *real* world, you'll need to support that belief. Simply appealing to mythical authorities about mythical particles won't cut it IMO.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You keep telling me that they have some kind of "expertise" that I'm supposed to agree with.

No; they have expertise, but you don't have to agree.

.. you've given me no reason to believe that any bloke on the internet who rejects astrology is obligated to agree with astrologers that it has value simply because astrologers say so.

You aren't obligated to agree to anything; and you again miss the point on relevant authority. Astrologers may be authorities on astrology, but not necessarily on it's value in particular contexts.

Um, which "hypothesis" have they claimed to have ruled out as a result of any 'tests'? I'm still seeing them rant on about axions and wimps and sterile neutrinos even though every one of those claims failed at least 1 or 2 "tests". What did they eliminate?

You'd have to ask them for chapter and verse, but last I heard, they had a high degree of confidence that ALPS were out of the picture, and all the versions of MOND they've examined so far have fallen short, requiring dark matter in some form, there's probably more, but as I said, I'm just an interested observer. I thought you'd be keeping up to date on this stuff.

If you expect me personally to believe that astrology or dark matter theory has merit in the *real* world...

LOL! of course I don't, that would be absurd.

I tend to be pretty careful in what I say in these posts, but you have a facility for tilting at windmills and attacking straw men regardless. Like all POEs, it eventually gets tiresome, so I'll leave you to it for a while.

 

[Michael]

No; they have expertise, but you don't have to agree.

I don't. They've struck out every single time. What's your evidence that their "expertise" even relates to a *real* thing to start with?

You aren't obligated to agree to anything; and you again miss the point on relevant authority. Astrologers may be authorities on astrology, but not necessarily on it's value in particular contexts.

Ditto for the dogma of exotic matter. I hear *lots* of claims, but every "test" is a dud, just exactly like astrology.

You'd have to ask them for chapter and verse, but last I heard, they had a high degree of confidence that ALPS were out of the picture, and all the versions of MOND they've examined so far have fallen short, requiring dark matter in some form, there's probably more, but as I said, I'm just an interested observer. I thought you'd be keeping up to date on this stuff.

Mond theory was always the unwelcome stepchild anyway. I doubt MOND supporters would agree by the way. It's not really a *type* of dark matter, it's more like a complete alternative to the idea. I'll have to punt on the ALP thing. I have no idea what current thinking might be on that issue.

LOL! of course I don't, that would be absurd.

So you can put yourself in my shoes with respect to "dark matter"?

I tend to be pretty careful in what I say in these posts, but you have a facility for tilting at windmills and attacking straw men regardless. Like all POEs, it eventually gets tiresome, so I'll leave you to it for a while.

Fair enough.

 

[Chriliman]

No; we can't accept the best explanation as true, because we can't be certain that it is true.

I know, that's pretty much what I said. You get caught in a state of uncertainty and you even think that's a good place to be. How is it good to never be certain about anything? I for one believe certainty based in truth is better than uncertainty and in fact, I'm certain about that.

We can only accept it as the best explanation we currently have. The best explanations can be taken to be correct FAPP (For All Practical Purposes) within their scope, but even the best explanations have their limits.

Are you certain that the best explanation have their limits? Your own position should cause you to say no, which means you should acknowledge that some explanations may not have limits in how they can provide true information.

A good scientist must learn to live with uncertainty; I think it would be beneficial if everyone did.

Yet, you can't be certain about that, which means you could be wrong.

 

[Dave RP]

Help me understand how to handle my inevidable death in an atheistic perspective.

I'll help you. You live, you die, that's it. You'll be remembered by your immediate family and close friends for perhaps 2 generations then you'll be forgotten - unless you've done something particularly memorable. It'll be the same as before you were born, you won't know you're dead in the same way you didn't know you hadn't been born. Do I like the idea of just being dead - not particularly but there's noting I can do about it. I certainly don't feel the need to believe in any of the available deities in the hope of another life after I'm dead, that would just be hypocritical.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I know, that's pretty much what I said.

No, you said the opposite, that we have to accept it as true:

"no matter what evidence or explanation is being presented, one still has to take the step and accept it as true"​

How is it good to never be certain about anything?

Because it corresponds better to states of affairs in the world than does false certainty, i.e. it's closer to the truth. I'm only talking about synthetic propositions. You can be certain about analytic propositions.

I for one believe certainty based in truth is better than uncertainty and in fact, I'm certain about that.

I agree, and your certainty is logical, i.e. analytic, so is justifiable; unfortunately, we can never certain of the truth about states of affairs in the world (i.e. synthetic proposals), so however good certainty based in truth might be, it's an unattainable goal. It's the aspiration of science to get as close to it as possible, but it's explicitly acknowledged as unattainable.

Are you certain that the best explanation have their limits? Your own position should cause you to say no, which means you should acknowledge that some explanations may not have limits in how they can provide true information.

Read it again - I was talking about the best explanations we currently have (about states of affairs in the world).

But we can't be certain that the best such explanations in the abstract, don't have limits - because we can never certain of the truth about states of affairs in the world (for example, the problem of induction).

Yet, you can't be certain about that, which means you could be wrong.

I can be certain that a good scientist must learn to live with uncertainty, because that's an analytic proposition (science deals with levels of (un)certainty); It's true that I can't be certain that it would be beneficial if everyone did, because that's a synthetic proposition (and simple opinion).

 

[Freodin]

The factor that severely cripples the atheist thinking ability is the total unacceptance of anything that might lead to a conclusion of a creator because they erroneously believe that the acknowledgement of any evidence of an intelligent designer is an acknowledgement of a god or God. The effort to avoid compelling evidence that justifiably leads to such a conclusion forces them to adopt illogical thinking via inconsistency of policy and other fallacies.

How do you indentify anything as "not intelligently-designed"?

 

[Radrook]

How do you indentify anything as "not intelligently-designed"?

That's like asking how do you identify anything found as a functioning essential part of a computer as not having been designed to be a part of that computer. Can you answer that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you indentify anything as "not intelligently-designed"?

Considering that @Radrook is on record as saying
"if x didn't evolve, then it is designed"
and also
"if x evolved, then it was designed to evolve"...

he has basically stated that everything is designed. Why? Well, just because... "it's obvious".

It kind of reminds me of a famous scene in Beavis and Butthead, where Butthead says:
"Uhuhu... if like nothing sucked and... uhuhuhu... like everything was cool all the time... uhuhuhu... How would you know it was cool?"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's like asking how do you identify anything found as a functioning essential part of a computer as not having been designed to be a part of that computer. Can you answer that?

No, that wasn't at all what @Freodin asked you.

He didn't say anything about computers or parts or what-have-you.

He simply asked the question: how do you identify anything (anything) as "not intelligently designed".

Surely you agree that some things are not designed, yes?
How do you identify those things as such?

That's his question. Maybe try answering the question that is being asked, instead of a question that you are making up.

 

[Freodin]

That's like asking how do you identify anything found as a functioning essential part of a computer as not having been designed to be a part of that computer. Can you answer that?

The TagMonster is correct: this is not what I asked you. And what you asked here is not like what I asked you.

The question was quite simple.

You claim to support a scientific, natural, non-theistic idea of Intelligent Design. That would mean that you need a scientific, natural, non-theistic idea on how to identify something that is "Intelligently Designed". And that, in turn, would mean that you need to have a scientific, natural, non-theistic idea of how to identify something that is NOT intelligently designed.

So how do you do that?

 

[Radrook]

The TagMonster is correct: this is not what I asked you. And what you asked here is not like what I asked you.

The question was quite simple.

You claim to support a scientific, natural, non-theistic idea of Intelligent Design. That would mean that you need a scientific, natural, non-theistic idea on how to identify something that is "Intelligently Designed". And that, in turn, would mean that you need to have a scientific, natural, non-theistic idea of how to identify something that is NOT intelligently designed.

So how do you do that?

No it isn't quite simple. Once more. That is like asking you to identify which essential functioning parts of a computer are not designed to be part of the computer. The question in relation to the intelligent design of the universe is nonsensical and un-answerable.

 

[quatona]

No it isn't quite simple. Once more. That is like asking you to identify which essential functioning parts of a computer are not designed to be part of the computer. The question in relation to the intelligent design of the universe is nonsensical and un-answerable.

So ID is unfalsifiable?

 

[Radrook]

So ID is unfalsifiable?

Doesn't need to be in order to be compellingly rational to infer without a shadow of a doubt.
I don't need to prove that the sun shines in order to know that the sun shines. Some things are self evident. However, not everyone is comfortable with what is self evident. So they quiver and quibble in discomfort.

 

[quatona]

Doesn't need to be in order to be compellingly rational to infer without a shadow of a doubt.
I don't need to prove that the sun shines in order to know that the sun shines. Some things are self evident.

I take that for a long-winded version of "Yes.".

 

[Radrook]

I take that for a long-winded version of "Yes.".

You would take any answer as a long-winded yes. What you are not wiling to take as a yes is any admission from any scientist that your abiogenesis is hilariously bogus.

 

[Freodin]

Doesn't need to be in order to be compellingly rational to infer without a shadow of a doubt.

Well, it kinda does.

I don't need to prove that the sun shines in order to know that the sun shines. Some things are self evident. However, not everyone is comfortable with what is self evident. So they quiver and quibble in discomfort.

You know that the sun shines because of observations, hypotheses, tests... scientific research. It is not "self evident". In science, you can never simply claim that something is "self evidence" and have it accepted just like that. That is not how science work.

But this is how ID works... or, given the benefit of the doubt, how you think ID works. That's why you need to make it into an ideological question rather than a scientific one. That's why you need to blame people who don't accept your position as being "severly crippled" and how things are "unacceptable" to them. You have no other way than to shout "it's obvious" at them.

This isn't science. If your version of ID works this way, it isn't science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No it isn't quite simple. Once more. That is like asking you to identify which essential functioning parts of a computer are not designed to be part of the computer.

Good grief....

Let's try it some other way.

Consider this object:

Is that designed?
Why / why not?

I would really love it, if you could explain the process of determining wheter this object is intelligently designed or not, step by step.

The question in relation to the intelligent design of the universe is nonsensical and un-answerable.

Does that mean that you have no methodology to distinguish the designed from the non-designed?

If not, then what does that mean?