Tricks New Atheist Play (Part 1)

[zippy2006]

The issue is that you don't actually have to satisfy Zippys need for a "positive reason". It's just a demand, and not one you have to take seriously.

The origional claim (God) is defined in a non-falsifiable manner. Here he is being snippy about people not believing it due to a lack of evidence.

The only way you can contradict a non-falsifiable claim however, is to point to the lack of evidence. Sure you can try to assert the null position by pointing out the flaws in theism, but actually demonstrating not-God, well you would have to have a good idea what God and not-God look like respectively wouldn't you?

This unfalcifiability effectively puts the claim outside of the idea of being contradicted by contrary evidence, while at the same time demanding that people need to have "positive reasons" (ie contradictory evidence) rather than simple disbelief. All the while not demonstrating the claim.

This is going on in a thread about the "tricks" certain kinds of atheists play?

Think about it.

The whole thing is a mind game. Beginning to end. The theists want to just define things in such a way that they win their own mind game by default.

We don't call this "New Theism" though, as theism has always been exactly like this.

You have quite a penchant for ignoratio elenchi. We can make this incredibly simple. Is this statement true or false?

If New Atheists wager against new arguments [for God's existence], then either they are irrational or else they have legitimate reasons to believe that God does not exist.

 

[variant]

You have quite a penchant for ignoratio elenchi. We can make this incredibly simple. Is this statement true or false?

Well one of my rather lengthy and detailed reply posts was apparently removed in totality because the moderation doesn't know how to apply a light touch, and apparently can't take some blunt criticism.

It was not a flame.

In it I detailed how it is evidence the "doesn't believe because of the lack of evidence" crowd are convinced by evidence and rather easy to move with decent evidence. We don't expect to see evidence because if you had that we wouldn't be arguing about the definition of atheism so much, and the usual utterly flawed positions people such as yourself proffer would not be required.

The statement of yours is simply and utterly false. The reason anyone would wager against the idea that new arguments are likely to be convincing is the experience with general arguments for Gods, and problems with the ideas of evidencing or falsifying Gods in general.

I think that arguing FOR God is hard, thus I don't expect people like yourself to be successful.

​

 

[zippy2006]

Well one of my rather lengthy and detailed reply posts was apparently removed in totality because the moderation doesn't know how to apply a light touch, and apparently can't take some blunt criticism.

It was not a flame.

Fair enough. It's unfortunate the post was lost.

In it I detailed how it is evidence the "doesn't believe because of the lack of evidence" crowd are convinced by evidence and rather easy to move with decent evidence.

"It" is evidence? What is evidence?

The statement of yours is simply and utterly false. The reason anyone would wager against the idea that new arguments are likely to be convincing is the experience with general arguments for Gods, and problems with the ideas of evidencing or falsifying Gods in general.

So your response is 1) induction, and 2) mysterious "problems" surrounding arguments regarding God?

 

[variant]

"It" is evidence? What is evidence?

Observations that will tell us whether a given description of reality is true or false.

So your response is 1) induction, and 2) mysterious "problems" surrounding arguments regarding God?

Induction is how we come to many conclusions.

Nothing mysterious about it. I've been swimming in God argument problems for decades now.

I can demonstrate if you desire?

 

[zippy2006]

I can demonstrate if you desire?

Sure, go ahead.

 

[variant]

Sure, go ahead.

OK so you are a theist correct?

First step, define exactly what you mean by God.

 

[zippy2006]

OK so you are a theist correct?

First step, define exactly what you mean by God.

Given God's transcendence he cannot be properly defined; in general we name him according to his effects in the world (e.g. just, merciful, creator, lover, etc.).

But we can take as a starting point the general dictionary definition of God:

God -

1 a. the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe​

 

[variant]

Given God's transcendence he cannot be properly defined; in general we name him according to his effects in the world (e.g. just, merciful, creator, lover, etc.).

So, the first step, or one of the first steps, in any inquiry is trying to get our definitions right, so we know what we're talking about.

With God we're already both of the understanding that we can't really accomplish this.

You believe in this idea and I don't, but the question is why.

You seem to understand there is a basic definition problem so that is the first of the "mysterious problems" in arguments regarding God is one less for us to worry about sussing out.

But we can take as a starting point the general dictionary definition of God:

God -

1 a. the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe​

Ok.

The next question is how to become convinced of such a thing? Why should we be convinced that there is a being with those attributes?

Without a really good working definition of the thing we have to define it in a differn't way to call our belief sound.

Are there any distinctions I can draw, in spite of my lack of a really good definition of the thing that it exists. Are there things I could observe or not observe that would help me understand if this concept hits the mark? Are there predictions that I can make that are only true if God exists? Are there other things that I could know to be true that can only be true if God exists?

 

[zippy2006]

Coming back to this for a second:

Induction is how we come to many conclusions.

In the realm of nature, sure. But there seems to be no reason to believe that induction is a valid method in the realm of artifice, such as species of human activity. For example, considering the species of arguments relating to God, it is not clear that there is any intrinsic connection between one argument and another such that the truth or falsity of one is tied to another. Making inductive inferences about deciduous trees is one thing, the entirety of arguments about God another.

So, the first step, or one of the first steps, in any inquiry is trying to get our definitions right, so we know what we're talking about.

With God we're already both of the understanding that we can't really accomplish this.

When speaking about general realities an intuitive first step would be to set down definitions. When dealing with extraordinary realities such as God this simply isn't possible. Yet this does not impede conversations about God, each of which will refer to him under some aspect or effect.

Ok.

The next question is how to become convinced of such a thing? Why should we be convinced that there is a being with those attributes?

There are various ways that people come to know the existence of God. I don't see any need to go into them. You're apparently in the process of demonstrating that there are intractable problems regarding God-discourse.

Without a really good working definition of the thing we have to define it in a differn't way to call our belief sound.

Are there any distinctions I can draw, in spite of my lack of a really good definition of the thing that it exists.

Sure, I named some of them already: just, merciful, creator, lover.

Are there things I could observe or not observe that would help me understand if this concept hits the mark?

It depends on the concept. In general you can examine the Scriptures or creation as data for making inferences about God.

Are there predictions that I can make that are only true if God exists? Are there other things that I could know to be true that can only be true if God exists?

Sure, every argument for God's existence posits something of the kind. Motion, existence, change, efficient causality, formal causality, the Big Bang, contingency, human consciousness, conscience, morality, etc.

 

[variant]

In the realm of nature, sure. But there seems to be no reason to believe that induction is a valid method in the realm of artifice, such as species of human activity.

Well experience is ultimately how we must deal with the world whether it is ultimately perfectly trustworthy or not.

For example, considering the species of arguments relating to God, it is not clear that there is any intrinsic connection between one argument and another such that the truth or falsity of one is tied to another. Making inductive inferences about deciduous trees is one thing, the entirety of arguments about God another.

I don't think that arguments for or against Gods are unrelated, they are related in the way ideas in the realm of human thinking are related. Not quite like trees no, but not completely unrelated either.

When speaking about general realities an intuitive first step would be to set down definitions. When dealing with extraordinary realities such as God this simply isn't possible. Yet this does not impede conversations about God, each of which will refer to him under some aspect or effect.

I think it impedes them quite a bit, when what we're all talking about is a particularly abstract and ill defined idea, it is free to mean many differn't things.

When it comes to the brass tax of actually questioning how the idea describes or doesn't describe reality we are left with real problems.

There are various ways that people come to know the existence of God. I don't see any need to go into them.

Vague isn't going to cut it here. We need something a bit more sticky, something we can sink our teeth into.

Feel free to demonstrate yourself, I doubt you will succeed, but not because I'm being mean or anything, just that, again, I have some experience in this arena, and I've been analyzing the various kinds of arguments for God and why I ultimately find them unconvincing for, again, literally decades.

You're apparently in the process of demonstrating that there are intractable problems regarding God-discourse.

I don't know that they are intractable, just that they are what I call serious problems.

It depends on the concept. In general you can examine the Scriptures or creation as data for making inferences about God.

Right, but I need something that will allow me to draw a distinction between the state of affairs where I live in a world that includes the God you describe and one where I do not.

That I can find claims about God somewhere written by people isn't really going to cut it.

That is free to point me to either God or not God.

Sure, every argument for God's existence posits something of the kind. Motion, existence, change, efficient causality, formal causality, the Big Bang, contingency, human consciousness, etc.

Go right ahead, give me some distinctions I can readily understand that can make a distinction between the two ideas.

Are these your claims?

Motion requires God?
Existence requires God?
Change requires God?
Causality requires God?
The Big Bang requires God?
Contingency requires God?
Human Consciousness requires God?

 

[zippy2006]

Redo:
A "positive reason" to disbelieve a claim is that it the lacks evidence to support itself. One doesn't need to have a reason for a contradictory claim to simply find the asserted claim insufficient.

The problem is that your wager regards a future argument. How do you know the future argument will lack evidence? The answer is, you don't. The only legitimate motive to deny the conclusion of a future argument that you have not yet seen is to have reasons in favor of the contradictory opposite of the conclusion of the future argument.

 

[variant]

The problem is that your wager regards a future argument. How do you know the future argument will lack evidence? The answer is, you don't. The only legitimate motive to deny the conclusion of a future argument that you have not yet seen is to have reasons in favor of the contradictory opposite of the conclusion of the future argument.

We're wagering we don't know the outcome yet.

The only legitimate motive to wager on the side that is likely to be true is that you are likely to be correct.

I would wager that future arguments are likely to contain almost no evidence, and thus are unlikely to be particularly convincing.

If that turns out to be untrue at some future date my expectations will have been thwarted.

Arguing against expectations based upon experience isn't a good basis for your argument here. It's hard to imagine what you hope to accomplish by it.

 

[zippy2006]

I would wager that future arguments are likely to contain almost no evidence, and thus are unlikely to be particularly convincing.

And you have no reason to so wager, which is why it is irrational.

 

[zippy2006]

Well experience is ultimately how we must deal with the world whether it is ultimately perfectly trustworthy or not.

And if one is committing invalid arguments then they are acting irrationally.

I don't think that arguments for or against Gods are unrelated, they are related in the way ideas in the realm of human thinking are related. Not quite like trees no, but not completely unrelated either.

Then feel free to describe how they are related in such a way that the falsity of one implies the falsity of another. Until you do that there is simply no reason to believe that induction is a valid means of argument when applied to things like species of argument.

I think it impedes them quite a bit, when what we're all talking about is particularly abstract idea, it is free to mean many differn't things.

As I said, each conversation describes the working definition they are using. For example, in our conversation about the Big Bang the conclusion of the argument is an immaterial being that transcends the universe. God can mean many things, which is why we nail down what we mean in each conversation.

When it comes to the brass tax of actually questioning how the idea describes or doesn't describe reality we are left with real problems.

You say that, but you've given very little reason to believe it. In fact, this conversation began when you offered to demonstrate that arguments about God suffer from serious problems. But what you've in fact done is challenged me to offer arguments for God's existence. I am not interested in the "Convince Variant Now" (CVN) challenge. I am interested in you demonstrating that arguments about God suffer from serious problems. If you require an example to illustrate how God is spoken about, then you have readily available the example from our discussion about the existence of an immaterial being that transcends the universe. Depending on one's cosmology, the conclusion of such an argument could be argued to be less than God, but the methodology of the argument perfectly parallels that of arguments for God's existence.

Feel free to demonstrate yourself...

I am not interested in CVN, I am interested in your supposed demonstration that arguments about God suffer from serious problems. If you need an example of such an argument, feel free to refer to my argument from another thread concluding with the existence of an immaterial being that transcends the universe.

If there are serious problems that attend all arguments about God, for and against, then they can be stated and explained apart from any particular argument about God, for the problems supposedly underlie all such arguments.

I don't know that they are intractable, just that they are what I call serious problems.

Okay.

Right, but I need something that will allow me to draw a distinction between the state of affairs where I live in a world that includes the God you describe and one where I do not.

That I can find claims about God somewhere written by people isn't really going to cut it.

That is free to point me to either God or not God.

I am not interested in CVN, I am interested in your supposed demonstration that arguments about God suffer from serious problems. If you need an example of such an argument, feel free to refer to my argument from another thread concluding with the existence of an immaterial being that transcends the universe.

Go right ahead, give me some distinctions I can readily understand that can make a distinction between the two ideas.

Are these your claims?

Motion requires God?
Existence requires God?
Change requires God?
Causality requires God?
The Big Bang requires God?
Contingency requires God?
Human Consciousness requires God?

Those are the bases for the common arguments.

They are also an answer to your implicit thesis that God-claims are unfalsifiable--that there is no possibility to differentiate a reality where God exists from one where he doesn't. No argument for God's existence is unfalsifiable in that sense, and each functions on the premise that some evident characteristic of creation could not exist as it does without God. To use the example of our own separate conversation, if the Big Bang did not exist then there would be one less reason to believe in God.

I've written two threads on the topic of falsifiability:

• Theology and the Scientific Method
• Theology and Falsifiability

 

[Non sequitur]

We can make this incredibly simple. Is this statement true or false? "If New Atheists wager against new arguments [for God's existence], then either they are irrational or else they have legitimate reasons to believe that God does not exist."

False.

They have legitimate reasons to believe that, finding every argument given so far being unconvincing, the new one will be unconvincing.

 

[zippy2006]

False.

They have legitimate reasons to believe that, finding every argument given so far being unconvincing, the new one will be unconvincing.

That is textbook inductive fallacy a la Hume.

 

[variant]

And you have no reason to so wager, which is why it is irrational.

You should say 'isn't purely rational'.

Regardless, I have every reason.

Wagers are things you make depending on what you think will happen, so unless you think relying on long term experience when making predictions is irrational you don't have a case.

Experience based Induction is not an absolute method for determining truth, but it is a great way to predict future events.

 

[variant]

NM

 

[Non sequitur]

That is textbook inductive fallacy a la Hume.

Only if a deductive justification for induction cannot be provided. Which was from every previous argument.

 

[variant]

And if one is committing invalid arguments then they are acting irrationally.

If you wish to toss aside experience as a way of learning then you're going to have bigger problems than we're discussing here.

Then feel free to describe how they are related in such a way that the falsity of one implies the falsity of another. Until you do that there is simply no reason to believe that induction is a valid means of argument when applied to things like species of argument.

Experience with believers and the arguments of believers makes you familiar with the way believers think, and thus familiar with the way believers will think, to the point that you can predict that their arguments are unlikely to persuade based upon assumptions you don't share, and the evidence they are unlikely to give.

To demonstrate I just lead you down some of the rabbit holes and you reacted like a genuine believer.

As I said, each conversation describes the working definition they are using. For example, in our conversation about the Big Bang the conclusion of the argument is an immaterial being that transcends the universe. God can mean many things, which is why we nail down what we mean in each conversation.

Regardless, your definition in that argument is pretty awful, in that it has practically no qualities, and isn't even supported by the argument.

You say that, but you've given very little reason to believe it. In fact, this conversation began when you offered to demonstrate that arguments about God suffer from serious problems. But what you've in fact done is challenged me to offer arguments for God's existence.

That's the stuff.

If you paid attention:

What I have done is demonstrate what it looks like when a believer actually goes through the process from the beginning. It took you about one whole post to admit the definitions of God are difficult and probably insufficient, and then nod off into vagueness and duck any attempt to find a single workable quality that would give me a conceivable way to evaluate your beliefs.

Are you still going to tell me this stuff doesn't get difficult quick?

Are you going to hold to the demonstrably false idea that I am wrong to wager that I am unlikely to be surprised by your new arguments?

I am not interested in the "Convince Variant Now" (CVN) challenge. I am interested in you demonstrating that arguments about God suffer from serious problems. If you require an example to illustrate how God is spoken about, then you have readily available the example from our discussion about the existence of an immaterial being that transcends the universe. Depending on one's cosmology, the conclusion of such an argument could be argued to be less than God, but the methodology of the argument perfectly parallels that of arguments for God's existence.

See, all I actually asked for were some definite qualities for God that could show us the difference between God and not God and you threw up a bunch of assertions and now you've gotten completely defensive.

I am not interested in CVN, I am interested in your supposed demonstration that arguments about God suffer from serious problems. If you need an example of such an argument, feel free to refer to my argument from another thread concluding with the existence of an immaterial being that transcends the universe.

Well my argument is that I asked you for some relatively simple things, well simple for ideas that aren't defined so as to be difficult. And here we are off on some tangent.

If there are serious problems that attend all arguments about God, for and against, then they can be stated and explained apart from any particular argument about God, for the problems supposedly underlie all such arguments.

Yes, the point is that it is hard to have evidence for something when you can't even give me some reasonable ideas what that evidence should or should not look like.

I'll call that serious problem #1

I am not interested in CVN, I am interested in your supposed demonstration that arguments about God suffer from serious problems. If you need an example of such an argument, feel free to refer to my argument from another thread concluding with the existence of an immaterial being that transcends the universe.

Those are the bases for the common arguments.

They are also an answer to your implicit thesis that God-claims are unfalsifiable--that there is no possibility to differentiate a reality where God exists from one where he doesn't. No argument for God's existence is unfalsifiable in that sense, and each functions on the premise that some evident characteristic of creation could not exist as it does without God. To use the example of our own separate conversation, if the Big Bang did not exist then there would be one less reason to believe in God.

It's funny that you think that's going well.

In that argument you've basically defined god as "that which causes the universe" and, have demonstrated virtually nothing about it.

I feel like it demonstrates my points better than yours.