News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Atheism Poll

Started by Drew_2017, September 09, 2017, 03:39:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

SGOS

Quote from: Simon Moon on September 20, 2017, 08:54:35 PM
So, you are convinced based on bad, fallacious arguments. At least you have a lot of company with every other theist.
I read your entire Dropbox document with your 'evidence', and lets say, I am not impressed.

Unless of course, I was impressed with constant use of "argument from ignorance" and "argument from personal incredulity". I mean, you did use them in every one of your arguments.
There might be a new trend in developing arguments for the existence of God.  It was first proposed by Randy, and now being employed by Drew.  I don't recall it being used by theists before, although it's possible I wasn't paying close enough attention:  "One piece of evidence may not be enough to prove a God, but a whole lot of pieces put together may do exactly that."

I was immediately drawn in by this initial statement because, although I didn't precisely understand it, it did hold a certain seductive promise that something intellectual was about to happen.  But it's a ruse that draws you in with an interesting promise, and then puts you to sleep with not one, but a multitude of logical fallacies, as if one logical fallacy may not stand up to reason, but two logical fallacies can strengthen the argument by making the "proof" twice as good.  Use three logical fallacies, and you are now approaching a mountain of evidence.  Now reconsider to the original seduction:  "One piece of evidence may not be enough to prove a God, but a whole lot of pieces put together may do exactly that," and you now have "irrefutable" proof. 

What once was "may do exactly that," is now equivocated into, "Absolutely did exactly that!"  You have agreed to the original argument by accepting it as valid.  Several fallacies have then been offered as evidence, and having accepted the original seduction, which should have been invalidated at the start, you must now agree with the final conclusion, and a non-sequitur at that.  Never mind that fallacies only support fallacious conclusions, and a mountain of them only weakens an argument more than strengthens it.  You are now half asleep from an inundation of things that don't make sense, and too tired to address all the points one at a time.

Drew also repeats versions of the, "You don't know, therefore natural causes is as invalid as goddidit."  He could stop right there with a reasonably tentative "gotcha."  But the next thing you know, he's claiming that since both arguments are invalid, his invalid argument is better.

Yay, God!


sdelsolray

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 20, 2017, 12:02:33 AM
Sure if you hold to faith as defined by this passage. However if you take the letter in context, it was an exhortation to keep the faith in Christian belief even in the light of persecution at the time. I was using the word as defined in English.

I can give you an examples where this is true. Being honest to others and yourself is often very difficult and not always rewarding on the spot. The belief is in the long run it will be and so its the best policy even though the situation at the time may not seem like it. The belief we should treat others as we want to be treated, do we do that because it magically means we'll always be treated as we want to be? No because we have 'faith' doing the right thing if nothing else is it's own reward and will eventually come back to us.



The word "faith", in the English language, has more than one definition:

Definition of faith

plural faiths play  \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfātÍŸhz\


1 a :allegiance to duty or a person :loyalty lost faith in the company's president
b (1) :fidelity to one's promises (2) :sincerity of intentions acted in good faith

2 a (1) :belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) :belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) :firm belief in something for which there is no proof clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2) :complete trust

3 :something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially :a system of religious beliefs the Protestant faith.


Source:  Merriam-Webster dictionary




sdelsolray

Quote from: Simon Moon on September 20, 2017, 08:54:35 PM
So, you are convinced based on bad, fallacious arguments. At least you have a lot of company with every other theist.
I read your entire Dropbox document with your 'evidence', and lets say, I am not impressed.

Unless of course, I was impressed with constant use of "argument from ignorance" and "argument from personal incredulity". I mean, you did use them in every one of your arguments.

I could take time and break them down point by point, but I not motivated enough. At least not today.

Not to mention, that arguments are not evidence. How would you go about testing to see if if your conjectures in your Dopbox document are actually true?

Let me just say, that I am sure glad that there are 10's of thousands real scientists working on the problems you have trouble understanding, so we might get real answers instead of your, "well I can't figure out how; the universe came into existence, life came into existence, sentience came into existence, via natural explanations, so, therefore god".

.
Seriously people, please read the link. Tell me if I missed anything compelling.

This is Drew's third thread where he peddles his theism.

The first:

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=11251.0

The second:

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=11330.0

I summed up his efforts in his second thread as follows:

Drew's GODDIDIT Casserole Recipe

2 lbs argument from incredulity
1 lb fine tuning argument/argument from design
12 oz essence of non-sequitur/irrelevancy
9 oz begging the question
6 oz burden of proof shifting (substitute: "Hey, look over there')
2 oz ad hominem (substitute Tu Quoque)
6 short strawmen sticks
1 argument from popularity
Liberal dashes of false equivalence, secret definitions and metaphysical woo woo

Mix well, bake for 3 hours at 350, serves one.

Unbeliever

I don't see how a dozen or so (or even infinite!) flawed arguments can add up to one unflawed argument. It's flaws all the way down...
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

SGOS

Remember when the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was all the rage among creationists?  That died out about two years ago.  I'm not sure what happened to it.  It was based on a universal misunderstanding of the law, probably set up by a creationist who had been bitten by one too many snakes, and the peons went on and on about how it proved God, without actually reading the law, or having it explained by someone halfway knowledgeable, like a physicist or someone other than a snake handler.

Drew_2017

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 20, 2017, 10:41:24 PM
I do not detest god(s), creator(s) (which suggests that I accept they exist, but I detest them)--I simply do not see 'any' evidence they exist in any form or nonform.  But 'natural causes' at least presents me with nature.  It is an undeniable piece of evidence--nature exists.  I do not know all the why's and where-for's, but it exists nonetheless.   You have presented no evidence of god(s) or creator.  Nobody has.  And until then..............................

Evidence are merely facts that comport with a belief. For instance a corpse is a fact that comports with the belief someone was murdered. Its evidence in favor of that belief. Further facts may continue to comport with that belief or may comport with the belief it was natural causes.

The existence of the universe and sentient beings all by itself without anything else known comports with the belief it was caused intentionally unless you have some a priori reason to exclude it as a possibility. The existence of the universe alone comports well with the belief it was caused by unseen natural forces. The existence of human beings with minds frankly doesn't comport well with the belief it was caused unintentionally. Would anyone predict that mindless forces without plan or intent some how come into existence and then proceed to create something completely foreign to itself life and mind and all the conditions necessary for that to occur and again without wanting to or intending to?

Nature does exist and if the debate we were having is does nature exist? I think you'd be in great shape. Your claim is that nature exists and we observe nature. That isn't the debate we're having, though, the debate is what if anything caused nature to exist and by extension caused the existence of sentient human? Do you believe the nature we observe with its laws of physics was also responsible for the universe coming into existence? Is nature reproducing like a living thing? If so how? When? If not what evidence natural forces caused natural forces to exist? What you might mean by natural isn't nature as we know it but any forces whatever they maybe provided there is no personal agent responsible and whatever happened was unintentional. We define nature then as mindless forces regardless of whether they are the type of mindless forces we observe or not, regardless of whether they exist in time, regardless of whether they are made of atoms and regardless of whether they are confined by the laws of physics. The only requirement being they are  dumb as a rock and didn't plan anything to occur including their own existence. I don't want to put words in your mouth but let me understand your position and what evidence leads you to believe all we observe came about minus any plan or intent for it to do so.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Hydra009

Quote from: SGOS on September 21, 2017, 02:02:55 PMRemember when the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was all the rage among creationists?  That died out about two years ago.  I'm not sure what happened to it.
Information theory happened to it.

Take the word "fish".  Here's what evolution does:  fish -> fsh -> fshh -> shh

Random mutation inherently disorders information, distorting its intended meaning.  If we assume that DNA works just like written correspondence (spoiler: it doesn't), then evolution is bunk!

Drew_2017

#262
Quote from: SGOS on September 21, 2017, 08:45:25 AM
There might be a new trend in developing arguments for the existence of God.  It was first proposed by Randy, and now being employed by Drew.  I don't recall it being used by theists before, although it's possible I wasn't paying close enough attention:  "One piece of evidence may not be enough to prove a God, but a whole lot of pieces put together may do exactly that."

Except I'm not attempting to prove God I'm offering facts that comport with my belief we owe our existence to a Creator. Its not as if I'm not repeatedly asked why I subscribe to theism. You guys are kind of humorous, you state with near certainty your position is true, but get offended when asked to provide evidence saying you don't make a claim only theists do. Then you ask (as if you're remotely open minded) for evidence and to no one's surprise classify each one as being false or a fallacy as if anything short of producing God right before your eyes would qualify. A circumstantial case is just that a series of facts that comport with a belief. I should make it clear I'm not trying to persuade anyone, I don't care of some atheist in here decides there is something to theism. Does it bother you that I believe we owe our existence to a Creator?   

QuoteI was immediately drawn in by this initial statement because, although I didn't precisely understand it, it did hold a certain seductive promise that something intellectual was about to happen.  But it's a ruse that draws you in with an interesting promise, and then puts you to sleep with not one, but a multitude of logical fallacies, as if one logical fallacy may not stand up to reason, but two logical fallacies can strengthen the argument by making the "proof" twice as good.  Use three logical fallacies, and you are now approaching a mountain of evidence.  Now reconsider to the original seduction:  "One piece of evidence may not be enough to prove a God, but a whole lot of pieces put together may do exactly that," and you now have "irrefutable" proof. 

Attack my ideas and beliefs all you want but at least be honest. I never stated theism is a fact, never stated there was irrefutable evidence. Please show me where or kindly retract. Just curious you are making a claim my arguments are fallacies correct? I want to make sure because atheists tend to deny they claim anything. If so would you do whats always asked of me and provide the evidence the arguments are fallacies?

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Baruch

Drew - There are many creators.  We do possess Aristotle's efficient and final causes.  Why do you need an uber-creator?  I don't need Big Bang theory to know that I can act in reality, and that I have an motive in doing so.  If G-d only has material and formal causes ... aka nature ... then in fact humans are superior in that respect to G-d.  Not as big or powerful, but much more personal.  If G-d is potentiality, and we are actuality ... then how does G-d act?  Thru us.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 21, 2017, 06:50:16 PM
Evidence are merely facts that comport with a belief.
No.  Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.  Belief isn't needed.  I'd suggest belief only muddies the picture.  Drew, this is where you and I part company right at the start.  You seem to think that belief is the natural way of finding facts.  I say that belief is what keeps us from facts.  If one is genuinely curious about something, it is best to not have any beliefs about the subject; to search for facts, test those facts, and then come to a conclusion.  I would even say that belief isn't needed.  Belief is only necessary for theology and religion.  Why?  Because there are no facts to support either religion or theology---all there is is faith and belief.  I have no use for either--and no use for religion.   
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

Quote from: SGOS on September 21, 2017, 02:02:55 PM
Remember when the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was all the rage among creationists?  That died out about two years ago.  I'm not sure what happened to it.  It was based on a universal misunderstanding of the law, probably set up by a creationist who had been bitten by one too many snakes, and the peons went on and on about how it proved God, without actually reading the law, or having it explained by someone halfway knowledgeable, like a physicist or someone other than a snake handler.

That law only applies to closed systems.  Imagine a perfect cup of hot coffee, with some ice cubes in it.  The cup is perfectly isolated from the outside world.  Over time, the ice cubes melt, and the temperature of the hot coffee gets a little less hot.  I can't see how to apply that to a universe, because I don't know if it is perfectly isolated.  I also don't know how ice coffee proves G-d ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#266
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 21, 2017, 06:51:16 PM
Information theory happened to it.

Take the word "fish".  Here's what evolution does:  fish -> fsh -> fshh -> shh

Random mutation inherently disorders information, distorting its intended meaning.  If we assume that DNA works just like written correspondence (spoiler: it doesn't), then evolution is bunk!

Not true at all.  Entropy is a grab all word, and has many definitions (infinite actually), particularly in information theory.  In those usages, it isn't the same as the entropy of thermodynamics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) ... and yes, I studied this seriously, just two years ago

There are people who believe that reality is a quantum computer.  Reality isn't information, in fact, only a vanishingly small part of reality is information.  Reality as a quantum computer has never been proven, and has been debunked by a Nobel Prize winner.  This is an extension of the Neo-Pythagoreanism that realty is just mathematics.  Both are wrong.  It was thought 100 years ago that mathematics was just logic ... it isn't.  Pythagoras was a religious cult leader near and dear to his acolytes, the accountants and the statisticians.  Quantum computing hasn't even been demonstrated for sure, even for small situations, because of various technical problems (at least as of 2014).  Like AI, it might just be a cargo cult panacea so common to modern society.  More cold fusion for the ignoranti.

And your explanation of evolution was ... underwhelming.  Cellular biology is quite complicated even for simple eukaryotic cells.  For example, explain in simple terms, how RNA transcription produces proteins, how errors in transcription occur, and the consequences.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 21, 2017, 06:50:16 PM


The existence of the universe and sentient beings all by itself without anything else known comports with the belief it was caused intentionally unless you have some a priori reason to exclude it as a possibility.
In this one sentence you are making huge assumptions.  The universe exists.  We know that.  'Sentient' beings exist.  What do you mean by that?  Do you assume humans alone can think and feel?  I would suggest that many more of the objects on and in the earth can do that.  Don't all animals--all life forms (yet, even scientists cannot fully agree on what 'life' is) and even plant forms feel if not think?  They all seem to react to the environment they are in.  You personify nature using the term 'mindless' as though a mind is needed to create, or that nature has a mind or needs to.  What do you mean by 'mind'?  Can a non sentient system create a sentient one?  We don't know that yet; but it would seem so.  But we are working on it, scientifically.  If you think a 'creator' is behind all of this, then test for it. 

I know that nature exists for I live and function in it--and I can demonstrate that to others using established facts.  A creator is a hypothesis.  Yes, you can say you 'believe' your hypothesis is possible, but there are not a single fact; not a single experiment that you can use to establish a fact that would indicate your hypothesis is possible.  It is a belief; a wishful thought.  The scientific world has millions of 'I don't know's' in it.  They are being tackled a little at a time and our knowledge is growing.  Belief is not needed--it is actually an impediment.  Theism, on the other hand, has not one established fact to show or build on; yet it has few 'I don't know's', for all the answers are supplied by a mysterious god; he did it. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Drew_2017

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 21, 2017, 07:28:25 PM
No.  Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.

If we are to have meaningful dialog we have to use words as they are defined or we will always be talking past each other.

Evidence.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.


I use belief by this definition.

confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:

You may not like the definition of assertion either.

noun
1.
a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason:


I believe in theism. That doesn't mean I know its true, it means I think its true based on the information available in comparison to the belief we owe our existence to mechanistic forces that caused all we observe unintentionally a counter claim atheists never really defend because (ahem) atheists don't make any claims.

QuoteScientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.  Belief isn't needed. 

Mike, you can say otherwise until your blue in the face but atheism is a belief. Its a counter belief to theism. Its not a scientifically established fact, or a fact established in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. Prove me wrong show the experimental data that proves mindless forces came into existence or always existed, caused the universe and human beings to exist without any plan or intent to do so and caused all we observe... end this silly debate once and for all.

QuoteI'd suggest belief only muddies the picture.  Drew, this is where you and I part company right at the start.  You seem to think that belief is the natural way of finding facts.  I say that belief is what keeps us from facts.  If one is genuinely curious about something, it is best to not have any beliefs about the subject; to search for facts, test those facts, and then come to a conclusion.  I would even say that belief isn't needed.  Belief is only necessary for theology and religion.  Why?  Because there are no facts to support either religion or theology---all there is is faith and belief.  I have no use for either--and no use for religion.

Mike what you call a conclusion is a belief. Has every conclusion you've come to always turned out to be the truth? Isn't it remotely possible that any conclusion you have arrived at may in fact be false? The truth of a matter is whats really so regardless if anyone believes it or any facts or data support. Belief is what one tentatively holds as true barring further information, facts and data. Blind belief or irrational belief isn't a good thing. As a human being I find having beliefs to be indispensable and very close to be a hypothesis which is critical to scientific advancement. A proposition provides a framework for testing. Somethings are so difficult to understand its a process of trial and error. I think you equate belief with faith. Its true some people have beliefs that are argument and evidence proof. I've met many in here...   
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Baruch

Battle of the definitions.  Laymen use technical philosophy terms like "existence" and "universe".

A universe is an existence with a particular order to it, that is compatible with living conscious creatures.  But all those terms and ordinary language, are just memes of ape men.  What if the ape men are wrong, not just the laymen LARPing as philosophers, but the actual philosophers themselves?  Lots of regulars here have no truck with philosophers ... even while their circular arguments depend on it ;-)

I would contend that "existence", "order", "life", "consciousness" and "creatures" are unexamined assumptions, and therefore one can hypothesize that the "universe" as a human meme, has no correspondence with reality (qualia) whatever that may actually be.  For example "empiricism" and "rationalism" are being assumed, not just atheism.  Drew and Mike are both "raging unexamined assumptions incarnate".  If I were a Buddhist, I could accept that all those things at the start of this paragraph, quite handily.  To a Buddhist, this is all just impersonal mind in a state of sick delusion.  We can't even know if there is more than one mind, because making any claim at all, aside from nihilism, is considered to be proof of continued delusion.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.