Atheism and the Celestial Teapot!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The usual reason in respect of that fallacy.

And that is...........?

[jeremyp]

Agreed.
You still seem to be appealing to those things which have no evidence as having greater value than that with evidence namely a mediocre universe of cause and effect and a big bang.

I'm not appealing to anything. It is a fact that one or both of the premises may be false.

Also following your logic about mere possibilities destroying arguments.............. that would mean that the mere possibility of God destroys any argument for naturalism.

When has anybody made a purely deductive argument for naturalism?

[wigginhall]

Jeremy dealt efficiently with kalam.  Discussion of it has generated some interesting talking points, these are a few of them.

1.  Talking of causation before the universe seems incoherent, since if time began with the universe, then there can be no cause, and no 'before'.

2.   'Begins to exist' is presumably designed to exempt God from having a cause, but it has its own problems.  If you see energy as constantly forming and reforming, then there is no beginning of something.   For example, the sun was formed from a cloud of dust and gas, under the influence of gravity, but then where did that cloud come from?  Partly from exploding stars, which themselves were formed as clouds of dust and gas ...

3.  The universe beginning to exist is also problematic.   You can argue that the Big Bang is not an event, and of course, it is not the only explanation of the universe today.

4.  There is an old argument about composition: if cause/effect is described inside the universe, this does not mean that it can be described outside it.  In other words, you can't just add everything up that goes on inside, and assert that that applies to the whole thing (fallacy of composition).

5.  Of course, there is the old critique, how can something immaterial be a cause?

[Dicky Underpants]

I'd be interested to see the differences in the Pauline as opposed to the gospel writers views of the resurrection as well.

I dealt with some of these matters in #147.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword of the spirit

The trouble is that you have only faith beliefs about God etc. Just substantiate one with a fact an, like akaleidoscope, the whole world pattern will change, producing a pattern that is not only beautiful but completely harmonious too plus being   in tune with reality.

That’s actually quite a colourful picture of my faith, thank you! Let me explain why:

Hebrews 11 v 1 says this: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. This is illustrated brilliantly in the film Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade with the third trial(*1) that Indy has to navigate to get to the grail. That which is unseen (the walkway across the chasm) becomes seen when Indy takes the step of faith, expecting to fall into the chasm below.

You asked for one fact. For me, one of those facts is answers to prayer. Now, I could say that it is e.g. just coincidence, but it does seem strange to me that the more I pray, the more coincidences I observe! Is it logical therefore to stop because some claim without proof that the God I believe in doesn’t exist and then hide behind philosophical excuses when asked to justify their worldview? Because one person thinks but much work still needs to be done to detox the minds of those still infected.

In terms of what you went on to say, what a beautiful picture of God’s creation!! The first plants, animals and human beings are created with reproductive ability, DNA being the blueprint for living organisms. Some may see this as evidence of common descent, I see it as evidence of common design, in the same way that letters are the blueprint for all written text, or notes (logarithmic scale by the way; hardly trivial Mathematics) for music, or computer language instructions . No problem with evolutionary explanations that explain variation as the ability for that variation is already there, so no something from nothing problems, i.e. so-called emergent properties!

You mentioned reality. Observed realities include
•   Plants grow from seeds produced by plants, which grew from seeds produced by plants, ...
•   An individual was given birth to by their mother, who was given birth to by her mother, ...
•   That which has a beginning has a cause.

For me, it’s simple. Either you can go down the route of nothing causing something, or something causing something. Human beings design and make things so there is no reason to think that there isn’t something else that is also capable of designing and making something, particularly when similar characteristics are seen in what is made. There may be disagreement about what the something is, but what is not consistent with reality is the nothing causing something scenario.

In conclusion, and referring back to what you said in a previous post: Those who browse or lurk may wonder why the Christians here are able to defend their position and counter the arguments against their faith, but those countering Christian beliefs cannot defend their position without hiding behind philosophical jargon. It may even inspire them to think for themselves and conduct their own investigation, as opposed to being told how to think by comments like this:

Most thinking people recognise the non-existence of the god brigade's "arguments", but much work still needs to be done to detox the minds of those still infected.

(*1): Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: The third trial (watch from 3:21 in)

[Gordon]

The fallacy-fest continues.

That’s actually quite a colourful picture of my faith, thank you! Let me explain why:

Hebrews 11 v 1 says this: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. This is illustrated brilliantly in the film Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade with the third trial(*1) that Indy has to navigate to get to the grail. That which is unseen (the walkway across the chasm) becomes seen when Indy takes the step of faith, expecting to fall into the chasm below.

Here we have an argument from authority in referencing Hebrews for what is no more than a deepity. Leaving aside that Indiana Jones is entertaining fiction it shows nothing more than a calculated risk taken by the hero who, surprise surprise, survives: since if he didn't the film is less than 4 minutes long and unlikely to attract many paying customers.

You asked for one fact. For me, one of those facts is answers to prayer. Now, I could say that it is e.g. just coincidence, but it does seem strange to me that the more I pray, the more coincidences I observe! Is it logical therefore to stop because some claim without proof that the God I believe in doesn’t exist and then hide behind philosophical excuses when asked to justify their worldview?

Here we have confirmation bias, plus a recurrence of the 'worldview' strawman.

In terms of what you went on to say, what a beautiful picture of God’s creation!! The first plants, animals and human beings are created with reproductive ability, DNA being the blueprint for living organisms. Some may see this as evidence of common descent, I see it as evidence of common design, in the same way that letters are the blueprint for all written text, or notes (logarithmic scale by the way; hardly trivial Mathematics) for music, or computer language instructions . No problem with evolutionary explanations that explain variation as the ability for that variation is already there, so no something from nothing problems, i.e. so-called emergent properties!

You mentioned reality. Observed realities include
•   Plants grow from seeds produced by plants, which grew from seeds produced by plants, ...
•   An individual was given birth to by their mother, who was given birth to by her mother, ...
•   That which has a beginning has a cause.

Here we have arguments from both personal incredulity and from ignorance (yours), plus an example of begging the question by referencing the KCA.

For me, it’s simple. Either you can go down the route of nothing causing something, or something causing something. Human beings design and make things so there is no reason to think that there isn’t something else that is also capable of designing and making something, particularly when similar characteristics are seen in what is made. There may be disagreement about what the something is, but what is not consistent with reality is the nothing causing something scenario.

Now you are repeating yourself, fallacy-wise.

In conclusion, and referring back to what you said in a previous post: Those who browse or lurk may wonder why the Christians here are able to defend their position and counter the arguments against their faith

Those drawn to the fallacies you expound, which isn't all Christians here, haven't countered 'arguments against their faith' since nobody is making such arguments - simply pointing out your use of fallacies to you is sufficient in these circumstances without advancing an argument.

but those countering Christian beliefs cannot defend their position without hiding behind philosophical jargon.

What position? Merely pointing out to you the fallacies you keep falling into does not a 'position' make: and that you clearly don't understand the philosophy you are attempting to make use of is self-evidently a problem you have, as this recent post of yours ably demonstrates.

[SusanDoris]

Sword of the Spirit

You have, as Leonard and others will no doubt also observe, missed the whole point as usual.

[torridon]

That’s actually quite a colourful picture of my faith, thank you! Let me explain why:

Hebrews 11 v 1 says this: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. This is illustrated brilliantly in the film Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade with the third trial(*1) that Indy has to navigate to get to the grail. That which is unseen (the walkway across the chasm) becomes seen when Indy takes the step of faith, expecting to fall into the chasm below.

You asked for one fact. For me, one of those facts is answers to prayer. Now, I could say that it is e.g. just coincidence, but it does seem strange to me that the more I pray, the more coincidences I observe! Is it logical therefore to stop because some claim without proof that the God I believe in doesn’t exist and then hide behind philosophical excuses when asked to justify their worldview? Because one person thinks but much work still needs to be done to detox the minds of those still infected.

In terms of what you went on to say, what a beautiful picture of God’s creation!! The first plants, animals and human beings are created with reproductive ability, DNA being the blueprint for living organisms. Some may see this as evidence of common descent, I see it as evidence of common design, in the same way that letters are the blueprint for all written text, or notes (logarithmic scale by the way; hardly trivial Mathematics) for music, or computer language instructions . No problem with evolutionary explanations that explain variation as the ability for that variation is already there, so no something from nothing problems, i.e. so-called emergent properties!

You mentioned reality. Observed realities include
•   Plants grow from seeds produced by plants, which grew from seeds produced by plants, ...
•   An individual was given birth to by their mother, who was given birth to by her mother, ...
•   That which has a beginning has a cause.

For me, it’s simple. Either you can go down the route of nothing causing something, or something causing something. Human beings design and make things so there is no reason to think that there isn’t something else that is also capable of designing and making something, particularly when similar characteristics are seen in what is made. There may be disagreement about what the something is, but what is not consistent with reality is the nothing causing something scenario.

In conclusion, and referring back to what you said in a previous post: Those who browse or lurk may wonder why the Christians here are able to defend their position and counter the arguments against their faith, but those countering Christian beliefs cannot defend their position without hiding behind philosophical jargon. It may even inspire them to think for themselves and conduct their own investigation, as opposed to being told how to think by comments like this:

(*1): Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: The third trial (watch from 3:21 in)

A nice long post, thanks.  I'll just point out a couple of points that seem nonsensical to me.

1. Why does a god solve the something from nothing problem ?  Unless you can say where god came from it does not address the problem, it merely obscures it.
2. Even if there is a creator god, that is a long way short of an interventionist god listening telepathically to selected human's prayers and acting on them.  This leaves you with a capricious god reacting to some prayers but ignoring others, this in itself contradicts the notion of a just or fair god.

[wigginhall]

I'm also puzzled by what the 'something from nothing scenario' refers to.   Does this refer to various cosmological theories, or to the origin of life?   

It sounds like more incredulity - since we don't know how life began, therefore God did it.   This is the Thor argument, imagine people a few thousand years ago, since we don't know how thunder happens, therefore Thor.

Or, compare it with gravity - since scientists are not clear as to how gravity operates, therefore God pulls things down.  And, you can't prove that he doesn't!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

That’s actually quite a colourful picture of my faith, thank you!   Let me explain why:

Hebrews 11 v 1 says this: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. This is illustrated brilliantly in the film Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade with the third trial(*1) that Indy has to navigate to get to the grail. That which is unseen (the walkway across the chasm) becomes seen when Indy takes the step of faith, expecting to fall into the chasm below.

You asked for one fact. For me, one of those facts is answers to prayer. Now, I could say that it is e.g. just coincidence, but it does seem strange to me that the more I pray, the more coincidences I observe! Is it logical therefore to stop because some claim without proof that the God I believe in doesn’t exist and then hide behind philosophical excuses when asked to justify their worldview? Because one person thinks but much work still needs to be done to detox the minds of those still infected.

In terms of what you went on to say, what a beautiful picture of God’s creation!! The first plants, animals and human beings are created with reproductive ability, DNA being the blueprint for living organisms. Some may see this as evidence of common descent, I see it as evidence of common design, in the same way that letters are the blueprint for all written text, or notes (logarithmic scale by the way; hardly trivial Mathematics) for music, or computer language instructions . No problem with evolutionary explanations that explain variation as the ability for that variation is already there, so no something from nothingproblems, i.e. so-called emergent properties!

You mentioned reality. Observed realities include
•   Plants grow from seeds produced by plants, which grew from seeds produced by plants, ...
•   An individual was given birth to by their mother, who was given birth to by her mother, ...
•   That which has a beginning has a cause.

For me, it’s simple. Either you can go down the route of nothing causing something, or something causing something. Human beings design and make things so there is no reason to think that there isn’t something else that is also capable of designing and making something, particularly when similar characteristics are seen in what is made. There may be disagreement about what the something is, but what is not consistent with reality is the nothing causing somethingscenario.

In conclusion, and referring back to what you said in a previous post: Those who browse or lurk may wonder why the Christians here are able to defend their position and counter the arguments against their faith, but those countering Christian beliefs cannot defend their position without hiding behind philosophical jargon. It may even inspire them to think for themselves and conduct their own investigation, as opposed to being told how to think by comments like this:…

I’ve stepped away from this mb now, in part because there’s little point in posting counter-arguments only to have you and others ignore or misrepresent them and repeat the same mistakes in thinking over and again. I did though say that’d I’d re-engage if and when new arguments were attempted. In this case your “Hebrews 11 v 1 says this: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” is new-ish at least in that it’s used less often than the standard theistic playbook of logical fallacies.

It's unhelpful (at best) to you because while you are of course entirely free to “hope for” anything you like your hopes have no epistemic worth at all if you also want to argue for something. The problem is that theists generally overreach from “I hope god is” to just “god is” with no intervening logic to take them from the former to the latter, and so their “faith” is qualitatively different from that described in Hebrews.
 
As for the rest, it’s petty much a textbook model of bad thinking. If you want to argue that prayer works then you have to eliminate the effect of the availability heuristic, address the silent evidence of unanswered prayers, consider the arbitrariness of a just god behaving capriciously etc. If you want to argue that DNA is a top down, designed “blueprint” then you need to understand first something at least of information theory and of the nature of emergence. If you want to critique the theory of evolution then you at least need to grasp the difference between speciation and abiogenesis. If you want to argue causation then you need to avoid special pleading for “god”, understand something at least of the quantum world, grasp why “everything is caused” is the logical equivalent of “all swans are white” etc. If you want to rebut the arguments that undo you characterising them as “philosophical jargon” so as to dismiss them when in fact they’re actually points in logic that invalidate your arguments takes you not one step in that direction.

As we both know that you’ll ignore all this though there’s little point in discussing it. 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

1. Why does a god solve the something from nothing problem ?

Apply your argument to the statement human beings make computers. Does an explanation for human beings affect the truth (or otherwise) of the statement human beings make computers? 

Unless you can say where god came from it does not address the problem, it merely obscures it.

Not in my opinion, for the reasons given above.

[wigginhall]

Apply your argument to the statement human beings make computers. Does an explanation for human beings affect the truth (or otherwise) of the statement human beings make computers? 
Not in my opinion, for the reasons given above.

But I can make a decent fist of describing how humans make computers; can you do the same for 'God makes DNA'?  It seems vacuous to me.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I'm also puzzled by what the 'something from nothing scenario' refers to.   Does this refer to various cosmological theories, or to the origin of life?   
It sounds like more incredulity - since we don't know how life began, therefore God did it.

Natural processes show that nothing does not cause something (think of all your Physics Conservation of XXX laws, for example). Therefore something was responsible for the creation of life. Do human beings design and make things? Yes. Are there any similarities between what human beings have designed and made? Yes. Ergo evidence for a creator. All of this can be done without any kind of religious belief.

The religious belief is that which explains who the creator might be (believed by faith)

No need for we don't know how life began, therefore God did it. Start with what we know, and see where it leads.

[wigginhall]

Evidence for the supernatural?  Eh? 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

If you want to argue that prayer works then you have to eliminate the effect of the availability heuristic, address the silent evidence of unanswered prayers, consider the arbitrariness of a just god behaving capriciously etc.

Not in my opinion. That is a difference between understanding prayer (or even how prayer works), and the question, "does prayer work?" Remember, all that is needed to show that prayer works is one answered prayer, and I'd venture to suggest that every Christian posting here has had at least one prayer answered.

If you want to argue that DNA is a top down, designed “blueprint” then you need to understand first something at least of information theory and of the nature of emergence.

That, in my opinion is just a way of getting round the problem. From Wikipedia again:

DNA) is a molecule that carries the genetic instructions used in the growth, development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.

Ask anyone on the planet what instructions are used for and I bet they will all tell you that one use is to explain how something works or is intended to work. That implies intent and forethought.

If you want to critique the theory of evolution then you at least need to grasp the difference between speciation and abiogenesis.

Again, I believe that the separation is to get round the problem of having to address how life started. If life was created by a creator, it pretty much blows all of the common-descent evolutionary theories out of the water!!

It's amazing that on the one hand, God can't be used for any explanation because He needs an explanation, yet one does not need to know how life started in order to claim how it developed. If you cannot say how life started, how can you be sure what happened afterwards?

As we both know that you’ll ignore all this though there’s little point in discussing it.

It's not a case of ignoring it. Some people have reached a different conclusion.

[Maeght]

I'd venture to suggest that every Christian posting here has had at least one prayer answered.

How do you judge that something happened in response to your prayer, due to God's intervention, rather than it just being something which would have happened anyway?

[Gordon]

Natural processes show that nothing does not cause something (think of all your Physics Conservation of XXX laws, for example). Therefore something was responsible for the creation of life.

More personal incredulity: that abiogenesis is an unknown means, er, that it is unknown.

Do human beings design and make things? Yes. Are there any similarities between what human beings have designed and made? Yes.

So we can equate humans with, say, JCB bulldoers: a poor analogy since JCB bulldozers don't, for instance, reproduce.

Ergo evidence for a creator.

Ergo evidence of your hopeless reasoning.

All of this can be done without any kind of religious belief.

Perhaps, but only by someone who is as succeptible to fallacious reasoning as you are.

The religious belief is that which explains who the creator might be (believed by faith)

Nope - it claims but it doesn't explain, as your attempts to 'explain' confirm.

No need for we don't know how life began, therefore God did it. Start with what we know, and see where it leads.

It leads to we don't know how life began.

[Enki]

Things hoped for is no guarantee that they actually exist. When I was very young, my sister told me that fairies actually lived inside the castle inside the snowflake glass trinket she showed me. I did so hope it was true.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

But I can make a decent fist of describing how humans make computers; can you do the same for 'God makes DNA'?

But the truth (or otherwise) of the statement is not affected by whether you can explain it, or not.

Incidentally, concluding that DNA was designed has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. Concluding that God was responsible does.

[Dicky Underpants]

You asked for one fact. For me, one of those facts is answers to prayer. Now, I could say that it is e.g. just coincidence, but it does seem strange to me that the more I pray, the more coincidences I observe!

Hardly strange, since you're subconsciously expecting such things to appear (I know - I used to make quite a lot of mystical meaning out of 'coincidences). As Dr Johnson said to the lady who accused him of putting a lot of rude words in his dictionary: "You must have been looking for them, madam!"

In conclusion, and referring back to what you said in a previous post: Those who browse or lurk may wonder why the Christians here are able to defend their position and counter the arguments against their faith, but those countering Christian beliefs cannot defend their position without hiding behind philosophical jargon.

Oh the irony of it! How many times have we been exposed to the eternal mantra of Vlad with his "methodological or philosophical materialism". The atheists have often been forced to meet him on his own ground using similar language to correct his misapprehensions.

btw. you still haven't answered my point about your belief in the Resurrection being a falsifiable statement, since Christians (including the earliest) believe different things on this. Until you specify what you mean, your assertion is in itself meaningless (however, I suspect you are entirely unable to specify what you mean, any more than you can specify what you mean by 'God').

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

How do you judge that something happened in response to your prayer, due to God's intervention, rather than it just being something which would have happened anyway?

I couldn't prove it conclusively, but, particularly when I have been praying for other people and then I am indirectly used as part of the answer.

For example: There was one time I was praying for a family in the church I was attending (they were involved in work in the church and relied on donations). I sensed (consider it like a thought) that God was saying to me that I needed to give them some money. When I asked, "How much", the response was, "Enough for a good holiday". So I came up with a figure of what I thought a family of four would need for a good holiday.

When I went to church, I was a bit nervous about telling them this and looking a bit of an idiot, so didn't speak to them at the start of the service. At the end, I decided I had to go for it and spoke to them. I was then told that they were due to go on holiday, but their car had broken down. They had spent all of their spending money on getting it repaired, so what I gave them was virtually identical to what they had spent on the car. Now, I suppose it's possible I have some hidden skills which allow this to happen now and again, but for me, prayer is a better explanation!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

It leads to we don't know how life began.

You don't know? Really?

Why then are you so against the possibility that it could have been created?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Things hoped for is no guarantee that they actually exist.

Agreed.

What is hoped for must be based on truth.

[floo]

You don't know? Really?

Why then are you so against the possibility that it could have been created?

Even if it was created I bet it wasn't by the Biblical god, the creation story doesn't ring true to me.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

btw. you still haven't answered my point about your belief in the Resurrection being a falsifiable statement, since Christians (including the earliest) believe different things on this.

From 1 Corinthians 15:

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

What are the different things you are referring to? From what I can see, either Jesus Christ rose from the dead, or He didn't.