RE: A Challenge for the Atheist
January 10, 2014 at 8:49 pm
(This post was last modified: January 10, 2014 at 8:51 pm by MitchBenn.)
*Sigh* Ok, I'll bite...
Nope.
Sure, why not.
We ARE looking at the evidence. The point is that the "evidence" for gods' existence SUCKS.
And while I'm here, it isn't our side that dodges the evidence, as anyone who's ever heard an apologist repeat spurious claims they've had debunked TO THEIR FACE a dozen times can tell you.
Yeah, I guess.
It might, if there were such evidence, but there isn't.
No, I wouldn't, as this is an untestable claim. If you'd asked if we know of an instance of something coming from nothing, then I'd say no. If you'd asked if we know of any means by WHICH something can come from nothing, I might still say no; I know Lawrence Krauss has postulated a possible way for this to happen but it depends on a slightly idiosyncratic notion of "nothing"... But that's not your premise. You contend that something CANNOT come from nothing and I'd counter that we don't - perhaps even CAN'T - know enough about what "Nothing" means to make such a claim. Since "nothingness" is by definition an unobservable state.
Your premise is invalid so the question is too.
All these things are perceptible by other means. You may not be able to "see" gravity but you can detect it, measure it, get killed by it etc. Same with all the other things mentioned. "Invisible" isn't the same as "imperceptible". But of course what you're getting at is...
If something isn't perceptible, detectable, audible, smellable or measurable in any way then it's reasonable to work on the assumption that it doesn't exist until it DOES show up to some means of detection or perception (btw "feeling him in your heart" doesn't count).
Already dealt with the baseless "something cannot come from nothing" claim, and you're presuming that it had to be "created".
Okay that's the THIRD time you've based a claim on "something cannot come from nothing" and it's STILL not a valid premise. Try again.
No, because DNA isn't "language" or "code" or "information", it's just a chemical chain. A complex self-replicating chemical chain but just a chemical chain.
Define "greater". If you just mean "more complex", then no - we see complexity arising through natural causes all the time.
Again, using emotive terms to lead the question. Yeah, some things are just plain wrong, but "morality" is a human concept. It evolves (hey!) as society evolves. The idea of an unchanging moral "law" is bogus, as any historian will tell you, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as right and wrong. But of course what you're getting at is:
Well for a start not all laws DO require a "lawgiver". The "laws" of science are DESCRIPTIVE rather than PREscriptive. Newton observed that things fall towards the earth; things don't fall towards the earth because Newton Commanded It Thus.
But riddle me this: if all "moral laws" are handed out fully formed by a "moral lawgiver" then how come different cultures worshipping the same lawgiver and basing their vision of him on the same scriptures have WILDLY differing concepts of morality?
No.
The universe isn't "a ball".
This is the First Cause argument which STILL depends on the premise that Something Cannot Come From Nothing which is STILL an invalid premise.
It might, if the Anthropic Principle weren't nonsense, which it is.
If the universe is "tuned" for the sole purpose of producing human life, why did it take 9 billion years before the earth was even formed? If the only reason the universe is here is for our benefit what were those 9 billion years in aid of? And why is 9/10 of the earth's surface uninhabitable? Why is its underlying structure so badly fitted together as to produce frequent earthquakes which crush human beings - for whom, apparently, the world was "designed" - in their thousands?
*
(January 9, 2014 at 6:40 pm)eeeeeee7 Wrote: A christian friend of mine sent me a list of these questions. How would you guys respond to each? A link to a site or forum with the answers would also be helpful. Thanks
1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God?
Nope.
Quote: If not, then is it not possible that there is a God?
Sure, why not.
Quote:And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?
We ARE looking at the evidence. The point is that the "evidence" for gods' existence SUCKS.
And while I'm here, it isn't our side that dodges the evidence, as anyone who's ever heard an apologist repeat spurious claims they've had debunked TO THEIR FACE a dozen times can tell you.
Quote:2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them?
Yeah, I guess.
Quote:If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?
It might, if there were such evidence, but there isn't.
Quote:3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something?
No, I wouldn't, as this is an untestable claim. If you'd asked if we know of an instance of something coming from nothing, then I'd say no. If you'd asked if we know of any means by WHICH something can come from nothing, I might still say no; I know Lawrence Krauss has postulated a possible way for this to happen but it depends on a slightly idiosyncratic notion of "nothing"... But that's not your premise. You contend that something CANNOT come from nothing and I'd counter that we don't - perhaps even CAN'T - know enough about what "Nothing" means to make such a claim. Since "nothingness" is by definition an unobservable state.
Quote:If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?
Your premise is invalid so the question is too.
Quote:4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?
All these things are perceptible by other means. You may not be able to "see" gravity but you can detect it, measure it, get killed by it etc. Same with all the other things mentioned. "Invisible" isn't the same as "imperceptible". But of course what you're getting at is...
Quote:5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?
If something isn't perceptible, detectable, audible, smellable or measurable in any way then it's reasonable to work on the assumption that it doesn't exist until it DOES show up to some means of detection or perception (btw "feeling him in your heart" doesn't count).
Quote:6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?
Already dealt with the baseless "something cannot come from nothing" claim, and you're presuming that it had to be "created".
Quote:7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?
Okay that's the THIRD time you've based a claim on "something cannot come from nothing" and it's STILL not a valid premise. Try again.
Quote:8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)
No, because DNA isn't "language" or "code" or "information", it's just a chemical chain. A complex self-replicating chemical chain but just a chemical chain.
Quote:9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?
Define "greater". If you just mean "more complex", then no - we see complexity arising through natural causes all the time.
Quote:10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?
Again, using emotive terms to lead the question. Yeah, some things are just plain wrong, but "morality" is a human concept. It evolves (hey!) as society evolves. The idea of an unchanging moral "law" is bogus, as any historian will tell you, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as right and wrong. But of course what you're getting at is:
Quote:11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?
Well for a start not all laws DO require a "lawgiver". The "laws" of science are DESCRIPTIVE rather than PREscriptive. Newton observed that things fall towards the earth; things don't fall towards the earth because Newton Commanded It Thus.
But riddle me this: if all "moral laws" are handed out fully formed by a "moral lawgiver" then how come different cultures worshipping the same lawgiver and basing their vision of him on the same scriptures have WILDLY differing concepts of morality?
Quote:12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?
No.
Quote:13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?
The universe isn't "a ball".
Quote:14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?
This is the First Cause argument which STILL depends on the premise that Something Cannot Come From Nothing which is STILL an invalid premise.
Quote:15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?
It might, if the Anthropic Principle weren't nonsense, which it is.
If the universe is "tuned" for the sole purpose of producing human life, why did it take 9 billion years before the earth was even formed? If the only reason the universe is here is for our benefit what were those 9 billion years in aid of? And why is 9/10 of the earth's surface uninhabitable? Why is its underlying structure so badly fitted together as to produce frequent earthquakes which crush human beings - for whom, apparently, the world was "designed" - in their thousands?
*
