Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 23, 2022, 4:04 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
(October 5, 2021 at 11:49 am)polymath257 Wrote: 1. That a natural law requires a law giver

2. That humans are qualified to recognize design without further testing

3. That an infinite regress is impossible

4. That, even if there is/was a lawgiver for natural laws, that there is only one such

5. That causality makes sense outside of the universe

6. That everything that begins to exist (meaning there was a time when it did not exist) needs to have a cause (applied unevenly, I might add)

7. That having a start means that a thing 'begins to exist' in the sense of the last claim

8. That postulating a lawgiver means that such a lawgiver must actually exist

I can go on, but how about we address these?

1. The existence of natural laws is vastly more expected under theism than under atheism. 

2. Humans act on the appearances all the time. If we don't act on the appearance of design, we are being hypocritical. This is a direct application of the principle of credulity: we should consider, a priori, that what seems to be so is indeed so.

3. Only an infinite regress of actual causes using some notion of time can be proven to be impossible. I already explained why repeatedly: an eternal past never elapses and therefore there cannot be a present. 

In your model presenting an infinite past and in which you get to choose any two moments, you are already assuming your conclusion, circular. Recall that a wrong proposition can imply a true proposition. Therefore, a wrong model may not necessarily yield a logical contradiction. So, I don't have to find a contradiction in your model, in which you assumed what you're trying to prove.

4. Occam's razor: we shouldn't posit multiple entities unless we have a good reason.

5. Rejecting causality means that things can pop into existence for no reason....

6. This is simply a restatement of causality. And no, it's not applied unevenly, because God purportedly didn't begin to exist.

7. I already explained the meaning of began to exist, which doesn't require time. Causation can be simultaneous.

8. The existence of a lawgiver is vastly more probable than not given the observation: "natural laws exist".
Qur'anic revelation is the sole path to ultimate reality. All argumentation and philosophy is an expression of arrogance and an overestimation of human cognitive ability. 

"But believe me, Cleanthes, the most natural feeling that a well-disposed mind will have on this occasion is a longing desire and expectation that God will be pleased to remove or at least to lessen this profound ignorance, by giving mankind some particular revelation, revealing the nature, attributes, and operations of the divine object of our faith." (Hume's Dialogues)


Reply
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
(October 5, 2021 at 4:39 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: 1. The existence of natural laws is vastly more expected under theism than under atheism. 
It isn't...but much more interesting is why you think it is?

Quote:2. Humans act on the appearances all the time. If we don't act on the appearance of design, we are being hypocritical. This is a direct application of the principle of credulity: we should consider, a priori, that what seems to be so is indeed so.
An empirical case.......

Quote:3. Only an infinite regress of actual causes using some notion of time can be proven to be impossible. I already explained why repeatedly: an eternal past never elapses and therefore there cannot be a present. 
-and yet you believe in an eternal past that never elapses and therefore cannot be a present....for gods.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
(October 5, 2021 at 4:42 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: -and yet you believe in an eternal past that never elapses and therefore cannot be a present....for gods.

How could a God that exists out of time do anything?  In physics, an event is something that happens at a particular point at a particular time.  How could a God who experiences no time ever decide to change his/her/its mind and do anything?  Similar to what I posted before the following two sides of the below equation are absolutely equivalent:

[Image: dividing-larger-integral.jpg]

The equal sign proves it; just substitute whatever metric from General Relativity is appropriate, but, I'll leave that one for the experts.

By the way, no physicist from over the last century has had any intrinsic issues with the Cosmos being an actual infinite, either in space or time.
And without delay Peter went quickly out of the synagogue (assembly) and went unto the house of Marcellus, where Simon lodged: and much people followed him...And Peter turned unto the people that followed him and said: Ye shall now see a great and marvellous wonder. And Peter seeing a great dog bound with a strong chain, went to him and loosed him, and when he was loosed the dog received a man's voice and said unto Peter: What dost thou bid me to do, thou servant of the unspeakable and living God? Peter said unto him: Go in and say unto Simon in the midst of his company: Peter saith unto thee, Come forth abroad, for thy sake am I come to Rome, thou wicked one and deceiver of simple souls. And immediately the dog ran and entered in, and rushed into the midst of them that were with Simon, and lifted up his forefeet and in a loud voice said: Thou Simon, Peter the servant of Christ who standeth at the door saith unto thee: Come forth abroad, for thy sake am I come to Rome, thou most wicked one and deceiver of simple souls. And when Simon heard it, and beheld the incredible sight, he lost the words wherewith he was deceiving them that stood by, and all of them were amazed. (The Acts of Peter, 9)
Reply
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
(October 5, 2021 at 3:37 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: If you are aware of the design, you should believe in a designer, otherwise you are dishonest. That's it.

Wow, so you actually believe that every sand dune is designed by God. That every mountain is designed by god's hands and not by wind and water erosions. That every snowflake is designed by God's hands.

(October 5, 2021 at 3:37 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Recommending a book authored by a militant atheist, how convenient.

I was recommending you a book by a scientist who explains his field of science to laymen, but, as any fanatic, you have to keep away from the actual science and keep tight to a primitive way of looking at the world and spew logical fallacies, this time its genetic fallacy and strawman, of course.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
Reply
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
(October 5, 2021 at 4:39 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:
(October 5, 2021 at 11:49 am)polymath257 Wrote: 1. That a natural law requires a law giver

2. That humans are qualified to recognize design without further testing

3. That an infinite regress is impossible

4. That, even if there is/was a lawgiver for natural laws, that there is only one such

5. That causality makes sense outside of the universe

6. That everything that begins to exist (meaning there was a time when it did not exist) needs to have a cause (applied unevenly, I might add)

7. That having a start means that a thing 'begins to exist' in the sense of the last claim

8. That postulating a lawgiver means that such a lawgiver must actually exist

I can go on, but how about we address these?

1. The existence of natural laws is vastly more expected under theism than under atheism.

I disagree. The likelihood is precisely the same: guaranteed in both cases. Either something exists and there are natural laws that describe its properties, or things are random and the laws of probability apply. Either way, there would be natural laws. The only other case is where nothing exists, and we know that isn't the case.

Now, if a deity exist, that alone would imply the existence of natural laws since to have something as complex as a deity would require such laws. But that means the deity didn't 'give' those laws.

Quote:2. Humans act on the appearances all the time. If we don't act on the appearance of design, we are being hypocritical. This is a direct application of the principle of credulity: we should consider, a priori, that what seems to be so is indeed so.

And we know that we are inclined to attribute intentions to things that have none: how many people name their cars or complain about their computers being cranky?

This is a well-known fault in how the human mind works and so it needs to be guarded against. That is quite sufficient to show that appearances are not enough in this case.

But I can go further. Appearances are not enough *alone* in most cases. The appearance of design, or lack thereof, is particularly frought with difficulties. And they are often dealt with in, for example, archeology. There, the best way to show design is to show the structure observed could not be made without conscious involvement.

For example, if we have a bone that has scrape marks, we can ask whether they were the result of deliberate cleaning of the bone by some tool or, instead, the result of being dragged along the ground by the wind. Knowing what sorts of marks the wind makes helps in this determination.

So, the best way to show design is to show that what is observed *cannot* be produced other than by conscious intervention. And that is testable. And that means we should not rely on mere appearances, but dig deeper into the qualities of what is observed.

Quote:3. Only an infinite regress of actual causes using some notion of time can be proven to be impossible. I already explained why repeatedly: an eternal past never elapses and therefore there cannot be a present. 

In your model presenting an infinite past and in which you get to choose any two moments, you are already assuming your conclusion, circular. Recall that a wrong proposition can imply a true proposition. Therefore, a wrong model may not necessarily yield a logical contradiction. So, I don't have to find a contradiction in your model, in which you assumed what you're trying to prove.

I see you don't understand basic logic. I am showing how your proposed contradiction is not a contradiction within my model.

For you to show that there cannot be an infinite past, you would have to give an *internal* contradiction from the assumption that there is such a past. That is called a redutio ad absurdum style of argument.

But I would note that you do the same thing: you assume that your deity exists and has certain properties as an explanation of why it cannot be tested via observation.

The difference is that you are trying to prove your deity exists and I am only showing that an infinite regress is not self-contradictory.

Quote:4. Occam's razor: we shouldn't posit multiple entities unless we have a good reason.

Most things have more than one cause, so it is reasonable to assume that, if the universe is caused, it has multiple causes. That seems like a very good reason.

Quote:5. Rejecting causality means that things can pop into existence for no reason....

Which we know happens in reality in quantum systems. There is no 'reason' why electron-positron pairs appear out of nothing, exist for a while, and disappear again.

The quantum filed is simply a *description* of this process, NOT a cause of it.

Quote:6. This is simply a restatement of causality. And no, it's not applied unevenly, because God purportedly didn't begin to exist.

And I am saying the universe potentially didn't begin to exist. If it is a consistent possibility for your god, then it is also consistent for the universe.

Quote:7. I already explained the meaning of began to exist, which doesn't require time. Causation can be simultaneous.

A claim that has no substantial reason to believe.

Quote:8. The existence of a lawgiver is vastly more probable than not given the observation: "natural laws exist".

On the contrary, it is unreasonable to think that something as complicated as a lawgiver (especially one that is conscious) can exist without physical laws.
Reply
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
(October 5, 2021 at 6:03 pm)polymath257 Wrote:
(October 5, 2021 at 4:39 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: 1. The existence of natural laws is vastly more expected under theism than under atheism.

I disagree. The likelihood is precisely the same: guaranteed in both cases. Either something exists and there are natural laws that describe its properties, or things are random and the laws of probability apply. Either way, there would be natural laws. The only other case is where nothing exists, and we know that isn't the case.

How did you come up with the odds being precisely the same?

Just because a proposition has only 2 possibilities, does not mean each possibility has a 50/50 chance of occurring? Possibility has to be demonstrated. It may be, entirely not possible for a god to exist. How would we go about demonstrating the possibility of a god existing?

Quote:Now, if a deity existed, that alone would imply the existence of natural laws since to have something as complex as a deity would require such laws. But that means the deity didn't 'give' those laws.

This is a point that does not seem to made often enough.

Before a god created the universe, time, laws, etc, said god had to exist in some sort of realm. After all, existence is necessarily bound to time and space, even if it the time and space of another realm. How can something, even a god exist, if there is no time and space for it to exist in?

You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Reply
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
(October 4, 2021 at 12:20 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:
(October 3, 2021 at 5:18 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

That's not true I think. Believing in God comes naturally to many people, and it doesn't have anything to do with their parents' beliefs.
As ever, the thing you think stands in contradiction to fact.  For better or for worse....and regardless of whether there is a god, and regardless of whether or  not you believe that god belief is natural...whatever that means... it will remain a fact that the strongest predictor of religiousity and even specific beliefs..is whether or not they were held by your parents.  

Quote:Why? Why should I point out precisely where or how God intervened? You surely would agree that a deity can create a self sufficient world where genetics take care of things...
Why would I agree to that?  As far as I can tell, gods aren't capable of doing anything - but, again, if you'd like to point out where god touches the genetics, you're free to do so...and if you would prefer to assert that genetics "takes care of things", instead, then you can no longer point to any need for god in genetics or fish.   As for you, why should you point it out?  Because you're the one who asserted as much, numbskull.

Quote:

Now you're absolutely mistaken about this one. God (as in traditional belief systems) has purportedly rare direct manifestations in the material world, and may do so exclusively through miracles. Miracles are rarely occuring events by definition. An empirically testable claim has to be about repeatable, even reproducible phenomena. A divine miracle is not repeatable nor reproducible.

And because of that, the god hypothesis cannot be an empirically testable claim. This is a textbook category mistake. Ah.. and a nice attempt to strawman, also.

If you say that the god hypothesis is not empirically testable, then it isn't testable by the way things appear.  Your fish argument fails, according to you.

I'm getting images of a child specialist interviewer gently asking a DNA strand to point out on a doll where the god touched it.
As a species, we are fucked. To the next generation, I offer my inadequate apologies.
Reply
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
(October 5, 2021 at 4:39 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: 1. The existence of natural laws is vastly more expected under theism than under atheism. 

This line flgrantly ignores the fact that if your god exists and does what you say he does, there can be no "natural laws". For your god is allegedly all powerful and all knowing (how both of these are impossible in the same reality is another problem), and natural laws are constraints which make both properties impossible for a being to hold.
As a species, we are fucked. To the next generation, I offer my inadequate apologies.
Reply
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
(October 3, 2021 at 3:29 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:
(September 23, 2021 at 5:03 pm)Angrboda Wrote: In the context of Kalam, assuming that there was a time before a beginningless universe is begging the question and therefore an invalid objection.  Otherwise you are talking about time beginning after the beginning of time, which is fucking incoherent.  The whole point of models such as Hawking-Hartle is to show that time can be past eternal in the sense that all of time precedes the present, yet all of time is still finite. 

What a pretty strawman you have there, great job. You dishonestly omitted the bit where I said, explicitely: that I am defining a notion of time independently of the time that began at the BB, think about the word define real hard.

Time is already defined in Hawking-Hartle. If you add another definition then you are guilty of equivocation and your argument is invalid. Don't be stupid.



(October 3, 2021 at 3:29 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Hawking-Hartle's model doesn't help your case much, I suggest you find better arguments to rehabilitate your doomed position. The model clearly says, according to Hawking himself: that the universe has not existed forever. The sentence in bold is exactly the definition of beginning to exist.

Yeah, no -- seriously, how many times are you going to try this ipse dixit argument? One meaning of forever is "infinitely" so even if I took this quote at face value it proves nothing. Cite your sources in future or they will be ignored.


(October 3, 2021 at 3:29 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:
(September 23, 2021 at 5:03 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Now, as to this law of thought deal, the idea that "past eternal" and "began to exist" are mutually exclusive is not itself a law of thought, it's just a bit of dogma that you have uncritically accepted because it fits with what you wish to be true.  And dogmatically is the only way you've defended it.  If it is nothing more than dogma, then it can be validly rejected without argument.

This must be the stupidest paragraph I ever read. If you rule out the laws of thought as dogma.  then I am really proud to be called dogmatic.

And suddenly the law of the excluded middle became dogma, absolutely hilarious.

You have serious reading comprehension issues. Seek help.
[Image: Fenrir-sign.jpg]
Reply
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
(October 5, 2021 at 3:55 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Okay, then. Let's apply your wrong rule : I see no footprints of Nudger in my house, Nudger doesn't exist.

You see no footprints of Nudger in your house, therefore it's reasonable to conclude, absent any other clues to the contrary, that Nudger hasn't been in your house. It doesn't prove Nudger hasn't been in your house (certainly it doesn't prove his nonexistence), it's possible he snuck in without leaving footprints for instance, but when all available evidence supports Nudger not having been in your house, you should proceed with your life as though Nudger hasn't been in your house.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ? Klorophyll 225 4846 April 17, 2022 at 2:11 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
Information The Best Logique Evidence of God Existence Nogba 225 13205 August 2, 2019 at 11:44 am
Last Post: comet
  Atheists being asked about the existence of Jesus Der/die AtheistIn 154 9829 January 24, 2019 at 1:30 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Arguments against existence of God. Mystic 336 56016 December 7, 2018 at 1:03 pm
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  If the existence of an enduring soul was proven... Gawdzilla Sama 45 3030 November 26, 2018 at 5:17 pm
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Proof of God Existence faramirofgondor 39 5779 April 20, 2018 at 3:38 pm
Last Post: Enlightened Ape
  Atheism VS Christian Atheism? IanHulett 80 23160 June 13, 2017 at 11:09 am
Last Post: vorlon13
  Evidence for the existence of God Yadayadayada 145 12960 January 21, 2017 at 9:03 am
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  Where do you stand on the existence of God? Catholic_Lady 276 27514 December 15, 2015 at 5:13 pm
Last Post: Reflex
  Two Undeniable Truths Why Theism is True and Atheism and Agnosticism are Not True HiYou 49 10079 July 21, 2015 at 6:59 am
Last Post: KUSA



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)