Bad Arguments for God

[yoda55]

Ant wrote: "Your criticisms of carbon dating are simply naïve. This is just another religionist canard."

The 'shroud of Turin' was an example of the world's desire to validate or reject the claim that the wrapping was old enough to even be considered as a candidate for the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth - an attempt to debunk that he even existed. The scientists applied radio-carbon dating, and declared that the results pointed to lack of authenticity - that is was a modern manufacture, even though the fiber of the cloth itself resembled ancient manufacture. Further research, by those other than that 'collection of brilliant scientific minds', reported the Abbey which housed it during the Middle Ages suffered a fire, and that (when considered) was isolated as what threw the estimate off by centuries... With volcanic activity and tectonic plate movement, new materials are brought up routinely. This material artficially changes the amount of material scientists presume is available - and points to questioning the reliability of the process. The same goes for other methods - what is not taken into account will screw up an experiment every time (and that's experience speaking).

Ant wrote: "(Allow me a tu quoque: Where was Moses when God said fiat lux!?)"

Allow me the riposte: Moses recorded that God was to have said, "יְהִי אוֹר". [Latin postdating the event and the recorder... so much for a dead language...]

Ant wrote" "Yet, quite simply, there is not one shred of empirical evidence that one does, nor is one necessary to explain how the world works."

It is partially true that "how" it works may not require the inclusion, in order to investigate some behaviors. But the "why" does. That it (universe) exists, now, is not a debate. That it exists at all needs to include "why".

Ant wrote: "Ingersoll: ...'We are explaining more every day. We are understanding more every day; consequently your God is growing smaller every day.' (And think how much smaller God is now than he was Ingersoll’s day!)"

If you select a line segment from an infinite number line, has the line become shorter? Has the fraction of that line become significantly greater from any previous, smaller selection? I don't think so. What is (small / infinity)? Nearly zero, I think.

Ant wrote: "The fact that we see no evidence for such effects anywhere in the world or cosmos, at any time, does not falsify the hypothesis, but makes holding the hypothesis valid irrational. This applies equally to ghosts, fairies, Thor, Zeus, the Abrahamic God, Santa Claus, and so on."

Consider 'what if the entire universe is the evidence of it'? Do you look for fingerprints at a crime scene when all suspects have none to leave? Or, are you suggesting that some residue of a creator would necessarily be left behind within the creation? Based upon what supposition - that a creator has a failing and forgot to clean up afterwards (imposing a projection of human failing upon an infinite being who is not human)?

Ant wrote: "Thus, scientists do not ignore the 'answer', they just see it as a baseless one."

They ignore it, because the challenge of building tools that can reach beyond the confines of the dimensional limitation we occupy seems impossible. If human beings are as inventive as you seem to think, then there is no limit. So, for what are we waiting - a technology?


Just curious... In what disciple did you earn your PhD?

.

[FragileTag]

I am that type of person who never falls to conclusion or the need for closure. I can live with not knowing how this universe came to existence and I think not knowing is more interesting than answers maybe wrong even though the big bang theory is plausible to me. The only way I would be convinced is solid evidence.

[CleanShavenJesus]

A really shitty argument for God: "God is above conventional reason. We can't understand Him or expect to be able to provide evidence for Him. He's there! Have faith!"

(AKA my argument before I finally deconverted)


EDIT: Just realized the dude above me brought this back from a while ago. Sorry.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Or just use Occam's Razer which seems to destroys every theist argument.

Occam's razor is a guide not a proof. Do yourself a favor and learn about logic.

[jstrodel]

Ace Otana has never read William of Occam, probably does not know what scholastic theology is and how it differs from Augustinian theology but will insist that Occams Razor "destroys" every theistic argument.

[Mister Agenda]

Chad, it does not speak well of you that you approve of jstrodel's usual argument from 'I know more about stuff than you so you should just shut up!'

Any patent Occam may have had on his razor ran out centuries ago, he no longer owns it. Paring away unnecessary entities is extraordinarily fruitful in everyday life as well as in science. Not every useful tool of reason is or can be proof. The alternative to this mere guide is to entertain any conceivable additional entity positied as an explanation for something.

A: Voltage is caused by voltage fairies pushing electrons.
B: Evidence?
A: There isn't any, because voltage fairies are undetectable.
B: Well, since voltage fairies dont'seem to be necessary to explain voltage and there's no evidence they actually exist, I'm going to go with Occam's razor on this one.
A: Occam's razor isn't proof, it's just a guide!
B: You may not have heard, but those voltage fairies are propelled the collective erotic fantasies of fire-breathing space aardvarks.
A: That sounds made-up, but I will provisionally accept your propostiion, along with any other fetid fantasies your fevered imagination may spew, so long as they are non-falsifiable.
B: At least you're consistent.

[jstrodel]

No, the psuedo-intellectuals that cite William of Occam but do not know what scholastic theology is are the ones on shaky grounds. It is not that the patent has run out, it is that they are poseurs.


Occam's razor works differently for people that are actually educated in theology and have an experience of God, and rules out extraneous explanations, such as aliens from outer space are responsible for abiogenesis or that miracles are actually causes by unexplainable and non provable psychological postulates.


Occam's razor in the hands of the uneducated is a tool for them to advance their ignorance and say because they are ignorant, they can rule out wisdom because it is too complicated for their ignorance to accommodate. This proves that ignorance that does not demand an answer to life's greatest questions can perpetuate its ignorance.

Atheism has many, many complex assumptions, such as it does not matter how you live life and natural phenomena do not need to be explained. Occams razor, in the hands of the educated, works to rule out complex assumption such as these and explain them by simpler explanation, such as the experience of objective truth and morality are explained by the simple explanation of those things existing as facts that should be taken seriously rather than avoided or dealt with using complex semantic tricks that are widely disagreed about as to whether they actually work or not (obviously they do not if you look with an honest heart).

[The Grand Nudger]

Lots of things "work differently" for people who have "experiences" with pixies......I don't think that anyone is going to argue that point.

[jstrodel]

Occam's razor is only one principle of investigation, it does not contain in it the demand to apply it universally, it is only a principle, but it is a principle that works against atheism, if you understand it from the perspective of Christian belief.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, so, if I understand something from the point of ignorance it will work against atheism? I wouldn't argue against that either.... in fact, that's precisely what I'm constantly arguing -for-.