A simple challenge for atheists

[IATIA]

You keep demanding proof. You know all the common logical arguments: cosmological, fine tuning, contingency, teleological, moral absolutes, mathematics, etc. If you add in bio-genesis, complexity of life, gaps in the fossil record, and human consciousness, you get a cumulative case that makes it entirely rational to believe in a god.

No it does not. Gaps in knowledge do not suggest that there is a god. Complexity of life evolved, that did not need a god only physics. Consciousness is nothing more than biochemical reactions coupled with electrical impulses that allows our brain to seem more than what it is. Take away or add chemical or electrical stimuli and the consciousness changes. Again, no god.

If you could just forget that you actually believe in a god long enough to really examine it, you would see that any god is completely illogical and impossible.

[Alex K]

The question whether "there are infinities" or whether mathematicians believe in them is nonsensical. One can define extensions of the set of real numbers which contain infinity. These extensions then lose some of the field properties of the real numbers. Cardinal numbers which measure the size of sets are not only infinite, there are an infinite number of different ones.

[robvalue]

There are even different sizes of infinities. There are countable, such as the integers, and uncountable infinities like the real numbers. Uncountable ones are "bigger".

It's used all the time as a concept in mathematics. And it works. It doesn't mean we have to go count out infinite stones for our abacus.

[Crossless2.0]

There have been a million books written on Christianity alone. Do you think that people haven't asked the questions or raised the objections that you bring up? Yet, Christianity continues to grow. Why do you think that is?

It sure as hell isn't because millions find Christian apologetics compelling. Most people seem to come to Christianity for emotional -- or if you prefer 'spiritual' -- reasons, divorced from whether the story really makes any sense and in spite of the utter lack of good evidence that Yahweh exists. Why does Christianity continue to grow? I suppose for the same reason that Islam continues to grow: many people value meaning (especially if it's comforting) over truth (especially if it's not comforting).

[robvalue]

Yep. It's an argument from popularity. Whether or not something is true is not dependent on the number of people who believe it. It's irrelevant.

[SteveII]

I'm asking because I want to know. Do mathematicians believe that an infinite quantity of real objects or real events is possible. A link would be helpful.

---

There have been a million books written on Christianity alone. Do you think that people haven't asked the questions or raised the objections that you bring up? Yet, Christianity continues to grow. Why do you think that is?

It sure as hell isn't because millions find Christian apologetics compelling. Most people seem to come to Christianity for emotional -- or if you prefer 'spiritual' -- reasons, divorced from whether the story really makes any sense and in spite of the utter lack of good evidence that Yahweh exists. Why does Christianity continue to grow? I suppose for the same reason that Islam continues to grow: many people value meaning (especially if it's comforting) over truth (especially if it's not comforting).

You make a good point. I read somewhere that psychologist believe there is a "god-shaped hole" in our consciousness (of course that came about because there was some evolutionary advantage). I don't think that apologetics convinces people to become Christians, I think that purpose of theology/apologetics is to support the spiritual experience with a framework.

[Chas]

I'm asking because I want to know. Do mathematicians believe that an infinite quantity of real objects or real events is possible. A link would be helpful.

As a mathematician, I know that infinities exist in number theory. I would be far more interested in the opinions of physicists. And a link is usually desired.

---

You make a good point. I read somewhere that psychologist believe there is a "god-shaped hole" in our consciousness (of course that came about because there was some evolutionary advantage). I don't think that apologetics convinces people to become Christians, I think that purpose of theology/apologetics is to support the spiritual experience with a framework.

I think the purpose of conspiracy theories is to support a suspicion with a framework.

[Esquilax]

The Kalam and other cosmological arguments do not prove the existence of God. They are philosophical arguments illustrating that it is not irrational to believe in the existence of a god. The philosophers that work on these things will be the first to say that they do not prove the existence of God.

It doesn't even illustrate that it's rational to believe in a god, because there are more elements to doing that than showing that one of the things you claim your god did, needed to happen. Like I said earlier, it's irrational to believe in things that are impossible, and though you might have shown, at best, that the universe needs a cause and you claim god causes universes, you haven't shown that a being that exists outside of a universe and creates them is even possible. "This universe is exactly the kind of thing that my god would make!" is not evidence that belief in god is rational, it's just you fitting your arguments to your conclusion again.

You have a long way to go between Kalam and "belief in my god is rational."

You keep demanding proof. You know all the common logical arguments:

Alright, this will be fun.

cosmological,

Which we've already established neither proves a god exists, nor provides the case for the rationality of believing in one.

fine tuning,

Which begs the question by assuming the universe was consciously fine tuned instead of demonstrating that, and then getting to its conclusions from there.

contingency,

Which is merely a bundle of petulant demands that god exists, with no evidence to support any of them bar the stamping of little upset theist feet.

teleological,

Which merely asserts design based on the argument from ignorance: "I don't know how else this could be so, therefore god!"

moral absolutes,

Which can easily exist as a rational conclusion based upon physical reality, and do not require the god you theists simply (are we beginning to discern a pattern here?) assert without evidence to be necessary.

mathematics, etc.

Which... does not prove god.

If you add in bio-genesis,

Which is inappropriate for this position, since the law of biogenesis is a centuries old debunking of the claim that maggots and the like appeared spontaneously on rotting meat and so on, not a comprehensive and binding statement on the origins of life, especially since the people who proposed it did so in a time when science hadn't advanced the way it has since. Do you really need to misrepresent things this badly, just to argue for god?

complexity of life,

Which is an argument from ignorance:"I don't know how this could be so complex, therefore god!"

gaps in the fossil record,

Which is a false dichotomy, since proving evolution wrong does not mean that creation is suddenly true. Your god is not the default answer, and we have yet another argument from ignorance here too, since "I don't know what was here in the fossil record," does not mean god, either.

and human consciousness,

Which is another argument from ignorance:"I don't know how consciousness arose, therefore god!"

you get a cumulative case that makes it entirely rational to believe in a god.

No, we get you parading your ignorance around for all to see, and then saying "see? I don't know how this works! Therefore my god must exist! Do you believe yet?"

Fallacies do the opposite of making a case for rational belief.

Now, some of you ask what god? Christians will say that the case for the God of the OT and his incarnation in the person of Jesus and the body of theology that goes along with that is convincing.

Where in any of the "arguments" you presented is a positive case for the christian god specifically, and not some other god?

You say that if God existed, it would be a simple thing for him to show himself. Well, he has. The OT is full of exactly that. It culminated in God incarnate in the NT where a body of theology is presented that allows for a personal relationship with God. This personal relationship has been experienced by billions. Your demand for a personal physical miracle isn't coming, because a spiritual one is available for the asking.

Which is just circular reasoning coupled with an argument from popularity: you say god exists because the bible says god exists, and then that lots of people believe in him. Well, lots of people believe in all the others gods, too: the popularity of a belief in no way proves it to be true.

I know what's coming. You will say that the OT is nonsense, that Jesus never existed, where is the proof that the Jews were in Egypt, the NT is some genius plan to pull people into an insidious system of what...peace, love, character, self-sacrifice.

And paying the priests. Don't forget paying the priests, religion is a genius plan to do that too. One might say it's kinda the main thing, is paying the priests, which is much easier to get people to do when you pay lip service to a bunch of things that make them feel good.

You will make arguments about God allowing moral and natural evil is proof there is no God. You will claim that the OT God is harsh.

The body of proof you desire does not meet your standards because of your naturalistic worldview and scientism.

So, you purport to address the fact that you have no material proof for your claims, but you instead move on to passive aggressive insults instead.

For one, you don't know any of us, so when you intimate that we have a naturalistic worldview that biases us, you're doing it based on no information, which kinda tips your hand a little and shows us that this is a desperate defense mechanism rather than a cogent argument: "You just don't agree with me because you're biased! I'm telling mum!"

Second of all, this "scientism" crap just makes you look like a toddler, because you're trying to equivocate our respect of science due to understanding how it works, with the baseless religious faith that you have, and it's not going to work no matter how many made up, insulting titles you desperately fling at us in lieu of any actual evidence. Shit slinging like this just makes your entire position look more anemic than it already is.

Reality consistent of more than you can test in a lab.

How do you know that?

There have been a million books written on Christianity alone.

Same with Spiderman.

Do you think that people haven't asked the questions or raised the objections that you bring up? Yet, Christianity continues to grow. Why do you think that is?

Because people can be just as irrational as you, and they're often willing to buy into the same snake oil you were just trying to sell us. Once again, the popularity of an idea does not mean it's true: there was a time when millions of people were nazis and that movement continued to grow and grow, didn't mean it was true.

But hey, thanks for posting this: your desperation to hold onto your beliefs despite the utter routing your arguments have been getting came across loud and clear.

[SteveII]

Okay, your collective position is no matter how many "we don't know therefore god" statements there are--even if the statement comes as a result of something we probably will never know, belief in a god is still irrational.

An honest question. Do you think the ancient Egyptians (a random example) were irrational [at the time] to believe in their gods? Generally speaking, do Egyptians today believe in the same gods? Why do you think that Christianity did not follow this common progression?

BTW, I misspoke with the term biogenisis. I meant origin of life, not an old debunked theory.

[Norman Humann]

An honest question. Do you think the ancient Egyptians (a random example) were irrational [at the time] to believe in their gods? Generally speaking, do Egyptians today believe in the same gods? Why do you think that Christianity did not follow this common progression?

Yes, no, Roman Empire.