Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[Fake Messiah]

I was comparing this meme that portrays tactics Christians usually use when talking to atheists and it fits pretty well on a Muslim too.

So first, the meme and you have to substitute word "Christian" for "Muslim"



It seems to me that I found all of them except nr. 11 because maybe Muslims don't pray for others or at least not in the way Christians do. And I didn't post nr. 2 because that usually is tied to some other post as context.

Anyway, tell me what you think about this.

1

Category mistake: asking for concrete/empirical evidence for the existence of a non-empirical being.

---

3

Look, you said that a disembodied being is non-existent. I am fine with you saying there no sufficient evidence, that it's not demonstrable,etc. But non-existence if a far stronger claim, if you can't prove it, I suggest you take it back, and wisely shut it.

...

The cosmological argument merely proves that there is a cause of the universe, if you say it's not convincing, you should point out which premise you don't agree with and why. If you say, as you did before, that it doesn't prove the theistic God, then you are simply moving the goalposts, and arbitrarily shooting down arguments to prevent us from making some progress.

---

4

I used to hold the atheist position in high regard, it looked like a very logical position to endorse when one isn't convinced of some particular account of God. I started to become highly suspicious of that when I discovered that all the big objections to theism simply fail miserably. 

---

5

It's possible to argue for benevolence on the grounds of the ability of creation to fulfill good deeds, our inner moral compass, the maternal instinct, etc. All these mundane observations can serve as premises to prove some property that a deity likely has. Something can't give or cause what it doesn't have, if this rule holds (or, at worst, is probable), then a malevolent deity is unlikely to have created mothers who instinctively protect their children. The evolutionary explanation of maternal instinct isn't a valid defeater here, because it is a scientifc explanation, and scientifc explanations can go hand in hand with the personal explanation of a divine agent.

...

We can easily see here why the scientific explanation only gives the mechanical, boring part of the full explanation. The real motive behind the curtain is the agent who decided at some point to execute the sequence of events that led to the bird's death.

Similarly, with the universe, we can explain stuff scientifically all we want, there is still room for a personal explanation of why various phenomena occur, and of why, above all, this universe exists.

---

6

What exactly did I ignore?? Do you mean the bit about these argument not getting us to the nature of God..? Of course they don't, I repeat it then : there is no wholesale argument getting us straight to the God of Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad.

---

7

The universe's existence is used as a premise in a posteriori arguments for God, not as direct evidence. Premise and evidence aren't the same thing.

---

8

What @brewer is asking for is some empirically measurable way to discern God's existence, there is clearly something syntactically incoherent about his request, since God is usually defined as a disembodied mind.

...

What I meant by a category mistake is that disembodied minds (e.g. God) can't be the object of a mundane scientific experiment. By definition of a disembodied mind, one cannot derive some experiment that proves its existence, unlike an embodied mind (e.g. human beings) or an object/particle such as electrons.

...

I think you already know that a disembodied mind/object can never be ruled out. You simply can't prove that it's non-existent.

---

9

Why do you separate the laws of nature and the designer? Why can't these laws be an instrument of a supreme designer?

...

Hawking's intellect doesn't prove his claim. Very smart people believed in God too, after all. And, actually, he did say the universe came from nothing.

---

10

Even if we assume no deductive argument is conclusive, we can still infer God's existence based on what we see in the world. I see appearances of order, I marvel at God's omnipotence. I see instances of caregiving, I admire God's benevolence, etc.  Islam endorses the idea of the sensus divinitatis (Fitra'), that is, I am simply tilted toward teleology and assigning agency to things. I should simply listen to this innate sense.

...

Just because you can't imagine a god operating through these very adaptations doesn't mean he doesn't exist or isn't required. Is it really that difficult to understand that some agent must have started these "wonderful adaptations evolved through natural means"