Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[JonDarbyXIII]

And at every step along the way an intelligent life form that is 1% superior in intelligence/attributes can logically & rationally exist from the perspective of the life form that is 1% inferior, and at no point along the way does this chain of slightly superior life forms become an irrational concept .... Therefore in this chain of logically possible life forms, the existence of life form 100000^100000 (i.e creator of the universe, thus God) becomes as logical a concept as life form 1.1 is.

Fatal flaw in the argument: this supreme being is not "as logical." While it is possible that a being could exist at every incremental stage in the increase of superiority, the probability of such a being existing decreases with every increment. It is not inconceivable that a being 1% more superior than us could exist; however, it is very inconceivable that a 'supreme' being could exist.

Second, I should point out that the argument only leads to the possibility of God. While there are some atheists who strictly say that there is definitely no God, most say that while it is possible that there is a God, there is no evidence for it. I acknowledge the vague possibility of a deity, but I have seen absolutely nothing in my life that supports as anything more than a wild supposition.

[Tonus]

I know what you believe because I know what you don't believe. Either God exists or he does not exist. Therefore If you claim you don't believe your team will lose, I understand you must believe your team will win because no third option exists.

Well then, you go ahead and produce a god, and the whole debate will be moot.

[The Valkyrie]

I won't debate creationists, they're dishonest, unreliable and/or blind to facts.

I'll just say, in regards to your name, ID isn't a science. It's a claim with no supporting evidence.

[robvalue]

It is weird that a lot of people will accept the minute possibility that some sort of god may exist as evidence that it does actually exist, and that it happens to be as described in their handbook. And I don't know why they try to convince atheists of this, as atheists (as defined) never deny such a possibility.

I think if god was real we could do a little better than finding him some tiny dot of probability to pin all our hopes on.

[Whateverist]

ID isn't a science. It's a claim with no supporting evidence.

Now that isn't quite true. They collect only the very best cherries to back their claims, even going so far as to quote real scientists where what they have to say can at least be interpreted to mean what the creationist believes.

[Cyberman]

That's what the Hovind Scale was designed for. I suggest we start applying it.

[Mudhammam]

Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga once criticized Richard Dawkins' argument in The Blind Watcher maker as:

"P is not astronomically improbable, therefore P."

It's especially ironic because Plantinga, who presents himself to be quite fond of the ID movement, would seem to support an alternative form of argumentation in every other conceivable instance:

"The probability of P cannot be fully ascertained, therefore G."

[downbeatplumb]

I haven't been here for a bit. Is atheism still mantled?

[abaris]

I haven't been here for a bit. Is atheism still mantled?

Still in the process of mantling or dismantling. Still seems firmly mantled though.

[The Valkyrie]

I think we should rename this thread "Failing to dismantle atheism"