Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[abaris]

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

Or thread under construction, maybe with some warning sign, that some serious mantling is going on.

Btw, can you see my Benny pics, I posted in the last person wins thread? Somehow it says I'm the last one to post there, but when I look, your pic's the last I can see.

[JonDarbyXIII]

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

I still think the whole concept is backwards. You don't 'dismantle' something that is not positing something. By being an atheist, I'm not positing anything; I'm merely saying, "I reject your fanciful speculations until there is a compelling reason (or any reason) to jump on board."

[Ben Davis]

I still think the whole concept is backwards. You don't 'dismantle' something that is not positing something.

...unless you deliberately misdefine atheism like in the OP.

[Esquilax]

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

I still think the whole concept is backwards. You don't 'dismantle' something that is not positing something. By being an atheist, I'm not positing anything; I'm merely saying, "I reject your fanciful speculations until there is a compelling reason (or any reason) to jump on board."

Also, as I've pointed out before, it's not "dismantling," if you only have one argument, because taking one thing off of another thing hardly qualifies. It's also not systematic if only one thing happens.

So if you took all the inapplicable words out of the title, this thread would just be called "Atheism."

[Exian]

Ok, so how about "A one step approach on how to fail at mantling woo" ?

[IDScience]

To let you all know, I have not abandoned the debate. I am working on a response to all of you. Very busy now

[Whateverist]

Oh for gawdsake, leave our atheism alone. Damned hoodlums. All we have is a lack of theism and we like it that way. You know the old saying, good fences make good neighbors? You stay over there in crazyville and let us enjoy our sanity. Thanks.

[Mister Agenda]

I did not say the comparison was identical, only that it proves fractals exist on every level we have observed, big and small. So the argument being made, which is size has no relevance to the potential existence of anything (including life) is still valid.

Atomic structure does not have a fractal relationship to solar systems. Atoms are held together by electromagnetism and the strong force. Solar systems are held together by gravity. Planets are discrete objects with specific locations at any time, electrons are probabilistic and are more reasonably described as a 'shell' around the nucleus than a particle 'orbiting' it. The sun is constantly giving off huge amounts of energy that warm nearby planets, the nucleus of an atom has no such relationship to nearby electrons. Then there's solar winds, atmospheres, etc. As I said, the resemblance is entirely superficial.

OK, so what your saying is you do not believe anything unless its "actually true" (verified by observation and testing), and anything that is speculation (has no observable empirical evidence) you reject.?

No, hence why I didn't say that. I rate probabilities. I rarely reject anything outright unless it involves a contradiction, I just find it some degree less likely than better supported alternatives.

Therefore you must reject the use of logical inferences in science because inference is only evidence of a logical possibility and not empirically verified to be true.

Since you misunderstood my position so badly in the first place, it's no surprise that everything that follows from your misunderstanding is false. Unless I've a good reason to doubt them, I tentatively accept scientific findings. I have no issues with inference, it's a valuable tool that we can't afford to reject. Inference can't get you to 100% certainty, however, and so I apportion my belief according to the probability.

I will refrain at this point from posting everything you believe -or must believe as an atheist/evolutionist- that has no actual testable evidence, until you affirm this position you claim. Then I will show you your hypocrisy.

Thus far, you've only shown unjustified arrogance and lack of punctuation, which I've sometimes taken the liberty of correcting.

That statement is not rational. If one of X is proven to exist, its irrational to claim no more than one of X can exist. And if varying degrees of X do exist, its irrational to claim even more variations of X can not also exist.

If one of something exists -intelligent life for example- you must explain a cause to prevent other intelligent life from existing.

No, I don't. We don't know the odds of intellegent life arising because we have insufficient information on the odds. It could be common, rare, or unique in the universe. One example proves it's possible, but it doesn't prove it will be repeated. I don't reject the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, I reject the possibility that anyone on this planet has the knowledge to assess how likely it is.

And if varying degrees of intelligent life are proven to exist -which they are-, you must explain the cause why higher degrees of intelligence must cease at a particular arbitrarily defined level.

Mere assertion, dismissed as such.

Rejecting a wide variation of logically possible life forms before they are observable it not logical.

Neither is accepting them as a certainty.

So your position is, you must either accept the proposition superior intellects can logically exist, or reject the proposition superior intellects can logically exist.

I accept the proposition that superior intellects can logically exist.

And since you clearly do not reject the proposition, you are then forced to explain the cause for the universal I.Q stagnation so that it can never reach a God-like status and contradict your atheism.

I expect it will reach a god-like status, possibly in my lifetime. And it will be a machine, and will be our slave or enemy, but not our god. It will be technology, not deity.

And the only person on this board that has even attempted to do this is Jenny A, and her argument (laws of physics) completely failed to prove a God-like I.Q. is logically impossible

A God-like (capital G, omniscient creator of the universe God) is mathematically impossible. It is impossible to know everything within our cosmos using instruments and computations contained in our cosmos. A 'little-g' god-like is possible, as that would merely require superhuman intelligence, which we're probably within 30 years of achieving in computational devices anyway (and 30 years is pessimistic).

Claiming there is no evidence for this God-like I.Q. it is identical to claiming there is no evidence for any intellectual superior life.

By which I take it you mean there is no evidence it actually exists.

You accept the alien possibility by faith through inference, yet you irrationally reject a God-like I.Q. on no other basis other than faith it does not exist/lack of faith it does exist.

It's a gross misuse of the word 'faith' to apply it to reasonable inferences. I have no faith that a little-g godlike IQ exists...and no faith that it doesn't, either. We don't have anough information to make an estimation of the odds, so we don't know what the odds are, except that they are adequate to result in at least one technological civilization in the universe. How many more, if any, remains unknown.

Please show me the evidence for other universes with different laws of physics, or other unseen dimensions of reality, I would love to see this evidence. And if you can't produce the empirical scientific evidence for either of them, which I know for a fact you cant, then admit you lied or believed misinformation before you studied it.

I made no claim for differing laws of physics, and cosmic inflation does not require differing laws of physics, only that many universes be generated. One of the predicted consequences of the hypothesis has been verified, and that is an excellent example of evidence:

http://www.space.com/25100-multiverse-co...waves.html

Note. I also believe in other dimensions, but I also fully understand I believe it by faith alone without any testable evidence

It's reasonable to believe it's possible, premature to consider it a fact. I think it's likely, but I don't consider it a certainty.

If one universe exists, many or endless other universe all with different attributes/constants can also logically exist, and this is based solely on inference.

Before one can assert that different universes can have different constants, it must be established that the constants can be other than what they are. Until that is done, different universes having the same constants remains a possibility. I'm not sure a universe with different constants even rises to the level of 'logically exist' when we know so little about why they are what they are in the first place. It's a thought experiment, at this point. We can 'what if' the constants were different all day, but it remains speculation until we know more about universe formation. A fairly strong case can be made that a universe must have a zero or nearly zero energy budget that could impose strict constraints on what the constants can be.

Name them.

I don't have infinity, and I can't know which ones are real and which ones aren't, but the things that exist in our cosmos are finite, and the number of things that can logically exist are infinite. Finite, however large, is infinetesimal compared to infinity. There is no end to the number of logically possible things we can dream up.

If something can logically exist, but does not exist, you must be able to empirically prove these logically possible things do not exist.

Because it's impossible to prove a universal negative (unless the thing is omnipresent) and the number of logically possible things is infinite while the number of actual things is finite. the burden of proof is on the person asserting that something exists.

This means you must have testable evidence for the "vast majority" of things that can logically exist, and also have evidence that they don't actually exist, for your statement to be valid.

You fail logic so badly that whoever taught you should be ashamed of the poor job they did. The position you outline is ridiculous. You can assert that flying pink unicorns that require marmelade for sustenance (logically possible) exist somewhere in the universe, and the onus would be on me to prove that they don't...which is the exact opposite of how logic works.

Life exists here, therefore life can exist elsewhere.

Now we enter the slippery slope of my incremental intelligence theorem.

No, we don't. It's not a theorem, it's an assertion. It fails to be a theorem, because it starts with the assumption that a superior intellect is possible, which we all agree on, then presumes to prove it actually exists, which it completely fails to establish. Not to mention it fails to persuade that we should consider such a thing 'God'. Your position is sci-fi pseudo-theism.

To the contrary, you do artificially apply limitations on the potential life forms that don't fit into you preconceived belief of atheism/lack of belief in theism.

Name the limitations on potential life forms that I've artificially applied.

So you are lying, you do rule them out if they come too close to appearing God-like.

They can appear 'God-like' all they like. That doesn't make them gods. Without the supernatural element, they're just advanced aliens, entirely natural and with achievements within our own grasp. Advanced aliens...heck, modern humans introduced to a primitive culture unfamiliar with them...can be mistaken for gods, that's not the same thing as actually being one.

And you do this for no other reason other than your atheistic philosophy forces you to apply these arbitrary limitations on universal I.Q. levels.

The only limitation to IQ levels is what the laws of physics impose. We could have the computing power of a billion human brains on laptop by 2050 (optimistically), and that would be god-like intelligence...but it would still be a laptop. Such technology would change our lives in ways we can't even imagine, and we (or just our laptops) could appear to be god-like compared to people of today. But godhood isn't reasonably defined as 'relatively more advanced technological achievement'.

1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

And what are the chances that erosion would create a statue of an elephant, vs the chances it was designed by an intelligence?

Good enough that assumption that it's not erosion isn't warranted without further investigation.

https://www.google.com/images?q=odd+rock...2&oq=&gs_l=

This is the problem with the skeptical mind (atheist Popper was a skeptic, and he established falsification as a rule). The skeptical mind looks for reasons to reject the logically obvious (logical positivism) in order to be able to prove it false, instead of accepting the duck might actually be what it appears to be.

Skeptics don't reject the 'logically obvious'. They just recognize that the 'logically obvious' isn't always true. The bird in the distance could be a duck, but it could be another kind of bird or a decoy, and we can't say we know until we take a closer look. That doesn't mean we reject the idea that it could be what it appears to be. It means we know it isn't necessarily true.

And if it isn't capable of being proven false, it is (supposed to be) rejected by science, which is illogical at its core because unfalsifiable things can be true.

Unfalsifiable things can be true, but as long as they remain unfalsifiable, we can never know that they're true. For any unfalsifiable proposition you can imagine, another unfalsifiable proposition that contradicts it can be proposed. We can know they can't both be true.

All of quantum physics would have been rejected 200 years ago based on the falsifiability criteria.

It would have been irrational to accept the proposition of quantum physics in advance of the evidence for it. There are a million other schemes for how reality works at the atomic and subatomic level that could have been proposed 200 years ago (in the same sense that quantum physics could have been, that is, in our imaginations)that wouldn't have been accepted then either, which quantum physics would by now have falsified. So good thing science isn't in the habit of accepting hypotheses as true when they lack evidential support.

And proving the existence of the elephants designer is unfalsifiable, yet ID is not rejected based on logical inferences of design.

The proposition of no designer is falsifiable though: tool marks would do it.

Incorrect, erosion could have created marks to look like tool marks, just as you believe random mutations and selection created molecular machines to look like our machines.

Your lack of expertise in archaeology is showing. We distinguish between natural items and artificial items that the untrained eye cannot, every day. We know what erosion looks like, and we know what tool marks look like, at least those of us with the training do.

And how do you know what tools were even used?, they could have been water blasting tools and gave the appearance of erosion.

Unlike you, scientists can only work with what they know. If the evidence shows that the figure was created by erosion, that's the most reasonable conclusion. Though erosion that resembles water-blasting tools seems unlikely in the case of Mars. I'm not convinced that we would not consider those tool marks or that there is no way to distinguish items fashioned from water-blasting tools from items formed by natural erosion. But yes, you can come up with scenarios all day long for why something that is artifical might actually appear to be natural. But that seems at odds with your demand that we accept that something that superficially appears to be a duck actually is a duck. If it looks eroded, why should we think it's artificial? Just because it's logically possible? It's logically possible that a giant space aardvark shat it out milions of years ago while making a pit stop on Mars.

The only thing that can falsify ID of the elephant statue is to prove a designer does not exist, or has never existed in the past, which is impossible to do (Just like God) . Maybe this will open your mind to the absurdity of falsification as an all encompassing rule.

I'm a bit surprised that saying that didn't open your mind to why it's stupid to assume something is true on the basis that it can't be falsified.

Did I say that?. No. I said because its logically possible, it can't be rejected as atheism does.

Atheism is a state of mind, and isn't the sort of thing that accepts or rejects things. Atheists don't reject it, it remains possible but unsupported.

Therefore atheism holds a belief that Gods are not real, so atheism does do something. You still cant understand, by not holding a belief X,Y&Z are real, you hold the belief X,Y&Z are not real.

Please don't project your inability to understand the difference on to me. I don't believe you own a cat, that doesn't mean I hold the belief that you don't own a cat. Maybe you do, but I have no reason to think so. If you say you own a cat, I'm happy to take your word for it, as many people do own cats. I don't assign the possibility a low enough probability to make it worth disputing. If you say you own a sabertooth tiger, I'll need more evidence than your word. It's not impossible, but it's very unlikely. If you want to assign a common belief to atheists, you might want to go with the position that God is probably not real. It has the advantage of actually being a belief that is reasonable to ascribe to all of us, though we'll vary in our estimation of the probability (some of us will put it at zero, others more like 40%, most under 10%).

I don't believe a monster is under the bridge, also means I believe there is not a monster under the bridge.

Only Sith deal in absolutes. That there is a monster under the bridge is logically possible, so it shouldn't be ruled out altogether.

This does not mean there could not be a monster under the bridge, only that I have fully evaluated the proposition being made, and have concluded

A. I believe (not know) there is not a monster under the bridge

B.Do not believe there is a monster under the bridge.

Both statements come to the exact same conclusion hence are indistinguishable in meaning.

Only if you entirely ignore degrees of certainty and uncertainty.

And because this analogy works in 100% of all other true dichotomies (Spaghetti monsters, multiverse, etc.) this proves the atheist mind is different from all other minds, because I have found its only the atheist that does not understand or admit the semantics of this true dichotomy of Gods existence/non-existence, and this maybe contributing to why they are atheists.

I think you are giving us too much credit for being the only ones to understand that many beliefs are probabilistic. There are certainly theists who prefer to say they regard God as probable rather than asserting their position is that God does exist. But being cautious about what we assert IS a characteristic of rational skeptics, and rational skeptics tend (but are not all) to be atheists.

Virtually all atheist I have debated are confused on understanding belief vs knowledge when it comes to the dichotomy of "does God exist or not exist".

Because you being the one who is confused is not even within the realm of possibility?

No its not "logically possible", logic cant reject superior God-like life from existing. Rejecting God is philosophically possible (via your imagination), but not logically possible. Many philosophers don't use logic and critical thought as a framework for their philosophical arguments.

You are clearly among their number. There is no contradiction in the proposition that God does not exist, therefore it is logically possible.

For example the atheist philosophers in science have established cell evolution in a primordial soup is true, not based on the evidence for it, but based on a lack of evidence for a designers existence, even though they admit the blatant appearance of design (via logical positivism).

It is established as a plausible hypothesis, not as true. There is insufficient evidence to establish it as true yet, beyond the observation that at one time there was no life on earth, and later there was, so it had to have started somehow, and a first replicating molecule formed by the natural action of organic chemistry under the conditions prevalent at the time best fits the fact that we have. Lack of a 'smoking gun' means that we can't entirely discount the possibility that aliens introduced life to earth, or that a god 'poofed' the first life into existence. Neither of those ideas predict what we find in the fossil record, however: the oldest life to leave any fossil traces being a single-celled organism. Rather, those competing ideas have been retrofitted to the facts, so that now the aliens or God created the first microorganism when previously they were held to have introduced more complex life forms in the beginning. As the saying goes, rabbit-like creatures in the PreCambrian would have falsifed evolution quite nicely, barring time travel (which would not be the most parsimonious explanation).

So I have little respect for philosophy without the rules of logic as a framework.

Neither do I, yet you're the one throwing an essential rule of logic (burden of proof) out the window.

It appears you have adopted the Hollywood interpretation of alien. An alien is any life form not indigenous to planet earth.

No kidding. Go tell your grandma how to suck eggs.

An alien does not define form, size, intellect, attributes etc.., it only defines where you have not originated from. i.e. earth.

I've said absolutely nothing to justify you thinking my conception is otherwise.

So if the existence of a God-like intelligence is theoretically possible (possibly true) , this also means the non-existence of a God-like intelligence is theoretically impossible (possibly false), which renders atheism an arbitrary philosophical position that rejects a logical possibility based on what is not known rather than what is known, thus renders atheists subjective philosophers and not objective critical thinkers

Except that something possibly being true absolutely doesn't mean that it possibly being false is impossible. In fact, if the only thing going for a concept is that it is possibly true, it probably isn't. It's possibly true that I'm an alien trying to convince you that we haven't already taken over all the governments of the world. Do you believe me? If not, how do you reconcile that with this syllogism, which mimics your syllogism regarding God-like intelligence: So if it is theoretically possible that I am an alien trying to convince you that aliens haven't secretly taken over all governments of the world, this also means that aliens not having secretly taken over all the governments of the world is theoretically impossible (possibly false), which renders any disbelief of my claim that you may harbor an arbitrary phiolosophical position that rejects a logical possibility based on what is not known rather than what is known rendering you a subjective philosopher and not an objective critical thinker.

Back to the slippery slope we go.

Now I want you to explain at what point does an intelligence become "a God"?. If an intellect capable of creating a universe and all life in it existed, but was found to have limitations (albeit limitations beyond your comprehension) would you reject him as God because he was not infinitely intelligent?

I would reject it as a god because it isn't supernatural. I don't think theists in general are prepared to accept a definition of God that includes a technician pressing the 'create universe' button on a supercollder.

To qualify as God only means a life form must be capable of creating the universe with the proprieties to sustain life, and create all life in the universe. If that being does exists, he is in fact God under the proper definition.

It's logically possible that we've already created a universe (or universes) in supercolliders unintentionally. It's logically possible for it (or them) to have the properties to sustain life, and come to harbor life. If we did that, that doesn't make us God in any literal sense.

But also according to my religion, there were Angels that also did not think their creator was worthy to be worshiped or to be obeyed, so their creator holds the option to negate their eternal life, just as a PC programer can delete his program, God can permanently delete you for not obeying

If we're in a simulation, that doesn't make the operator God, nor does the ability to delete people. You could hand the controls to a five-year old and by your defintion, that would make the five-year old God.

The creator (if he exited) deserves worship not because he is infinite and unlimited in power, but because all pleasures in life can not possibly exist without him, thus proper homage is due for your own existence because you would not exist without him.

Anything that really cares about receiving homage from its game of Sims has psychological problems.

And because you have no inherit right to exist in the first place, in order to continue to exist you must follow the rules of the creator, like them or not.

Then my continued existence is absolute proof that the creator does not require homage.

Just as you hold the right to reject worshiping and obeying your creator, your creator also holds the right to reject your eternal life. The choice is yours to make

And what's to keep the creator from deleting me anyway?

They are not actually creating a universe ex nihilo, they are reproducing a universe from a copy that already exists, not the same thing.

Creating a universe from a quantum vacuum fluctuation is about as ex nihilo as it can get, and no intent to copy this universe is implied. But if you prefer a simulation scenario, there's no reason why the simulation couldn't be extremely different from the reality we find ourselves in.

I believe my creator is incomprehensibly superior to me, but even if his superiority was comprehensible, I would still worship him because I do not exist without him, thus he deserves proper respect for everything I enjoy in life. My very existence relies on his existence

You don't seem to have a good reason to believe any of that. For instance, it's logically possible that if your creator died, you would continue to live. In fact there are scenarios in which you only die if your creator continues to live, such as if deleting a person requires a conscious decision on its part, and if it died, we would live forever without it deleting us all the time. There are very good reasons why we don't hold something being logicaly possible as the standard for what we consider to be true.

[dyresand]

Let me first define true atheism

Atheism is a complete and total rejection of all theistic claims. If theists assert God (creator of the universe and all life in it) does exist, atheists must assert the contrary , i.e. God does not exist. The only middle ground in this true dichotomy is agnosticism (undecided), which is not true atheism.

The Incremental Intelligence Theorem

A.We have observable empirical evidence of a wide range of sentient life, all with varying degrees of intelligence/attributes, existing here on earth

B.Therefore a wide range of sentient life, all with varying degrees of intelligence/attributes existing elsewhere in the universe, including other possible dimensions, is a logical possibility and can not be ruled out

Therefore If A is true then B is logically possible and can not be rejected

Atheists will easily accept the existence of a sentient life form (lets call it life form 1.1) that is 1% superior in intelligence to humans, and they will accept this possibility by blind faith using nothing more than logical inferences. So then we must assume life form 1.1 could exist, therefore can not be ruled out of existence. And life form 1.1 would also logically assume the possible existence of life form 1.2., and life form 1.2 would also logically assume the possible existence of life form 1.3 etc. etc.

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 (i.e flying spaghetti monsters) from the perspective of the preceding slightly less intelligent life form. 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.

The concept of a God-like intelligence is only rejected by narrow minded subjective atheists that are incapable of mentally grasping the existence of BIG LIFE, when in fact there is no rational, logical or mathematical basis to reject a God-like intelligence from existing. Just as single celled organisms and trillion celled organisms have the same mathematical chances of existing , humans and a God-like sentience also have the same mathematical chances of existing

Understand, the "SIZE OF INTELLIGENCE" has absolutely no relevance what so ever to the potential existence of a sentient life form. Therefore unimaginably small life has the exact same chances of existing as unimaginably big life does as far as logic is concerned, and the IIT proves it at every incremental step.

Once the atheist opens the door of possibility to the existence of life form 1.1, he then must produce a reason to stop this incremental intelligence from reaching Godhood in a stepwise fashion. And the atheist can never produce a valid reason to stop the progression of this incremental intelligence other than he can't mentally comprehend a God-like intelligence existing. Therefore the atheist is forced to compare the concept of God to absurd concepts like flying spaghetti monsters to justify his reasoning in what should be a perfectly logical concept.

Atheists illogically and irrationally put a cap on the intelligence/attribute levels of all life that can possibly exist, and do so without ever giving an explanation why a God-like intelligence can not exist or is highly unlikely to exist. In fact the only logical reason someone has to put a cap on the intelligence levels in the universe, is if a life form knows all that can be possibly be known, thus is all knowing and can't know any more

Therefore true atheism (not agnosticism) is an illogical concept

you cannot dismantle this either if you wanted to or not. its the best default position. you say you have to believe i don't need to believe in anything. you sir have failed.

[Piscinin]

Ohhh the stupidity...

So, IDScience, you tell me you have 1 million dollars in your pocket.

I say I don`t believe you cause you can`t show me, and your pocket is small, what you claim simply does not make sense. Then 10 other people tell you the same thing.

But you put us in a group of believers, because we don`t believe in 1milliondollar-IDScience, and we might just be irrational, because we can never proove you don`t have that money in your pocket. Even if we don`t give a fuck.

You really have to be a moron in order to be religious, there`s no other way.

---

"Anything that really cares about receiving homage from its game of Sims has psychological problems."

This really made my day. Thank you, Mister Agenda.