My argument for atheism +

[Belacqua]

Let's say I recently purchased a home and every room in the home doesn't contain any furniture of any kind.

While showing the empty house to a new neighbor who has never been in the house before, he comments on how nice my dining room table is.

I look at him strangely and say "I don't have a dining room table".
He replies "I believe that you do. It's invisible and intangible, but I can clearly feel it's presence in your dining room."

He holds this belief to be true.
I do not have such a belief.

Are you really asking what my argument is for not having a delusion ?

You don't seem to have any invisible, intangible squids swimming around your house. What argument can you give to support this ?

I just find the question itself to be kinda stupid.

You find it stupid because you assume that God would be visible and tangible in the way that a table is tangible. 

I agree that the man in your example is strange, because tables are in fact visible and tangible. But you'd need to demonstrate two things:

1) God is knowable through the same kind of evidence, and
2) there is no evidence of any kind for God.

These two things may well be true. They may be entirely reasonable positions to hold. But they are still epistemological positions that you hold. They are not nothing. They are the basis of your current atheism.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Your post has me puzzeling Belaqua.

If, as you've conjectured, literally no evidence for a thing when, in effect, there should most definately be evidence for just such a thing....

Might we then say there is no such thing?

Cheers.

[Belacqua]

At work.

Your post has me puzzeling Belaqua.

If, as you've conjectured, literally no evidence for a thing when, in effect, there should most definately be evidence for just such a thing....

Might we then say there is no such thing?

Cheers.

I haven't been discussing whether there is really evidence of any kind for God.

I have been saying that people have criteria by which they judge whether there is evidence or not. 

For the most part, atheists who care enough to discuss the subject on the Internet hold very specific views concerning what constitutes good evidence. Sometimes these views seem so obvious that people don't even realize how strongly they hold to them.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

No worries.

[Yukon_Jack]

At work.

No worries.

 

Not sure if this has been brought up ( I'm new here) but did you know that DNA is a code that gets decoded during transcription and is replete with error correction. The order of nucleotides that comprises the code is in arbitrary format that which the laws of chemistry have no bearing upon. How do you reconcile this with your beliefs?

---

At work.

No worries.

 

[snowtracks]

I suspect that there are a lot of Christian fundamentalists today who assume that God thinks in the way that people think. So if you're arguing against those people, what you say makes sense: it is impossible to think in the way that people think if you don't have the brains that people have. 

In fact I think this is a pretty obvious argument -- so obvious that no philosopher or theologian from at least the time of Plato has asserted that God thinks in the way that people think. 

Have you read Plato's Parmenides? As far as I can tell, this is the earliest written argument stating that God is absolutely simple. It says God doesn't "have" thoughts in the way that people have thoughts. It's a very difficult dialogue, and people continue to interpret it in different ways. However it has been enormously influential among people who think about God, following the Neoplatonic tradition (like that of Plotinus), and that tradition as it enters Christianity with Dionysius and Augustine. Theologians and philosophers who are not specifically Neoplatonic, as well (like Aquinas and Spinoza) also hold that God is absolutely simple, having no parts, and is absolutely impassible, having no changes or developments. So among any Christian who has studied these things, your argument that God couldn't possibly think in the way that people think would be old news -- dealt with millennia ago. 


Here again you're assuming that a God would be like a big person, and could only create in the way that a person creates. So if the sola scriptura literalists at your local church are thinking in this way, you could present your argument there. (Not that they'd listen, probably.)

Maybe you yourself picture God in this way? I think it would be common among Sunday School kids or people who just haven't bothered to study the subject.

So when you say your argument "beats all arguments" for God, that may be true, if you ignore all the arguments ever made by any well-known theologian for the last 2500 years.

I haven't read it no thanks for the recommendation.

When there is no evidence of something where there should be we don't believe in that thing. There is no evidence where there should be that knowledge can come from anywhere but the brain. Could you define "big person" please? Why is there any other type of intelligent creation that doesn't involve the brain/neurons? There is no evidence for it where there should be.

What would those well know theologians argue that beats my argument against the arguments for God? For instance?

---

The eye and brain are functionally connected; therefore, God*. Mind creates brain; Inanimate molecules don't decide to organize for brain development, then decide for mind development.

*I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. -  Psalm 139:14

The mind comes from the brain indirect evidence has shown ( and there maybe more I'm not aware of) and again what actual evidence do you have that you can think thoughts or have knowledge, which both come from brain matter, without a brain? There's no evidence for it.

The elements never did want to develop the human brain.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Not sure if this has been brought up ( I'm new here) but did you know that DNA is a code that gets decoded during transcription and is replete with error correction. The order of nucleotides that comprises the code is in arbitrary format that which the laws of chemistry have no bearing upon. How do you reconcile this with your beliefs?

HELLO!

A good day and well being to yourself indeed!

Ah... where to begin? What to unpack first?

Yup. Things like that have been and probably will continue to be said.

As a common, blue collar worker I must admit to being only able to listen and osmoticaly learn about the rudimentary aspects of biochemistry.

Now of those whose expertise does lie within the fields of genetics and the chemistry biological. I've heard none of them refer to DNA as if it were a 'Code' and so I am rather disinclined to do so either.

One interesting thing I've heard about the DNA stuf in regards to the 'Error correction' is that the only creatures found so far to not develope cancerous cells are Elephants. (NOTE: Quite happy to learn and be corrected here.)

Since cancerous cells are errors which develop 'Uncorrected'.

On top of cancer you also have developmental issues. Some of which are begnin and of no consequence. Some of which are possibility better and some of which are definately detrimental.

As for the principles of chemistry? I think you'll find they are in evidence. 'Denature' a protein and it will, indeed, unfold.

Remove the denatureing agent and, like water forming ice or a snowflake, the protein will easily refold back into its original tangle.

All of the above and how they "Reconcile with my beliefs" ?

I'm pretty confidant that all of my limited ideas, belief and knowledge is sitting quite nicely squared away, thank you very much for enquiring.

Cheers.

[Paleophyte]

I haven't been discussing whether there is really evidence of any kind for God.

I have been saying that people have criteria by which they judge whether there is evidence or not. 

For the most part, atheists who care enough to discuss the subject on the Internet hold very specific views concerning what constitutes good evidence. Sometimes these views seem so obvious that people don't even realize how strongly they hold to them.

Evidence: lit trans That which can be shown. As opposed to that which plays epistemological hide-and-seek for no good reason.

---

Not sure if this has been brought up ( I'm new here)

Welcome to the forum. Feel free to make an introductory thread and tell us a little about yourself.

but did you know that DNA is a code that gets decoded during transcription and is replete with error correction. The order of nucleotides that comprises the code is in arbitrary format that which the laws of chemistry have no bearing upon. How do you reconcile this with your beliefs?

With little effort. If you look at the mess that he genetic code is it rapidly becomes obvious that what you're looking at is the product of a few billion years of mindless organic evolution. No loving god would have made such a mess, no hateful god would have wasted so much time and effort when there are simpler ways to torment us, and no incompetent god could have kept the DNA from tangling like a phone cord.

How do you square your beliefs with error correction? I thought your fellow didn't make mistakes.

[Rahn127]

Let's say I recently purchased a home and every room in the home doesn't contain any furniture of any kind.

While showing the empty house to a new neighbor who has never been in the house before, he comments on how nice my dining room table is.

I look at him strangely and say "I don't have a dining room table".
He replies "I believe that you do. It's invisible and intangible, but I can clearly feel it's presence in your dining room."

He holds this belief to be true.
I do not have such a belief.

Are you really asking what my argument is for not having a delusion ?

You don't seem to have any invisible, intangible squids swimming around your house. What argument can you give to support this ?

I just find the question itself to be kinda stupid.

You find it stupid because you assume that God would be visible and tangible in the way that a table is tangible. 

I agree that the man in your example is strange, because tables are in fact visible and tangible. But you'd need to demonstrate two things:

1) God is knowable through the same kind of evidence, and
2) there is no evidence of any kind for God.

These two things may well be true. They may be entirely reasonable positions to hold. But they are still epistemological positions that you hold. They are not nothing. They are the basis of your current atheism.

I didn't assume anything.
You assumed that I assumed something.
You were wrong.

Real tables are visible & tangible, but imaginary tables are not.
Having a delusion about an invisible & intangible table is not a reasonable position to hold.

You also assume that I must hold some epistemological position about the existence or non existence of someone else's delusion.
Again you would be wrong.

Another person's delusion has nothing to do with me.
I don't have to formulate an argument about why I don't have a delusion.

[Yukon_Jack]

I’m confused as to the logistics of replying to a poster here as I do not see a reply button???

If you knew the mind of God perhaps you could be confident how /why he spends his time & effort and made a mess of DNA and what his objectives are.
But are you curious at the hand and glove fitting between the code creation and the translation mechanics? Where else in Nature can you see instructions being transcribed which are arbitrary?