The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[Mister Agenda]

Once again, with no additional information, I am being asked to believe we're being incoherent and dishonest if we don't infer from the direct experience of our own minds and the indirect evidence of other people (and to a lesser extent, some animals) of other people having minds; the existence of disembodied minds via an admittedly weak analogy. And somehow it's on me to do the research that would supposedly show this convincingly. I call BS.

[Foxaèr]

We really are here, and we should account for that.

I agree. We account for it by understanding that the god-did-it answer is absurd.

[Mister Agenda]

We really are here, which is a brute fact whether we can account for it or not.

[GrandizerII]

Whether there is some God ultimately at the starting point of the causal chain that eventually leads to these formations and variety of life on earth is a different subject of debate.

It is exactly the subject of debate. An atheist thinks that, because we figured out some of the processes that took place along this causal chain, we're free to dispense with its starting point. It's really, really, really stupid.

Well, it's a good thing that was not what I argued. My point is you can't appeal to apparent design in nature as evidence for the divine, since we have very good scientific/naturalistic explanations for that. If you want to argue that nevertheless there has to be some starting point ultimately, then you should've brought up one of the first cause arguments instead of this watchmaker type of argument.

ETA: A question out of curiosity. Do you believe God is involved in the natural selection aspect of biological evolution?

[The Architect Of Fate]

We really are here, and we should account for that.

God is not an explanation it's a lazy excuse not to look for one.

---

It is exactly the subject of debate. An atheist thinks that, because we figured out some of the processes that took place along this causal chain, we're free to dispense with its starting point. It's really, really, really stupid.

Well, it's a good thing that was not what I argued. My point is you can't appeal to apparent design in nature as evidence for the divine, since we have very good scientific/naturalistic explanations for that. If you want to argue that nevertheless there has to be some starting point ultimately, then you should've brought up one of the first cause arguments instead of this watchmaker type of argument.

ETA: A question out of curiosity. Do you believe God is involved in the natural selection aspect of biological evolution?

Even if he brought the first cause argument he would fail anyway.

[R00tKiT]

Well, they could be - there's no specific reason that randomness and blind processes couldn't yield a given outcome.  I don't see why it would matter to us, though, since we're not talking about the products of randomness or blind processes.

Blind or unconscious processes aren't supposed to yield conscious beings -us, that's why it's more probable than not that a conscious agent is behind these ((blind)) processes, because they seem to forcibly yield our existence.

Because it is impossible and hence clearly a lie. Why is it impossible? Because we can rule it out using laws of nature. If you insist some law of nature exist that would allow it then you'd need a proof for it. You know, the data and math and all that good stuff.

What ? I specifically mentioned an all-powerful being. Do you think an all powerful being can't break these laws of nature...? Maybe you meant laws of logic, which miracles don't contradict, anyway.

Once again, with no additional information, I am being asked to believe we're being incoherent and dishonest if we don't infer from the direct experience of our own minds and the indirect evidence of other people (and to a lesser extent, some animals) of other people having minds; the existence of disembodied minds via an admittedly weak analogy. And somehow it's on me to do the research that would supposedly show this convincingly. I call BS.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Let me clarify again : the argument as I presented it here is complete, and valid. And you didn't bother raising any objection about either of its premises. And we're not arguing for the existence of some nebulous disembodied mind, we're arguing for the existence of the specific mind behind the existence of both the external world and other minds around us. If you think these other minds are uncaused,  or the product of a mindless process- which would need a starting point anyway, you have an irrational position.

Now, let us delve into the issues that matter, why do you believe there are other minds ?

---

Well, it's a good thing that was not what I argued. My point is you can't appeal to apparent design in nature as evidence for the divine, since we have very good scientific/naturalistic explanations for that. If you want to argue that nevertheless there has to be some starting point ultimately, then you should've brought up one of the first cause arguments instead of this watchmaker type of argument.

These arguments aren't really unrelated, a common objection to the first cause argument is to say that the universe may have always existed, and in this case we invoke aspects of design and say you can't explain them from inside the universe - the box of seemingly designed things, there has to be something else.  So the argument from design does havve some argumentative force, all objections so far are just defending bad and biased definitions of design.

---

Even if he brought the first cause argument he would fail anyway.

Many atheists I talked to had no problem conceding the existence of a first cause. Infinite regress runs into many logical problems under most definitions of infinity.

It's understandable though that you want these arguments to fail, it's your last remaining fortress anyway.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Many atheists I talked to had no problem conceding the existence of a first cause. Infinite regress runs into many logical problems under most definitions of infinity.

Good for them, And no it doesn't no matter how much you want it to be true 

It's understandable though that you want these arguments to fail, it's your last remaining fortress anyway

Nope if they were good I would accept them. They aren't so I don't. Why would I need a fortress against some loon throwing specks of sand at me? Because that's all you have. You, on the other hand, Cower behind that pile of sand and in desperation call it an impregnable bastion even as it crumbles in front of you.

[R00tKiT]

Nope if these were good I would accept them. They aren't so I don't. Why would I need a fortress against some loon throwing specks of sand at me? Because that's all you have. You on the other hand cower behind that pile of sand and call it an impregnable bastion even as it crumbles in front of you.

Calling me a loon won't improve your position a lot. So, you think there are infinitly many actual causes before this universe ? Elaborate.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Nope if these were good I would accept them. They aren't so I don't. Why would I need a fortress against some loon throwing specks of sand at me? Because that's all you have. You on the other hand cower behind that pile of sand and call it an impregnable bastion even as it crumbles in front of you.

Calling me a loon won't improve your position a lot. So, you think there are infinitly many actual causes before this universe ? Elaborate.

I care about your opinion of my position again why? Oh, wait I just remembered I don't. Did I say there were causes before? No, I don't think I did. You realize one can find nothing illogical about a position but not accept it, And at the same time reject the first cause arguments because they are all rubbish.

Well bored of listening to the same rubbish theist babble for the one-millionth time. Conversing with you is about as stimulating as reasoning with a bucket of warm water. 🥱🥱🥱

Have a lovely evening

[Apollo]

Well, they could be - there's no specific reason that randomness and blind processes couldn't yield a given outcome.  I don't see why it would matter to us, though, since we're not talking about the products of randomness or blind processes.

Blind or unconscious processes aren't supposed to yield conscious beings -us, that's why it's more probable than not that a conscious agent is behind these ((blind)) processes, because they seem to forcibly yield our existence.

Because it is impossible and hence clearly a lie. Why is it impossible? Because we can rule it out using laws of nature. If you insist some law of nature exist that would allow it then you'd need a proof for it. You know, the data and math and all that good stuff.

What ? I specifically mentioned an all-powerful being. Do you think an all powerful being can't break these laws of nature...? Maybe you meant laws of logic, which miracles don't contradict, anyway.

Once again, with no additional information, I am being asked to believe we're being incoherent and dishonest if we don't infer from the direct experience of our own minds and the indirect evidence of other people (and to a lesser extent, some animals) of other people having minds; the existence of disembodied minds via an admittedly weak analogy. And somehow it's on me to do the research that would supposedly show this convincingly. I call BS.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Let me clarify again : the argument as I presented it here is complete, and valid. And you didn't bother raising any objection about either of its premises. And we're not arguing for the existence of some nebulous disembodied mind, we're arguing for the existence of the specific mind behind the existence of both the external world and other minds around us. If you think these other minds are uncaused,  or the product of a mindless process- which would need a starting point anyway, you have an irrational position.

Now, let us delve into the issues that matter, why do you believe there are other minds ?

---

Well, it's a good thing that was not what I argued. My point is you can't appeal to apparent design in nature as evidence for the divine, since we have very good scientific/naturalistic explanations for that. If you want to argue that nevertheless there has to be some starting point ultimately, then you should've brought up one of the first cause arguments instead of this watchmaker type of argument.

These arguments aren't really unrelated, a common objection to the first cause argument is to say that the universe may have always existed, and in this case we invoke aspects of design and say you can't explain them from inside the universe - the box of seemingly designed things, there has to be something else.  So the argument from design does havve some argumentative force, all objections so far are just defending bad and biased definitions of design.

---

Even if he brought the first cause argument he would fail anyway.

Many atheists I talked to had no problem conceding the existence of a first cause. Infinite regress runs into many logical problems under most definitions of infinity.

It's understandable though that you want these arguments to fail, it's your last remaining fortress anyway.

When you say god are you referring to the farting unicorn? Because last I checked it couldn’t even move its ass.

Talk is very easy. You can always make a god and give all the power. Doesn’t mean much more than gobbledygook.