Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[LadyForCamus]

Show me concrete evidence for god

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

Your request is logically invalid

Then your proposition is unfalsifiable and therefore useless. You have no good reason to even include it in a set of competing hypotheses as an explanation for anything. Well done, you Goomba.

[R00tKiT]

That means there can not be and never will be any actual evidence of this being. All the "evidence" you have is based on intangible things, like experiences or feelings or thoughts or sensations, etc. These thing might be fine for you, as an individual, but can not be transferred to another person. Unless another person "experiences" these same things as you, they have no justification for belief in this being. They simply have to take your word for it.

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.

But this doesn't preclude using empirical observations as a premise in an argument. In fact, many standard arguments in favor of God's existence are a posteriori arguments. In other words, they start with well-known facts about the universe and attempt to deduce/infer the existence of a god or a first cause. A priori arguments like the ontological argument attempt to derive God's existence by pure logical deduction.

It seems that you're referring above to religious experience. I am not trying to argue from any experience. To me, a religious experience can only be evaluated by its content, and it can only serve to show that some individual had some kind of a connexion with the divine, that is, we should already assume God's existence before attempting to assess a religious experience within a theistic framework.

God's existence is vastly more probable than not given the perceived order in the universe. Upon seeing a car engine, you immediately think of how skillful its designers must be, it's asinine to suggest it was put together without the existence of some intention. In the case of the universe, the analogy is valid, and the fact that complex entities evolved through time doesn't invalidate it, because the very process of evolution could be (is?) part of a divine intention. The basic argument then is that a personal, intentional agent behind the perceived order (regarding the arrangement of matter AND the physical laws) explains the universe's orderly nature better than a non-personal cause. This can be formulated better using bayesian-type arguments, by showing that the probability of order arising under a godless universe is vastly smaller than its counterpart (under theism), but this clearly requires some additional homework.

But the layman doesn't need advanced training in bayesian statistics to believe in God. The simplest fact about us is that we are naturally tilted towards teleology, we explain things by agency and intent. We should trust the sensus divinitatis the same way we trust our senses when investigating the external world. Surprisingly, a leading criticism against the sensus divinitatis is the appeal to religious diversity, which I showed to be an empty objection in the thread.

---

Then your proposition is unfalsifiable and therefore useless. You have no good reason to even include it in a set of competing hypotheses as an explanation for anything. Well done, you Goomba.

Unfalsifiable doesn't imply useless. Besides, the criterion of falsifiability only makes sense when applied to some scientific theory. So, there you go, we have a second category mistake: applying a scientific criterion to a metaphysical concept.

---

Translation, asking for evidence of existence for an non-existent being.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

 Arguing from evil

-is done by people who wouldn't join your death cult even if the bloodgod were real.  

They're telling you why they think your religion is shit, not bickering over the existence of your imaginary friend. Hope that clears things up.

[The Architect Of Fate]

So more Klor all but admitting he's got nothing and making excuses for the nothing he's got.

[Fake Messiah]

A better way to show why these objections are really bad is to apply them to anything, to show that anything can't exist. So, let's rule out the existence of peanut butter;

What you are actually doing is known as False equivalence logical fallacy.

[LadyForCamus]

That means there can not be and never will be any actual evidence of this being. All the "evidence" you have is based on intangible things, like experiences or feelings or thoughts or sensations, etc. These thing might be fine for you, as an individual, but can not be transferred to another person. Unless another person "experiences" these same things as you, they have no justification for belief in this being. They simply have to take your word for it.

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.

But this doesn't preclude using empirical observations as a premise in an argument. In fact, many standard arguments in favor of God's existence are a posteriori arguments. In other words, they start with well-known facts about the universe and attempt to deduce/infer the existence of a god or a first cause. A priori arguments like the ontological argument attempt to derive God's existence by pure logical deduction.

It seems that you're referring above to religious experience. I am not trying to argue from any experience. To me, a religious experience can only be evaluated by its content, and it can only serve to show that some individual had some kind of a connexion with the divine, that is, we should already assume God's existence before attempting to assess a religious experience within a theistic framework.

God's existence is vastly more probable than not given the perceived order in the universe. Upon seeing a car engine, you immediately think of how skillful its designers must be, it's asinine to suggest it was put together without the existence of some intention. In the case of the universe, the analogy is valid, and the fact that complex entities evolved through time doesn't invalidate it, because the very process of evolution could be (is?) part of a divine intention. The basic argument then is that a personal, intentional agent behind the perceived order (regarding the arrangement of matter AND the physical laws) explains the universe's orderly nature better than a non-personal cause. This can be formulated better using bayesian-type arguments, by showing that the probability of order arising under a godless universe is vastly smaller than its counterpart (under theism), but this clearly requires some additional homework.

But the layman doesn't need advanced training in bayesian statistics to believe in God. The simplest fact about us is that we are naturally tilted towards teleology, we explain things by agency and intent. We should trust the sensus divinitatis the same way we trust our senses when investigating the external world. Surprisingly, a leading criticism against the sensus divinitatis is the appeal to religious diversity, which I showed to be an empty objection in the thread.

---

Then your proposition is unfalsifiable and therefore useless. You have no good reason to even include it in a set of competing hypotheses as an explanation for anything. Well done, you Goomba.

Unfalsifiable doesn't imply useless.

Yes, as an explanation for the origin of the universe, any unfalsifiable hypothesis it is functionally and practically useless. Maybe universe-farting pixies did it. I had a divine revelation. You can’t prove me wrong.

Besides, the criterion of falsifiability only makes sense when applied to some scientific theory.

Correct. So, why do you believe in something that can’t be demonstrated?

[Astreja]

...Upon seeing a car engine, you immediately think of how skillful its designers must be...

The Watchmaker Argument is soooo 19th century.

(I think it's also the reason so many believers insist that their deity is uncaused and eternal -- a cheap side-step away from a head-on collision with "Who created your even-more-complicated-than-a-human deity, then?")

[Deesse23]

 So, let's rule out the existence of peanut butter;

Why?
Everybody on the planet already agrees that peanut butter exists. The existence of peanut butter can easily be demonstrated.  Not so much for your god.

Why are you arguing so hard for your belief in what can not be demonstrated to others to be in accordance with reality?

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.

But this doesn't preclude using empirical observations as a premise in an argument. In fact, many standard arguments in favor of God's existence are a posteriori arguments. In other words, they start with well-known facts about the universe and attempt to deduce/infer the existence of a god or a first cause. A priori arguments like the ontological argument attempt to derive God's existence by pure logical deduction.

It seems that you're referring above to religious experience. I am not trying to argue from any experience. To me, a religious experience can only be evaluated by its content, and it can only serve to show that some individual had some kind of a connexion with the divine, that is, we should already assume God's existence before attempting to assess a religious experience within a theistic framework.

God's existence is vastly more probable than not given the perceived order in the universe. Upon seeing a car engine, you immediately think of how skillful its designers must be, it's asinine to suggest it was put together without the existence of some intention. In the case of the universe, the analogy is valid, and the fact that complex entities evolved through time doesn't invalidate it, because the very process of evolution could be (is?) part of a divine intention. The basic argument then is that a personal, intentional agent behind the perceived order (regarding the arrangement of matter AND the physical laws) explains the universe's orderly nature better than a non-personal cause. This can be formulated better using bayesian-type arguments, by showing that the probability of order arising under a godless universe is vastly smaller than its counterpart (under theism), but this clearly requires some additional homework.

But the layman doesn't need advanced training in bayesian statistics to believe in God. The simplest fact about us is that we are naturally tilted towards teleology, we explain things by agency and intent. We should trust the sensus divinitatis the same way we trust our senses when investigating the external world. Surprisingly, a leading criticism against the sensus divinitatis is the appeal to religious diversity, which I showed to be an empty objection in the thread.

---

Unfalsifiable doesn't imply useless.

Yes, as an explanation for the origin of the universe, any unfalsifiable hypothesis it is functionally and practically useless. Maybe universe-farting pixies did it. I had a divine revelation. You can’t prove me wrong.

Besides, the criterion of falsifiability only makes sense when applied to some scientific theory.

Correct. So, why do you believe in something that can’t be demonstrated?

Indeed if there is no way we distinguish between it being right and it being wrong. Then it's useless in explaining anything. The rest of his babble is theological makebelieve.

---

...Upon seeing a car engine, you immediately think of how skillful its designers must be...

The Watchmaker Argument is soooo 19th century.  

(I think it's also the reason so many believers insist that their deity is uncaused and eternal -- a cheap side-step away from a head-on collision with "Who created your even-more-complicated-than-a-human deity, then?")

When I see a car engine I don't think a ghostly wizard conjured it up by magic. Same as when I see stuff in nature I don't presume they're anything like car engines. both of those ideas are silly.

[Deesse23]

Show me concrete evidence for god

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

Your request is logically invalid

HE asked for concrete. NO word about empirical. Could have been concrete metaphysical evidence, concrete ...miraculous evidence.

Very telling about your standard for evidence if you think asking for concrete evidence for your belief is too much. Thus, by your own admission, you believe in stuff without concrete evidence.

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.

Wrong

If a disembodied mind exists, then it interacts with reality, at least thats what theists like you claim all year long. Like telling you what it wants, like inspiring (embodied) minds to write holy books, or to try and kill their kid on an altar.....even creating whole universes.
Whatever...if this disembodied mind exists, its interaction with/effect on reality should be able to be investigated.

In the case of the universe, the analogy is valid, and the fact that complex entities evolved through time doesn't invalidate it, because the very process of evolution could be (is?) part of a divine intention.

Evolution could also have been triggered by evolution triggering pixies*. Is that enough to make you believe in evolution triggering pixies? No? Why? ...please dont say evidence. 


*who just trigger evolution(s) and then *poof* disppear, without we ever being able to figure out them pixies did it in the first place

God's existence is vastly more probable than not given the perceived order in the universe. Upon seeing a car engine, you immediately think of how skillful its designers must be, it's asinine to suggest it was put together without the existence of some intention. In the case of the universe, the analogy is valid, 

Please show your calculation for this probability.

We recognize design by putting it in contrast with nature. If you claim everything is designed, you have nothing to compare to. Everything just as well could be natural (which it most probably is). You know a car engine is designed, because car engines dont occur naturally. You dont infer car engines are designed because they are complex. Thats a fallacy. As an engineer i have to add that hallmark of a good design is simplicity. You certainly and obviously have no idea about these principles.

So, no, universe and car engines....Nonsense and equivocation fallacy.