Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[Spongebob]

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.

I still think it's a gigantic strawman argument.  I can understand the intension but the arguments against peanut butter are incredibly lame and don't represent the arguments opposing the existence of god.  I'm guessing he worked for hours to come up with that lame ass peanut butter nonsense and it is embarrassingly silly.


@Klorophyll  I think everyone here gets that your position is based solely on the Cosmological argument.  That's fine; it's a valid philosophical argument but as arguments go it is, in the end, inconclusive.  One can accept your assumptions and conclusions as true or reject them as incomplete and neither can be demonstrated to be true or false.  That's the nature of the argument.  I'm sure there's not an atheist here who hasn't spent considerable time reading, digesting and considering this argument, and ultimately rejecting it.  So doubling down on it isn't going to get you anywhere.

And you still refuse to accept the point I made on another thread on this same topic.  Even if one does accept the cosmological argument as true and accepts that there is a god, it says virtually nothing about the nature of this god, meaning who or what it is and what it wants humans to do.  For that you must refer to mythology, legends, ancient texts and personal experiences.  No atheist is going to have any of that.

[no one]

Coulrophobia?

[polymath257]

Be very, very careful. Backpedaling that fast could get your trousers caught in the bike chain.

Boru

Well.. it's not anybody's fault if you misunderstand theism. If somebody says "this universe points to a God", then there are, if we were to give them the benefit of the doubt, hidden premises and presuppositions in their assertion. People don't spit syllogisms all the time when they explain their beliefs.

What @brewer is asking for is some empirically measurable way to discern God's existence, there is clearly something syntactically incoherent about his request, since God is usually defined as a disembodied mind.

Which is precisely why talking about the existence of such a thing is incoherent.

if there is no way to distinguish its existence from its non-existence, the question itself is incoherent and so the concept is useless.

[Spongebob]

OP: I don't care about any of the drivel you posted. Show me concrete evidence for god and I'll consider it.

And no one can argue a god into existence.

Looking back over this thread, I realize I underestimated this post.  Kudos to Brewer for such a succinct post.  The point is so clear, you cannot argue god into existence, nor force others to agree.  If you convince someone, then great for you, but clearly the cosmological argument is falling far short in this case.  So why press the point?  Move on.

[polymath257]

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.

I disagree. The reason we can look at a car engine and know it was designed is that we know through experience that car engines don't arise spontaneously from the application of the laws of nature without a designer. But we also know that there are a great many situations where the laws of nature can produce high complexity *without* a designer being involved because of feedback loops and sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

As for the physical laws themselves, I think it is incoherent to talk about their being 'designed' or 'caused' simply because those physical laws are what govern causality. It is impossible to ask for a cause of causality in a coherent manner.

Instead, it is most coherent to have the laws be basic (uncaused) and the universe obeying such laws naturally. To postulate an intelligent designer requires a great deal *more* complexity. Think about what is required to even have a mind: the number of interacting parts, the feedback loops, the very laws of physics required to allow for such. When that is taken into account, it becomes far *more* probable that a few basic laws are fundamental and that consciousness, minds, and other things like that are the *result* of such laws, not the cause of them.

[no one]

What you heathens clearly disregard is the importance of muh huly buuk, which incontestably states:

god make life, cuz god is bored.
So, god create special life, special life that can only inhabit a small fraction of their home planet, let alone the enormity of the cosmos.

I mean, how can you not god after that?

[Fake Messiah]

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

I still think it's a gigantic strawman argument.  I can understand the intension but the arguments against peanut butter are incredibly lame and don't represent the arguments opposing the existence of god.  I'm guessing he worked for hours to come up with that lame ass peanut butter nonsense and it is embarrassingly silly.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning, and he compares peanut butter with God by holding peanut butter responsible that a baby died and suffered in the fire, but peanut butter doesn’t have the power to save anyone from a fire as the supposed omnipotent good God does.

The strawman is that he claims how atheists use the argument from evil to debunk God’s existence, but that is not true. That argument is "only" used to debunk the goodness of God and maybe even his omnipotence, but not necessarily the existence of God himself because there is no settled definition of what God is or what his attributes are.

[brewer]

OP: I don't care about any of the drivel you posted. Show me concrete evidence for god and I'll consider it.

And no one can argue a god into existence.

Looking back over this thread, I realize I underestimated this post.  Kudos to Brewer for such a succinct post.  The point is so clear, you cannot argue god into existence, nor force others to agree.  If you convince someone, then great for you, but clearly the cosmological argument is falling far short in this case.  So why press the point?  Move on.

I think my shoulder just dislocated.

[Mister Agenda]

Hey there,

When I first became interested in the questions of theology, God's existence, etc. I used to hold the atheist position in high regard, it looked like a very logical position to endorse when one isn't convinced of some particular account of God. I started to become highly suspicious of that when I discovered that all the big objections to theism simply fail miserably. 

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;

Argument from the diversity of peanuts:

P1: There are many subspecies/types of peanuts. Each type has particular properties, a different taste, a different pod structure and variable seed sizes
P2: Peanut butter is so sweet that its sweetness should uniformly have the same miraculous taste for all mankind

C: peanut butter can't exist because it's incoherent

Argument from peanut evil :

P1: An ensnared fawn caught wildfire, the fawn is burned to death, it must have suffered heavily
P2: Something that tastes as sweet as peanut butter wouldn't let a fawn suffer, this food is too sweet to coexist with evil

C: peanut butter can't exist because of evil

Argument from peanut butter's hiddenness:

P1: Peanut butter isn't available in my local area.
P2: Peanut butter is so sweet that it wouldn't leave someone in my area who craves for it unsatisfied

C: peanut butter isn't that sweet after all

As you can see, these ridiculous arguments hardly differ from the objections we hear often aimed at undermining theism. Arguing from evil is by definition arguing from ignorance, when philosophers endorsing atheism became aware of that, they came up with an ad-hoc distinction between justified evil and unnecessary evil, which is, again, another fat fallacy of arguing from ignorance, because they can't prove that some instance of evil is unnecessary without begging the question. The issue of hiddenness is very similar because it presupposes that there can't be any good reason for God not directly revealing Himself to our senses. Finally, religious diversity is probably the most ridiculous of all three, simply because many conflicting accounts of the divine doesn't mean that they are all false, nor does it undermine any of God's properties.

All this simply means that atheology fails, whereas theology provides many compelling arguments/reasons to believe in God. Theism is the only acceptable worldview. QED.

I feel dumber for having read this. I hope it's temporary.

[R00tKiT]

Yes, as an explanation for the origin of the universe, any unfalsifiable hypothesis it is functionally and practically useless. 

Why do you think that if some disembodied entity or construct x is unfalsifiable, then x is useless?? If we were to play this game, I can say that all true propositions are unfalsifiable, therefore, for example, you can't falsify the fact that there are infinitely many prime numbers, is it clear now that there is a category mistake? Is there some experiment that empirically verifies this property of prime numbers? I really doubt it.

An explanation of the origin of the universe is tautologically outside of the universe, anything that is outside the universe is also outside of the reach of any experiment we can possibly come up with, because it doesn't follow physical/chemical laws. 

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.

It's true that God is said to interact with reality, but it doesn't follow that we can measure this interaction. If some phenomenon isn't replicable or reproducible, then it cannot be subjected to experimentation. God's interactions with reality (aside from creating it) could be rare miraculous interventions, which are, by definition, outside the purview of experimentation.

---

I disagree. The reason we can look at a car engine and know it was designed is that we know through experience that car engines don't arise spontaneously from the application of the laws of nature without a designer. But we also know that there are a great many situations where the laws of nature can produce high complexity *without* a designer being involved because of feedback loops and sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

Why do you separate the laws of nature and the designer? Why can't these laws be an instrument of a supreme designer?

As for the physical laws themselves, I think it is incoherent to talk about their being 'designed' or 'caused' simply because those physical laws are what govern causality. 

Do you have some source or justification of this ? 
So, if there were no physical laws, do you think causality could be violated..???

Instead, it is most coherent to have the laws be basic (uncaused) and the universe obeying such laws naturally. To postulate an intelligent designer requires a great deal *more* complexity. Think about what is required to even have a mind: the number of interacting parts, the feedback loops, the very laws of physics required to allow for such. When that is taken into account, it becomes far *more* probable that a few basic laws are fundamental and that consciousness, minds, and other things like that are the *result* of such laws, not the cause of them.

If we accept this, then it follows that the universe is eternal. If the laws of physics are uncaused, then there always was a universe where these laws apply (since they are descriptive of some existent state of affairs, not prescriptive).

And asserting that the universe is eternal is simply a claim, that I doubt anybody can prove.