Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[R00tKiT]

By all empirical logic, god does not exist. 

"Empirical logic" can only inform us about stuff inside the empirical world, but doesn't apply to the creator of the empirical world..

First, prove the god exists. 

As I said in the other thread:

I have the perceptual experience of an external world, therefore I posit the existence of an external world.
There appears to be other people than myself, therefore it's reasonable to posit the existence of other people.
There appears to be design, therefore it's reasonable to posit a designer.

Anyone who disputes the fact that our perceptual experience of order in nature strongly point to a deisgner of the world is either dishonest or denying their senses.

[polymath257]

In Quantum Mechanics, there is causality, but it doesn't mean what Kloro thinks it means.

Initial conditions determine the probabilities of "caused" events, but do not determine the actual events themselves.

This only means that we don't have access to enough information to pinpoint the causes of these events. Still, no good reason to reject causality. 

Merely assigning probabilities may be an expression of our limited knowledge. Only the all-knowing God determines the actual events, a theist can easily argue along these lines

It is more than that. To have the correlations between the probabilities be as they are observed, classical causation has to be false. it isn't simply a matter of lack of information. it goes considerably deeper.

Saying that an all-knowing deity is the only one that can know the actual events is simply saying you assume causation to prove the existence of your deity. it isn't something that can be demonstrated empirically. it isn't something that is necessary to explain what we see. it is used only to uphold your theology.

And at that point, I choose the simpler explanation: causality fails and so does the existence of any deity.

---

By all empirical logic, god does not exist. 

"Empirical logic" can only inform us about stuff inside the empirical world, but doesn't apply to the creator of the empirical world..

Why not? If there is no empirical way to demonstrate its existence, why assume it exists?

First, prove the god exists. 

As I said in the other thread:

I have the perceptual experience of an external world, therefore I posit the existence of an external world.
There appears to be other people than myself, therefore it's reasonable to posit the existence of other people.
There appears to be design, therefore it's reasonable to posit a designer.

Anyone who disputes the fact that our perceptual experience of order in nature strongly point to a deisgner of the world is either dishonest or denying their senses.

I strongly disagree. The actual observations actually point to natural processes and not to a designer. If anything point *away* from a designer, not towards one.

[Silver]

Why not? If there is no empirical way to demonstrate its existence, why assume it exists?

Simply put, theists are quite fond of their god delusion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just do you Kloro, and attack some kindergartners. Show em you're a man!

[Simon Moon]

By all empirical logic, god does not exist. 

"Empirical logic" can only inform us about stuff inside the empirical world, but doesn't apply to the creator of the empirical world..

Question begging.

Please provide demonstrable and falsifiable evidence that there is something beyond the "empirical world". And no, your flawed thinking: "it sure looks designed to me", is not evidence.

First, prove the god exists. 

As I said in the other thread:

I have the perceptual experience of an external world, therefore I posit the existence of an external world.
There appears to be other people than myself, therefore it's reasonable to posit the existence of other people.
There appears to be design, therefore it's reasonable to posit a designer.

Anyone who disputes the fact that our perceptual experience of order in nature strongly point to a deisgner of the world is either dishonest or denying their senses.

The same flawed thinking you are guilty of above, "it appears to be designed, therefore it must be", is the same thinking that lead people to believe: famines, lightening, earthquakes and floods were due to gods, because they certainly did appear to be.

"Appearance" of design:







Here's the problem with your thinking.

We all perceive an what appears to be an external world.
We all perceive with what appears to be the existence of other minds.

It is what we are presented with. The best thing we can do, pragmatically speaking, is to accept those things exist. Either that, or we may end up walking into a busy street, or pissing off the wrong person.

But even if we accept that some things may "appear" designed, that does not mean they are.

Do you really think the vast majority of geologists and archeologists actually believe the previous images of the "appearance" of design, actually believe those rock formations are actually designed?

Of course not.

Just as the vast majority of biologists and cosmologists don't actually detect design in biology or the universe, just because you are unable to understand the difference between the appearance of design, and actual design.

Of course, you are guilty of argument from ignorance, or argument from personal incredulity. "I can't imagine how the universe came into existence, or how life came into being, therefore, it must be a god". I am sure I am not the first person to point this out, but just because you've been told before, does not make it any less true.

[R00tKiT]

"Empirical logic" can only inform us about stuff inside the empirical world, but doesn't apply to the creator of the empirical world..

Question begging.

Please provide demonstrable and falsifiable evidence that there is something beyond the "empirical world". And no, your flawed thinking: "it sure looks designed to me", is not evidence.

Now I need you to be honest, you just pulled this "Question begging" charge right out of there, didn't you? How can pointing out to a category mistake be question begging ?

You say : "please provide demonstrable and falsifiable evidence", which makes me wonder.. why do you apply the falsifiability criterion to things that aren't scientific theories .. how many times do I have to repeat this in these forums, so we can finally have a meaningful discussion..? 

Besides, I promise to send you a check with an amount of money of your choosing, if you manage to prove that unfalsifiable implies false.

If X being falsifiable or unfalsifiable has no bearing on whether X is true or false, why are you asking for falsifiability?
You might say: because otherwise there is no empirical way to prove that X is false. which is a weak objection, because there is no way (empirical or other) to disprove true propositions anyway.

Are there true but unfalsifiable propositions? Yes there are. Take the proposition P: "All books that were written, or will ever be written, have authors".

Is there a way to falsify P? No! Someone may try to point out to random sentences generated by AI or a chatbot, in this case P is preserved by positing the chatbot in question as the author, or the AI automaton, etc. And even if there is no clear way to assign an author to a book or a collection of sentences, one can always posit an unknown/hidden/undetectable author to be behind the book. In short, P is unfalsifiable, and very probably true, even if there is obviously no way to check its truth because.. you know.. your typical atheist would say maybe a book will pop into existence one day..!

Until you adress what's above, I consider that you are guilty of a textbook category mistake: applying scientific criteria to non-scientific propositions.

The same flawed thinking you are guilty of above, "it appears to be designed, therefore it must be", is the same thinking that lead people to believe: famines, lightening, earthquakes and floods were due to gods, because they certainly did appear to be.

It's called the principle of credulity, @Simon Moon. It's not flawed thinking, sane people consider what seems to be so as indeed so, and you.....?

That's why we assume that physical bodies we encounter in the street are actual people, instead of appearances of people. You resorted in your answer to pragmatism to justify the existence of other minds, but pragmatism obviously supports theism, not atheism, as I will explain below.

Not applying the principle of credulity only with the appearance of design is gravely hypocritical.

It is what we are presented with. The best thing we can do, pragmatically speaking, is to accept those things exist. Either that, or we may end up walking into a busy street, or pissing off the wrong person.

And pragmatically speaking, atheism makes no sense at all. It's a horrible, terrific world out there. People get comfort from believing that there is a personal, caring agent who controls anything that exists and answers their prayers, and guarantees a life after physical death. Even if religion is factually false, it's still the most effective natural antidepressant that people will ever come up with. There is a ton of surveys out there establishing positive correlations between happiness and religiosity, and, sadly, between non-religiosity and the risk of suicide.

A word of caution here: I am only arguing for the pragmatic advantages of being religious, since @Simon Moon really dared to get into these uncharted waters.

In Switzerland, Spoerri et al. used census data (3.7 million adults) and death certificates (5,082 suicides), and found that crude suicide rates were highest among those with no religious affiliation.
https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/38332/...dyq141.pdf
Quote: "This was not explained by socio-demographic factors. The effect was evident in all age groups, but substantially greater among older people, and particularly pronounced for suicide by poisoning".

Evidently, @Simon Moon, you should never resort to pragmatism to dimiss teleology or religion. And, as the study above clearly indicates, you can't hand wave this away by pointing out to socio-demographic factors such as poverty or education. 

I admit here of course that a thoughtful atheist can have a purpose in life without resorting to religion. But there is clear evidence of a general statistical trend: non-religiosity is positively correlated with the highest suicide rates. Therefore, pragmatically speaking, it's better to believe in wrong stuff that makes you comfortable than to be an atheist.

[Jehanne]

Klorophyll,

Just because religious faith can be comforting, useful, etc., does not mean that it is true. One hypothesis that I hold to is that religious faith persists in the Western World due to its being an aphrodisiac; this hypothesis, even if true, is difficult to test and may not even be falsifiable.

[Deesse23]

You have a method other than the scientific method in order to demonstrate a claim to be true?

#1 Describe your method
#2 Give one example of how it ever demonstrated some claim to be true

[Jehanne]

You have a method other than the scientific method in order to demonstrate a claim to be true?

#1 Describe your method
#2 Give one example of how it ever demonstrated some claim to be true

Modal logic?

[Deesse23]

You have a method other than the scientific method in order to demonstrate a claim to be true?

#1 Describe your method
#2 Give one example of how it ever demonstrated some claim to be true

Modal logic?

Have you or anyone demonstrated the existence of an entity, like a god, per modal logic, yet?