Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Parallellism is atheological and theistic arguments

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    Few atheists would ever say that, since it presupposes that there is only one concept of "God".

    Most atheists would say "If your God existed..." or "If the Xtian God existed..."
    I have debated literally hundreds of atheists on the Internet, and over 75% of them use that line of reasoning for their atheism. If you watch the prominent atheists debate theists, they also use that line of reasoning. The one line I have heard from scores of atheists is... "If God existed, why does he allow babies to suffer" ... or something similar. Many atheists say they became atheists because of the perceived injustices in the world that they believe would not exist if God (who they think should think exactly like them) existed

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by IDScience View Post
      I have debated literally hundreds of atheists on the Internet, and over 75% of them use that line of reasoning for their atheism. If you watch the prominent atheists debate theists, they also use that line of reasoning. The one line I have heard from scores of atheists is... "If God existed, why does he allow babies to suffer" ... or something similar. Many atheists say they became atheists because of the perceived injustices in the world that they believe would not exist if God (who they think should think exactly like them) existed
      The PoE is expressed in terms of the Christian belief that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. It has nothing to do with whether God thinks like them, but with the consistency of claimed attributes and observed behavior.

      "Hundreds of atheists on the internet" is not anywhere close to 'most atheists'.
      I'm not here anymore.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
        What is a liberal philosopher? A problem with the word "liberal" is that people use it in several senses.
        Not everyone that claims the title of liberal falls into this definition. When I was younger I found some people did not care at all about final outcome, they only cared about initial intent. For example the "liberal" I am talking about would never care that the welfare policies would eventually create a bigger problem in the long run, their only concerned about the initial compassionate intent and its virtues. Therefore their actions don't actually solve the problem, which is void of logic & reason

        Then a few years ago I found that over 90% of atheists considered themselves to be liberal (Hitchens also said this) , and atheism to me is also void of logic because it makes philosophical assumptions about what life forms do and do not exists throughout the entire universe, all without even knowing what exists in our own solar system, and logic can find no reason to put limitations on the intellectual capabilities of any potential life form, yet subjective philosophy that does not stay within the framework of critical thought can find myriads of reasons

        For example: Liberal (and only liberal) atheists say not believing God exist does not equate believing God does not exist, when in fact it does. Either God exists or he does not exist, its a true dichotomy. Just as your team can either win or lose the championship, there are only two choices to chose from, If you say you don't believe your team will lose, you have no choice but to say I believe my team will win. Its a logical absolute they honestly can't even see. And if you can't recognize logical absolutes, you will philosophy right around them, which is exactly what they do

        I guess what you are saying is that atheists tend to assume that whatever God they are arguing against is a being that has whatever "working theory about the universe" and ethics that the atheists assume, perhaps unwittingly. And won't you believe, atheists tend to assume God would be a being whose ethics and working theory are like the atheists'.
        Yes, but even Christians make that mistake, thats why they don't stick to sound doctrine, because they believe God can't possibly be "this way" because I cant imagine God being that way. Atheists are just more prone to this type of reasoning in my experience. Its a lack of critical thought and more of a subjective philosophy that assumes "If I can imagine it to be true, what ever it is, then it can be true"

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by IDScience View Post
          Everyone is a philosopher to some degree or another
          That is true. I used to think philosophy was a useless endeavor, until I discovered, when I was in my late 60s, that I'd been doing it all my life. So, I went back to college and got a degree in it.

          Originally posted by IDScience View Post
          philosophy is what we use to fill in the gaps between known logical absolutes or empirical facts.
          The term "logical absolutes" was not used in any of the classes I took. What are logical absolutes?

          Originally posted by IDScience View Post
          But many atheists tend to completely ignore frame work of logical absolutes all together in favor of an imaginary (if they can imagine it to be true, it can be true) subjective philosophy.
          So, you think there is something we should call objective philosophy?

          Originally posted by IDScience View Post
          For example many atheists don't understand if evolution is false, ID must be true
          I don't understand that, either. Could I trouble you to show me your proof?

          Originally posted by IDScience View Post
          these are the only two possibilities for the origins of life
          Not just because you say so, they aren't.

          Originally posted by IDScience View Post
          Dawkins understands this
          It isn't true just because he says so, either.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by IDScience

            I don't illogically put a "cap" on the attribute and intellect levels of all life that can exist in the universe as the atheists do.*
            Yes you do. You put a cap on God's attributes and intellect by denying He created species through evolution.

            Originally posted by IDScience
            Also the universe and biological life (admittedly by science) have the appearance of design, therefore that which appears to be designed can not be rejected from being what it appears to be, because that would be an irrational deduction.
            You also have the appearance (admittedly by science) of coming from a long line of primates. Therefore, if you appear to be a primate through epistemologically sound methods of investigation, rejecting that would be an irrational deduction.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
              There are two, actually. First, it assumes the constants are not inter-dependent. That is, a change to one constant without subsequent changes in the others might not allow life as we know it, but there's no reason to suspect that each constant exists independently. Second, it assumes that life as we know it is the only possible form it can take.

              Even taken as is, the fine-tuning argument greatly overstates how 'fine' the tuning has to be. What's worse is when people extend it to describe earth's position in the solar system.
              I think you're mistaken about the assumptions. I'll quote physicist Luke Barnes who did a recent review of the fine-tuning literature in physics
              1)Most of the papers vary several parameters
              The vast majority of fine-tuning/anthropic papers, from the very earliest papers in the 70′s until today, vary many parameters1. I’ve addressed these issues at length in my review paper. I’ll summarise some of that article here.

              The very thing that started this whole field was physicists noting coincidences between the values of a number of diffehttp://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/fine-tuning-and-the-myth-of-one-variable-at-a-time/rent constants and the requirements for life
              .
              2) We know that if not for fine tuning there would not be any kind of complex chemistry (some universe turn out with only hydrogen gas if not for nuclear force fine-tuning) and no stable bodies like planets for life to live on and no stars to provide an energy source. its a reasonable assumption that intelligent life needs complex chemistry

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by LaplacesDemon View Post
                I think you're mistaken about the assumptions. I'll quote physicist Luke Barnes who did a recent review of the fine-tuning literature in physics
                1)Most of the papers vary several parameters
                .
                2) We know that if not for fine tuning there would not be any kind of complex chemistry (some universe turn out with only hydrogen gas if not for nuclear force fine-tuning) and no stable bodies like planets for life to live on and no stars to provide an energy source. its a reasonable assumption that intelligent life needs complex chemistry
                It's possible that I'm mistaken about the assumptions. I'm not sure you understood what I was getting at with #1, though. It's not a matter of looking at individual constants to see what variance would be allowed. It's a matter of looking at how one constant's value would change if another constant was different. As far as I understand it, what's been done is akin to looking at the ideal gas law and asking how far pressure and volume are allowed to change without passing certain temperature limits. In reality, pressure, volume and temperature are interrelated. When one or more values change, the others have to change with it. To the best of my knowledge, we have no reason to assume that the 'fine-tuned' constants don't operate in a similar manner. If some forces were to go up, how do we know that other forces don't go down in a way that still gets us close enough? I haven't seen an answer to that, yet.

                I'll address an important point from your link, though.

                "Remember that fine-tuning doesn’t claim that our universe is uniquely life-permitting, but rather that life-permitting universes are rare in the set of possible universe."

                This sort of reliance on rarity is a non-starter when arguing for a specific conclusion. It's the same problem Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism suffers from. Let's grant readily that our existence is based on a rare chance and then ask what difference it makes how common it turns out to be. Rarity isn't an argument for God and never will be.

                Your response to point #2 doesn't really counter what I said. You say that it's a reasonable assumption that intelligent life needs complex chemistry. I happen to disagree. Even if I granted that it's reasonable, it remains an assumption. Perhaps more importantly, intelligent life isn't a necessary goal. It's still a discussion of rarity.
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                  The PoE is expressed in terms of the Christian belief that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. It has nothing to do with whether God thinks like them, but with the consistency of claimed attributes and observed behavior.

                  "Hundreds of atheists on the internet" is not anywhere close to 'most atheists'.
                  How is God not consistent with these attributes?, In order to know this you would need to possess the attributes yourself and find them not consistent with your own

                  My claim was of the hundreds of atheists I have debated, most atheists used these arguments. These would be considered polls numbers accurate + or - 5%

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The term "logical absolutes" was not used in any of the classes I took. What are logical absolutes?
                    A logical absolute is what I refer to as an axiom that can logically only have a limited number of choices. for example, Its a logical absolute that a coin flip can only be either be heads or tails, provided it does not get lucky and stand on its end. But in the way I am using it, its a logical absolute that the universe and life on earth were either created by cognitive mechanisms using intent, or non-cognitive mechanisms without intent (the anthropic principle) , its a true dichotomy, no third hypothesis can possibly exist, therefore if one can clearly be rejected the other must win by default. This is something many subjective philosophers don't recognize, and if they don't recognize this logical absolute framework, they will philosophize right around it

                    "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" Sherlock Holmes

                    So, you think there is something we should call objective philosophy?
                    Yes, any explanation that stays within the framework of what is known to be logical and rational. The "something from absolutely nothing" hypothesis for the origins of the universe does not stay within the known laws of thermodynamics, so I consider it irrational subjective philosophy and not rational objective philosophy. If we had observable testable evidence of something coming from literally nothing and defying the first law, that would be different

                    I don't understand that, either. Could I trouble you to show me your proof?...Not just because you say so, they aren't...
                    Name the third hypothesis for the origins of life on earth other than ID or chemical abiogenesis. There is no logical third hypothesis. And both Richard Dawkins and Douglas Futuyma are quoted as also understanding this dichotomy/logical absolute

                    "It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker

                    "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." Douglas Futuyma

                    It isn't true just because he says so, either.
                    Then name the third alternative. This is what I'm talking about when I say subjective philosophers don't recognize logical absolutes.
                    Last edited by IDScience; 06-11-2014, 04:08 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by whag View Post
                      Yes you do. You put a cap on God's attributes and intellect by denying He created species through evolution.
                      Of course not, I never said God was not capable of producing Darwinian evolution, and if the evidence was there I would accept it. But since every prediction (that I know of) Darwinian evolution has made has been repeatedly falsified, and both the fossil record and species have massive gaps between them, and a theory is only as good as the predictions it makes, I have no reason to believe God used Darwinian evolution to create the species.

                      You also have the appearance (admittedly by science) of coming from a long line of primates. Therefore, if you appear to be a primate through epistemologically sound methods of investigation, rejecting that would be an irrational deduction.
                      The phylogenetic relationships do not match, this is old news to informed creationists

                      "No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree from its root to the major branchings within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves".
                      C. Woese, Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998), pg 6854-6859.


                      "Clarification of the phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees."
                      M. Lynch, Evolution 53 (1999) p 323.


                      Watch "The Great Debate What Is Life" http://thesciencenetwork.org/program...-is-life-panel

                      DATE: February 12, 2011
                      RUN TIME: 42 minutes
                      SPEAKERS: Richard Dawkins, J Craig Venter, Sydney Altman, Lee Hartwell, Paul Davies, Chris McKay, Lawrence Krauss, Roger Bingham

                      Craig Venter Informs Dawkins and Davies Darwin's "Tree of Life" is false, its now the mangled "Bush of Life". There is no way to decipher the predicted relationships

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                        How is God not consistent with these attributes?,
                        If the world we live in is not the best possible world, the description of omnibenevolence doesn't apply. If it is not the best possible world, there's no reasonable expectation of a better world to come.


                        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                        In order to know this you would need to possess the attributes yourself and find them not consistent with your own
                        I see no reason to take this claim seriously. It is, at best, pure assumption on your part.


                        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                        My claim was of the hundreds of atheists I have debated, most atheists used these arguments. These would be considered polls numbers accurate + or - 5%
                        Your initial claim was "most atheists". You've since modified that statement to apply only to those you've encountered. You're now trying to tell me that the modified statement was your original claim. It was the modification I took issue with. I have no way of knowing whether or not your initial claim was only meant to apply to those you've interacted with, but it's not remotely clear that this was so.
                        I'm not here anymore.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                          There is a long list on why atheists choose to be atheists, my example is a common argument atheists make, and its the main argument used by Sam Harris & Dawkins and the argument Christopher Hitchens made for rejecting God.
                          You have not coherently cited the above to support this argument.

                          Also I have a different definition of God than atheists do. Because its religion that the term God originated from, therefore its only religion that can properly define the term. And the oldest know definition of God found is from the sumer civilization and the bible, and that definition is Elohim, which simply means a position of authority. Psalms 82 calls men gods. And the Hebrew Judges and Angels were also called Elohim (gods)
                          I believe you are still grossly misrepresented atheists here including the above mentioned. They reject all different God(s) of any possible definition. You will need to cite specifics if you continue to assert this claimthat the God(s) atheist do not believe in do not include your God..
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-11-2014, 05:54 PM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                            Of course not, I never said God was not capable of producing Darwinian evolution, and if the evidence was there I would accept it. But since every prediction (that I know of) Darwinian evolution has made has been repeatedly falsified, and both the fossil record and species have massive gaps between them, and a theory is only as good as the predictions it makes, I have no reason to believe God used Darwinian evolution to create the species.



                            The phylogenetic relationships do not match, this is old news to informed creationists

                            "No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree from its root to the major branchings within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves".
                            C. Woese, Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998), pg 6854-6859.


                            "Clarification of the phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees."
                            M. Lynch, Evolution 53 (1999) p 323.


                            Watch "The Great Debate What Is Life" http://thesciencenetwork.org/program...-is-life-panel

                            DATE: February 12, 2011
                            RUN TIME: 42 minutes
                            SPEAKERS: Richard Dawkins, J Craig Venter, Sydney Altman, Lee Hartwell, Paul Davies, Chris McKay, Lawrence Krauss, Roger Bingham

                            Craig Venter Informs Dawkins and Davies Darwin's "Tree of Life" is false, its now the mangled "Bush of Life". There is no way to decipher the predicted relationships
                            Your selective citations grossly misrepresent the science of evolution.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                              A logical absolute is what I refer to as an axiom that can logically only have a limited number of choices. for example, Its a logical absolute that a coin flip can only be either be heads or tails, provided it does not get lucky and stand on its end.
                              The possible outcomes of a coin toss are established by empirical science. Principles of logic have nothing to do with it except insofar as we need logic to discover and describe empirical reality.

                              Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                              But in the way I am using it, its a logical absolute that the universe and life on earth were either created by cognitive mechanisms using intent, or non-cognitive mechanisms without intent
                              What you are asserting is just an exclusive disjunction. You don't need to invent any new terminology to do that.

                              And up to this point, by the way, I might agree with you. If I understand your assertion correctly, I would restate it thus: It either is or is not the case that the universe, including life on earth, was created by a cognitive mechanism using intent. If that is what you mean, I have no problem with it. The logical form of such a premise is "A or not-A," and if we can demonstrate the impossibility of not-A, then we have proved the truth of A.

                              Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                              no third hypothesis can possibly exist
                              Right. Logicians call that the Law of Excluded Middle.

                              Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                              This is something many subjective philosophers don't recognize
                              This accusation is akin to claiming that many electricians don't recognize Ohm's Law. The LEM is about as basic as anything gets in philosophy.

                              Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                              The "something from absolutely nothing" hypothesis for the origins of the universe does not stay within the known laws of thermodynamics,
                              Maybe. Maybe not. But you are claiming that disproof of the theory of evolution would constitute proof of ID. That has nothing to do with whether any current theory of cosmogony is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

                              Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                              Name the third hypothesis for the origins of life on earth other than ID or chemical abiogenesis.
                              The origin of life was either natural or supernatural. If it was natural, then it was abiogenic. Therefore, if not abiogenic, then it was supernatural. I'll give you that much.

                              Strictly speaking, evolution is not about the origin of life. But, just for the time being, I'll put that quibble on hold.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                                If the world we live in is not the best possible world, the description of omnibenevolence doesn't apply. If it is not the best possible world, there's no reasonable expectation of a better world to come.
                                Again, you repeatedly make the mistake of assuming to know what a life form with "omnibenevolence" characteristics would do in certain situations. And you repeatedly fail to understand unless you possess these characteristics yourself and find them contradictory to your own, its impossible for you to know this. You can't even get over this minuscule hurdle of critical thought.

                                "What I cannot create, I do not understand" Richard Feynman

                                I see no reason to take this claim seriously. It is, at best, pure assumption on your part.
                                Then you are claiming to have reasoning abilities beyond what is inherent to your nature and abilities, which is not only patently illogical, its complete arrogance. Which does not surprise me because arrogance is a Hallmark of atheism. As Solomon said "God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble"

                                Does a single celled organism know what a human would do in any given situation, of course not, but the arrogant illogical ones are certain they do know.

                                Your initial claim was "most atheists". You've since modified that statement to apply only to those you've encountered. You're now trying to tell me that the modified statement was your original claim. It was the modification I took issue with. I have no way of knowing whether or not your initial claim was only meant to apply to those you've interacted with, but it's not remotely clear that this was so.
                                Incorrect, I did not modify my statement at all, I clarified it to you even though no clarification should have been necessary if you knew anything about how polls work. Ill explain it one more time.

                                Polls are not conducted by asking 100% of the targeted audience, they are conducted by asking a large group of them so that an accuracy rate of + or - 5% will be achieved. (Just Google "How are Polls Conducted"). And in my experience with debating atheists, the vast majority of those that are intelligent enough to carry on a debate, use the "IF ANALOGY", i.e. "IF GOD EXISTED, X,Y&Z WOULD NEVER HAPPEN" as a main reason for their atheism.

                                And the ironic part of this is, you seem to be blind to the fact that you're using these same ""IF ANALOGY" arguments in this debate, with... "If the world we live in is not the best possible world, the description of omnibenevolence doesn't apply"... , then turn around and argue most atheists don't use that argument.

                                Shooting down the same arguments you're trying to making in the exact same post you are setting them up in, is not conducive to winning the debate

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by lee_merrill, 06-03-2021, 11:57 AM
                                1 response
                                38 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Christian3  
                                Started by Machinist, 05-26-2021, 10:52 AM
                                97 responses
                                522 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by seer, 05-12-2021, 05:35 AM
                                556 responses
                                3,477 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:43 AM
                                21 responses
                                189 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:34 AM
                                144 responses
                                1,079 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X