Atheists - Doubt Your Doubts
- Thread starter nl
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
1. You claim God is a spirit, but this is simply an explanation - not evidence.
2. "How do you account for the spiritual under guidelines where evidence must be physical?"
This is precisely my question! Since spirits can't be proven, I'm supposed to accept them because I can't disprove them?
3. You keep trying to argue that a claim is true until proven false. That's not how it works. There's not enough evidence of God's existence for me to consider he exists... in fact there's zero evidence.
4. What are some of God's rules? How do you know they're his rules? Who established these rules?
2. "How do you account for the spiritual under guidelines where evidence must be physical?"
This is precisely my question! Since spirits can't be proven, I'm supposed to accept them because I can't disprove them?
3. You keep trying to argue that a claim is true until proven false. That's not how it works. There's not enough evidence of God's existence for me to consider he exists... in fact there's zero evidence.
4. What are some of God's rules? How do you know they're his rules? Who established these rules?
Yup, and they're both unsound. The second one isn't even valid:
1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
4. God is the best explanation.
5. Therefore God exists
Even if one grants the four premises, it's still a logical non-sequitur because being the best explanation doesn't necessitate existence. Hence it isn't an effective counter-examples to the wider point regarding philosophical arguments.
Necessarily vs. accidentally true. If a conclusion follows from true premises arranged in a valid form, then the argument is truth-preserving and the conclusion is necessarily true, i.e. it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the preceding premises are true. A conclusion that is accidentally true is one that simply happens to be true, but it doesn't follow as necessarily true from the preceding argument.
Practical examples might be like so,
Necessarily true:
1. All squares have four edges
2. Shape X is a square
Therefore, Shape X has four edges.
It is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true. Hence if the premises are true, so is the conclusion - as a matter of logical necessity.
Accidentally true:
1. All squares have four edges
2. Shape X has four edges
Therefore, Shape X is a square
If the conclusion here is correct, it is accidentally so - the preceding argument is invalid and has nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion. If Shape X is indeed a square then that is a happy coincidence, but it could easily be the case that the premises are true and the conclusion is false (e.g. Shape X could be a rhombus).
1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
4. God is the best explanation.
5. Therefore God exists
Even if one grants the four premises, it's still a logical non-sequitur because being the best explanation doesn't necessitate existence. Hence it isn't an effective counter-examples to the wider point regarding philosophical arguments.
Necessarily vs. accidentally true. If a conclusion follows from true premises arranged in a valid form, then the argument is truth-preserving and the conclusion is necessarily true, i.e. it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the preceding premises are true. A conclusion that is accidentally true is one that simply happens to be true, but it doesn't follow as necessarily true from the preceding argument.
Practical examples might be like so,
Necessarily true:
1. All squares have four edges
2. Shape X is a square
Therefore, Shape X has four edges.
It is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true. Hence if the premises are true, so is the conclusion - as a matter of logical necessity.
Accidentally true:
1. All squares have four edges
2. Shape X has four edges
Therefore, Shape X is a square
If the conclusion here is correct, it is accidentally so - the preceding argument is invalid and has nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion. If Shape X is indeed a square then that is a happy coincidence, but it could easily be the case that the premises are true and the conclusion is false (e.g. Shape X could be a rhombus).
Last edited:
I might well grant you points 1 through 3, but point four is only your opinion. What if I named Marduk as a better explanation? Muslims would name Allah. Oh, I believe many native Americans of Algonquian descent would put Manitou in the number four spot. Sorry Red_Torry, but the number of possible gods we could slip in there is quite large. Then there is a burgeoning scientific explanation that doesn't need any gods in the fourth spot -- ask Lawrence Krauss.
Sorry, but your reasoning is terribly flawed.
All you have shown here is that when you have physical data you can draw conclusions. We atheists have been telling you that all along. You just don't have any physical data on God.
Any deductive argument is proven if the argument is valid and sound - it doesn't matter if it's "philosophical," mathematical, logical or whatever.
For Red_Tory, it's obvious his argument is not valid since (4) doesn't follow from (3), making it a non-sequitor. It's possible to question the soundness of premise (1) since we could imagine complex events with multiple causes (even the ancients imagined multiple gods causing creation - eg, Marduk and Tiamat) or possibly the principle of sufficient reason doesn't always hold.
In any case if the argument is valid and sound, then it's proven, it doesn't matter if there is physical evidence or not. This is simply how logic works.
For Red_Tory, it's obvious his argument is not valid since (4) doesn't follow from (3), making it a non-sequitor. It's possible to question the soundness of premise (1) since we could imagine complex events with multiple causes (even the ancients imagined multiple gods causing creation - eg, Marduk and Tiamat) or possibly the principle of sufficient reason doesn't always hold.
In any case if the argument is valid and sound, then it's proven, it doesn't matter if there is physical evidence or not. This is simply how logic works.
What is a sound argument? Because you can create a sound argument based off of false premises.
It depends. If you're trying to prove your argument is sound - it works. If you're trying to prove something true as related to reality, you need evidence.
Just so we're on the same page, "necessarily" true only refers to a given set. Having a necessarily true argument doesn't prove the argument is applicable to reality.
For example:
1. All tribbles hate klingons.
2. Specimen A is a tribble.
3. Therefore Stecimen A hates klingons.
The above statement is necessarily true. So what? The argument remains true but it doesn't prove klingons and tribbles exist. So even if apologists use "necessarily true" arguments for God, it won't prove his existence without evidence.
It depends. If you're trying to prove your argument is sound - it works. If you're trying to prove something true as related to reality, you need evidence.
Just so we're on the same page, "necessarily" true only refers to a given set. Having a necessarily true argument doesn't prove the argument is applicable to reality.
For example:
1. All tribbles hate klingons.
2. Specimen A is a tribble.
3. Therefore Stecimen A hates klingons.
The above statement is necessarily true. So what? The argument remains true but it doesn't prove klingons and tribbles exist. So even if apologists use "necessarily true" arguments for God, it won't prove his existence without evidence.
You're right. Arguments on abstract concepts can be valid arguments, but their bearing on reality is a matter of physical evidence. Theologically, it is possible to argue the validity of the paradigm of divine morality and form further theological conclusions on those arguments in regards to God, but theology is by its nature inclusive of metaphysical premises. Scientific logic is not, by its nature; it requires physical evidence.
The theologian, sat across from a natural philosopher, turns to him and says 'You are like the man sitting in a pitch dark room, fumbling around looking for a pebble, yet the pebble does not exist'. The philosopher laughs and replies 'but you, my friend, are like the man who would find it'.
Last edited:
I agree, in general, that it's purely logical not to believe in the absence of evidence.
However, I probably don't agree with many particular assertions about an absence of evidence.
Over the course of human history, theism has been a much more common position that atheism. Yes, let atheists carry a burden for proving their position.
These are natural questions: Where did we come from? Where are we going? How did I arrive on earth? Whom do I have to thank?
I have recall of asking them at a young age. I remember some early conversation at around age 4 concerning how I had arrived. I had heard two versions: "The stork brought me to the hospital" and "Jesus brought me to the hospital". My early tendency was to trust the second account and imagine a bearded, robed, Jesus with sandals on his feet and me in his arms, walking up the hill to the local hospital. However, I knew that there was a problem with inconsistent accounts. I think that the default position has always been that I came from somewhere and/or someone. All of us could ask: Who do I to thank for my existence? It seems like the assertion of coming from nowhere would need to carry the burden of proof.
The issue of Santa Claus was also one where I wanted to believe what adults were telling me but the practicality of visiting every home in the world in a single evening (with gifts that included costly brand-names) seemed a bit strained. Were the elves making perfect imitations of brand-name items? Had Santa outsourced some of his manufacturing activities from the elves to the factories for the brand names? How was Santa funded?
As observed elsewhere, American atheists have been found funding billboards to promote the Santa Claus myth.
Your video came from QualiaSoup. I see that QualiaSoup uses philosophy.
Yes, I like "the cosmological argument" but I have never depended on it entirely. First I used the argument and later I learned the name for it. Honestly, I have been telling myself for a while that I need a greater variety of arguments and I have been working on it. But, there's no need to drop well-used arguments if they are still valid.
That's your philosophical argument.
Yes, a god is often the best explanation to close the gap of mysterious unknowns. IMHO, the God of the Bible is by far the best alternative among available gods.
Blind chance is an inferior explanation and an inferior "gap-filler".
Blind chance depends upon the highly probable happening again and again and again. Advocacy for blind chance includes a blind faith in never observed phenomena like life from non-life and a universe from nothing.
Every time, scientific research discovers a new level of ordered complexity in the universe, the likelihood of blind chance as a cause becomes even more improbable. I think that it's probable to say that blind chance becomes more improbable every day. Also, if the cosmos came together by an accident then we should expect an accident would easily take it apart.
Yes, I believe in taking personal responsibility to "Make it happen". But, Percepi, please look. Your text riff against personal testimony includes your personal testimony.
.
Not all witnesses have the same credibility and generate the same feelings among the hearers.
Some quick, personal elaborations on the video:
However, I probably don't agree with many particular assertions about an absence of evidence.
Over the course of human history, theism has been a much more common position that atheism. Yes, let atheists carry a burden for proving their position.
These are natural questions: Where did we come from? Where are we going? How did I arrive on earth? Whom do I have to thank?
I have recall of asking them at a young age. I remember some early conversation at around age 4 concerning how I had arrived. I had heard two versions: "The stork brought me to the hospital" and "Jesus brought me to the hospital". My early tendency was to trust the second account and imagine a bearded, robed, Jesus with sandals on his feet and me in his arms, walking up the hill to the local hospital. However, I knew that there was a problem with inconsistent accounts. I think that the default position has always been that I came from somewhere and/or someone. All of us could ask: Who do I to thank for my existence? It seems like the assertion of coming from nowhere would need to carry the burden of proof.
The issue of Santa Claus was also one where I wanted to believe what adults were telling me but the practicality of visiting every home in the world in a single evening (with gifts that included costly brand-names) seemed a bit strained. Were the elves making perfect imitations of brand-name items? Had Santa outsourced some of his manufacturing activities from the elves to the factories for the brand names? How was Santa funded?
As observed elsewhere, American atheists have been found funding billboards to promote the Santa Claus myth.
Your video came from QualiaSoup. I see that QualiaSoup uses philosophy.
Yes, I like "the cosmological argument" but I have never depended on it entirely. First I used the argument and later I learned the name for it. Honestly, I have been telling myself for a while that I need a greater variety of arguments and I have been working on it. But, there's no need to drop well-used arguments if they are still valid.
That's your philosophical argument.
Yes, a god is often the best explanation to close the gap of mysterious unknowns. IMHO, the God of the Bible is by far the best alternative among available gods.
Blind chance is an inferior explanation and an inferior "gap-filler".
Blind chance depends upon the highly probable happening again and again and again. Advocacy for blind chance includes a blind faith in never observed phenomena like life from non-life and a universe from nothing.
Every time, scientific research discovers a new level of ordered complexity in the universe, the likelihood of blind chance as a cause becomes even more improbable. I think that it's probable to say that blind chance becomes more improbable every day. Also, if the cosmos came together by an accident then we should expect an accident would easily take it apart.
Yes, I believe in taking personal responsibility to "Make it happen". But, Percepi, please look. Your text riff against personal testimony includes your personal testimony.
.Not all witnesses have the same credibility and generate the same feelings among the hearers.
Some quick, personal elaborations on the video:
- The video noted that legal analysis can have these outcomes: guilty, non-guilty, indeterminate. I actually liked that analysis. I agree that analysis can be excessively "black and white" although remarkable things are being done in our day with binary (base 2) computer logic. I have been meditating some on the structure of genetic code (A-U-G-C) and wondering how it is used. Is there a value for "indeterminate" in the genetic code?
- Agnosticism - Agnoticism has seemed logically inconsistent and hypocritical to me. The agnostic seems to say: I know with certainty that nothing can be known with certainty (except my own statement).
- Fervency of the atheist - I noticed that fervency was traced to a sense of injustice. Human hearts long for justice. God and a future resurrection provide the best and only explanation for how justice would ever be accomplished for those already in their graves.
- Magical thinking - Magical thinking seems most applicable to the atheist. The stage magician pulls a rabbit from a hat or a card from a sleeve that apparently comes from nowhere. The magician displays a rabbit or a playing card with no apparent cause but there is One. The atheist displays a universe and asserts that it exists without a cause but there is one.
- We are responsible for our own behavior and should not blame a god (or a devil) for our behavior. Agreed.
Your post critiques this argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
4. God is the best explanation.
5. Therefore God exists
My post, however, does not state that this argument is true. It says that the argument is invalid, and therefore unsound. You're right, the reasoning is flawed and that is exactly what I said in the post. The post I made is actually concerned with philosophical arguments in general rather than the Kalam cosmological argument.
Referring to the cosmological argument in that post, I don't really see how anyone could sit there and repeat "blargh, your argument here is flawed!" as some sort of criticism when a) it isn't my argument in the first place (it's Percepi's counter-example) and b) my actual argument argument in the post depends on that KCA being flawed - which is what I said.
tl;dr, you're criticising the logic of an argument I didn't make. Read the post again.
1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
4. God is the best explanation.
5. Therefore God exists
My post, however, does not state that this argument is true. It says that the argument is invalid, and therefore unsound. You're right, the reasoning is flawed and that is exactly what I said in the post. The post I made is actually concerned with philosophical arguments in general rather than the Kalam cosmological argument.
Referring to the cosmological argument in that post, I don't really see how anyone could sit there and repeat "blargh, your argument here is flawed!" as some sort of criticism when a) it isn't my argument in the first place (it's Percepi's counter-example) and b) my actual argument argument in the post depends on that KCA being flawed - which is what I said.
tl;dr, you're criticising the logic of an argument I didn't make. Read the post again.
Cycel, for further clarification notice what I actually said about Percepi's counter-example in the post: "Even if one grants the four premises, it's still a logical non-sequitur because being the best explanation doesn't necessitate existence."
Percepi:
A sound argument is one in which all of the premises are true and the argument itself follows a valid logical format.
A sound argument cannot contain any false premises. You're way off-base here.
Percepi:
A sound argument is one in which all of the premises are true and the argument itself follows a valid logical format.
A sound argument cannot contain any false premises. You're way off-base here.
If the premises are false, then the argument is not sound, and so it's not proven.
I don't even know what you mean here. If a deductive argument is both sound and valid, then it's proven - it's true. If you can't demonstrate that an argument's premises are sound, then it's not a proven argument. If an argument is "proven true" but doesn't "relate to reality" then it seems to me that something is amiss, and the argument is either missing soundness or validity, and so it's not really true.
In any case, the logical route is that Red_Tory's argument has problems with both soundness and validity, so rather than saying that his argument has problems because it's "philosophical" (which is a meaningless distinction for determining if it's true), we can say that it's not proven due to it's problems. He should either reformulate the argument or abandon it. I would suggest this form:
1) Everything that begins to exist is caused.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore the universe was caused.
But that doesn't seem very a very helpful theistic argument at all, not to mention potential problems with (1). It doesn't seem much different than pointing out that the sky is blue.
I don't even know what you mean here. If a deductive argument is both sound and valid, then it's proven - it's true. If you can't demonstrate that an argument's premises are sound, then it's not a proven argument. If an argument is "proven true" but doesn't "relate to reality" then it seems to me that something is amiss, and the argument is either missing soundness or validity, and so it's not really true.
In any case, the logical route is that Red_Tory's argument has problems with both soundness and validity, so rather than saying that his argument has problems because it's "philosophical" (which is a meaningless distinction for determining if it's true), we can say that it's not proven due to it's problems. He should either reformulate the argument or abandon it. I would suggest this form:
1) Everything that begins to exist is caused.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore the universe was caused.
But that doesn't seem very a very helpful theistic argument at all, not to mention potential problems with (1). It doesn't seem much different than pointing out that the sky is blue.
Percepi, thank you for your personal testimony. .
As a comparison, there have been a few seasons in life where I was approached about selling soaps or other products through one of the MLM (multi-level marketing) companies.
As I became marginally involved, I noticed the pep rallies, songs and personal testimonies that were part of the organization culture. They were personal testimonies like: My life was going nowhere until XYZ MLM company came into my life. My life improved after I became involved with XYZ MLM company and now I am happy, healthy and prosperous.
So, here's a "text riff" and incomplete testimony on experiences related to being a disciple of Jesus Christ:
.As a comparison, there have been a few seasons in life where I was approached about selling soaps or other products through one of the MLM (multi-level marketing) companies.
As I became marginally involved, I noticed the pep rallies, songs and personal testimonies that were part of the organization culture. They were personal testimonies like: My life was going nowhere until XYZ MLM company came into my life. My life improved after I became involved with XYZ MLM company and now I am happy, healthy and prosperous.
So, here's a "text riff" and incomplete testimony on experiences related to being a disciple of Jesus Christ:
- The Bible is a delight to my soul and brings understanding.
- Bible history informs me with examples. Bible precepts give me principles. The many themes of the Bible provide understanding on many topics.
- The grace and Holy Spirit of God are a subjective but real source of comfort and instruction.
- Christianity provide delights me with its themes of truth, beauty of holiness, justice and mercy.
- Jesus Christ is the perfect human who surpasses every imperfect human who has ever been a source of disappointment.
- The Bible provides an understanding of origin and destiny.
- Bible prophecy already fulfilled provides assurance. Bible prophecy still to be fulfilled provides motivation and expectation.
- The Sermon on the Mount continues to amaze and to challenge.
- The stories of Jesus healing the lame and the blind, raising the dead, turning water into wine, walking on the water, healing by a word and by a touch continue to amaze and inspire faith.
- Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection provide a means for pardon for sins and a hope for a future immortal body and eternal life.
Isn't my argument, it's from Percepi. Percepi said that philosophical arguments can never have proven conclusions - and he's wrong on this point. In order to support his position, he cited unsound philosophical arguments, and I was commenting on how this doesn't demonstrate his point. That is the context in which I brought up the argument.
Does that make any sense?
Not really on the same page. I'll state this as plainly as possible:
1. All arguments that have both true premises and a valid form have proven conclusions;
2. Some philosophical arguments have both true premises and a valid form;
Therefore, some philosophical arguments have proven conclusions.
1. All A's are B's
2. Some C's are A's
Therefore, some C's are B's
Bringing up examples of certain philosophical arguments that have untrue premises (i.e. "Some C's are not A's") does nothing to challenge the conclusion here; hence the reference to unsound cosmological arguments don't work in support of Percepi's contention regarding philosophical arguments.
Does that make any sense?
Not really on the same page. I'll state this as plainly as possible:
1. All arguments that have both true premises and a valid form have proven conclusions;
2. Some philosophical arguments have both true premises and a valid form;
Therefore, some philosophical arguments have proven conclusions.
1. All A's are B's
2. Some C's are A's
Therefore, some C's are B's
Bringing up examples of certain philosophical arguments that have untrue premises (i.e. "Some C's are not A's") does nothing to challenge the conclusion here; hence the reference to unsound cosmological arguments don't work in support of Percepi's contention regarding philosophical arguments.