Do Atheists have a reasonable doubt?

[PickyPicky]

Circular or linear depends on the the antecedent for the misplaced pronoun “their” which the poster later corrected. The only possible reference in the sentence is “grandpappy” which renders the argument questionably circular

Fascinating. A grammatical argument, lovely. Are you referring to the “their” in this sentence?

But it doesn’t, because as you have pointed out, their very existence is material evidence that grandpappy existed

Because there is nothing misplaced about the “their” — there is no grammatical rule which insists that the referent of a pronoun must be within the same sentence as the pronoun, and in a comment-and-reply conversation, like the one we are in, the referent will frequently be in a previous comment. Just as it (see what I mean?) is in this comment of yours:

Circular? It’s the most linear argument there could be

Moreover in the following comment you clearly understand “their” to refer to the descendant, not the ancestor “”grandpappy”, because you take it to mean that in your reply, where you separate a “you” from a “they” to clarify the point:

A bit circular in reasoning. No?

The argument is because you exist, therefore they must have existed unseen and without a clue left behind

Incidentally, in modern grammar, “their” is called a possessive determiner, not a possessive pronoun.

 

[IWantGod]

Your whole argument is one of befuddled amazement. ‘I can’t understand how this could have all happened by natural processes alone.’ So you claim design. Which you have to anyway. Not to the extent of a six day creation - you draw the line there. But all your posts can be summed up thus:

It’s clear that you do not comprehend the argument. I did not start with the assumption of design. I started with the bleedin’ obvious fact that blind physical processes do not have foresight of an environment that can in principle be sensed and known, and it would be unreasonable to suggest that it is a coincidence that natures have emerged that can sense and know an environment. The only way to make sense of that is to infer an intelligent being that has the foresight and the capacity to create physical reality with the intent that there would be a possibility of things like sensory perception, a nervous system, and a brain; in other-words things that allow a being to know it’s environment. Otherwise you just have a brute fact, a just-so story.

To put it another way, there are traits in existence that presuppose the existence of an environment, and i don’t think it’s reasonable to think that this fact is a coincidence.

If you are going to criticise an argument, please try to refrain from making a straw-man so that you can avoid the possibility of your opponent thinking that you are either a troll, dishonest, or simply don’t care enough to understand what you are reading.

Your attitude can be summed quite succinctly as the following…

I am so confident in my atheism that a Christian couldn’t possibly make an argument that is correct, so i’m going to assume that they are making an error and dismiss the argument out of hand.

Believe it or not that is exactly how straw-men tend to happen.

 

[Mary888]

Well, the variety of beliefs among Atheists is as varied as those among religious folks. You’d have to ask a specific Atheist.

Yes. Some I know in real life do have a reasonable doubt. Their atheism is rooted more in lack of proof than a predisposition to be an atheist.

 

[IWantGod]

Some I know in real life do have a reasonable doubt.

But what is a reasonable doubt? Is it the idea that in principle God cannot be known to exist through a method of reason (whether that be science, logic, etc) and therefore they are not rationally obligated to think that it’s true? Or is it simply that they believe themselves to have a reasonable doubt? Cause if it’s just belief then the possibility exists that they are in error and therefore it’s possible they don’t have a reasonable doubt.

I think, however a lack of knowledge or capacity to understand can lead to a reasonable doubt, but not because it is rationally evident that it is reasonable to doubt.

In fact one of the tenants of the Catholic faith is that nobody has a reasonable doubt of the existence of God. In fact if the atheist does have a reasonable doubt, than the Catholic faith is wrong as a religion; that is to say it would not be infallible. Correct me if i’m wrong.

 

[Mary888]

But what is a reasonable doubt? Is it the idea that in principle God cannot be known to exist through a method of reason ( whether that be science, logic, etc )

Yes it is. A reasonable doubt is not saying that it is impossible for God to exist, just that person X thinks He doesn’t exist because of lack of proof. Leaving an open to the possibility that He might be proven to exist, but right now the person X believes strongly that He doesn’t.
It’s hard sometimes for someone who is religious, and equates belief with faith, to understand that when an atheist says “I don’t believe God exists” is not equal to the atheist to say “I have faith that God does not exist” because the atheist does not believe in faith as a real state anyway. Most atheists believe religious faith is a very strong state of wishful thinking. Or at least the ones I talked with, personally, not the official position of Dawkins or Onfray or Ecco, or other theoreticians. Theoreticians discuss things in principle, try to cover all weak points of the theory they present. I am referring here to atheists who simply are atheists, they are not set to convince anyone of anything, also not curious about religion.

 

[IWantGod]

I am referring here to atheists who simply are atheists, they are not set to convince anyone of anything, also not curious about religion.

I think it has to be due to an error in thinking about the evidence, and not due to a lack of evidence in principle. Of course some may not have the capacity to comprehend the evidence for God, and they would be referred to as invincibly ignorant.

 

[Economist]

Correct me if i’m wrong.

You are wrong. The catechism says that God’s existence can be known by pure reason alone (which means: without faith), but unfortunately leaves out the argument of “how can it be known?”.

I think it has to be due to an error in thinking about the evidence, and not due to a lack of evidence in principle.

What is that evidence? All the alleged philosophical proofs of God are faulty, and even if some of them would be correct, they would only prove a deistic concept of god.

But let’s get down to the basic question. What do you call evidence for the existence of something supernatural?

 

[IWantGod]

You are wrong. The catechism says that God’s existence can be known by pure reason alone (which means: without faith), but unfortunately leaves out the argument of “how can it be known?”.

So why am i wrong. If it can in principle be known through reason…

… For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse ([Romans 1:19]

…then ignorance of God is not due to not having yet discovered a method of knowing, but rather in the best case scenario it is due to an error in thinking about the evidence.

but unfortunately leaves out the argument of “how can it be known?”.

The Church is only infallible in matters pertaining to it’s core theology. And obviously there are arguments for the existence of God that i wouldn’t accept like William Paley’s watchmaker argument, or the argument from complexity. So i guess it can be seen as a matter of prudence that the church doesn’t commit to any particular argument. However Thomism is highly favoured in the Church.

 

[o_mlly]

You’re adorable! Your pseudonym explains it all.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Your whole argument is one of befuddled amazement. ‘I can’t understand how this could have all happened by natural processes alone.’ So you claim design. Which you have to anyway. Not to the extent of a six day creation - you draw the line there. But all your posts can be summed up thus:

It’s clear that you do not comprehend the argument. I did not start with the assumption of design. I started with the bleedin’ obvious fact that blind physical processes do not have foresight of an environment that can in principle be sensed and known, and it would be unreasonable to suggest that it is a coincidence that natures have emerged that can sense and know an environment. The only way to make sense of that is to infer an intelligent being that has the foresight and the capacity to create physical reality with the intent that there would be a possibility of things like sensory perception, a nervous system, and a brain; in other-words things that allow a being to know it’s environment. Otherwise you just have a brute fact, a just-so story…

Ah. So you couldn’t imagine how the environment could produce something that is aware of its own environment and THEN you surmised an intelligence behind the whole system. Is that how I am supposed to believe how the thought process that you went through went?

All you have done is taken the facile arguments of our evolition denying chums back a few steps. ‘Oh yes, of course there is a natural process that has produced us. We don’t need this so called Intelligent Designer. These science deniers simply don’t understand that natural processes are at work here.’

Except take it all back a few steps and now we have a classic argument from incredulity. ‘It’s not possible that the environment can produce beings that can sense that very environment’.

How on earth do you think evolution works? It’s a constant feedback between life and the environment. It couldn’t work unless life interacted with the environment. And sometime during the great arms race that was the Cambrian Explosion, when simple reflex actions became more developed and consciousness got it’s foot on the first rung of the ladder to self awareness, what the environment produced became aware of the environment.

Except you want a Shazzam moment in there somewhere. Just like Buffalo and Ed does.

 

[Bradskii]

Mary888:

Some I know in real life do have a reasonable doubt.

But what is a reasonable doubt? Is it the idea that in principle God cannot be known to exist through a method of reason (whether that be science, logic, etc) and therefore they are not rationally obligated to think that it’s true? Or is it simply that they believe themselves to have a reasonable doubt? Cause if it’s just belief then the possibility exists that they are in error and therefore it’s possible they don’t have a reasonable doubt.

I think, however a lack of knowledge or capacity to understand can lead to a reasonable doubt, but not because it is rationally evident that it is reasonable to doubt.

In fact one of the tenants of the Catholic faith is that nobody has a reasonable doubt of the existence of God. In fact if the atheist does have a reasonable doubt, than the Catholic faith is wrong as a religion; that is to say it would not be infallible. Correct me if i’m wrong.

You should heed the words of the pope:

'The risk in seeking and finding God in all things, then, is the willingness to explain too much, to say with human certainty and arrogance: “God is here.” ’ The Work of a Christian Lifetime: The hard-earned insights of Pope Francis | America Magazine

 

[Economist]

So why am i wrong. If it can in principle be known through reason…

… For what can be known about God is plain to them , because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made . So they are without excuse ([Romans 1:19]

…then ignorance of God is not due to not having yet discovered a method of knowing, but rather in the best case scenario it is due to an error in thinking about the evidence.

You need faith to accept the bible.

The Church is only infallible in matters pertaining to it’s core theology. And obviously there are arguments for the existence of God that i wouldn’t accept like William Paley’s watchmaker argument, or the argument from complexity. So i guess it can be seen as a matter of prudence that the church doesn’t commit to any particular argument. However Thomism is highly favoured in the Church.

None of those - even if they were correct would point to the biblical God, only to a faceless deistic first cause or a variation thereof.

You say: “a matter of prudence”? If the church cannot commit to any specific argument then the only rational conclusion is that there IS NO specific argument.

 

[IWantGod]

So you couldn’t imagine how the environment could produce something that is aware of its own environment

No. I am simply pointing out the fact that there is an environment, and the fact that there are natures that have qualities that allow them to know their environment. And i am saying that it is not a coincidence there is an environment that can in principle be known and also the possibility of there being a nature that can know the environment. Since blind physical processes do not have foresight of an environment, nor the will or intent to create a subject/object dynamic, we cannot explain the existence of these traits and their relationship to the environment through blind natural physical processes alone.

In other-words we don’t simply have an arbitrary situation where there just happens to be a knower of environments and an environment that can in principle be known. We have a an ontological relationship that compliments each-other. The two relate to one-another teleologically.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

None of those - even if they were correct would point to the biblical God, only to a faceless deistic first cause or a variation thereof.

That would certainly be the starting point, but from there it would become necessary to ask, seeing as there is a god of some manner, which understanding of this god is most accurate?

You can’t just reach the point of “this says there’s a god,” and then not take that further.

 

[Economist]

That would certainly be the starting point, but from there it would be come necessary to ask, seeing as there is a god of some manner, which understanding of this god is most accurate?

You can’t just reach the point of “this says there’s a god,” and then not take that further.

That is reasonable, but it rests on the assumption that one or more of those philosophical proofs IS correct.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So you couldn’t imagine how the environment could produce something that is aware of its own environment

No. I am simply pointing out the fact that there is an environment, and the fact that there are natures that have qualities that allow them to know their environment. And i am saying that it is not a coincidence there is an environment that can in principle be known and also the possibility their being a nature that can know the environment. Since blind physical processes do not have foresight of an environment, nor the will or intent to create a subject/object dynamic, we cannot explain the existence of these taints and their relationship to the environment through blind natural physical processes alone.

In other-words we don’t simply have an arbitrary situation where there is a knower of environments and an environment that can in principle be known. We have a an ontological relationship that compliments each-other. The two relate to one-another teleological.

The moment that life emerged then it responded to the environment. That is a given. It could not have been any other way. You cannot have life WITHOUT it interacting with the environment in which it lives. From which it emerged. Consciousness and self awareness took some time to emerge but that is simply part of the natural process.

If you want to go right back to that moment then we still have an argument from incredulity. It’s a variation of the argument against the anthropic principle. Next you’ll be arguing that the fact that Earth is just the right distance from the sun for life is waaay too much of a coincidence as well.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

That is reasonable, but it rests on the assumption that one or more of those philosophical proofs IS correct.

Quite true, but my point was that you seemed to be dismissing the notion of the Christian God base solely on the fact that the proofs did not point to Him specifically. I was just trying to point out that that was a bit of a non-sequitur.

 

[Bradskii]

Economist:

None of those - even if they were correct would point to the biblical God, only to a faceless deistic first cause or a variation thereof.

That would certainly be the starting point, but from there it would become necessary to ask, seeing as there is a god of some manner, which understanding of this god is most accurate?

How many different understandings do you think need to be carefully investigated before reaching a decision on which one is most accurate?

 

[Economist]

Quite true, but my point was that you seemed to be dismissing the notion of the Christian God base solely on the fact that the proofs did not point to Him specifically. I was just trying to point out that that was a bit of a non-sequitur.

Why would it be a non-sequitur? The catechism explicitly declares that God’s existence can be KNOWN through pure reason alone - without reference to authority or faith. I am not adamant of requesting that a specific argument should be proven. Any one of them would do - as long as they would not refer to faith.

 

[IWantGod]

The moment that life emerged then it responded to the environment.

It responded to an environment it didn’t know was there.

Consciousness and self awareness took some time to emerge but that is simply part of the natural process.

And then natures and qualities just so happen to emerge, such as brains, a central nervous system, a sensory awareness, that allow for the ability to know and navigate an environment that can in principle be known.

Physics cannot explain that, not just because it’s hard to explain, but because it has no relevance to the question of why a relationship like that could possibly exist.

Nobody is arguing that these things didn’t emerge from a natural process, one is arguing that the possibility of there being a knower in an environment that in principle can possibly be known is not a coincidence at all because they presuppose the possibility of one-another. The possibility of the knower and an object that can be known is in principle a teleological relationship whether they actually exist or not because they compliment one-another; and since blind natural processes have no intent or foreknowledge of environments or knowers you cannot explain the possibility of their being an emergence of one in relation to the other using blind natural processes alone. It’s irrelevant that they became actual through the activity of blind natural processes. By itself, that is not a sufficient explanation of the possibility, it’s just an explanation of how it came to be an effect.

Like i said before it is not a scientific question, it is a metaphysical question.