Do Atheists have a reasonable doubt?

[ProdglArchitect]

I didn’t say that nothingness is capable of producing anything. I said that nothingness is unstable. Things can pop up to existence if nothingness is unstable.

Through a torturous rereading of your posts, I can see where that would be your intent, so fine, we’ll work from that.

That still doesn’t change the fact that nothingness, by definition, CANNOT BE UNSTABLE. It also can’t be stable. It’s can’t have ANY states, qualifiers, adjectives, or anything else applied to it. You don’t acutally seem to grasp what nothingness is, which is nothing. There is no is…

It cannot be unstable, therefore your argument is irrational.

I’m done repeating myself now, so I imagine this’ll be the end of the conversation. If your SOP holds true, you’ll make one more response, to which I will respond, and then your brazenly re-present your argument as though it still held some merit, despite the fact that, as stated, it’s irrational. I’ll save you and myself some time by saying don’t bother. You’re don’t seem to be listening to us, and we’re tired of repeating ourselves.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

IWantGod:

steve-b:

It’s a choice of the will.

What is meant by that? Do you mean atheists do have a natural desire or interest in knowing God but choose not to? Or do you mean something else?

They choose not to.

If we had no choice in the matter, between life and death blessings and curses, God or no God, … we would be guilty of nothing.

And this is the verdict: The Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come into the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
John 3:19

AND​

The best example of exercising free will, IMV

is​

God in the flesh, Jesus, gave His “disciples” the 12 included, the bread of life discourse which they needed to know and do

and we see the “disciples” (NOT the 12 this time) freely walked away from Jesus never to follow Him again. Did Jesus go after them? Nope! Did He try to further explain? Nope! They made their choice freely.

 

[Bradskii]

Again Evolution as a theory is not an explanation of why particular traits are a possible effect of a given process…

They’re not an effect. The traits, which are effectively undeniable, are a result of evolution. That is, they have been selected for because they are the ones left after the others died out.

For example, there are very many fewer people who prefer to work as an individual then there are those who prefer to be in a group environment. That’s undeniable. And it can be described as a trait. And it’s the result of the evolutionary process.

This is evolution 101. I’m not sure how you can argue against it. And I’m not sure why you’d want to.

 

[tafan2]

I am saying, in my experience, most atheists are not scientists. Your statement that almost all atheists are scientists wrong. Here are some statistics from a quick google. 1.6% of Americans identify as atheists, that is around 4.85 million people. According to the US government, there are 6.9 million STEM professionals in the US, of which 3.8% are physical scientists, 4.1 percent are life scientists, and 2.4% are mathematical occupations. We will not count the 57% computer occupations and the 24% engineers. So that is a total of 13.22% of 6.9 million, which is 911,000 scientists. We will assume that some were left out, so lets just say 1 million actual scientists. But 4.85 million atheists. Hence most atheists are NOT scientists.

Which is netiher here nor there as far as I am concerned, but you thought it was a significant point. So I figure you should be corrected

 

[STT]

Your statement that almost all atheists are scientists wrong.

I didn’t say that. I said most atheists who are scientist…

 

[IWantGod]

They’re not an effect.

They are an effect

The traits, which are effectively undeniable, are a result of evolution.

In a scientific context to say that traits are a result of evolution is to say that qualities or traits have emerged because of the activity of physical processes and happens to aid in the survival of an organism because of the principle of natural selection.

I am not denying that.

I am operating in the context of metaphysics. I am asking why a particular type of activity (goal directed behaviour) should be a metaphysical possibility given the nature of physics alone (presuming that metaphysical naturalism is true ) and i conclude that it shouldn’t because it’s fundamental behaviour is inconsistent with the fundamental nature and activity of what everything is comprised of - blind physical natural processes that are not acting for a meaningful goal or any goal at all. Given metaphysical naturalism, it doesn’t make sense that these traits exist.

Evolution as a theory is not an explanation of why particular traits are a possible effect of a given process. In this sense Evolution is not the cause of any traits. it’s simply the process in which traits happen to emerge and persist genetically. So to say evolution is all that is needed to explain the existence of traits is a fallacy.

 

[tafan2]

Oh, so you did. I am an idiot sometimes. Sorry.

 

[tafan2]

I will argue against it. As one who believes in evolution from a biology as the way life developed on earth, I take exception with the idea that all behavior traits of people are a result of a biological evolutionary process. Some of them likely are, but there is little evidence for attributing all of our behavior patterns to evolution. Genetics likely has little to do with a lot of our common behavior. I am no expert in microbiology, but I always have seen these claims with no scientific evidence. Certainly not the level of evidence that evolution scientists can show for physical development of life.

And I have seen high school biology textbooks of my kids which discuss evolution (evolution 101 if you will), and they do not make these arguments at all. Way to many sociologists have simply jumped on the evolution bandwagon, but they do not have the biological evidence for these claims.

 

[Bradskii]

In this sense Evolution is not the cause of any traits. it’s simply the process in which traits happen to emerge and persist genetically. So to say evolution is all that is needed to explain the existence of traits is a fallacy.

The evolutionary process is a process which causes traits to emerge. Where on earth is there in that simple sentence which can be disputed?

 

[IWantGod]

The evolutionary process is a process which causes traits to emerge. Where on earth is there in that simple sentence which can be disputed?

I am not disputing evolutionary processes. I am disputing the philosophical idea that an evolutionary process is the metaphysical reason why particular traits are an ontologically possible effect of a given process.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Again, that’s not meant as a slight against atheists, but the op asked for an honest assessment, and that’s mine

Just wanted to let you know I appreciate the respectful tone of your post. This is how we learn from each other. So thanks.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

The evolutionary process is a process which causes traits to emerge. Where on earth is there in that simple sentence which can be disputed?

I am not disputing evolutionary processes. I am disputing the philosophical idea that an evolutionary process is the metaphysical reason why particular traits are an ontologically possible effect of a given process.

There is no metaphysical reason. It’s a physical process. Why confuse the two? Two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen one combining is not a metaphysical process. Neither is evolution.

 

[po18guy]

Reasonable doubt requires that the reasoning employed in arriving at that doubt is reasonable.

Professor Peter Kreeft states:

“We cannot avoid reasoning - we can only avoid reasoning poorly.”

 

[IWantGod]

There is no metaphysical reason.

You don’t know what a metaphysical reason is, and it shows as your post progresses. But that’s okay, we’ll just agree to disagree.

It’s a physical process.

There is certainly a physical process involved.

Why confuse the two?

I don’t, you do.

Two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen one combining is not a metaphysical process.

I never argued that there is a metaphysical process. I am basically saying that there is ultimately a reason why certain traits exist that cannot be resolved or reduced to physical causes or processes as a sufficient explanation. Blind physical processes are involved in the actuality of these traits as secondary causes but they are not the ultimate cause of why these particular traits possibly exist as an effect. Why am i arguing this? Because if metaphysical naturalism is true, then everything is fundamentally comprised of only blind natural processes and therefore there is no goal directed activity or natural goals or anything associated with that idea and nor should there be. But there is goal directed activity (it is self evident in our activity as humans), which is the very antithesis of a blind natural process. Therefore the only possible way that such traits could actually exist as a possible outcome of blind natural processes is because God intended that there would be a possibility of those traits emerging within physical systems. Otherwise the existence of such a trait is unintelligible and essentially a brute fact. In other-words metaphysical naturalism is false and irrational given what we experience in ourselves and other biological systems.

To ask why any effect ought to be the ontological consequence of any cause is a metaphysical question, not a physics question or a biological question. You are merely presuming that it is a question of evolution and your opinion which is far from a scientific one is short sighted at best.

 

[IWantGod]

Yes, I’ve noticed before that you have a tendency to adopt this dismissive tone of voice.

I don’t mean to be dismissive. My apoligees if my choice of words offended you.

 

[PickyPicky]

I don’t mean to be dismissive. My apoligees if my choice of words offended you

Thank you, that is generous of you.

 

[PickyPicky]

Why would that concept or desire even be a thing in a completely physical existence comprised only of blind natural processes.

Those of us with a distaste for metaphysics sometimes have a particular distaste for “why is x?” questions because there is an unspoken assumption that the natural state of affairs is no-x, and x is therefore an anomaly requiring explanation. The answer to “why is x?” is usually “because it is” and the negative applies also.

In the light of that statement which I chuck out without justification could you say which other human desires or traits require metaphysical justification, if any, and why?

 

[o_mlly]

I take exception with the idea that all behavior traits of people are a result of a biological evolutionary process.

Some evil “traits” can be traced not so much to evolution as to the belief in natural selection.

Loading…

americanvision.org

 

[Bradskii]

To ask why any effect ought to be the ontological consequence of any cause is a metaphysical question, not a physics question or a biological question. You are merely presuming that it is a question of evolution and your opinion which is far from a scientific one is short sighted at best.

You can start off with an assumption that there is meaning and then look for evidence that supports your view. Or you can look at the evidence and see where it might lead. Me? I do the second.

And here’s a quick definition of metaphysics: ‘In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies’. That does not include evolution. Or it’s effects.

 

[Bradskii]

tafan2:

I take exception with the idea that all behavior traits of people are a result of a biological evolutionary process.

Some evil “traits” can be traced not so much to evolution as to the belief in natural selection.

Gilroy Garlic Festival Shooter Was a Darwinist - The American Vision

The book he read was such a travesty of Darwin’s original work that the author didn’t even understand his own title: Might Is Right or The Survival of the Fittest.

He thought that fittest means strongest. Dear me…

I don’t know how you can prevent stupid people doing evil things. But a reasonable amount of education should prevent most people from thinking it was done because of a scientific theory.