God Delusion is Delusional

[BlueShadow123]

God either needs to pay a little visit to Dawkins or he needs to experience a miracle.

 

[davidv]

God either needs to pay a little visit to Dawkins or he needs to experience a miracle.

If he is as staunch an atheist as he is made out be, neither of these things would make much of a difference.

 

[BlueShadow123]

If he is as staunch an atheist as he is made out be, neither of these things would make much of a difference.

I knew somebody would say that.
You don’t understand that Dawkins is an atheist because he has no reason to believe in God.

If God gave him a reason like appearing to him or letting dawkins see a miracle, it would be different.

 

[davidv]

I knew somebody would say that.
You don’t understand that Dawkins is an atheist because he has no reason to believe in God.

If God gave him a reason like appearing to him or letting dawkins see a miracle, it would be different.

How do you know why Dawkins is an atheist? Do you know him personally? I don’t know the answer to why he is an atheist. Please reread my post more carefully, as I did not presume to know.

 

[BlueShadow123]

How do you know why Dawkins is an atheist? Do you know him personally? I don’t know the answer to why he is an atheist. Please reread my post more carefully, as I did not presume to know.

Have you read his book or seen his movie?

He has no REASON to believe in God. No proof, nothing.

But God can change that.

 

[Spock]

He has no REASON to believe in God. No proof, nothing.

But God can change that.

Very good point. And the usual answer by other theists is similar to what david says:

For those who believe no proof is necessary - which is true…
For those who do not believe no proof is sufficient - which is total balderdash…

This kind of so-called-answer is very frustrating. It does not say explicitly, but it implies very strongly that atheists are so unreasonable, that they would deny even a personal visit, they would deny the testimony of their own senses. If one is given proof, then the belief to the contrary is wiped out. I really wish that these kinds of “pseudo-arguments” would go away, but of course they will not, no matter how many times they are refuted. Personally, I would very welcome a visit from God, and would invite him for a friendly fireside chat. Somehow this often-repeated invitation is neglected.

The usual “answer” to this is that a personal visit would strike me dead, or such a visit would rob me of my free will, or something equally inane.

 

[tonyrey]

I knew somebody would say that.
You don’t understand that Dawkins is an atheist because he has no reason to believe in God.

If God gave him a reason like appearing to him or letting dawkins see a miracle, it would be different.

He has as much reason to believe in God as anyone else but he prefers to attribute truth, goodness, beauty, freedom, love and - above all - his power of reason to purposeless processes…

 

[Betterave]

Originally Posted by awatkins69
Yes, we are now getting somewhere. This is good. If I understand you correctly, I was entertaining this idea myself while I was watching a movie. What you are saying is for it to be a possible world, it must have some entity. In all possible worlds, that entity is contingent, correct?

awatkins69:

Sorry. I guess I wasn’t clear enough, and that’s my fault. I don’t mean you say it is the same entity.

Correction, awatkins: you were clear enough, and it wasn’t your fault. You didn’t say it was the same entity, Spock made that up. Spock really seems to be intentionally misunderstanding your argument. If he was more open-minded probably he would respond to the actual evidence/reasoning presented to him, instead of misreading it - just like Dawkins probably would.

**[Here’s Spock again trying to ‘clarify’ awatkins’ perfectly clear use of terms:]**The definition of a possible world is a state of affairs, which is different from our existing one. No more, no less. Our world is clearly “possible”, since it exists.

So our world is a possible world, but by definition this means that it is different from itself?

 

[Betterave]

Hi Spock. Sorry I can’t reply to your other argument, but we can only do so much here. I’d note though, that I don’t think you understand what I mean by “truthmaker”. Another quick note: even given that some truths which are considered “necessary” are just parts of formal systems (though I do think some systems, like Euclidean geometry, are falsifiable, and indeed have been falsified), it doesn’t follow that they are contingent. They are necessarily true given the rules. Moreover, metaphysically necessary truths like “something cannot both be and not-be at the same time and in the same respect” could never fall to the same criticism. This proposition describes something about the way reality is, not about the rules of our formal game.

Spock can correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be missing the fact that Spock ultimately responds to any *reasons *that contradict his dogmas by an appeal to a crude empiricism which claims that the only valid proof of any existential claim is of the form: “I perceived it with my senses,” or more specifically “I sat down by the fire and chatted with Him” - and let’s be honest: even then he would argue with God no less. He would just point out that God can’t *prove *to him that He’s a necessary being, etc., so thanks for coming out God, but please go away now.

 

[tonyrey]

God either needs to pay a little visit to Dawkins or he needs to experience a miracle.

Dawkins is so violently opposed to religion that in either case he would think he is being deluded!

 

[Spock]

So our world is a possible world, but by definition this means that it is different from itself?

Rolls eyes, indeed. Have you heard of a difference, which is zero? No, I guess, you did not. Instead of making your usual nasty, condescending remarks, why don’t you try to make a meaningful contribution? Is that so hard to do?

Spock can correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be missing the fact that Spock ultimately responds to any *reasons *that contradict his dogmas by an appeal to a crude empiricism which claims that the only valid proof of any existential claim is of the form: “I perceived it with my senses,” or more specifically “I sat down by the fire and chatted with Him” - and let’s be honest: even then he would argue with God no less. He would just point out that God can’t *prove *to him that He’s a necessary being, etc., so thanks for coming out God, but please go away now.

God cannot “prove” lots of things. He cannot “prove” that he is omniscient, for example. He cannot prove that he is a necessary being - since that concept is nonsensical. But we can postpone this until the time that God actually accepts my open invitation, and comes down to chat with me. He is always welcome. Coffee and cakes are ready.

 

[Spock]

He has as much reason to believe in God as anyone else but he prefers to attribute truth, goodness, beauty, freedom, love and - above all - his power of reason to purposeless processes…

Your only “argument” is called the “argument from incredulity”, repeated by now many hundreds of times (and it is very boring). Let me translate it for you. You say: “I simply cannot fathom or understand or comprehend how these attributes came into being by natural processes, so I prefer to imagine that they were created by some unknowable, unimaginable, magical being, who used unfathomable, magical means to make it somehow happen”. And you think that this is an “explanation”. So sad…

 

[The_Exodus]

Spock,

I’ve tried to communicate with you before, but it’s not always come together. Perhaps you could tell me what you think of these premisses.

• The beings which we sense are caused to be by other, prior beings.
• These prior beings are either temporally or logically prior (my parents were temporally prior to my existence, and this chair is logically prior to my being seated).
• The totality of existence cannot consist in an infinite number of these same beings, else no being would ever receive being from another.
• This is because, if we appeal to infinity, we are left with an infinitely insufficient causal chain, which is itself contingent on some prior being.
• Reductio ad absurdum is a permissible form of argumentation and can lead us to logical truth.
• Therefore, since we cannot procede to infinity, a Prime Mover must exist.

 

[Spock]

Spock,

I’ve tried to communicate with you before, but it’s not always come together. Perhaps you could tell me what you think of these premisses.

• The beings which we sense are caused to be by other, prior beings.
• These prior beings are either temporally or logically prior (my parents were temporally prior to my existence, and this chair is logically prior to my being seated).
• The totality of existence cannot consist in an infinite number of these same beings, else no being would ever receive being from another.
• This is because, if we appeal to infinity, we are left with an infinitely insufficient causal chain, which is itself contingent on some prior being.
• Reductio ad absurdum is a permissible form of argumentation and can lead us to logical truth.
• Therefore, since we cannot procede to infinity, a Prime Mover must exist.

I will be glad to reply:

1. Some certainly are. We do see many instances of causation, of that there can be no doubt. To extend that to observation to all the beings would be unjustified. Something akin to the following: “we have never seen a white raven, therefore white ravens cannot exist”. There is another problem. You attempt to generalize from the observed particular to the whole. Even if it were true that every instance of reality is part of a prior causal chain (and that is just an assumption), you cannot generalize that there is a causative factor for the collection of these individual events. This assumption is called the fallacy of composition. One specific counter-example of logically uncaused event is the assumption that we have libertarian free will. If we have libertarian free will, then out actions are uncaused events. And one more problem: matter/energy/space/time are only defined within the universe, and causation is only defined within the universe. Causation is simply an exchange of material particles. It cannot be defined for the whole universe.

There is no need to continue to the other points, since I am disputing the very basis your other points rest upon.

 

[BlueShadow123]

He has as much reason to believe in God as anyone else but he prefers to attribute truth, goodness, beauty, freedom, love and - above all - his power of reason to purposeless processes…

He sees no proof to believe in God. But God could easily change that by paying him a visit.

But he wont. I dont know why, thats his business. I’m saying if dawkins were to witness a miracle that would have been impossible for science to do, I definitely know dawkins would become an agnostic and eventually a believer of some sort, even though he technically really is. He knows he cannot disprove God, but theres MANY things you cannot disprove.

 

[The_Exodus]

spock:

1. Some certainly are. We do see many instances of causation, of that there can be no doubt. To extend that to observation to all the beings would be unjustified.

The premise is not “all beings have causes” but “all beings we sense” have causes. Do you accept this premise? I would likewise reject the premise “all beings have causes” as being unsubstatiated, but, again, the premise I offered is different.

spock:

Something akin to the following: “we have never seen a white raven, therefore white ravens cannot exist”.

Not at all. The method I’m following is entirely empirical and a posteriori. “We sense that white ravens have causes” in other words.

spock:

You attempt to generalize from the observed particular to the whole. Even if it were true that every instance of reality is part of a prior causal chain (and that is just an assumption), you cannot generalize that there is a causative factor for the collection of these individual events. This assumption is called the fallacy of composition.

The premises move by way of reductio ad absurdum. That is, what we sense cannot account for itself. Ergo, there must be some other explanation for the way things work (supposing you do not think the universe is absurd.) In other words, the premises show that the causal chain is an insufficient explanation of itself, therefore, etc. Now, you may say this is generalizing (and, indeed, in a way it is), but how does that make it automatically fallacious? It seems to me a perfectly reasonable way to argue. Do you deny the validity of reductio ad absurdum in principle, or do you have a reason for doing so?

spock:

One specific counter-example of logically uncaused event is the assumption that we have libertarian free will. If we have libertarian free will, then out actions are uncaused events.

Well this is a whole nother can of worms, but most scholars who hold we have “libertarian” free will do not say our actions are “uncaused” (indeed, the “who” or “what” which causes them are ourselves.)

spock:

And one more problem: matter/energy/space/time are only defined within the universe, and causation is only defined within the universe. Causation is simply an exchange of material particles. It cannot be defined for the whole universe.

I’m not sure I understand your point here. I don’t know what you mean by saying causation is defined only within the universe, and then at the same time saying it cannot be defined for the whole universe.

 

[tonyrey]

our only “argument” is called the “argument from incredulity”, repeated by now many hundreds of times (and it is very boring). Let me translate it for you. You say: “I simply cannot fathom or understand or comprehend how these attributes came into being by natural processes, so I prefer to imagine that they were created by some unknowable, unimaginable, magical being, who used unfathomable, magical means to make it somehow happen”. And you think that this is an “explanation”. So sad…

The same old riposte: any failure to explain on your part is a virtue whereas any failure on ours is a vice!

Your only argument is incredulity in the face of overwhelming evidence that materialism is blatantly false and does not correspond to the way you or any sane person lives, i.e. as if life is inscrutable, valueless and purposeless.

You say: “I simply cannot fathom or understand or comprehend how these attributes came into being by natural processes but I prefer to fantasize that they did so despite my ignorance because I cannot stomach the idea that there exists a Supreme Being who is superior to me in every respect - especially with regard to my limited knowledge, insight and intelligence - and consequently I cling with blind faith to the hopelessly inadequate hypothesis that rational beings have been created by some unknowable, unimaginable, magical means from blind, purposeless particles which are completely devoid of knowledge, insight and intelligence”.

Do you really believe this **strengthens **your position!

 

[tonyrey]

He sees no proof to believe in God. But God could easily change that by paying him a visit.

That is an act of faith. What evidence do you have that he would believe?

But he wont. I dont know why, thats his business.

Hubris. No rational being believes that God **cannot **exist.

I’m saying if dawkins were to witness a miracle that would have been impossible for science to do, I definitely know dawkins would become an agnostic and eventually a believer of some sort, even though he technically really is. He knows he cannot disprove God, but theres MANY things you cannot disprove.

A man who believes religion is evil and religious education is child abuse is hardly likely to become an agnostic…

 

[BlueShadow123]

That is an act of faith. What evidence do you have that he would believe?

Hubris. No rational being believes that God **cannot **exist.

A man who believes religion is evil and religious education is child abuse is hardly likely to become an agnostic…

Religion isn’t evil, but it does brainwash some people and keeps them from certain logic. Also some people use harm in the name of their ‘religion’. Not all, but some do.

 

[Spock]

That is, what we sense cannot account for itself.

What does this mean? What do you mean by the phrase that it “cannot account for itself”?

I am saying that the observed existence of causal relations is an inherent property of matter / energy. Just like motion, etc… They need no “explanation”.

Well this is a whole nother can of worms, but most scholars who hold we have “libertarian” free will do not say our actions are “uncaused” (indeed, the “who” or “what” which causes them are ourselves.)

Certainly. But that is the same: “they are not caused by outside factors”, though they do not exist in vacuum, so they are influenced by outside factors.

I’m not sure I understand your point here. I don’t know what you mean by saying causation is defined only within the universe, and then at the same time saying it cannot be defined for the whole universe.

The universe is a collection of entities. Even if one can meaningfully define a causative relationship for the individual entites (all of them, which is just an assumption) such a causative relationship cannot be defined for the collection (the universe).