How do you feel about atheists?

[MrEmpiricism]

I don’t see any gaps. I say perfectly ordered universe, so perfectly ordered that it can only be the result of design. Well actually I do see a gap-I see a huge gap for those who claim there is no God and that is the Gap that they no explanation for how they even exist or the universe even exists

I think the major problem with atheism is that it adherents are so narrowly focused on the" how "that.they never consider the "why"and the “who”.

“there is no God and that is the Gap that they no explanation for how they even exist or the universe even exists”

and there is the fallacy in a nutshell.

The argument from ignorance is, at heart, an Enthymeme, a syllogism with an unstated premise:

1. I don’t understand how x could have happened.
2. My lack of understanding can be circumvented by evoking a God.
3. Therefore, God caused x.

The origin of the universe is simply an unknown, EVEN if you accept god did it, for you still cannot explain how god did it. As far as knowledge is concerned the answers ‘god did it’ and ‘I do not know’ are equally as un-explanatory.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Because when there are only 2 options, logic dictates that in rejecting one, you accept the other.

#logic

Until you fail to grasp why this is wrong there really is no point in discussion, it really is such a fundamental error in critical thought that there is no moving past it.

Do you not understand how someone can be found not guilty at court without believing they are innocent?

You can #logic all you like but you are demonstrating that you do not even understand the basics of logic.

In fact on the last page you even admitted you were wrong when it was explained using the number of balls in a jar example.

 

[PRmerger]

It means anyone could verify the evidence.

When I say: please define “independently verified”, it would be helpful if you don’t use “verify” in your defintion.

What do you mean by “independently verified”?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

from the last page…
Re: How do you feel about atheists?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrEmpiricism View Post
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philos…urden_of_proof

A large jar full of gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof.[12][13] It is a fact of reality that the number of gumballs in the jar is either even or odd, but the degree of personal acceptance or rejection of claims about that characteristic is more nuanced depending upon the evidence available. We can choose to consider two claims about the situation, given as:
1.The number of gumballs is even.
2.The number of gumballs is odd.

These two claims can be considered independently. Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of distinguishing either of the two claims. When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we may suspend judgment. If there is a claim proposed and that claim is disputed, the burden of proof falls onto the proponent of the claim. From a cognitive sense, when no personal preference toward opposing claims exists, one may be either skeptical of both claims or ambivalent of both claims.
**
YOU - Yes. This is correct. **

 

[PRmerger]

Do you not understand how someone can be found not guilty at court without believing they are innocent?

Certainly. Because there are not only 2 options. And the options are not mutually exclusive.

You seem to be operating under some rather fundamentalist thinking, MrE.

That’s not how the world is.

Some things are not mutually exclusive–you are correct here–like “not guilty” in a court of law, innocent, and guilty.

But that doesn’t mean that all things are not mutually exclusive.

So if I flip a coin into my hand, it’s EITHER heads…OR…

wait for it…

wait for it…

it MUST BE tails.

That means if you say, “I don’t believe it’s heads”…

you MUST believe, “It’s tails.”

#nootheroption

 

[MrEmpiricism]

When I say: please define “independently verified”, it would be helpful if you don’t use “verify” in your defintion.

What do you mean by “independently verified”?

That is exactly what it means…It mean others can reproduce and independently verify evidence. .

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Certainly. Because there are not only 2 options. And the options are not mutually exclusive.

You seem to be operating under some rather fundamentalist thinking, MrE.

That’s not how the world is.

Some things are not mutually exclusive–you are correct here–like “not guilty” in a court of law, innocent, and guilty.

But that doesn’t mean that all things are not mutually exclusive.

So if I flip a coin into my hand, it’s EITHER heads…OR…

wait for it…

wait for it…

it MUST BE tails.

That means if you say, “I don’t believe it’s heads”…

you MUST believe, “It’s tails.”

#nootheroption

And someone in a court of law is either guilty or innocent. The number of balls in the jar is either odd or even! THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS.

I am not sure what else to tell you here, you are simply wrong. And this has NOTHING to do with atheism or theism, go listen to matt slick or lane craig they are very careful to point out the exact error you are making.

 

[PRmerger]

Certainly. Because there are not only 2 options. And the options are not mutually exclusive.

You seem to be operating under some rather fundamentalist thinking, MrE.

That’s not how the world is.

Some things are not mutually exclusive–you are correct here–like “not guilty” in a court of law, innocent, and guilty.

But that doesn’t mean that all things are not mutually exclusive.

So if I flip a coin into my hand, it’s EITHER heads…OR…

wait for it…

wait for it…

it MUST BE tails.

That means if you say, “I don’t believe it’s heads”…

you MUST believe, “It’s tails.”

#nootheroption

Imagine MrE having a conversation with his 10 yr old son in this context. Son gets to keep the $1 coin if he’s correct.

MrE: Heads or tails, son!

Son: I don’t believe it’s heads, Dad. wry grin

MrE: It’s tails. You lose. Sorry. No coin for you.

Son: Wait…what? When I said I didn’t believe it’s heads, that’s just another way to say that I believe it’s tails. I was just trying a circumlocution. I thought you’d get that.

MrE: Nope. You lose. Just because you said it wasn’t heads doesn’t mean you believe it’s tails.

Son: thinking to himself He doesn’t get the most basic logic that even I know to be true.

 

[estesbob]

“there is no God and that is the Gap that they no explanation for how they even exist or the universe even exists”

and there is the fallacy in a nutshell.

The argument from ignorance is, at heart, an Enthymeme, a syllogism with an unstated premise:

1. I don’t understand how x could have happened.
2. My lack of understanding can be circumvented by evoking a God.
3. Therefore, God caused x.

The origin of the universe is simply an unknown, EVEN if you accept god did it, for you still cannot explain how god did it. As far as knowledge is concerned the answers ‘god did it’ and ‘I do not know’ are equally as un-explanatory.

The origin of the universe is not unknown to those who acknowledge God . The very fact we exist and the universe exist is the fatal flaw of atheism. They have no explanation as to where the universe came from and where life came from other then, of course, they know it happened and we must take it on blind faith that there must be a logical explanation for why it exist

 

[estesbob]

That is exactly what it means…It mean others can reproduce and independently verify evidence. .

Can you reproduce and independently verify the fact that life sprung from non life? Or do we have to take it on faith?

 

[PRmerger]

That is called an argument for ignorance… God of the gaps fallacy.

I don’t think you understand what the God of the gaps fallacy is, MrE.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Imagine MrE having a conversation with his 10 yr old son in this context. Son gets to keep the $1 coin if he’s correct.

MrE: Heads or tails, son!

Son: I don’t believe it’s heads, Dad. wry grin

MrE: It’s tails. You lose. Sorry. No coin for you.

Son: Wait…what? When I said I didn’t believe it’s heads, that’s just another way to say that I believe it’s tails. I was just trying a circumlocution. I thought you’d get that.

MrE: Nope. You lose. Just because you said it wasn’t heads doesn’t mean you believe it’s tails.

Son: thinking to himself He doesn’t get the most basic logic that even I know to be true.

Dear me

Ok lets try this one more time.

Someone in a court of law either committed the crime or they did not, they are either Guilty or innocent of the crime, that is the only two options and they ARE mutually exclusive. New number of balls in a jar is either odd or even that is the only two options and they ARE mutually exclusive. The side of a coin can only be heads or tails that is the only two options and they ARE mutually exclusive.

I think need to ponder why it is that you can grasp for the first two that you can reject A without accepting B but you cannot for the 3rd?

 

[estesbob]

And someone in a court of law is either guilty or innocent. The number of balls in the jar is either odd or even! THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS.

I am not sure what else to tell you here, you are simply wrong. And this has NOTHING to do with atheism or theism, go listen to matt slick or lane craig they are very careful to point out the exact error you are making.

Why should I have to accept your restrictive definition of what is “even” or “odd”

 

[MrEmpiricism]

I don’t think you understand what the God of the gaps fallacy is, MrE.

I am not even going open a discussion with you in regard to logical fallacies when you can’t even grasp the basics of the burden of proof.

 

[PRmerger]

And someone in a court of law is either guilty or innocent.

They are seen juridically as either guilty or innocent.

But that does not reflect the reality of whether they actually are guilty or innocent.

Surely you can see that a coin is either head or tails, when flipped into a palm, yes?

Surely you must be able to see that.

Surely.

I. cannot. fathom. any. mentally. sane. person. not. grasping. that.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Why should I have to accept your restrictive definition of what is “even” or “odd”

Notsureifserious.gif

 

[PRmerger]

Dear me

Ok lets try this one more time.

Someone in a court of law either committed the crime or they did not, they are either Guilty or innocent of the crime, that is the only two options and they ARE mutually exclusive. New number of balls in a jar is either odd or even that is the only two options and they ARE mutually exclusive. The side of a coin can only be heads or tails that is the only two options and they ARE mutually exclusive.

I think need to ponder why it is that you can grasp for the first two that you can reject A without accepting B but you cannot for the 3rd?

Let’s just take the coin example, please.

Because that’s an example of something that is mutually exclusive.

Courtroom dramas are not an example of mutually exclusive concepts.

And, bringing this back en pointe, the universe either beginning to exist, or existing forever is a mutually exclusive concept.

You agree that you would have cheated your son out of a $1 coin in the scenario aforementioned, yes?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

They are seen juridically as either guilty or innocent.

But that does not reflect the reality of whether they actually are guilty or innocent.

Surely you can see that a coin is either head or tails, when flipped into a palm, yes?

Surely you must be able to see that.

Surely.

I. cannot. fathom. any. mentally. sane. person. not. grasping. that.

No, as a matter of truth they either committed the crime they are accused of or they did not. That is a simple FACT.
As a matter of truth the number of balls in a jar is either odd or it is even.

You really need to go read up on this, go and listen to matt slick on the matter, he would be just as astonished at what you are saying as I am. An what makes it worse is you agreed with me a few pages back when I explained this to used the odd and even number example.

Why is it can grasp it for odd and even numbers but not heads or tails?

 

[PRmerger]

Just the same as heads and tails.

Not at all.

In fact, it is quite trenchant that the wiki article did NOT use heads and tails.

That would have been a much, much simpler example, no?

Why didn’t they use it?

Because it’s not appropriate to limn what was attempting to be explained.

When one rejects the claim: it’s heads…

it implies that the belief is: it’s tails.

Your 10 yr old son is crying right now, MrE.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Let’s just take the coin example, please.

Because that’s an example of something that is mutually exclusive.

Courtroom dramas are not an example of mutually exclusive concepts.

And, bringing this back en pointe, the universe either beginning to exist, or existing forever is a mutually exclusive concept.

You agree that you would have cheated your son out of a $1 coin in the scenario aforementioned, yes?

Someone either committed the crime or they did not, they ARE either guilty or innocent of the crime and they ARE mutually exclusive. Someone can NOT be guilt of carrying out an assault and at the same time of be innocent of the assault they are guilty of committing.

But if you want to avoid the court lets talk about the odd and even balls after all you seem to be able to understand the concept when it is applied to that.