List of common fallacies of Atheists

[hatsoff]

Observation (by the sense) implies that only physical objects exist. How do you know that only physical objects exist?
Usefulness from what point of view? Material success?

Consider the term, “existence.” This word has an informal meaning in natural language. But informal, natural linguistic meanings are not nearly precise enough in the context of a philosophical system. So, we need to construct a formal definition if we want to use that word in a rigorous metaphysical analysis.

So, what would make a good definition for “existence”? Well, we know that material things exist. That’s pretty much a no-brainer. But what about non-material things?

Well, it turns out that all the non-material things which demonstrably exist (in the informal sense) always end up depending in some way on material interactions and operations. Now, I realize that you would disagree with this, but consider for the moment that it is true. For example, the physical organization of brains are responsible for concepts and ideas.

Suppose then we define “existence” as a descriptor automatically applicable to any real material object or objects. That would mean ideas themselves could not be said to exist. And it would mean that any physical object exists by definition.

I find that this is a very useful definition indeed. And so it is the definition I prefer.

It is possible to construct varying definitions. And if that’s what you want to do, that’s fine. But if you do choose to construct a definition whereby we can say that non-material objects “exist,” then we must be careful not to equivocate between non-material existence and material existence.

Using my narrow definition avoids that danger altogether.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, we know that material things exist.

On the contrary. We have direct knowledge only of our mental experiences whereas we **infer **the existence of material things from our perceptions.

 

[hatsoff]

On the contrary. We have direct knowledge only of our mental experiences whereas we **infer **the existence of material things from our perceptions.

I did not say that we have “direct” knowledge of the existence of the material world. Furthermore, the inference of which you speak satisfies my preferred definition of “knowledge.”

But hey, if you prefer a different definition, that’s fine.

 

[tonyrey]

I did not say that we have “direct” knowledge of the existence of the material world. Furthermore, the inference of which you speak satisfies my preferred definition of “knowledge.” But hey, if you prefer a different definition, that’s fine.

It is not a question of definition but of fact. Physicalism or materialism is an arbitrary interpretation of reality because it is not self-evident that our thoughts, feelings and decisions are physical and located in material objects.

 

[hatsoff]

It is not a question of definition but of fact. Physicalism or materialism is an arbitrary interpretation of reality because it is not self-evident that our thoughts, feelings and decisions are physical and located in material objects.

It’s not arbitrary at all, for the reasons given earlier. And thoughts/feelings/decisions are indeed not material, which is why I do not say that they exist (since I reserve that term for use with physical objects). However, they are reducible to physical phenomena.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s not arbitrary at all, for the reasons given earlier. And thoughts/feelings/decisions are indeed not material, which is why I do not say that they exist (since I reserve that term for use with physical objects).

“Suppose then we define “existence” as a descriptor automatically applicable to any real material object or objects.”
Why is this supposition not arbitrary?

However, they are reducible to physical phenomena.

** How **are thoughts/feelings/decisions reducible to physical phenomena?

 

[Benadam]

Did you really not understand what I said? Just google “AI chat bot” and talk to a computer. The creation of the computer is not my point here, it’s that simple organization of charges on silicone can produce amazing results that include abstract concepts that it can calculate that we can’t (mandelbrot set for instance) .

From that, considering how much more complicated our brains are than a computer, it’s not a far jump to think about what could be accomplished with trillions of neurons able to reconnect in any fashion they choose.

Point taken, I agree. The mandelbrot set is amazing no doubt.

I’m not familiar with a chat bot. I doubt there will ever be a way to demonstrate sentient experience is happening to matter so far removed in origin and likeness to ourselves no matter how perfect or superior in certain aspects the imitation. If that is where your point …points

 

[Matthias123]

I fail to see why it’s a paradox. And we don’t know things actually exist. We could be in the Matrix technically.

Because in order to know something you need to know the idea. When I first know matter I know the idea of matter. However if ideas themselves were made out of matter, then I wouldn’t be able to know matter because the idea would be made up of what I am trying to know.

It doesn’t matter how far you break it down. The electrical impulses are still material – it is energy. Ideas themselves have to be immaterial. Of course, these ideas from the active intellect needs to rely on the passive intelelct, which requires the organ of the brain.

And we don’t know things actually exist. We could be in the Matrix technically

Yes we do know we are not in a matrix. You can know things three ways, either through experience (reasoning through it) or through belief, or a combination of the two. It is our belief that we are not in a matrix, therefore we know we are not in a matrix. We do not know for certain, but we do know we are not in a matrix.

 

[liquidpele]

Because in order to know something you need to know the idea. When I first know matter I know the idea of matter. However if ideas themselves were made out of matter, then I wouldn’t be able to know matter because the idea would be made up of what I am trying to know.

It doesn’t matter how far you break it down. The electrical impulses are still material – it is energy. Ideas themselves have to be immaterial. Of course, these ideas from the active intellect needs to rely on the passive intelelct, which requires the organ of the brain.

Yes we do know we are not in a matrix. You can know things three ways, either through experience (reasoning through it) or through belief, or a combination of the two. It is our belief that we are not in a matrix, therefore we know we are not in a matrix. We do not know for certain, but we do know we are not in a matrix.

I’m not saying ideas are literally made up of matter… I’m saying the ideas are the organization of such matter. Like a painting is the organization of colored matter. I’ll leave it at that, since I can’t follow your logic regarding your perceived paradox or beliefs about the possibility of a Matrix - I can only assume you’re using the “second” way you claim we “know” things.

 

[Benadam]

quote=liquidpele;5558692 ideas are the organization of such matter.

Wouldn’t we be able to produce an emotion in a lab by organizing matter if that were true? And if we could, what would feel it and how could we know it was feeling something?

 

[liquidpele]

Wouldn’t we be able to produce an emotion in a lab by organizing matter if that were true? And if we could, what would feel it and how could we know it was feeling something?

As I said, we can produce very cool things in a lab by organizing electrons on silicone. We can’t produce full AI yet, but it’s a growing field (interestingly, a lot of it is now in game design too). Just because we couldn’t grasp flight before the wright brothers didn’t mean that man would never fly.

Eventually, yes we should though… which will open up a whole can of moral questions.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

If man is only a material jungle of atoms and neurons, why does he strive for higher and higher self consciousness? Why did life emerge at all, if there is no purpose to the universe? And why does man continue to look for purpose (ends) everywhere? Is this a trick the universe has played on man?

Would it not seem that if the universe is purposeless, as atheists insist, everything in the universe is purposeless? And if that is so, both atheism and religion are purposeless.

Is there a solipsist fallacy somewhere in all of this?

 

[liquidpele]

If man is only a material jungle of atoms and neurons, why does he strive for higher and higher self consciousness? Why did life emerge at all, if there is no purpose to the universe? And why does man continue to look for purpose (ends) everywhere? Is this a trick the universe has played on man?

Would it not seem that if the universe is purposeless, as atheists insist, everything in the universe is purposeless? And if that is so, both atheism and religion are purposeless.

Is there a solipsist fallacy somewhere in all of this?

I wonder what you’ll think when we do create AI in a lab at some point. I imagine you won’t stop believing in a soul, so what are you afraid of here? Our mind not being magic won’t invalidate religion (I’m not sure anything can), as you’ll just find other gaps to insert God into.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Liquidpele
*
I wonder what you’ll think when we do create AI in a lab at some point.*

When you do, let me know.

I’m not afraid of your creating artificial life. I’m afraid of your pretending to have done so without admitting that it was done by Intelligent Design.

 

[wanstronian]

Liquidpele
*
I wonder what you’ll think when we do create AI in a lab at some point.*

When you do, let me know.

I’m not afraid of your creating artificial life. I’m afraid of your pretending to have done so without admitting that it was done by Intelligent Design.

But it would have been done by intelligent design. Small ‘i’, small ‘d.’ A group of intelligent people would have designed a mechanism by which AI was created.

As far as Intelligent Design is concerned, the creation of AI in a lab would provide no greater evidence of it than currently exists.

 

[liquidpele]

But it would have been done by intelligent design. Small ‘i’, small ‘d.’ A group of intelligent people would have designed a mechanism by which AI was created.

As far as Intelligent Design is concerned, the creation of AI in a lab would provide no greater evidence of it than currently exists.

Don’t start that with Charlie… we’ve been through 2 threads with him on that particular topic, and he still thinks human design is valid evidence of ID so I doubt he’ll be changing his mind. Next you’ll have him quoting Darwin and Einstein to prove they were believers.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Wanstronian

*As far as Intelligent Design is concerned, the creation of AI in a lab would provide no greater evidence of it than currently exists. *

And exactly where is the scientific evidence that life originated by accident? It certainly didn’t evolve!

First language of life:

Oops, here I am! And here to stay!
Come on kids, we’re on our way!

Yes, here we go again. I’ll make this as brief and painless as possible for you both. When you can provide scientific evidence that the first life for emerged by accident rather than by design, you will have my attention.

Until then, why pretend that abiogenesis by accident is more scientific than abiogenesis by design?

 

[wanstronian]

Don’t start that with Charlie… we’ve been through 2 forums with him on that particular topic, and he still thinks human design is valid evidence of ID.

Well, this is the Apologetics forum - theists have to get ‘evidence’ from somewhere!

 

[tonyrey]

…he still thinks human design is valid evidence of ID so.

Where do you get intelligent design from? Out of dust and ashes! :yukonjoe:

 

[tonyrey]

Well, this is the Apologetics forum - theists have to get ‘evidence’ from somewhere!

And atheists have to get no evidence to “prove” they are right! Or they fall back on “science of the gaps”… :whacky: