List of common fallacies of Atheists

[wanstronian]

How does “The universe just is” increase our understanding?

I don’t think I said, “The universe just is.” Nor did I say, or imply, that it had no cause. I just see no evidence of a purpose. There is plenty of opportunity to increase our understanding. Unless you simply say, “God did it.” How does this increase our understanding? It’s a dead-end statement!

We have direct experience of creativity but no experience whatsoever of uncaused macroscopic events like a universe appearing from a void.

Proving absolutely nothing. I can see that you’re clinging to your “rationality must have come from a rational creator” principle like a drowning sailor to a piece of driftwood, but you have to accept, even if just to yourself, that this does not constitute evidence.

That is true but when there is no alternative answer “the Creator” is the best available.

That’s just illogical. And you are being disingenuous by equating ‘answer’ with ‘explanation.’ And you are ignoring the fact that simply positing a creator raises more questions than it answers.

If the concept unifies it is superior to a concept that does not - like “eternal matter”.

That’s an arbitrary differentiator that you use simply because you want it to be true.

You may as well say that the two alternatives to God are mere conjecture, i.e. that the universe has always existed or it appeared spontaneously.

We know almost certainly that the universe hasn’t always existed. There are more than two alternatives to God. I can make up any old nonsense to fit whatever observable criteria you like, and from an evidential point of view, my hypotheses will be just as valid as God. Furthermore, there is a theory, supported by observable experiment, for the creation of the Universe from a singularity.

We have experience of personal creativity but none whatsoever of eternal physical existence or the spontaneous appearance of universes.

Answered above. Just because we don’t know the explanation for something, it doesn’t follow that a random super-deity is a sensible answer.

It is hardly arbitrary when it corresponds to our own experience of planning, designing and creating systems.

It is arbitrary because there is no evidence to support it. It just fits your personal belief. You are mistaking correlation for causality.

In that case “eternal universe” and “self-created universe” are equally unsatisfactory.

I’ve already dismissed the first suggestion. Although ‘cyclical universe’ may be an answer. The point is that these theories leave the door open for further experiment. Your hypothesis just propagates irrational superstition and precludes the opportunity to learn more about our universe.

What is your alternative explanation? Do you regard the universe and its contents as self-explanatory?

Are you so arrogant that you believe you MUST know everything? I do not need an alternative explanation to point out that your answer is speculative at best. I don’t know why you continually ignore this basic logical truth. I bet you don’t apply your “any answer is better than no answer” paradigm to other aspects of your life. It’s just ridiculous.

If you cannot suggest an alternative you are being obscurantist.

You need to look up ‘obscurant’ - you are implying that I know the answer but am refusing to divulge it. I am simply pointing out that nobody knows the answer. Don’t panic, this is okay.

“No explanation is better than theism!”

Shock horror, you are twisting my words. For only about the thousandth time. It’s a shame that you have to resort to dishonesty in order to appear logical. I didn’t say “no answer is better than theism,” I said that there is no evidence for God, and that not having an explanation is perfectly acceptable.

I think it is truer to say you don’t want an alternative explanation because it does not fit into your scheme of things.

Ha! Pot calling kettle!!

That question is a non sequitur.

You clearly do not know what a non sequitur is. You have implied (and claimed outright) that believing in God is better than admitting we don’t know everything about the universe. It is a logical follow-on question to ask whether you apply this principle to everything you don’t know.

Any explanation that does justice to the facts and corresponds to our direct experience of spiritual energy…

Where to start? Firstly, it doesn’t do justice to the facts because it explains nothing. Secondly, there is no proof of spiritual energy, ergo there can be no proof of experiencing it. Finally, there is not a shred of evidence other than the desire of the theist, to support it as an answer… let alone an explanation.

Most certainly.

Then you are undoubtedly irrational.

It still does not advance our knowledge…

No, but it leaves the door open to further experiment, whereas, “God did it” slams that door shut.

We are discussing the origin and nature of reality.

Well, it seems my original post has been deleted without notification, maybe we have an over-zealous new moderator. I’m afraid I can’t remember the point I was making. But at a guess, you are implying that the universe had to have been created by a rational being in order to contain rational beings. I was refuting this due, as always, to a lack of evidence.

Why do you exclude purpose?

Because there is no reason to infer an intent behind every effect. It would then become a philosophical discussion rather than a scientific analysis.

Nothing shall come of nothing…

Proving nothing! Other than perhaps your own propensity for non sequitur?

Then why did you say it is a more efficient explanation?

Because, as I’ve pointed out to you many, many times: an unnecessary complication - and without evidence to the contrary, God must be considered unnecessary - is less efficient than the lack of that complication. This is basic stuff, I’m surprised you need it to be spelt out for you.

The fault lies in the construction and ambiguity of your statement.

Well, actually it lies in your inability to read something without twisting it into a target. For example, “I went on holiday last week. It rained.” Do you read that as, “I went on holiday last week because it rained?” Or, “I went on holiday last week therefore it rained?” Do you infer a causal link? No, I didn’t think so.

 

[tonyrey]

…Part 1…

I don’t think I said, “The universe just is.” Nor did I say, or imply, that it had no cause.
You haven’t said it but you believe physical reality is the sole reality…

I just see no evidence of a purpose.
Not even in your own capacity for purpose?

There is plenty of opportunity to increase our understanding. Unless you simply say, “God did it.” How does this increase our understanding? It’s a dead-end statement!
“Science will explain it” is the same category. Theists do not simply say “God did it”. They give a detailed explanation of why theism is the best available explanation.

• We have direct experience of creativity but no experience whatsoever of uncaused macroscopic events like a universe appearing from a void.*
  Proving absolutely nothing. I can see that you’re clinging to your “rationality must have come from a rational creator” principle like a drowning sailor to a piece of driftwood, but you have to accept, even if just to yourself, that this does not constitute evidence.
  I could say just as easily “rationality must have come from irrational processes” is the last desperate gasp of a dying atheist determined to evade the prospect of supernatural reality.
• That is true but when there is no alternative answer “the Creator” is the best available.*
  That’s just illogical.
  Is there a better available answer? If not why illogical?

And you are being disingenuous by equating ‘answer’ with ‘explanation.’ And you are ignoring the fact that simply positing a creator raises more questions than it answers.
Doesn’t positing irrational energy raises more questions than it answers?

• If the concept unifies it is superior to a concept that does not - like “eternal matter”.*
  That’s an arbitrary differentiator that you use simply because you want it to be true.
  In that case give me just one example of another concept which unifies the different aspects of reality. If you cannot, explain why it is arbitrary.
• You may as well say that the two alternatives to God are mere conjecture, i.e. that the universe has always existed or it appeared spontaneously.*
  We know almost certainly that the universe hasn’t always existed. There are more than two alternatives to God.
  Such as?

I can make up any old nonsense to fit whatever observable criteria you like, and from an evidential point of view, my hypotheses will be just as valid as God.
Let us have an example…

Furthermore, there is a theory, supported by observable experiment, for the creation of the Universe from a singularity.
The “creation”? By what? By itself?

• We have experience of personal creativity but none whatsoever of eternal physical existence or the spontaneous appearance of universes.*
  Just because we don’t know the explanation for something, it doesn’t follow that a random super-deity is a sensible answer.
  “a random super-deity” is not a definition of which I am aware. The “Supreme Being” is more rational and more adequate.
• It is hardly arbitrary when it corresponds to our own experience of planning, designing and creating systems.*
  It is arbitrary because there is no evidence to support it.
  Is our own experience not evidence?

You are mistaking correlation for causality.
How so?

• In that case “eternal universe” and “self-created universe” are equally unsatisfactory.*
  I’ve already dismissed the first suggestion.
  Therefore it must be false!

Although ‘cyclical universe’ may be an answer.
A conjecture based on what evidence?

The point is that these theories leave the door open for further experiment.
Further experiment on human beings?

Your hypothesis just propagates irrational superstition and precludes the opportunity to learn more about our universe.

1. It is not my hypothesis.
2. Theism is not irrational because it is based on the principle of adequacy.
3. Atheism is a better candidate for the title of superstition because it presupposes “faith in magic or chance” as the main factor behind our existence.
4. Theism offers opportunities for investigation into the nature of reality as a whole not merely the one-dimensional view of physicalism.

• What is your alternative explanation? Do you regard the universe and its contents as self-explanatory?*
  Are you so arrogant that you believe you MUST know everything?
  On the contrary I have pointed out several times that Ultimate Reality is beyond our comprehension - unlike those scientists who are seeking a “theory of everything”.

I bet you don’t apply your “any answer is better than no answer” paradigm to other aspects of your life.
I apply “a adequate answer is better than no answer”…

You need to look up ‘obscurant’ - you are implying that I know the answer but am refusing to divulge it.
Obscurantism means “deliberate vagueness or abstruseness” which is evident in statements such as “I don’t need an explanation”.

• Why do you exclude purpose?*
  Because there is no reason to infer an intent behind every effect.
  There is certain no reason to put all the causes and effects before the intent unless you explain how and why it is done.

It would then become a philosophical discussion rather than a scientific analysis.
Is a discussion of reality a philosophical or scientific discussion?

Nothing shall come of nothing…
Proving nothing!
Exactly. You dispense with Ultimate Reality and are left with nothing.

• Then why did you say it is a more efficient explanation?*
  Because, as I’ve pointed out to you many, many times: an unnecessary complication - and without evidence to the contrary, God must be considered unnecessary - is less efficient than the lack of that complication.
  As I’ve pointed out to you: oversimplification leads to inadequacy and unintelligibility.
  A rational Being is literally a more efficient cause than physical energy which **does not know **what it is doing…

The fault lies in the construction and ambiguity of your statement.
Well, actually it lies in your inability to read something without twisting it into a target. For example, “I went on holiday last week. It rained.” Do you read that as, “I went on holiday last week because it rained?” Or, “I went on holiday last week therefore it rained?” Do you infer a causal link? No, I didn’t think so.

Alas! You put a full stop instead of a comma - which allows for a different interpretation of the sentence. Your exact words: “He didn’t because he doesn’t exist, x just happens” which is quite distinct from “He didn’t because he doesn’t exist. x just happens.” It is not my inability to read something but your inability to write something which is grammatically and logically correct - and which leads you to cast unjustified aspersions on my character…

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Theists do not simply say “God did it”. They give a detailed explanation of why theism is the best available explanation.

Carry on …

 

[reggieM]

1. How do atheists reach their conclusion that there is no God?

They weigh the evidence given for the existence of God and then claim that there “is no evidence”. At the same time, they conclude that there is no intelligent, necessary first cause in preference to a multiverse for which there truly is no evidence.

1. Is their conclusion totally unrelated to their other beliefs?

As above – no. Their conclusion is directly related to their belief that God does not exist. If that was not true, then they would objectively and justly weigh the evidence. At the very least, they would have to say that there is not conclusive evidence to support atheism and therefore it cannot be accepted as a valid worldview.

1. On what is their reasoning based?

That’s a very important question. It cannot be based on an abundance of evidence because such does not exist. An across-the-board denial of the philosophical, historical, documentary and testimonial evidence given throughout human history indicates that there is something other than a review of the facts that drives the atheistic conclusion.

 

[liquidpele]

They weigh the evidence given for the existence of God and then claim that there “is no evidence”. At the same time, they conclude that there is no intelligent, necessary first cause in preference to a multiverse for which there truly is no evidence.

As above – no. Their conclusion is directly related to their belief that God does not exist. If that was not true, then they would objectively and justly weigh the evidence. At the very least, they would have to say that there is not conclusive evidence to support atheism and therefore it cannot be accepted as a valid worldview.

That’s a very important question. It cannot be based on an abundance of evidence because such does not exist. An across-the-board denial of the philosophical, historical, documentary and testimonial evidence given throughout human history indicates that there is something other than a review of the facts that drives the atheistic conclusion.

Perhaps you not speak for a group you’re not a member of, eh?

 

[reggieM]

Perhaps you not speak for a group you’re not a member of, eh?

Perhaps I not give opinion on matters for information of which I study have, eh?

 

[reggieM]

Perhaps you not speak for a group you’re not a member of, eh?

It appeared to be an open question for Catholic apologists – given that this forum is oriented towards that purpose. So, I offered my opinions on why atheists do or think things.

The great thing about a discussion is that you can give your view also and we can learn from that.

 

[liquidpele]

It appeared to be an open question for Catholic apologists – given that this forum is oriented towards that purpose. So, I offered my opinions on why atheists do or think things.

The great thing about a discussion is that you can give your view also and we can learn from that.

They weigh the evidence given for the existence of God and then claim that there “is no evidence”. At the same time, they conclude that there is no intelligent, necessary first cause in preference to a multiverse for which there truly is no evidence.

As above – no. Their conclusion is directly related to their belief that God does not exist. If that was not true, then they would objectively and justly weigh the evidence. At the very least, they would have to say that there is not conclusive evidence to support atheism and therefore it cannot be accepted as a valid worldview.

That’s a very important question. It cannot be based on an abundance of evidence because such does not exist. An across-the-board denial of the philosophical, historical, documentary and testimonial evidence given throughout human history indicates that there is something other than a review of the facts that drives the atheistic conclusion.

Speaking for other groups is not conductive to good conversation. You’re welcome to ask questions… but what would you say if an atheist was telling people that Catholics believe Jesus rode around on dinosaurs?

You’re correct that there is no evidence for a multiverse… but you neglect that there is no evidence against it either. Not knowing is perfectly acceptable, but even if you decide you believe something, accepting that you believe it based on certain evidence and that the evidence might be refuted or contradicted is important. A simple analogy is medication - if the FDA said pill X was safe and you started taking it, you’d likely stop taking it if they came back later and said further studies (evidence) showed that it causes your eyes to fall out.

While an atheist is such simply because of a lack of belief in a deity, and this can be fore any reason really, most outspoken atheist beliefs are based on evidence. In fact, many atheists believed at one point or another, but changed their mind as they were exposed to alternate ideas, explanations, and evidence. As before, changing your stance on something is entirely healthy if there is a good reason for it, and evidence is certainly a good reason. You’re claiming atheists do not objectively analyze the evidence, but you say that as a blanket statement which makes it sound like you’re simply claiming that because they don’t agree with you they’re not being objective.

 

[reggieM]

Speaking for other groups is not conductive to good conversation.

You sign yourself as an agnostic, not an atheist.

While an atheist is such simply because of a lack of belief in a deity, and this can be fore any reason really, most outspoken atheist beliefs are based on evidence.

Contradiction here noted. I might even call it hypocricy. Apparently, it is fine for you to speak about “other groups” but you criticize me for doing the same.

If you want to engage constructively in the discussion you should show some respect for the people on this board. In this case, an apology would be appropriate.

 

[liquidpele]

You sign yourself as an agnostic, not an atheist.

Contradiction here noted. I might even call it hypocricy. Apparently, it is fine for you to speak about “other groups” but you criticize me for doing the same.

If you want to engage constructively in the discussion you should show some respect for the people on this board. In this case, an apology would be appropriate.

Being agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed, my apologies. I should have said “in my experience” there. However, my major point to you was that you shouldn’t speak for another group and not that you can’t make a generalization here and there for convenience.

 

[reggieM]

Being agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed, my apologies. I should have said “in my experience” there. However, my major point to you was that you shouldn’t speak for another group and not that you can’t make a generalization here and there for convenience.

Apology accepted – thank you.

 

[Thales]

You do not understand what atheism is. A suitable definition is:

–noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

from here.

Thanks Wanstronian, I like having solid definitions. An atheist once gave me a defenition which came down from some supreme court ruling. I didn’t investigate to see exactly where it comes from, but I took his word for it. It was a list, which suprisingly built its tenets primarily in the negative (e.g Atheism doesn not think a God created man, Atheism is the belief that people should help one another not ask a supernatural entity for supernatural aid), things like that. In a sense atheism is the opposite of theism.

Is the defenition you give here the extent of what atheism offers you? Is there more to it? More that would drive one to want to spread this world view in opposition to religion?

 

[yankee_doodle]

They weigh the evidence given for the existence of God and then claim that there “is no evidence”. At the same time, they conclude that there is no intelligent, necessary first cause in preference to a multiverse for which there truly is no evidence.

for the record, so everyone is clear … there is a distinction between those who say they know for sure there cannot be a god, and those who say they’re not sure. I fall into the latter camp, although I do believe organized religion is easy enough to debunk. In other words it does not follow that if god exists then Christianity is true.

I saw an intelligent design theorist (a biologist) give a speech, and IMO although the theory isn’t terrible, it has plenty of flaws and they seem to present their speculative premise as objective fact (which is logically fallacious).

For instance, the theory is premised on the following logic. Because our DNA has a code that appears complex, and alternative explanations are so far inadequate, we must have been designed by an intelligent source. The theorist I watched used the following methodology. He believes when trying to understand causation for events that occurred in the distant past, it makes sense to look at modern examples of the same “effect.” For instance, does it make more sense to assume earthquakes are the source of lava rock, or a volcanic eruption (since we know lava rock is normally created by volcanic eruption, of course the more reasonable assumption is to believe a volcanic eruption was responsible for the lava rock we’re investigating). He went onto create an analogy between our DNA and computer code, and asserted since we know that computer code is created by intelligent design or conscience effort, then it makes sense to think our DNA was designed by conscience effort. This is in my view classic logical fallacy.

Studies into artificial intelligence has so far shown that no preprogrammed device can be truly intelligent (so it’s easy enough to use ID methodology against itself). Evolutionary algorithms using the Darwinian metaphor of randomness have already been developed (and have demonstrated that intelligence derived from random mutuation and selection is indistinguishable from innate intelligence).

So I think smart money should bet on a natural explanation for evolution. IMO the entire ID theory is an argument from ignorance. Indeed it loves to use the most far fetched examples of atheist arguments it can find (like multi-verses or space aliens, not that they’re any less plausible than religion … but anyway).

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am trying to create a list of fallacies commited by atheists. Unfortunately I can’t think of any more off the top of my head. (It is like 90F here in Vancouver Canada, we are in the middle of a heat wave =p)

The human longing can be, and is, for anything but God.

 

[wanstronian]

You haven’t said it but you believe physical reality is the sole reality…

How does this relate to whether it has a cause? You are talking at cross-purposes again, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

Not even in your own capacity for purpose?

I see no evidence in my capacity for purpose, for a higher purpose of the type you attribute to God.

“Science will explain it” is the same category.

Firstly, I don’t think anybody ever says, “science will explain it.” No scientist would be that arrogant. The basis of science is discovery, not a dogmatic belief that it’s just a matter of time before we know everything. This is a narrow-minded theistic view of science. Your bad. Secondly, even if that were a mantra of science, it still isn’t in the same category because at least the scientific method allows investigation.

Theists do not simply say “God did it”. They give a detailed explanation of why theism is the best available explanation.

They don’t explain anything. Or maybe I’m wrong. In which case, please explain: 1. Why God decided to make the universe; 2. How he arrived at the designs for everything; 3. Why he made such a poor job of the human eye; 4. Why he put an incomplete fossil record in the ground; 5. The process by which he hears each of our individual thoughts; 6. Why he doesn’t appear to us now, when we arguably need him the most (he wasn’t so shy in the Bible)……if you can answer these questions and show the answers to be true, then I’ll start to accept that theists are providing explanations rather than just dead-end answers

I could say just as easily “rationality must have come from irrational processes” is the last desperate gasp of a dying atheist determined to evade the prospect of supernatural reality.

I do find it amusing that you have taken on WSP’s mantle of alluding that my arguments constitute a wavering in my atheistic stance. It’s typically theistically condescending, but of course you still fail to provide any justification for your argument.

Is there a better available answer?

No, but there are lots of equally valid, and equally baseless, answers. This is one of the most irrational traits of the theist – that any answer, no matter how baseless, is better than admitting we don’t know.

If not why illogical?

For the reasons I have given above and in my previous posts.

Doesn’t positing irrational energy raises more questions than it answers?

It might, if that’s what anyone were positing.

IIn that case give me just one example of another concept which unifies the different aspects of reality. If you cannot, explain why it is arbitrary.

Because there is no need to ‘unify’ the different aspects of reality, unless you already believe in a God that does so. It’s a circular argument that has no need to even exist.

Such as?

Well, read my next statement

Let us have an example…

As I said, you need to let me know your acceptance criteria. There’s no point me giving you an answer until I know the criteria by which you have come to believe that the only answer is God.

The “creation”? By what? By itself?

The known laws of physics mandate the existence of singularities. Look up, “Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems.” It’s not proof, but it’s a perfectly valid alternative to a Creator, and it is backed up by empirical physics, unlike the fundamental arbitrariness of a sentient Creator.

“a random super-deity” is not a definition of which I am aware. The “Supreme Being” is more rational and more adequate.

If your only response is to argue semantics then you have proved my point.

Is our own experience not evidence?

Only of our own abilities, not that they were ‘granted’ by God.

How so?

Because you are correlating the fact of human intelligent design with your subjective opinion on the appearance of supernatural intelligent design, and inferring a causal link that is not proven. I’m surprised you need me to explain.

Therefore it must be false!

Assuming you’re being sarcastic, it’s not necessarily false, but it is at odds with the established fact that the Universe is around 13-odd billion years old.

A conjecture based on what evidence?

It’s conjecture, it doesn’t need evidence. Although you raise a good point – there is no evidence, therefore it is conjecture. Just like God!

Further experiment on human beings?

Possibly, within the bounds of acceptable ethics. But I meant experiment in general.

1. It is not my hypothesis. .

It is the one you are propounding. For the purpose of this discussion it is yours. Unless you are now trying to disassociate yourself with it?

1. Theism is not irrational because it is based on the principle of adequacy.

Which is nothing but a philosophical principle. If you’re invoking the Trademark Argument then you are showing that you are, indeed irrational.

1. Atheism is a better candidate for the title of superstition because it presupposes “faith in magic or chance” as the main factor behind our existence.

Quite a few things wrong with your analysis. Firstly, your use of the word, “magic” exposes both your lack of understanding and your childish reactionism. Your use of the word “chance”, particularly in conjunction with, “as the main factor” exposes your lack of understanding of evolution. Finally, atheism by definition does not presuppose anything – it simply asks the theist for evidence to support their claims. This is a fact that theists frequently get wrong, probably on purpose because it gives them a ledge with which to attack atheism; however they seem blissfully unaware that the ledge is imaginary.

1. Theism offers opportunities for investigation into the nature of reality as a whole not merely the one-dimensional view of physicalism.

The physical ‘dimension’ is the only one that can be shown to exist. Therefore your claim to be able to investigate “the nature of reality as a whole” is built on a presupposition for which there is no justification. Your whole point disappears in, to quote Douglas Adams, “a puff of logic.”

 

[wanstronian]

On the contrary I have pointed out several times that Ultimate Reality is beyond our comprehension - unlike those scientists who are seeking a “theory of everything”. .

So you just say, “God did it” and stop trying? I would hate to be so narrow-minded! Incidentally, you have just inadvertently admitted that “God did it” is no kind of explanation because it’s “beyond our comprehension.”

I apply “a adequate answer is better than no answer”…

But an answer with no justification cannot be said to be adequate. So your implied consistency is held together with nothing but blind faith.

Obscurantism means “deliberate vagueness or abstruseness” which is evident in statements such as “I don’t need an explanation”.

And now you are misrepresenting me. My comment was not made in connection with a bare assertion as you imply here, but to rebut your demand for proof of a negative.

There is certain no reason to put all the causes and effects before the intent unless you explain how and why it is done. .

No – there is no reason to infer an intent at all.

Is a discussion of reality a philosophical or scientific discussion?

It could be either, depending on the subtext of the discussion

Exactly. You dispense with Ultimate Reality and are left with nothing. .

Sorry – you think you have proved something here???

As I’ve pointed out to you: oversimplification leads to inadequacy and unintelligibility. .

But until you can prove that it is an oversimplification – in other words, that God exists - you are the one standing on thin ice.

A rational Being is literally a more efficient cause than physical energy which does not know what it is doing…

What utter nonsense. I’m amazed that you actually believe it! Just because **you **don’t do anything without an underlying intent, you choose to believe that the whole universe operates on the same premise!?

Alas! You put a full stop instead of a comma - which allows for a different interpretation of the sentence. Your exact words: “He didn’t because he doesn’t exist, x just happens” which is quite distinct from “He didn’t because he doesn’t exist. x just happens.” It is not my inability to read something but your inability to write something which is grammatically and logically correct - and which leads you to cast unjustified aspersions on my character…

Hardly unjustified, you manipulate and twist my words regularly to try and gain what you consider to be an advantage. This is another case in point. I’ll rephrase my example sentence to show you just how inadequate your pathetic blustering is. “I went on holiday last week, it rained.” **Now **do you imply a causal link? If not, why not? I used a comma instead of a full stop, which is the basis of your most recent argument. And in fact, from an interpretation point of view, the distinction between full stop and comma in my original post makes no difference. It’s just something you have chosen to attack because you can’t attack the underlying logic.

Incidentally, you have set up one doozy of a straw man here. Even for you, this is quite something!

 

[wanstronian]

The human longing can be, and is, for anything but God.

I thought the OP asked for a list of fallacies of atheists, not an example of theistic evangelism!

 

[RebeccaJ]

I thought the OP asked for a list of fallacies of atheists, not an example of theistic evangelism!

fallacy: Anytime anyone speaks about God to an atheist it is about an attempt at conversion.

 

[tonyrey]

On the contrary I have pointed out several times that Ultimate Reality is beyond our comprehension - unlike those scientists who are seeking a “theory of everything”. .

So you just say, “God did it” and stop trying?

Do you believe a finite intelligence can comprehend Ultimate Reality? Do you even believe there is an Ultimate Reality? If not what is your starting point, given that you don’t believe matter is eternal?

I would hate to be so narrow-minded!

It’s highly amusing to hear that from an atheist who believes in a closed, purposeless system devoid of spiritual reality!
Do you claim to be open-minded?

Incidentally, you have just inadvertently admitted that “God did it” is no kind of explanation because it’s “beyond our comprehension.”

The fact that the Creator is beyond our comprehension does not imply that there is nothing we can infer about His existence from His Creation.

But an answer with no justification cannot be said to be adequate.

It is only your fallible opinion that there is no justification.

So your implied consistency is held together with nothing but blind faith.

Another deduction from what is merely your fallible opinion.

There is certain no reason to put all the causes and effects before the intent unless you explain how and why it is done. .
No – there is no reason to infer an intent at all.

Please explain why not… given that you believe intents exist.

You dispense with Ultimate Reality and are left with nothing. .
Sorry – you think you have proved something here???

Do you or do you not believe there is an Ultimate Reality?

*As I’ve pointed out to you: oversimplification leads to inadequacy and unintelligibility. *.But until you can prove that it is an oversimplification – in other words, that God exists - you are the one standing on thin ice.

You are not even standing on thin ice because you have no foundation at all for your power of reason…other than irrational processes… It is time you explained how it was produced…

A rational Being is literally a more efficient cause than physical energy which does not know what it is doing…
Just because you don’t do anything without an underlying intent, you choose to believe that the whole universe operates on the same premise!?

I’m amazed that you actually believe that intents are produced by processes which lack intents and cannot anticipate the future. Where exactly do you get them from?

 

[yankee_doodle]

The human longing can be, and is, for anything but God.

virtually the entire earth believes in some sort of god (nearly 2/3 of it in the Abrahamic god). If anything statistics play out the exact opposite of what you say here. Humans long so much for a god, they had to invent one.