Responding to my friend

[kevlarkyogre]

Over the past few weeks an Atheist friend I live with has enjoyed throwing a lot of questions at me, I’ve got another response from him and I have a LOT I can say in reply but I was curious to hear other people’s take on what he has to say so I could show him what other Catholic’s make of these ideas:

“Yes, science assumes that universe follows a set of laws. These assumptions have allowed us to create models which have enabled us to accurately predict events in the universe. I see no problem with that assumption since we have never observed anything supernatural. The problem with an un-falsifiable claim is that it is worthless, it cannot be used to make any meaningful and testable predictions about the world we live in. I can claim that the universe was created (in its current state ) by the flying spaghetti monster (which is outside nature etc) 3 days ago. The Burden of proof would be on me, I would have to provide evidence for my claim.
Making the claim that a supernatural being exists is un-falsifiable , but claiming that this being interacts with nature is not. We can use science to examine these claims and none of them turn out to be supernatural (the claim is made that the wafer turns into jesus’s flesh, we can easily test this) .Why do miracles described in the bible ( like the earth stopping to rotate in Joshua ) no longer occur today where we have video cameras and satellites to observe and verify it ?”

He has also stated in a previous message that because there is no scientific evidence for God that there is no basis for belief in him.

Edit: I’ve just realised there is a ban on atheist posts, I’m not sure if this counts or not? I can’t tell if it’s posts about atheists or atheism or what… Sorry if this violates the ban!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I can claim that the universe was created (in its current state ) by the flying spaghetti monster (which is outside nature etc) 3 days ago.

Search for arguments against “Last Thursdayism.”

The Burden of proof would be on me, I would have to provide evidence for my claim.

I personally feel the burden of proof is on the person that wants to convince another. If I hold a belief and I don’t care if anyone else is convinced of it then to me there is no burden. But I may have an unpopular view on that.

Edit: I’ve just realised there is a ban on atheist posts, I’m not sure if this counts or not? I can’t tell if it’s posts about atheists or atheism or what… Sorry if this violates the ban!

Questions can be asked in such a way that doesn’t reference atheism. Your post seems to be more about his arguments than on his theological classification. So this thread may be okay provided it doesn’t get emotional. I can’t say that I’m sure. Only the moderatos know.

One way of approaching the issue is “My Friend’s arguments against God” or “Has anyone encountered these arguments before.” Neither of these directly reference atheism but I think they still communicate your question.

 

[schaeffer]

I personally feel the burden of proof is on the person that wants to convince another. If I hold a belief and I don’t care if anyone else is convinced of it then to me there is no burden. But I may have an unpopular view on that.

You don’t have an unpopular view with me, I was just going to post exactly that and you beat me to it.

If I have no investment in changing the other person’s mind, or any ego investment in them conceding to me, then it doesn’t matter.

I know people with ego investments if all kinds of things, the other day I had a friend argue that their dog was show quality even though it’s a mixed breed.

There are, of course, arguments worth having, and points worth supporting when something more important than ego is at stake. And if a true concern for the immortal well being of someone’s soul is behind the argument, then yes, the burden of proof is on the person who has the concern.

If an atheist doesn’t have a concept of soul, a belief in immortality or hell they aren’t concerned about it, therefore the one who is, is the one who has to step up.

 

[KEP1983]

"Yes, science assumes that universe follows a set of laws. These assumptions have allowed us to create models which have enabled us to accurately predict events in the universe. I see no problem with that assumption since we have never observed anything supernatural.

No one has ever observed anything supernatural? That’s quite an assertion. People from all cultures and all belief systems have claimed to observe the supernatural. The atheist simply has a philosophical presupposition that automatically denies these claims to be true.

What he CAN say is that we can only physically interact with physical things, but can’t use physical tests to test non-physical things. So we can’t test supernatural events the same way we could test, say, DNA or water.

Yet within physics there are tons of things that are untestable that scientists accept. Many (if not most) atheist cosmologists today accept the Multiverse theory. The multiverse theory is completely untestable, since we can only observe and test things within our physical universe. The Multiverse is just as untestable as miracles, God, etc; yet atheists seem to have no problem accepting the Multiverse theory as a reasonable explanation of the fine tuning of the universe.

The problem with an un-falsifiable claim is that it is worthless, it cannot be used to make any meaningful and testable predictions about the world we live in.

If your friend is really consistent then he shouldn’t accept much of physics and cosmology since they both work with untestable models; he shouldn’t accept the vast majority of philosophy, since philosphy largely deals with untestable thoughts or concepts; and he certainly shouldn’t accept the aforementions atheists replacement for God-- the Multiverse.

I can claim that the universe was created (in its current state ) by the flying spaghetti monster (which is outside nature etc) 3 days ago. The Burden of proof would be on me, I would have to provide evidence for my claim.

He’s making a category error with “flying spaghetti monster” and saying its “outside of nature.” Anything that is “flying” “spaghetti” or a physical “monster” by definition lives in a material existence and is thus a part of nature.

If he wants to say that the flying spaghetti monster is non-physical and non-temporal, then the “flying spaghetti monster” would just be an inaccurate misnomer for God.

Making the claim that a supernatural being exists is un-falsifiable , but claiming that this being interacts with nature is not. We can use science to examine these claims and none of them turn out to be supernatural (the claim is made that the wafer turns into jesus’s flesh, we can easily test this) .

Of course, he’s presuming that there’s never been any scientifically unexplainable events-- which is just absurd. There are numerous Eucharistic Miracles where the Eucharist literally turned into flesh and blood. There’s quite a few of them, and they date back to over 1,000 years. And they all have the same blood type. So if they were faked, they were all faked with the same blood type BEFORE scientists knew what blood type was, and have been somehow preserved from decay BEFORE we knew how to preserve flesh and blood.

Likewise there are the incorrupt bodies of the Saints. We have bodies that are centuries old that haven’t decayed.

Then there are other miracles that have been scientifically studied-- such as the stillborn baby who was dead for an hour before coming back to life through Fulton Sheen’s intercession. The baby should have been dead after just a few moments without oxygen. Yet they were without oxygen for over an hour. And the child has no brain damage.

Quite frankly, there are miracles that happen all the time and scientists can’t explain them away. The problem isn’t that there are no miracles to study; it’s that the atheist has a philosophical presupposition that precludes them from accepting any non-physical explanation.

Why do miracles described in the bible ( like the earth stopping to rotate in Joshua ) no longer occur today where we have video cameras and satellites to observe and verify it ?"

He’s sort of doing a literal Protestantey sola-scriptura reading of the Bible. Orthodox Christians (Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) don’t read everything in the Bible as a contemporary westernized literal description. St Augustine wrote in the 5th century about the creation story being allegorical and not literal, and that creation happened as a slow process-- and that was 1,300 years before Darwin.

If he can show me where any Magisterial document from the Church states that the Earth literally stopped rotating in the Joshua story, then he has an argument. But no such statement exists in our 2,000 years of history.

He has also stated in a previous message that because there is no scientific evidence for God that there is no basis for belief in him.

As stated above, there are a ton of things that aren’t empirically verifiable that we are rational to accept. If he wants to be completely consistent then he should’t accept empirically untestable belief systems also; such as secular humanism. What scientific evidence is there that says all men are created equal, that it’s wrong to discriminate against homosexuals, that genocide is wrong, etc?

What empirical evidence is there that proves a Multiverse exists? I can appeal to a single God, but the atheist has to appeal to a literal infinite number of universes to explain how life can originate in our single universe.

 

[Jerbear]

As a former catholic and current atheist myself. I have had discussions with my advisor in college who is a devout Christian while also highly valuing science. Science and religion are two separate things. Science deals with the natural world and by definition cannot deal with anything considered supernatural. Heck, science used to be called natural philosophy.

One thing I think a lot of people have misconceptions about is that atheists are trying to deconvert everyone. A lot of atheists, like myself, ask a lot of questions to make you question yourself and why it is that you believe something. I do not see anything wrong with asking someone why they believe something. I will be respectful as long as they are respectful as well. Most atheists do not make the claim that there is no God, some do, but the vast majority don’t. Most of us are not like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc. it’s not that we are making a claim, it’s more like saying that if they were jurors and people were bringing forth evidence of God’s existence, they would have to say they’re not convinced. They’re not saying he doesn’t, just that they don’t think he does.

One thing to remember is also that there are multiple different ways of trying to understand the universe. You have science which tests, observes, experiments, etc. in order to make sense out of it. You have religion which tries to explain what the meaning of life and philosophical stuff like that is, and you have TEK which is knowing how to do things or what to do in different situations. For example, I highly appreciate science but at the same time, if I was lost in the jungle and I had the option of being with a scientist who knows a bunch of facts or a native with TEK, you better believe I’d choose the native to keep me alive.

 

[TARRAT]

Several years ago there was a storm that hit the east coast and at that time it was reported that the storm had caused 100 years of erosion to the coastline. Now was that supernatural? Was that God in His creation? How many of such occurances have happened throughout the centuries and in places we don’t know about. If these things happen throughout time then how do we know that our “models” are correct or that they prove anything?

 

[PseuTonym]

The problem with an un-falsifiable claim is that it is worthless

That seems to itself be an un-falsifiable claim.

The problem with an un-falsifiable claim is that it cannot be used to make any meaningful and testable predictions about the world we live in.

That seems to be a false claim. An un-falsifiable claim might – in conjunction with some general knowledge and some guesswork – help one think of a variety of meaningful and testable predictions. However, if what is predicted fails to occur, then there is a possibility that the claim is true and something other than the falsehood of the claim was responsible for the failure of the prediction.

A theoretical framework is required to create computer models for weather prediction, and the weather predictions are not perfectly accurate. Neither one particular incorrect forecast nor a large collection of incorrect forecasts will allow one to conclude that some particular claim in the theoretical framework is false.

From the point of view of predictions about the weather, any reasonable, modern theory of physics is un-falsifiable. If we want to show that a particular claim that is part of a theory of physics is a definitely false claim, then we would have to use the failure of predictions of another kind.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

If God did not exist…there would be no atheists.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yet within physics there are tons of things that are untestable that scientists accept. Many (if not most) atheist cosmologists today accept the Multiverse theory. The multiverse theory is completely untestable, since we can only observe and test things within our physical universe.

With the multiverse hou may have to qualify which multiverse hypothesis the person refers too and whether or not she sees it as more than a hypothesis.

There are 7 different hypothesis that describe what is labeled as a “multiverse” for which I am familiar. One of them is a hypothesis that there are sections of the universe that are so far apart that they cannot interact with each other (because of limits on the speed of light and the expansion of the universe). Under this hypothesis the multiverse is simply the collection of distant portions of the universe. That’s significantly different than the hypothesis of an uncountable number of parallel universes or some of the others.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[wcknight]

People who do not believe in God are simply in self denial. They are like the little kids who covers their eyes and proclaim “You don’t see me”.

Considering the thousands of folks who have witnessed miracles, the hundreds of saints and miracle workers, it is impossible to deny that miracles happen and fairly regularly. Yes they or you or I may not have witnessed or had a true miracle happen to us, but that does not mean they have not happened.

All they need to do is go see the body of ST Catherine Labore or ST Bernadette, and they will witness a true miracle.

OR just look at our universe, everything is made of energy, a tremendously huge unimaginable amount of energy. Where did all this come come from ??? WHO could have produced this energy ??? Something does not come from nothing.

And IF they want to say it was all random… why has another big bang not happened again in over 30 billion years ??? surely if it were all random, several big bangs would have occurred again.

 

[Tiago_Paolini]

I noticed that said friend brought the “flying spaghetti monster”. This, along with bringing fairies, Santa Claus, etc, I find really upsetting. This is insulting the other person’s intelligence by assuming that he believes for no reason. If the atheist is really curious about why someone has a faith, he can just ask. If for whatever reason he cannot or do not want to ask, there are still books about it and also this question is still a web search away, there is no shortage of people willing to explain their faith. There is no excuse to say that religious people believe against facts or without reasons.

Maybe it would be better to politely say to your friend that if he really wants to debate the subject, then he should be more serious and rigorous about it.

 

[kevlarkyogre]

I noticed that said friend brought the “flying spaghetti monster”. This, along with bringing fairies, Santa Claus, etc, I find really upsetting. This is insulting the other person’s intelligence by assuming that he believes for no reason. If the atheist is really curious about why someone has a faith, he can just ask. If for whatever reason he cannot or do not want to ask, there are still books about it and also this question is still a web search away, there is no shortage of people willing to explain their faith. There is no excuse to say that religious people believe against facts or without reasons.

Maybe it would be better to politely say to your friend that if he really wants to debate the subject, then he should be more serious and rigorous about it.

I have tried that line already but he insists that there are so many different religions it would be impossible to read about all of them. I’m planning to bring this up again and insist if he really cares about any of these topics (the fact that he ought to is another matter) and if they’re really important he ought to spend more time trying to find out information regarding the matter.

 

[KEP1983]

I noticed that said friend brought the “flying spaghetti monster”. This, along with bringing fairies, Santa Claus, etc, I find really upsetting. This is insulting the other person’s intelligence by assuming that he believes for no reason. If the atheist is really curious about why someone has a faith, he can just ask. If for whatever reason he cannot or do not want to ask, there are still books about it and also this question is still a web search away, there is no shortage of people willing to explain their faith. There is no excuse to say that religious people believe against facts or without reasons.

Maybe it would be better to politely say to your friend that if he really wants to debate the subject, then he should be more serious and rigorous about it.

Not only is it supposed to be insulting to the other persons intelligence, it’s also a completely fallacious argument. The whole “flying spaghetti monster” reference is an obvious example of both a straw-man argument and a category error.

God is, by definition, non-physical. And that’s not just the Catholic God-- that includes practically any theistic religion from Islam, to Judaism, to Plato and Aristotles Paganism, to Zoroastrianism, and even to Hinduism and forms of Buddhism.

“Flying” “Spaghetti” and “monster” are all terms to describe PHYSICAL things… If you’re talking to any theist, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Zoroastrian, etc; then using physical descriptors to describe God is just ridiculous. Anything physical is only an analogy to God. Even Hindus, who are mistakenly thought of as polytheists, understand that God (Brahman) is non-physical.

So a term like “flying” “spaghetti” or “monster” are all completely straw-man arguments. If he wanted to use another generic name he should say things like “the great Spirit” or “the Creator Being.”

 

[KEP1983]

I have tried that line already but he insists that there are so many different religions it would be impossible to read about all of them. I’m planning to bring this up again and insist if he really cares about any of these topics (the fact that he ought to is another matter) and if they’re really important he ought to spend more time trying to find out information regarding the matter.

I don’t understand why people always insist that since there are so many different religions, we are all believing in completely different Gods.

We aren’t believing in different Gods. We’re believing in the Creator, but we all have varying descriptions of Him.

For an analogy, let’s say three different people are all describing the President of the USA. The first describes him as a black, pro-life, pro-NRA, Democrat named Barry Obama. The second described him as chinese, pro-choice, anti-guns, Republican named Barrack Osama. And the third described him as a bi-racial, pro-choice, anti-guns, Democrat named Barack Obama… well, are they all describing different Presidents? No. They’re all attempting to describe the President of the USA. One has an accurate description of him, while the other two have varying degrees of truth in their descriptions.

We’re all looking towards the Creator of the Universe. We have overlapping descriptions of Him, and we have conflicting descriptions of Him. The question is if the Creator that we’re all seeking has revealed Himself (Jesus through His Church), or are we just trying to figure it out through our own reasoning? Has God come down to man through the Incarnation, or do we have to just think really hard and deduce from nature what the Creator is like?

If the Incarnation didn’t occur, then all religions would likely have large amounts of both truth and falsehood. But since the Incarnation did occur, and the Creator did reveal Himself, and that is why Christianity has the fullness of the truth, while all other religions have varying degrees of truth.

The atheist idea that we all believe in completely separate Gods and that only one religion is true while all others are completely false is just naive.

 

[Frankenfurter]

I have to say that I really like not having so many atheist questions. I mean sometimes it’s OK, but not if every single questions starts back at the basics. I love when we dig into real questions of our faith so we can all benefit.

Having the atheists dominate the forum is like running a golf course where all the amateurs tie up the course all the time. The rest of us are a little farther along and would like to work on our game. And we are glad to have you join us when you are ready,.

 

[kevlarkyogre]

I have to say that I really like not having so many atheist questions. I mean sometimes it’s OK, but not if every single questions starts back at the basics. I love when we dig into real questions of our faith so we can all benefit.

Having the atheists dominate the forum is like running a golf course where all the amateurs tie up the course all the time. The rest of us are a little farther along and would like to work on our game. And we are glad to have you join us when you are ready,.

I understand the frustration you’re dealing with, the questions my friend asks me are all ones that I and my other friends have dealt with and are completely done with. But it’s still important to clarify these issues since obviously there are still people dealing with them and can’t move past it, it’s been this way for a long time and doesn’t look like it’ll get better anytime soon… Even if my friend never converts, at the very least he might become a more sophisticated atheist with a better view of what real religion is like, it’s not just about me and what I feel like arguing it’s for his sake too.

 

[kevlarkyogre]

"Yes, science assumes that universe follows a set of laws. These assumptions have allowed us to create models which have enabled us to accurately predict events in the universe. I see no problem with that assumption since we have never observed anything supernatural.

I think here he is talking about how “if we had observed something supernatural” then this would conflict with what we know about the set laws that the universe follows, which I think is a good basis for showing him that the laws of the universe are not broken when something supernatural takes place as he seems to have misinterpreted from one of my replies. I think I could show him a good C.S. Lewis talk about this

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Over the past few weeks an Atheist friend I live with has enjoyed throwing a lot of questions at me …

Return the favor by throwing a lot of questions at him.

Begin by asking him what proof he has that God does not exist. (He has none.)

Then ask him why you need to prove that God does exist if he can’t prove that God does not exist.

Finally, ask him what kind of proof he would require that God exists. A personal handshake? A miracle? Show him that Jesus already did that, and some were still not convinced.

 

[PseuTonym]

God is, by definition, non-physical. And that’s not just the Catholic God-- that includes practically any theistic religion from Islam, to Judaism, to Plato and Aristotles Paganism, to Zoroastrianism, and even to Hinduism and forms of Buddhism.

“Flying” “Spaghetti” and “monster” are all terms to describe PHYSICAL things… If you’re talking to any theist, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Zoroastrian, etc; then using physical descriptors to describe God is just ridiculous. Anything physical is only an analogy to God. Even Hindus, who are mistakenly thought of as polytheists, understand that God (Brahman) is non-physical.

You have an excellent point, but I think it would be counter-productive to claim that one’s opponent in a debate is relying upon a fallacy. Instead, we could ask a question. We could ask what causes organisms in general to behave as they do. We want a single explanation that will explain both the verbal behavior of a featherless biped speaking or writing the phrase “flying spaghetti monster”, and the bar-pressing behavior of rats or mice. We can ask how the behavior originates and what stimulus might reinforce such behavior.

We could use as a reference the following:
A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior by Noam Chomsky
chomsky.info/articles/1967----.htm

The idea is to use B. F. Skinner’s claims as bait, and not give any hint of Chomsky’s rebuttal. At some point, either there will be resistance, or one particular atheist organism will spontaneously generate verbal behavior about his or her atheism ultimately being based on a random combination of genes and environment.

 

[Nixbits]

KEP1983, I think you misunderstand the role of the flying spaghetti monster. Whether it is physical or non-physical, natural or supernatural doesn’t matter. It’s not meant to be analogous to the God of any of the monotheistic religions. It’s just a counter-claim used to demonstrate the unfalsifiable nature of any God claim.

Charlemagne III, the approach that you suggest probably will not be useful. Most atheists do not make the claim that God does not exist. More likely the OP’s friend has the more normal atheist position, which is simply the rejection of the claim that God exists because there is insufficient evidence. So the theist is left with the burden of proof because the atheist is not making any claim. As to what proof would convince the atheist that God exists, the best answer I have heard is that the atheist doesn’t know, but if there is an omniscient creator God, then that God would know what proof would convince the atheist. The atheist’s conclusion from this view is that either God does not exist, or that the God chooses not to provide convincing proof.

PseuTonym, in response to the questions that you suggested, I think it more likely that the OP’s friend might answer “I don’t know. I’m not an evolutionary biologist.”