The absurdity of atheism

[buffalo]

Nor is what you’ve said - it’s just a fable. Do you believe everything you read, or are told?

You have made a positive claim. Now you have to provide evidence.

Please provide historical unrefuted evidence.

 

[buffalo]

I feel the same way about science and learning about the cosmos.

Me too.

 

[wanstronian]

It means you have no explanation.(1)

True. Nor does anybody else - just hypotheses which prove nothing.

Why not equally so?

Because there is evidence for a material reality; none for an immaterial one. Simple really.

Let us see (ignoring the argumentum ad hominem )

You’re very sensitive - it was you that introduced the subject of an immaterial reality. It’s hardly ad hominem to refer to it

which is also a red herring).

How is it a red herring? Do you deny the phyical reality? Do you have evidence of a non-physical reality?

How do you experience physical reality?

The same way as you do - with my senses.

That is likely to be your belief rather than mine.

I thought you were suggesting it with the comment, “It is equally possible that the only reality is immaterial.”

Where do you think your thoughts and actions are occurring?

My thoughts are occurring in my head, as far as I can tell. My direct actions are occurring either within or in very close proximity to my body. Incidentally, my current thoughts are along the lines of, “What has this got to do with the existence of God???”

What do you mean by objective? Physical?

I mean that when you are talking in terms of science, philsophy etc., you can’t use mental activity as a datum, because everybody’s is likely to be different. There’s no commonality. You can use the existence of mental activity, if that’s what you meant.

It is based on the evidence that rationality, consciousness and free will are irreducible elements of reality.

There’s nothing there to suggest that the ‘unknown’ aspect is more than just a part of that experience. In fact, given what we know about the makeup of the brain and the bio-chemical reactions that take place in response to stimuli, the ‘unknown’ aspect *by definition *can be no more than ‘a part.’ as I said. Btw, I’m still having those same thoughts in my head…

Where is the paradox? Don’t you believe mindless processes preceded mental processes?

Apologies, I must have misunderstood you. I thought that you were implying that scientific investigation was nothing more than ‘mindless processes.’ Now I’m not sure what you meant!

That seems more paradoxical…

Possibly, in light of my clarification above.

(Argumentum ad hominem)

Not at all - it was not a personal dig at you, it was my genuine opinion of the reason for using God as a gap-filler.

A picturesque but inaccurate description which is beside the point because we already know full well what you believe.

Then why did you put words in my mouth with your previous comment?

Do you really believe science has no preconceptions whatsoever?

Science, no. Scientists, quite possibly. But that is a different issue.

I shall give you an opportunity to modify that statement.

Thank you, no need!

BTW How do you determine what is rational?

“Having sound judgement,” “in accordance with reason,” “not foolish.” Something along those lines. When applied to the question of the existence of God, you could substitute, “based on evidence.”

Is it irrational to say “I did it” or “You did it” of “He did it” as an explanation of an event or events?

Not at all, because when called upon to prove the statement it should be easy to do so. This is clearly not true for “God did it.”

Why not? Does it not postulate one entity?

Yes, but by definition not a simple one.

God is defined as a responsible agent beyond whom there is no need to look further for ultimate responsibility.

So who made God? Where did he come from? How did he manage to create the world in a week? Where did he get the capability to hear all our thoughts, see and judge all our actions? 'Fess up God, how do you do it?

(continued)

 

[wanstronian]

(red herring) (Argumentum ad hominem )

If you’re going to use this, at least get your facts straight… Firstly, God isn’t (apparently) a man. Secondly, until you can prove he exists, there is no hominem for me to ad. Habeus Corpus.

Do you believe purposeful wholes can be explained in terms of their parts?

In theory yes, with the caveat that there’s still much about the universe that we don’t know. There’s certainly no evidence that anything supernatural is needed. And absolutely no evidence that the missing link is God.

That you have **not explained **why it is an entity.

Definition of an entity is “A thing that has a real existence.” I didn’t think this needed explanation.

What about the evidence of rationality, consciousness and free will?

What about them? How do they conclusively prove the existence of God? If you can pull that one off, then it’s game over and you’ve won.

You are retreating to your impregnable position that atheism explains nothing.

It’s not supposed to, it has no obligation to.

Yet your attack on theism presupposes beliefs. Otherwise it is vacuous. It proves that you have no explanation.

No, I’ve said that all along. I have no explanation for that which is so far unexplained. I prefer to be honest about that rather than postulate a being for which no evidence exists.

…If it is not evidence to what do you attribute the success of science?

Er, evidence. But what you said, “the highest aspect of reality of which we are aware and have direct personal experience” is not evidence, it’s conjecture and subjective experience.

I reach that conclusion because it is the most adequate explanation of the power of reason. Pensee fait la grandeur de l’homme. (Pascal)

Eh? We look like God because it the best explanation of the power of reason? I don’t know where to start picking holes in that. Firstly, let me repeat my request for evidence that we’re made in God’s image. (of course, that will necessitate evidence for the existence of God, so we know you’re going nowhere with that one!). Secondly, explain how, even if God did exist and we looked like him, how that would provide the ‘best explanation of the power of reason?’ And finally, please explain how Pascal’s quote is even related to God?

Do you really mean that your reliance on reason proves nothing?

I wouldn’t say it proves nothing. It proves I’m capable of reason, for a start. It certainly doesn’t prove that God exists, if that’s what you’re trying to say.

We’ve been around the houses on this one quite a lot. Although I quite enjoy responding to your little side show challenges, they add nothing to the ‘God’ question and have resulting in split posts, which are a pain to manage. I’d like to return to the original subject of this post, which stated that atheism is absurd. Given the definition of atheism, which is a denial of God based on the absence of evidence, could you please show why such a stance is absurd? If it’s absurd, then it’s absurd for you not to believe in unicorns, fairies, Thor and Apollo.

So please, present your evidence and we can all be friends

 

[wanstronian]

You have made a positive claim. Now you have to provide evidence.

Please provide historical unrefuted evidence.

Okay, you got me there , I’ll retract and replace with, “Can you provide the evidence of what you claim is history (fact)?”

 

[tonyrey]

I’d like to return to the original subject of this post, which stated that atheism is absurd. Given the definition of atheism, which is a denial of God based on the absence of evidence, could you please show why such a stance is absurd?

You have made it clear that you agree with the propositions in the OP:

1. Only the physical universe exists.
2. The physical universe is purposeless.
3. The physical universe is valueless.
4. The physical universe is meaningless.
5. The physical universe lacks consciousness.
6. It can be proved that these assumptions are true.
7. All purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity is ultimately activity that is
   purposeless, valueless, meaningless and lacks consciousness.

You also agree that:

1. Purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity exists on this planet.
2. The origin of this activity is unknown.

#6 and #7 are clearly inconsistent with #9.

You reject #8 as evidence for a rational, conscious, free and purposeful Being who is ultimately responsible for that activity - without giving any reason why it does not constitute evidence. Would you accept it as evidence for a rational, conscious, free and purposeful Source of energy? if not why not?

 

[wanstronian]

You have made it clear that you agree with the propositions in the OP:

1. Only the physical universe exists.
2. The physical universe is purposeless.
3. The physical universe is valueless.
4. The physical universe is meaningless.
5. The physical universe lacks consciousness.
6. It can be proved that these assumptions are true.
7. All purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity is ultimately activity that is
   purposeless, valueless, meaningless and lacks consciousness.

You can infer that, but you would be wrong. For what it’s worth, my actual answers are as follows:

1. I don’t know. Nobody knows. The physical universe is the only one we know to exist.
2. True - I don’t believe the universe has intelligence, therefore it has no purpose.
3. Depends on your definition of value. Can you clarify?
4. Again, depends on your definition. I wonder if you are attempting to say the same thing three different ways in points 2, 3 and 4?
5. Yes, I believe this. There is no evidence that the universe has consciousness, in fact the very concept seems slightly absurd. See my response to Point 2.
6. No, it can’t be proved. It’s just that there’s no evidence that they are false. You could possibly present a theoretical proof based on logic and extrapolation, but it wouldn’t be sufficiently evidential, and science is not in the habit of making groundless assertions. I don’t think the light would be worth the candle.
7. You seem to be comparing individual purpose with a higher, supernatural purpose. I don’t understand the value in the comparison.

You also agree that:

1. Purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity exists on this planet.
2. The origin of this activity is unknown.

#6 and #7 are clearly inconsistent with #9.

Even if I agreed with all your points 1 - 7, this statement would not be true.

You reject #8 as evidence for a rational, conscious, free and purposeful Being who is ultimately responsible for that activity - without giving any reason why it does not constitute evidence.

Evidence has to be demonstrable, repeatable, objective. You cannot show that the intelligence of an individual must have come from an intelligent supernatural power. That is not evidence, it is opinion.

You seem to be taking an almost Lamarckian approach to this. Lamarckism has been shown to be false in evolutionary terms, why should it now be true in respect of some form of supernatural bequest?

Would you accept it as evidence for a rational, conscious, free and purposeful Source of energy? if not why not?

No - for the same reasons that I state above.

Let me ask you a question: If human consciousness must be inherited from somewhere, and you choose a supernatural, conscious entity, where did that entity get its consciousness from? Why does your chain of assumption just suddenly stop at God?

The way I see it, you have two options here: Either you can admit that your logic results in an infinite regress, or you can accept that if there is a ‘first cause’ of intelligence etc., it is no less likely to have come about through evolution as from some notional omni-everything being. Considerably more likely in fact, since we have evidence of the former.

If your evidence for the existence of God boils down to the existence of human consciousness, free will and so on, then that’s no evidence at all, it’s just false logic. Although I’ve no doubt that your causal link seems completely obvious to you, it’s worth bearing in mind that another attribute of evidence is that it’s obvious to everybody.

So do you have any evidence for consideration? Or are we agreed that atheism is purely logical (if emotionally unexciting)?

 

[tonyrey]

1. I don’t know. Nobody knows. The physical universe is the only one we know to exist.

Therefore it is arbitrary to exclude the existence of intangible realities such as truth, goodness, consciousness, persons, qualia, intentionality, free will, purpose and love.

1. Again, depends on your definition. I wonder if you are attempting to say the same thing three different ways in points 2, 3 and 4?

Purpose, value and meaning are closely related but they are not identical. They are all associated with personal existence. Life has value because it is a source of opportunities, it has purpose because it is goal-directed and it has meaning because its value and purpose are intelligible.

1. No, it can’t be proved. It’s just that there’s no evidence that they are false.

In other words they do not constitute evidence against theism.

1. You seem to be comparing individual purpose with a higher, supernatural purpose. I don’t understand the value in the comparison.

The value is that one explains the other.

Evidence has to be demonstrable, repeatable, objective.

So you do not regard thoughts, choices, values, purposes and decisions as evidence?

You cannot show that the intelligence of an individual must have come from an intelligent supernatural power.

You cannot explain the origin of intelligence yet you value it and rely on it to reach your conclusions. It is more reasonable to believe it is evidence for a intelligent source of intelligence than processes which lack intelligence.

Let me ask you a question: If human consciousness must be inherited from somewhere, and you choose a supernatural, conscious entity, where did that entity get its consciousness from? Why does your chain of assumption just suddenly stop at God?

An infinite regress is less satisfactory than an Ultimate Reality which explains the power of reason and purposeful activity. Do you use an infinite regress to explain anything?

The way I see it, you have two options here: Either you can admit that your logic results in an infinite regress, or you can accept that if there is a ‘first cause’ of intelligence etc., it is no less likely to have come about through evolution as from some notional omni-everything being.

That is a false dilemma. What about evolution by Design?

If your evidence for the existence of God boils down to the existence of human consciousness, free will and so on, then that’s no evidence at all, it’s just false logic. Although I’ve no doubt that your causal link seems completely obvious to you, it’s worth bearing in mind that another attribute of evidence is that it’s obvious to everybody.

It is not restricted to human attributes. There is abundant evidence for Design.

 

[Fran65]

it’s worth bearing in mind that another attribute of evidence is that it’s obvious to everybody.

This statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scientific method. Empirical evidence gathered from scientific investigations is given in the form of statements of probablity. These statements are given in relation to the hypothesis and the chosen level of significance. These levels of significance can range for example from 1% to 100%. Most scientific investigations use a level of between 1 and 5%. Based on the outcome of the inferential statistical test chosen, the researchers are able to say for example, that they can be 99% confident that the result did not occur by chance (if they have used a 1%level) or that the results are more likely to have occured by chance than by the action of one of the studied variables.

One of the major reasons for replication is to check whether these results can be repeated, as this increases our confidence that they did not occur by chance. However, a fruitful avenue of research is to examine whether some other variable actually caused the change in the dependent variable. It is very rare that everybody reaches agreement as there is always a probability that the evidence occured by chance. It is only over time and with replication that (if the researcher is correct, lucky and talented) the majority of a scientific community accept findings as both consistent and accurate.

If you have a look at professional scientific journals, you will see that this, in the fact, the case.

In addition, many things that appear ‘obvious’ to everyone are sometimes shown to be wrong. It was, for example, obvious to everyone that the sun moved around the earth, and that the earth was flat. There was indeed, evidence for both of these ‘obvious’ conclusions.

 

[liquidpele]

This statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scientific method. Empirical evidence gathered from scientific investigations is given in the form of statements of probablity. These statements are given in relation to the hypothesis and the chosen level of significance. These levels of significance can range for example from 1% to 100%. Most scientific investigations use a level of between 1 and 5%. Based on the outcome of the inferential statistical test chosen, the researchers are able to say for example, that they can be 99% confident that the result did not occur by chance (if they have used a 1%level) or that the results are more likely to have occured by chance than by the action of one of the studied variables.

One of the major reasons for replication is to check whether these results can be repeated, as this increases our confidence that they did not occur by chance. However, a fruitful avenue of research is to examine whether some other variable actually caused the change in the dependent variable. It is very rare that everybody reaches agreement as there is always a probability that the evidence occured by chance. It is only over time and with replication that (if the researcher is correct, lucky and talented) the majority of a scientific community accept findings as both consistent and accurate.

If you have a look at professional scientific journals, you will see that this, in the fact, the case.

In addition, many things that appear ‘obvious’ to everyone are sometimes shown to be wrong. It was, for example, obvious to everyone that the sun moved around the earth, and that the earth was flat. There was indeed, evidence for both of these ‘obvious’ conclusions.

Good points! Not everything can be reduced to the scientific method though. In such cases, we are left to more subjective evaluations including but not limited to what others believe, our own sense of physical evaluation, and our mental state (that is to say, conservative vs liberal and things of that nature).

In short, I agree we should be skeptical of popular ideas without proof, if you get my drift

 

[wanstronian]

Therefore it is arbitrary to exclude the existence of intangible realities such as truth, goodness, consciousness, persons, qualia, intentionality, free will, purpose and love.

Well it’s necessary to exclude them as any form of evidence of a higher power.

Purpose, value and meaning are closely related but they are not identical. They are all associated with personal existence. Life has value because it is a source of opportunities, it has purpose because it is goal-directed and it has meaning because its value and purpose are intelligible.

Okay, but they are all pointing in the same direction - you want to emphasise the existence of these intangible qualities in animals.

In other words they do not constitute evidence against theism.

No, nor did I suggest they did. I have no evidence against theism, other than the total lack of evidence for theism.

The value is that one explains the other.

Only if you can show correlation. Without evidence of the existence of your assumed supernatural originator, there can be no attempt at correlation. The existence of intelligence in animals does NOT necessitate the existence of an intelligent Creator. This would be logically bankrupt.

So you do not regard thoughts, choices, values, purposes and decisions as evidence?

Well, there’s a nebulous question! Is a fake banknote evidence of the existence of gravity? No. Are thoughts, choices etc., evidence of the existence of God? No. Until you can prove that humans get their intelligence from a higher power, then there is no evidence for that higher power. Unfortunately for you, your whole hypothesis for God seems to rest on your conviction that our intelligence must have been bequeathed from somewhere. I’m afraid your opinion does not constitute evidence.

You cannot explain the origin of intelligence yet you value it and rely on it to reach your conclusions. It is more reasonable to believe it is evidence for a intelligent source of intelligence than processes which lack intelligence.

I take it, then, that you do not believe in evolution? Because you seem to be saying that no attribute can evolve by itself, that attribute must have been bequeathed by something else that already held it. Or are you saying this just applies to intelligence? If so, what’s your rationale? In any event, we’re back to an infinite regress again - if God gave us intelligence, who gave it to God? He just had it all along? How can you possibly find that a satisfactory answer? It explains precisely nothing.

An infinite regress is less satisfactory than an Ultimate Reality which explains the power of reason and purposeful activity. Do you use an infinite regress to explain anything?

No, nor was I promoting an infinite regress - but you have no logic to explain why God should be the backstop rather than evolution.

That is a false dilemma. What about evolution by Design?

What about it? How does that change anything? Who designed the designer?

It is not restricted to human attributes. There is abundant evidence for Design.

If you mean Intelligent Design, then I ask again - please present your evidence.

 

[tonyrey]

Well it’s necessary to exclude them as any form of evidence of a higher power.

Can you explain why it is necessary?

Purpose, value and meaning are closely related but they are not identical. They are all associated with personal existence. Life has value because it is a source of opportunities, it has purpose because it is goal-directed and it has meaning because its value and purpose are intelligible.
Okay, but they are all pointing in the same direction - you want to emphasise the existence of these intangible qualities in animals.

You are assuming that human beings are animals…

I have no evidence against theism, other than the total lack of evidence for theism.

What do you regard as evidence for the existence of your mind?

Only if you can show correlation.

There is correlation between the evidence of design in the universe and the evidence of design by human beings.

Without evidence of the existence of your assumed supernatural originator, there can be no attempt at correlation.

Do you regard yourself as an originator or a product?

Until you can prove that humans get their intelligence from a higher power, then there is no evidence for that higher power.

Until you can prove that humans get their intelligence from processes which lack intelligence there is no evidence that your hypothesis is correct.
What is the evidence that you have a mind? Mindless processes?
Do you not regard thoughts, choices, values, purposes and decisions as evidence of your mind and the minds of others?

The existence of intelligence in animals does NOT necessitate the existence of an intelligent Creator.

Again you are assuming that human beings are merely animals. Moreover it is not a question of logical necessity but of probability. Does the existence of intelligence in animals necessitate the truth of NeoDarwinism?

It is more reasonable to believe it is evidence for a intelligent source of intelligence than processes which lack intelligence.
I take it, then, that you do not believe in evolution?

I have pointed out that is a false dilemma.

Or are you saying this just applies to intelligence?

I am saying this applies to all mental activity: thoughts, choices, values, purposes and decisions.

If so, what’s your rationale?

The principle of adequate explanation.

In any event, we’re back to an infinite regress again - if God gave us intelligence, who gave it to God?

How do you explain the existence of energy in the universe? Do you have recourse to an infinite regress? Do you regard it as an ultimate reality? Do you regard it as having emerged from a void? Or do you have no explanation whatsoever?

An infinite regress is less satisfactory than an Ultimate Reality which explains the power of reason and purposeful activity. Do you use an infinite regress to explain anything?
No, nor was I promoting an infinite regress - but you have no logic to explain why God should be the backstop rather than evolution.

I have pointed out that is a false dilemma. There is more than one explanation of evolution. You seem to regard NeoDarwinism as the only theory of evolution.

Who designed the designer?

No one! Where do you obtain the power of reason which enables you to design? From processes which lack that power? Where did those processes come from? And how did they acquire that power? Accidentally? That explanation seems highly implausible to say the least…
.

If you mean Intelligent Design, then I ask again - please present your evidence.

I have dealt with the subject at great length in “Is intelligent design a plausible theory?”

 

[Fran65]

if God gave us intelligence, who gave it to God? He just had it all along? How can you possibly find that a satisfactory answer? It explains precisely nothing.

For Catholics (and others who believe in God) God is the explanation. It is His nature to have the attributes of His creations.

I think that what you are seeking for is an explanation of God, and that, my friend, we don’t have, other than, as you rightly pointed out, He is what He is.

It must be challenging? frightening? chastening? demeaning? for someone who believes that he has *the capacity to know everything *through the power of reason to admit the limits of the human mind and the power of reason.

Please don’t take this as meaning that I don’t believe in the need to continue scientific and intellectual endeavour and the need thereby to increase our knowledge and understanding of this marvellous world and universe, my posts provide abundant evidence that this is not my position.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

For Catholics (and others who believe in God) God is the explanation. It is His nature to have the attributes of His creations.

I think that what you are seeking for is an explanation of God, and that, my friend, we don’t have, other than, as you rightly pointed out, He is what He is.

Not a satisfactory answer. This basically amounts to “I don’t know”. If we need a god to develop our intelligence then it stands to reason he would need one to develop his, you can’t have it both ways.

 

[Fran65]

Hi CD,

God is not a creature. He is not created. Therefore He does not need a creator and He is what He is. We do have it both ways - that’s why the position ‘works’.

It is not the same as saying “I don’t know”. For Catholics, *we do know *that God is He what He is. If He was not what He is He would not be God.

The universe was created - we don’t know how (the mechanics and process), but we (Catholics) do know why and by what/who.

I understand that this position is not accepted by some, and that many seek evidence that’s acceptable to them for God’s existence and don’t find it, but that doesn’t change the nature of God one whit!

It is what it is - I hope that doesn’t sound too gnomic!

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Hi CD,

God is not a creature. He is not created. Therefore He does not need a creator and He is what He is. We do have it both ways - that’s why the position ‘works’.

It is not the same as saying “I don’t know”. For Catholics, *we do know *that God is He what He is. If He was not what He is He would not be God.

The universe was created - we don’t know how (the mechanics and process), but we (Catholics) do know why and by what/who.

I understand that this position is not accepted by some, and that many seek evidence that’s acceptable to them for God’s existence and don’t find it, but that doesn’t change the nature of God one whit!

It is what it is - I hope that doesn’t sound too gnomic!

I just could not accept that as any kind of satisfactory answer. Not only does it make zero sense, but it is a logical fallacy and seeks to avoids any sort of real questioning.

It is they easy way out.

 

[wanstronian]

This statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scientific method. Empirical evidence gathered from scientific investigations is given in the form of statements of probablity. These statements are given in relation to the hypothesis and the chosen level of significance. These levels of significance can range for example from 1% to 100%. Most scientific investigations use a level of between 1 and 5%. Based on the outcome of the inferential statistical test chosen, the researchers are able to say for example, that they can be 99% confident that the result did not occur by chance (if they have used a 1%level) or that the results are more likely to have occured by chance than by the action of one of the studied variables.

One of the major reasons for replication is to check whether these results can be repeated, as this increases our confidence that they did not occur by chance. However, a fruitful avenue of research is to examine whether some other variable actually caused the change in the dependent variable. It is very rare that everybody reaches agreement as there is always a probability that the evidence occured by chance. It is only over time and with replication that (if the researcher is correct, lucky and talented) the majority of a scientific community accept findings as both consistent and accurate.

If you have a look at professional scientific journals, you will see that this, in the fact, the case.

In addition, many things that appear ‘obvious’ to everyone are sometimes shown to be wrong. It was, for example, obvious to everyone that the sun moved around the earth, and that the earth was flat. There was indeed, evidence for both of these ‘obvious’ conclusions.

Thank you for reinforcing my point: even if it was obvious to everybody, it might still be wrong.

 

[wanstronian]

Can you explain why it is necessary?

For the same reason that you would not, in a murder case, introduce the hair colour of a random, unconnected individual as evidence. Because it is not relevant.

You are assuming that human beings are animals…

Well, yes. Do you dispute this??

What do you regard as evidence for the existence of your mind?

The fact that I am here, experiencing life.

There is correlation between the evidence of design in the universe and the evidence of design by human beings.

There is no evidence of intelligent design in the universe (other than that produced by man). There is the illusion of design, which is adequately explained in most cases. Where it is not explained, there is no reason to postulate a supreme being.

Do you regard yourself as an originator or a product?

Both - I am an originator of my children, and a product of evolution. I am a link in the chain of evolution, for which masses of evidence exists.

Until you can prove that humans get their intelligence from processes which lack intelligence there is no evidence that your hypothesis is correct.

What hypothesis? Burden of proof, my friend. I have made no definitive statement regarding where humans get their intelligence, so I have no obligation to provide proof. Why do theists always get this bit wrong?

What is the evidence that you have a mind? Mindless processes?

Previously answered, and an irrelevant question anyway.

Do you not regard thoughts, choices, values, purposes and decisions as evidence of your mind and the minds of others?

Yes. What’s your point (as if I didn’t know)

Again you are assuming that human beings are merely animals.

Yes, I am. And there is literally tonnes of evidence to support that ‘assumption’ (although ‘fact’ is a better word).

Moreover it is not a question of logical necessity but of probability. Does the existence of intelligence in animals necessitate the truth of NeoDarwinism?

No, but there is no better explanation. In fact, there is no reasonable alternative explanation.

I have pointed out that is a false dilemma.

I must have missed that. Can you remind me?

I am saying this applies to all mental activity: thoughts, choices, values, purposes and decisions.

But only to mental activity? Why so? Why not physical attributes?

The principle of adequate explanation.

How can your explanation be adequate when there is no evidence to support it? If I stated that unicorns existed because otherwise there would be no pictures of unicorns, would you consider that an adequate explanation, of proof that unicorns exist? If not, why not?

How do you explain the existence of energy in the universe? Do you have recourse to an infinite regress? Do you regard it as an ultimate reality? Do you regard it as having emerged from a void? Or do you have no explanation whatsoever?

There are several theories, I believe. Nobody knows for sure. That clearly doesn’t mean that God exists, and anybody who thinks it does is not only suffering from delusion, but also an unforgiveable lack of common sense.

I have pointed out that is a false dilemma. There is more than one explanation of evolution. You seem to regard NeoDarwinism as the only theory of evolution.

The only one that actually works. Name another and I’ll explain why it doesn’t work.

No one! Where do you obtain the power of reason which enables you to design? From processes which lack that power? Where did those processes come from? And how did they acquire that power? Accidentally? That explanation seems highly implausible to say the least…

Ah, here we agree. It is implausible. The start of evolution is implausible. Particularly when considered against timescales that we humans can conceptualise. But by definition, the alternative hypothesis that says, “God did it” is even more implausible. It absolutely has to be, not leastby virtue of the fact that we have evidence for one but not the other.

I have dealt with the subject at great length in “Is intelligent design a plausible theory?”

You can’t expect me to go reading through a 1000-post thread. Perhaps you could summarise, or point me towards a small synopsis somewhere?

 

[wanstronian]

For Catholics (and others who believe in God) God is the explanation. It is His nature to have the attributes of His creations.

Well, isn’t that convenient! No explanation necessary - it just is. End of discussion…

I think that what you are seeking for is an explanation of God, and that, my friend, we don’t have, other than, as you rightly pointed out, He is what He is.

That would be a nice progression, once I’ve seen evidence that he exists. But first things first. Evidence of existence is the initial step, I think.

It must be challenging? frightening? chastening? demeaning? for someone who believes that he has *the capacity to know everything *through the power of reason to admit the limits of the human mind and the power of reason.

Your condescension may make you feel superior, but your statement is inferential, unintelligent and irrelevant.

Please don’t take this as meaning that I don’t believe in the need to continue scientific and intellectual endeavour and the need thereby to increase our knowledge and understanding of this marvellous world and universe, my posts provide abundant evidence that this is not my position.

You’re not all bad then!

 

[wanstronian]

Hi CD,

God is not a creature. He is not created. Therefore He does not need a creator and He is what He is. We do have it both ways - that’s why the position ‘works’.

Although of course it doesn’t - as CD points out, it’s logically bereft.

It is not the same as saying “I don’t know”. For Catholics, *we do know *that God is He what He is. If He was not what He is He would not be God.

The universe was created - we don’t know how (the mechanics and process), but we (Catholics) do know why and by what/who.

You can’t know, you can only believe you know. I think this is one of the differentiators between theists and atheists - theists claim to ‘know’ stuff that logically, they can’t possibly know, whereas atheists only claim to ‘know’ stuff for which there is evidence. This is why atheism is, rationally speaking, a much stronger position than theism.

Also, I find all this ‘knowing’ quite ironic given your signature!