The absurdity of atheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
zyzz said:
Several problems with that. First, there are no experiments which would show “telepathy”. Second, even if there were, they could be generated by the weak electro-magnetic forces generated by the brain - which actually exist. But there are no experiments to establish any kind of telepathy. And the number of experiments are quite overwhelming.
Click to expand...
Of course there aren’t many experiments to establish telepathy because experiments rely on observable and quantifiable data. The method determines what kind of outcomes can possibly be “established.” You are stacking the deck by ruling out certain outcomes by the very nature of the thing they are.
zyzz said:
As usual, you try to evade the question about “all kinds of reasons for the existence of immortal souls”. Bring them on, along with your assumed “evidence” for them. Put your money where your mouth is!
Click to expand...
There is only one answer to your extortive demands for money.
Now this is exactly the same fallacy as that of the drunk who insists on looking for his lost car keys under the lamp post, on the grounds that that is the only place where there is enough light by which to see them. The fact that that is where the light is simply doesn’t entail that the keys are there, and neither does it entail that there is any point in continuing to look for the keys under the lamp post after repeated investigation fails to turn them up, or that there is no point in trying to find ways to look for the keys elsewhere, or that we should look for something else under the lamp post rather than the keys.
Click to expand...
Similarly, the fact that the methods of physics are powerful methods doesn’t entail that those methods can answer the question why there is anything at all rather than nothing, or that we should replace that question with some other question that the methods of physics can handle, or that there is no point in looking for other methods by which to investigate the question. To assume, as Krauss does, that the question simply must be one susceptible of investigation by physics if it is to be rationally investigated at all is to commit what E. A. Burtt identified as the fallacy of “mak[ing] a metaphysics out of [one’s] method” – that is, of trying to force reality to conform to one’s favored method of studying it rather than conforming one’s method to reality.
edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2015/02/accept-no-imitations.html#more
Click to expand...
 
Peter_Plato said:
Of course there aren’t MANY experiments to establish telepathy because experiments rely on observable and quantifiable data.
Click to expand...
The highlighted word should be ANY, not MANY. Not one. There is a million dollar reward from the James Randi Foundation: if someone can establish any kind of paranormal claim they will receive a million bucks. There are some takers, but no winners. And I make a prediction, just like one is obliged to do in real science: “There will be no winners”.

By the way, the people who are interested in participating in these experiments are ACTIVELY participating in the setup for the test. They are part of the design team. Keep that in “mind”. There is no “rigging” against them. They will lose in the clean experiments.

I guess, you would prefer some different “method”, like: “Participant A says: ‘I emitted a thought’. Participant B says: 'Yay, I received it!”. Judge asks: what was that thought? Both participants declare indignantly: “Do you call us LIARS? How dare you question our integrity?”. Sorry, that is not the way the cookie crumbles. Your words are not accepted without evidence.
Peter_Plato said:
The method determines what kind of outcomes can possibly be “established.” You are stacking the deck by ruling out certain outcomes by the very nature of the thing they are.
Click to expand...
The same type of “stacking” is performed for all the claims. Interestingly, it is only in the case for the pseudo-scientific claims that the outcome will ALWAYS fail. Not even inconclusive. Plain failure.
Peter_Plato said:
There is only one answer to your extortive demands for money.
Click to expand...
Yup, there is no evidence. Empty assertion.
 
zyzz said:
Yup, there is no evidence. Empty assertion.
Click to expand...
Except that you still haven’t answered my post addressing when and why evidence may be required or warranted to begin with.
Peter_Plato said:
Here is the issue I have with your concept of evidence.

How do you know beforehand whether any particular item or artifact counts as “evidence” in the first place?

Suppose you find a footprint of a size 10 workboot in a flower bed. Is that evidence? It hardly makes sense to speak of “evidence” at all unless you also are willing to state what it is that the item is evidence FOR.

**At least two aspects exist for evidence: relevance and significance.
**
Let’s go back to the footprint.

Suppose a murder has been committed in the living room of the house where the footprint was found. The footprint might be relevant, but we cannot possibly know that without having enough of the story in place about which the footprint might serve as a piece of evidence.

In other words, you would have to have a sufficient part of the narrative constructed and in place to know whether any item or artifact can possibly have any relevance with respect to the narrative in the first place. If you deny that narrative altogether, then no evidence whatsoever can possibly count as having relevance or significance.

It is easy to deny that the footprint can serve as evidence for anything at all, if you deny, in the first instance that anything transpired for there to be any evidence for. The footprint can only be relevant and significant with respect to the larger narrative that it might be a part of. Deny the larger part and you deny the significance of the evidence.

This, I suspect, is all that atheists are doing when they (and you) deny there is any evidence for God. There cannot be any evidence for God if you deny, in the first instance, that God exists. You remove the possibility of there being any evidence whatsoever.

Without a murder in the living room, the footprint in the flower bed has no evidential significance. It is irrelevant to any “known” event and can be dismissed as insignificant except, perhaps, to the insignificant event of someone having worked the flower bed.

Now suppose a murder had taken place in the living room. Does the footprint become relevant AND significant? What if the workshed of the property has three boots the same size and same print? Relevant? Yes. Significant in the murder investigation? Probably not. What if the print in the flower bed shows a large gouge in the heel that none of the other boots in the workshed have? Relevant? Yes. Significant? Yes.

Here’s the thing: we can only recognize evidence when we see that it is relevant to some aspect of an accepted narrative and significant when it makes a difference to our understanding of that narrative. If the narrative is dismissed outright, no amount of evidence can ever count as relevant or significant.

That is, I submit, the perspective on evidence that atheists take with respect to the existence of God and the Christian narrative. They do not permit or engage with a sufficiently large portion of the narrative to ever gain a sense of which evidence might be deemed relevant or significant with respect to the entire case made by Christianity. Therefore, if no sufficiently integrated part of the story is heard or allowed, any particular piece of evidence can be dismissed as irrelevant and insignificant to establishing the possibility of that narrative in the first place.

If the gouge in the heel of the boot is dismissed as insignificant, the footprint is as well and whatever missing part of the narrative the footprint might have provided is never admitted. Again, this is the problem with the atheist’s position vis a vis evidence for Christianity. No pieces of evidence are admitted on their own and therefore no sufficiently significant part of narrative is ever built to highlight the relevance of all the other pieces of evidence that exist.
Click to expand...
Even if you could explicate the terms under which you would find any evidence acceptable and what that evidence could possibly demonstrate to you, I would be wasting my time. You have already stated any such “evidence” will be inadmissible, so you have already determined under which lamp post your “keys” are to be found. It is kind of pointless for me to keep tapping you on the shoulder since you adamantly insist the keys are only to be found under your methodological lamp post
 
zyzz said:
Your words are not accepted without evidence.

Yup, there is no evidence. Empty assertion.
Click to expand...
The difficulty for you – trying to get this thread back on topic – is that “evidence” is not a sufficient ground for belief in God, but neither is it for holding a belief in the non-existence of God.

And – trying to relate the idea of telepathy to this point – I would make the following parallel:

Belief or lack of belief in God has the same rational standing as belief or lack of belief in other minds besides our own.

Strictly speaking, one could not prove that other minds exist and any “evidence” that could be mustered to demonstrate the existence of other minds would be insufficient to establish with anything like epistemic certainty, their existence.

Someone adamant about denying the existence of other minds could dismiss any and all evidence that could support a belief in other minds on the grounds that the evidence is insufficient. And they would be correct since other minds are not the kind of thing that could be accepted without the purchase of an entire world view.

Similarly, the existence of God could be denied by someone taking a willful stance precisely because – like belief in other minds – acceptance of a belief in God entails an entire paradigm shift with regard to the nature of reality and any evidence for such a belief can always be dismissed as insufficient by someone unwilling to make that paradigm shift.

Acknowledgment of other minds with all the attendant moral implications undermines solipsistic or narcissistic egoism. Anyone acknowledging the existence of other minds must – to be consistent with the belief – take on an entirely different moral world view.

Likewise, belief in God requires an entire paradigm shift regarding the objective source and authority regarding ultimate meaning and value. An individual unwilling to make that shift will easily dismiss any and all evidence on the pretext that all imaginable evidence will be insufficient to warrant the shift in world view.

This is not inherently a problem of evidence, per se. Evidence has its place. Metaphysical world views, however, are built on much more than physical evidence – a much larger sense of meaning, significance and the nature of reality and teleology. Evidence is simply not up to the task of creating entire world views – that is a much more robust venture than evidence can possibly underwrite.

Someone who insists on physical evidence to bolster every thought and act is simply not living a human life nor do they really grasp what taking on human personhood truly involves.

Take the development of virtues such as courage, persistence or temperance. Evidence cannot have the final say in the exercise of these.

And there are a number of other aspects with regard to being human that cannot rely simply on physical attributes or evidential (name removed by moderator)uts for their development.

Evidence cannot account for everything required to become fully human nor for every decision or belief that it takes to do so.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Except that you still haven’t answered my post addressing when and why evidence may be required or warranted to begin with.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. But if you insist: you made a claim that there are “all kind of reasons” for believing that the souls are immortal, and there is a “house rule”, that claims must be substantiated. So let’s see those “all kinds of reasons”.
Peter_Plato said:
Even if you could explicate the terms under which you would find any evidence acceptable and what that evidence could possibly demonstrate to you, I would be wasting my time. You have already stated any such “evidence” will be inadmissible, so you have already determined under which lamp post your “keys” are to be found. It is kind of pointless for me to keep tapping you on the shoulder since you adamantly insist the keys are only to be found under your methodological lamp post
Click to expand...
Nonsense. I only demand that your purported “evidence” should be repeatable, objective and not an empty hearsay kind. Of course you can’t comply and try the usual “cop-out”, about “wasting your time”. If you are willing to accept someone’s unsubstantiated claims, that is your business. Though I doubt that you would. And I certainly will not. So we can conclude this “conversation”. Empty claims, and cop-outs on your part.

What else is new?

Ahhh, yes, the new year has arrived.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Of course there aren’t many experiments to establish telepathy because experiments rely on observable and quantifiable data.
Click to expand...
You are talking across each other.

I believe what zyzz meant was that there are no experiments which prove telepathy exists. I think you have misinterpreted that and have ended up arguing a nonsensical position.

Of course there are experiments that will prove it one way or the other. All you need is a pack of cards and two people who say it’s possible. You can observe their answers and quantify the results (nothing better than guessing).
Peter_Plato said:
Likewise, belief in God requires an entire paradigm shift regarding the objective source and authority regarding ultimate meaning and value. An individual unwilling to make that shift will easily dismiss any and all evidence on the pretext that all imaginable evidence will be insufficient to warrant the shift in world view.
Click to expand...
So you must be willing to make a ‘paradigm shift’ in your thought processes. OK, let’s say that that is acceptable. Now bring on the evidence. I assume there would be some. One couldn’t be expected to accept something just on your say so.

One can hardly make one’s mind up about anything at all without some evidence. Are you suggesting there is none that would be sufficient to persuade someone with an open mind?
Peter_Plato said:
Someone who insists on physical evidence to bolster every thought and act is simply not living a human life nor do they really grasp what taking on human personhood truly involves.
Click to expand...
Ah, so no physical evidence at all for God. But there must be a God because there is…love. And…truth. And…morality. And…courage. There is no evidence that these exist? Of course there is. How do we show that’s these concepts are related to God? What is the evidence?
 
PRmerger said:
Perhaps you were devout. . .
Click to expand...
I don’t believe him, and it’s not just an automatic response being on the internet rather than meeting face to face. It has to do with God being the Truth and the Light, Love and Beauty. He either does not know this, implying that previously he would have been going through the motions, doing merely what he was told - going to church, maybe even being an altar server, or he knows it and now sees them as qualities that are his to decide. In the latter case, I would not trust him. In the former, he is more Catholic now, adhering to the truth of his lack of faith. In all cases, devout only in a weird sense that sees the church as some social club with rules to be followed and rituals to be performed. While we can fall from grace, straying from the Way that is Jesus Christ, I would hope this is not the case. Being in error intellectually doesn’t matter much, imho as long as there remains the holding love and truth in its proper place above all else. Otherwise, perdition. I am speaking about the poster in the third person, as we do God, who is here with us always.
 
Bradski said:
You are talking across each other.

I believe what zyzz meant was that there are no experiments which prove telepathy exists. I think you have misinterpreted that and have ended up arguing a nonsensical position.

Of course there are experiments that will prove it one way or the other. All you need is a pack of cards and two people who say it’s possible. You can observe their answers and quantify the results (nothing better than guessing).

So you must be willing to make a ‘paradigm shift’ in your thought processes. OK, let’s say that that is acceptable. Now bring on the evidence. I assume there would be some. One couldn’t be expected to accept something just on your say so.

One can hardly make one’s mind up about anything at all without some evidence. Are you suggesting there is none that would be sufficient to persuade someone with an open mind?
Click to expand...
No, actually, I am suggesting that evidence could only persuade someone already, at least in part, already convinced about the world view in question. Otherwise, the evidence will be insufficient to the task.

Whether or not it is sufficient to persuade someone with “an open mind” depends entirely in the vested interest the person has in their existing world view and what precisely is put in jeopardy by the evidence.

Regarding telepathy. I’ve been married to my wife for over thirty years. There have been many times recently since we have both retired that we will be sitting together in silence for a time and either she or I know precisely what the other of us is thinking. There have been times where even before she speaks, I know what she will say and what feelings she will express. There was no lead-in conversation and the focal thought could not have been predicted by any clue or segue. No hint of any sort, just a conviction on the part of one of us of what the other would say. Most times we don’t even bother to mention the foreknowledge, but we both know and we both know that we do.

Is the “testable?” Might be, but to be frank, why would anyone go through it? The question is one of deep trust, what is to be profited by subjecting deep trust to dissection? Something would be lost, in fact, threatened because the hearts and minds of those insisting on the “testing” are inherently mistrusting, which is why the testing and “proof” is insisted upon in the first instance.

The only reason I bring this this up is because you asked. It matters nothing to me whether you accept it as “evidence,” in fact I prefer that you do not.
Bradski said:
Ah, so no physical evidence at all for God. But there must be a God because there is…love. And…truth. And…morality. And…courage. There is no evidence that these exist? Of course there is. How do we show that’s these concepts are related to God? What is the evidence?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is possible to provide evidence that courage does exist. The question, however, is whether evidence is possible that would make a person act with courage or prove that it is better to be courageous than cowardly? I am sure that as far as mere personal survival goes, the physical evidence would not be sufficient to justify courage in all instances where it is required. Something more is necessary - that “something more” is a complete world view, an understanding - in fact, a certainty - regarding the nature of the world built over years of experience, thought and knowledge with only some of it riding on the kind of evidence insisted upon by zyzz.

Now whether or not you or zyzz see that depends entirely upon the kind of persons you are, not in the evidence garnered from the events and circumstances the happen outside of you.

This is why, in fact, we are talking across each other. We have fundamentally different views of the world and our place in it. For him, the world has prime of place and the individual is more or less insignificant in it; only objective and impersonal events count as significant. For me, the objective physical world is a stage or backdrop to the people who have a central role precisely because individuals have infinite worth and eternal standing.

What he counts as the only significant evidence is largely innocuous and trivial to me.
 
Peter_Plato said:
No, actually, I am suggesting that evidence could only persuade someone already, at least in part, already convinced about the world view in question. Otherwise, the evidence will be insufficient to the task.
Click to expand...
Again, how do you “know” that? As far as I am concerned, it is sufficient to have an open mind, a willingness to contemplate and consider the presented evidence. Let’s look at all the facets of the question, both con and pro, and then let the chips fall where they may. The problem is the nature of the “evidence”.

You could look up the on-line version of the book: “Atheism, a case against God” by George H. Smith. He quotes a contemporary philosopher Stephen Toulmin, who says this hair-raising sentence:
The existence of God … is not something to demand evidence for; nor is the sentence, “God exists,” one to be believed if, and only if, the evidence for its truth is good enough. The very last question to ask about God is whether He exists. Rather, we must first accept the notion of “God”: and then we shall be in a position to point to evidences of His existence.
Simply horrible. One must accept that God exists and seek for supporting evidence - while disregarding the one against it. That is not how intellectually honest research works.

To grant an a-priori acceptance of the claim is not the same as “let’s see if the claim is true or not”. It is: let’s assume that the claim is true, and then let’s find supporting evidence for it. And then: “if the evidence does not support the claim, let’s try to explain it away”, or pretend that nothing was said. Actually it is the sign of insecurity. The apologist is “scared” of the failure of the test.
Peter_Plato said:
Whether or not it is sufficient to persuade someone with “an open mind” depends entirely in the vested interest the person has in their existing world view and what precisely is put in jeopardy by the evidence.
Click to expand...
Is there a vested interest for atheists? I don’t think so.

It would be wonderful if this existence would not be “all there is”. Everyone would be delighted to see their deceased relatives again. Now apply the same principle to Christians. They DO have a “vested interest”. They would realize that they wasted a lot of time on meaningless rituals, refrained from doing “sinful” (but very pleasant) activities. Atheists can only gain if there would be a “truly benevolent” God (not the bloodthirsty tyrant of Christianity, who keeps track of every miniscule “sin” and condemns the person for even one of them, if the poor sucker does not repent.) Yes, that would be nice… But believers would lose a lot, if their faith would turn out to be misplaced.
Peter_Plato said:
Regarding telepathy. I’ve been married to my wife for over thirty years. There have been many times recently since we have both retired that we will be sitting together in silence for a time and either she or I know precisely what the other of us is thinking. There have been times where even before she speaks, I know what she will say and what feelings she will express. There was no lead-in conversation and the focal thought could not have been predicted by any clue or segue. No hint of any sort, just a conviction on the part of one of us of what the other would say. Most times we don’t even bother to mention the foreknowledge, but we both know and we both know that we do.
Click to expand...
Nothing special about that. I have the very same experience with my wife, and had for many years. Sometimes it is downright “scary” to see how close our thoughts are. But that is hardly “telepathy”. Having been together for over 30 years and living in harmony makes our thoughts very similar. But that is not telepathy. When we are in mood to analyze how come that we could finish up each other’s sentences, there is always a simple and rational explanation. We see and hear the same things, and have very similar reactions. That would NOT work with strangers.
Peter_Plato said:
Is the “testable?” Might be, but to be frank, why would anyone go through it? The question is one of deep trust, what is to be profited by subjecting deep trust to dissection? Something would be lost, in fact, threatened because the hearts and minds of those insisting on the “testing” are inherently mistrusting, which is why the testing and “proof” is insisted upon in the first instance.
Click to expand...
This is a very significant paragraph. “Something would be lost”, you say. Testing is not mistrusting the OTHER person, it is looking for the real cause of the event. I don’t look for “corroborating evidence”, rather want to know the truth, even if there is nothing “comforting” about it.

This paragraph showed the fundamental difference between us. Testing and looking for proof is not about “trusting”, it is about “learning” and about “let the chips fall where they may”.

You talk about metaphysical world-view and evidence. If the evidence does not support your world-view, what then? Even worse, if the evidence contradicts your world-view? That is what you call “vested” interest. If I am wrong, and there is a God, then I will appeal to his “assumed” justice (mercy is not needed). Since there is no actual evidence for his existence, he should not punish me for my lack of belief. And whether the evidence is sufficient or not is MY decision to make. No one can decide FOR ME if the evidence is good enough or not.

Make no mistake about it: “hell and eternal torture is the epitome of punishment”. It is not simply a separation from God. Here and now, in this existence we are totally separated from God, no “beatific vision”, no “vision” at all. No reward for believers, no punishment for unbelievers. And this existence - though it could be improved upon, is not “hell”.
 
zyzz said:
It would be wonderful if this existence would not be “all there is”. Everyone would be delighted to see their deceased relatives again. Now apply the same principle to Christians. They DO have a “vested interest”. They would realize that they wasted a lot of time on meaningless rituals, refrained from doing “sinful” (but very pleasant) activities. Atheists can only gain if there would be a “truly benevolent” God (not the bloodthirsty tyrant of Christianity, who keeps track of every miniscule “sin” and condemns the person for even one of them, if the poor sucker does not repent.) Yes, that would be nice… But believers would lose a lot, if their faith would turn out to be misplaced.
Click to expand...
Ahem, if their faith was misplaced they would never know they had lost anything!

Believers would gain a lot if their faith in God turned out to be well placed.

Unbelievers would lose a lot if their faith in Nogod turned out to be misplaced.

In either case, the ultimate resolution of the question is not to be determined in this life, but in the next.

Read some Pascal, rather than Marquis de Sade. 🤷

From “Dialogue between a Priest and a Dying Man” by the Marquis de Sade.

Dying Man to the Priest: "Renounce the idea of another world; there is none, but do not renounce the pleasure of being happy and of making for happiness in this. Nature offers you no other way of doubling your existence, of extending it. - My friend, lewd pleasures were ever dearer to me than anything else, I have idolized them all my life and my wish has been to end it in their bosom; my end draws near, six women lovelier than the light of day are waiting in the chamber adjoining, I have reserved them for this moment, partake of the feast with me, following my example embrace them instead of the vain sophistries of superstition, under their caresses strive for a little while to forget your hypocritical beliefs."

Is this not the perfection of insane rottenness?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Ahem, if their faith was misplaced they would never know they had lost anything!
Click to expand...
It depends when the “revelation” would be presented. If the “revelation” came when they were still alive, they would have time to regret it. 🙂
Charlemagne_III said:
Believers would gain a lot if their faith in God turned out to be well placed.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. If they committed even a miniscule, but unrepented “mortal sin” (like missing one mass for frivolous reasons), they would be tortured forever. Not something to look forward to. It is really interesting that every believer sees himself among the “saved” and not the “condemned”. Especially considering the words of Jesus about the narrow gate which leads to salvation and the wide road which leads to damnation.
Charlemagne_III said:
Unbelievers would lose a lot if their faith in Nogod turned out to be misplaced.
Click to expand...
Again, not necessarily. There is no evidence that the actual God (if there is one) is like the God as you imagine him to be. And that is why you need to provide actual evidence if you wish to “scare me”. Now, PP said that he does not care about evidence. I do. So, indulge me, present evidence that your “assumed” God is the exact equivalent of the “Christian God”. I am here to listen. Just give me evidence that I can PERSONALLY verify. That is all I am asking for.

I am aware of the “flak” that is about to come my way. About Jesus and the Bible and the catholic church and the Magisterium. Sorry, none of those count at all. Evidence, which I can personally verify, that is the only one that counts. Do you have any?
Charlemagne_III said:
In either case, the ultimate resolution of the question is not to be determined in this life, but in the next.
Click to expand...
So, in this life we must make decisions blindfolded, without having the pertinent information. Blind choice equals blind faith… nope, I am not interested. What you said here is probably the most devastating criticism against your “God”. Forcing people to make the most important decision without giving them the necessary information to make the correct decision is cruel, unfair and downright evil.

I am not interested in Pascal’s philosophy. Everything he said and was worth to learn I learned in the math class in college. He was an absolute genius, when it came to math. His contribution to probability theory was nothing if not awesome. Such a horrible waste of his talent was when he became religious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top