A challenge for atheist (From Youtube)

[Sheldon]

lukethethird said: ↑
Your logic escapes me. It begs the question, what caused God, then what caused the cause that caused God ad infinitum.

The same is true with any other proposition.

That is quite obviously whataboutism. You think it makes your logically fallacious argument ok because other arguments are fallacious? That's just hilarious sorry.

What causes apples to fall from trees (gravity)

Then what causes Gravity

Then what caused the cause of gravity (at infinitum)

Magic causes it, since by your rationale this kind of unfalsifiable and unevidenced assumption is ok, caused by a wizard leprechaun, that transcends time. See making things up is easy. Now if you had any integrity you'd say I don't know if gravity has or needs a cause.

You always get an infinite regress of causes (unless you establish a first cause)

Exactly as you would from an eternal deity. Though again the honest position is to admit we don't know, not to make irrational and unevidenced assumptions.

Someone who doesn’t believing gravity could argue: You don’t know why apples fall from trees therefore you invoke a “gravity of the gaps argument”……… do you see the flaws of that objection?

It's not a valid objection, it's like a small child hiding its face behind its hands, and believing it can't be seen as a consequence. Bare denial of a scientific fact is not a valid objection, least of all when it is invoked to defend unevidenced superstition.

Positive arguments in favor of that proposition are usually proposed. Which is why it is suggested that God is the best explanation.

Goddidit is not an explanation, it is a bare unevidenced claim.

The amazing thing about the expansion of the universe is that the cosmological constant has a very precise value, such that if it would have been different life would have been impossible in this universe.

Wow so something that has happened defied long odds? Like the lottery wins that happen daily then.

So why does the universe has such value

1 Intelligent design

2 chance

3 it was determined to be that way since the big bang

Why do you assume there is a why?

Theist usually provide arguments for why they thik that option 1 is the most probable explanation, you may or may not agree with these arguments, and you may have a stronger case for any other alternative, but this is not “fill in the blanks” but rather an appeal to propose ID as the best explanation

it is not an explanation at all, it is a bare unevidenced claim, and no one has to provide any alternative to your bare unevidenced claim, your claim that the lack of a contrary idea or contrary evidence to your unevidenced claim lends it credence, is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

It seems to me that any argument / evidence for God can be dismissed by simply saying “Ohhh it´s a fill in the blanks argument”

What does that tell you about the claim those arguments or "evidence" are valid? God of the gaps polemic usually invokes an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. One unevidenced assumption is no more credible than another. It can be fun to speculate, it can on occasion be useful, but to imagine speculation and explanation are the same, is just wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then the next question would be, why does the universe has the precise values required for life?.. ....... why would the fundamental laws of physics conspire to produce life permitting values ?

Ow, well...
Obviously it has to be because a bronze age god created the universe so that a species of primates could evolve 13.7 billion years later and all that just for the purpose of worshipping that petty god.

If not design, what other alternavive do you suggest. ?

1. it couldn't be any other way, so the question is invalid
2. coincidence
3. the universe is part of a set and this one just happens to have these values while others have others
4. ... any reason that I can't think off right now

The only reason you suggest a god is because you have a religion that requires you to believe it was a god.

In short: this is just a teleological fallacy.

An analogy would be.
Imagine an arrow hitting the center of a bulls eye , this would be an example of fine tuning because if the distance, the angle, the speed, the mass of the arrow, the possition etc would have been a tiny bit different the arrow would have faild to hit the center of the bulls eye.

Or.....
There is an arrow. People draw a bullseye around it and then claim it is meaningful.

Or...
You are dealt a hand of cards and it happens to be a royal flush. This flush has the exact same odds as any other specific set of 5 cards. The only reason a person considers that flush special, is because of arbitrary poker rules. If the highest hand would something else, then people would consider that hand to be just as special. Yet all combinations of 5 cards would be just as likely as an outcome.

It seems to me that you WANT these values to be special.


Another analogy:
There's a sharp rock and a cat rubs itself against it to scratch places it can't reach with its limbs.
Was the sharp rock put there for the purpose of the cat scratching itself?
Or can the cat use it to scratch itself simply because it's there?

Now if you obsereve an arrow hitting the center of a bulls eye you will naturally conclude design / intention , even if you dont see the archer, even if you dont know where he came from and even if you dont have prior evidence for archers.

So the claim is that the FT of the universe is analogous to the archer example.

It's a false analogy.
Because we have a very good understanding of what arrows are, how they are fired, what archers are and how arrows ends up in bullseyes. This understanding is the result of literally millenia of experience and precedents.

When it comes to the configuration of the universe, we have an example set of exactly 1.
Your conclusions are invalid and your analogy is a false one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, what I am saying is that you shouldn't conclude by default that a character is fiction unless you have some sort of argument or evidence for it.

No.

Non-existence is assumed until existence is sufficiently demonstrated.
Just like one is assumed innocent until guilt is sufficiently demonstrated.

I rule god "not guilty" of existing.


I'll prove it to you.
Do you believe my undetectable friend "Quastulabiliboo" from the planet "Quastolia" from another dimension exists? If I further tell you that this friend of mine will kill you when he finds you unless you wrap yourself in tinfoil, will you then wrap yourself in tinfoil "just to be sure"?

Or will you rather shrug your shoulders and walk away, not losing a second sleep over the tinfoil stuff and not being worried about being killed in the slightest, without giving even a nanosecond of thought to this undetectable friend of mine to contemplate if he is real or not?

Wouldn't you by default assume that Quastulabiliboo isn't real?

Don't lie now............

 

[blü 2]

Ha! That's actually quite funny. Never heard of this before. Got a link with extra info perhaps?

The experiment I have in mind was at an English hospital late last century. A similar experiment is reported >here<.

 

[joelr]

Ok so just to be clear, Not even stars spelling the gospels would count as evidence for God.

Is that what you are saying ?

No I'm saying all evidence should be evaluated honestly and without bias. Apologetics is designed to evaluate evidence with bias using half truths, lies, tricks, assumptions and any other method to avoid facing what may be true.
Stars spelling John would be compelling but would be very strange. Hundreds of stars re-positioned, countless potential planets disrupted, possible life destroyed? If a God were willing to to this when it could simply come to Earth and speak to everyone in their mind is a bit weird? At least there would be evidence to consider finally.

If a verse from the Upanishads were spelled in the stars would you run to Hinduism?

 

[joelr]

No, what I am saying is that you shouldn't conclude by default that a character is fiction unless you have some sort of argument or evidence for it.

Oh well that's easy then. Yahweh is fiction. There are many many lines of evidence, same as Krishna or Zeus.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The same is true with any other proposition.

What causes apples to fall from trees (gravity)

Then what causes Gravity

Then what caused the cause of gravity (at infinitum)

You always get an infinite regress of causes (unless you establish a first cause)

But you also get explanatory power.

If you can measure and describe gravity, you can derive stuff like Fg=GmM/R^2 and actually predict the motion of, say, comets. A good track record of predictions like this is a strong sign that your understanding of gravity is right. Yes, you can ask deeper questions about how gravity works, but you still have evidence that your understanding is based in real knowledge.

When you take the position that God exists - with as much or as little detail on that God as you like - what predictions does this imply?

Is there anything about which you can say "if and only if God exists, we'll look at the world and see X"?

... because you have that for gravity. We can say that if our understanding of gravity is correct, we can point our telescopes in a particular direction at a particular time and see a particular comet.

... and without fail, the comet is actually there.

Do you have anything close to that for your god?

 

[leroy]

You seem to have ignored my question...

1 your question is irrelevant, given that I am not talking about evolution

2 I can’t answer your question if you don’t explain what exactly do you mean by evolution, but I mostly agree with what scholars say

I have already answered both those questions, go back and read my answer.

No you did not

 

[leroy]

Is there anything about which you can say "if and only if God exists, we'll look at the world and see X"?

SURE we have the finte tunning argument, “only if there is a God* of some sort we would expect to have a FT universe.

because you have that for gravity. We can say that if our understanding of gravity is correct, we can point our telescopes in a particular direction at a particular time and see a particular comet.

Granted, but if we use the typical “atheist reasoning” I could play skeptic and claim something stupid like

“first you have to falsify all other possible options (including unknown natural mechanisms) and only then you can propose gravity.

Or “hey you are making a gravity of the Gaps argument.” Just because we don’t know why the comet is in that specific location, you cant invoke the “a gravity”

Or just because gravity works here, that doesn’t mean that it must also work in the cosmos,

These are the kind of silly replies that I get from atheist all the time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

SURE we have the finte tunning argument, “only if there is a God* of some sort we would expect to have a FT universe.

Seems like an unfounded assumption on your part.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "fine tuned."

Granted, but if we use the typical “atheist reasoning” I could play skeptic and claim something stupid like

“first you have to falsify all other possible options (including unknown natural mechanisms) and only then you can propose gravity.

Or “hey you are making a gravity of the Gaps argument.” Just because we don’t know why the comet is in that specific location, you cant invoke the “a gravity”

Or just because gravity works here, that doesn’t mean that it must also work in the cosmos,

These are the kind of silly replies that I get from atheist all the time.

You don't understand what you're arguing against.

 

[leroy]

Seems like an unfounded assumption on your part.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "fine tuned."


nst.

Finte Tunned simply means that multiple independent values and initial conditions have a very specific value in order to accomplish a target.

For example hitting the center of a bulls eye requires FT because multiple values need to be very specific to achieve that purpose (the arrow has to be thrown at a very specific speed, at a very specific distance, with a very specific angle, etc.) such that if any of this values the arrow would fail to hit the center of the bulls eye. obviously the arrow hitting the center of a bulls eye is evidence for an archer (design) even if you don’t have prior evidence for the existence of that archer and even if you don’t know who the archer is or where did he come from-

I would argue that the universe if FT in the same sense that an arrow hitting the center of a bulls eye is.

Multiple values and initial conditions (gravity, size of the electron, nuclear forces, entropy, etc.) would have to have very specific values, such that if they would have been a little bit different life would have been impossible,

 

[leroy]

If a verse from the Upanishads were spelled in the stars would you run to Hinduism?

Yes that would be irrefutable evidence for design and very ,very strong evidence for Hinduism.

 

[leroy]

Oh well that's easy then. Yahweh is fiction. There are many many lines of evidence, same as Krishna or Zeus.

Sure maybe, but that claim requires justification.

 

[ppp]

For example hitting the center of a bulls eye requires FT because multiple values need to be very specific to achieve that purpose (the arrow has to be thrown at a very specific speed, at a very specific distance, with a very specific angle, etc.) such that if any of this values the arrow would fail to hit the center of the bulls eye. obviously the arrow hitting the center of a bulls eye is evidence for an archer (design) even if you don’t have prior evidence for the existence of that archer and even if you don’t know who the archer is or where did he come from-

Is a rock hitting the head of a lamb evidence that I want a lamb sandwich for lunch tomorrow? Or even that someone dropped the rock?

 

[leroy]

Is a rock hitting the head of a lamb evidence that I want a lamb sandwich for lunch tomorrow? Or even that someone dropped the rock?

No, because this event requires less fine tuning that an arrow hitting the center of a bulls eye. there are many possible combinations that would result in a rock hitting a lamb

 

[ppp]

No, because this event requires less fine tuning that an arrow hitting the center of a bulls eye. there are many possible combinations that would result in a rock hitting a lamb

Well, that's not true. One would have to do the same quality of calculations to drop a rock off a cliff to kill a lamb,, as one would perform shooting an arrow. It's just a force and vector calculation.

 

[leroy]

Well, that's not true. One would have to do the same quality of calculations to drop a rock off a cliff to kill a lamb,, as one would perform shooting an arrow. It's just a force and vector calculation.

Well we are talking about hypothetical examples, it all depends on what arrow and rock are you imagining. The point is that at some point (depending on the amount and specificity of variables) random chance becomes a ridiculous explanation.

A single rock killing a lamb is within the possibilities of something happening by chance. ……… but lets say that everytime a lamb arrives at a specific point of a path a rock falls down and crushes the lamb. My guess is that after 3 or 4 lambs you will start to consider the hypothesis of “design” and after 10 rocks you will have no doubt that someone is intentionally killing those lambs. (even If you don’t know who he is, nor where did he came from)

 

[ppp]

A single rock killing a lamb is within the possibilities of something happening by chance. ……… but lets say that everytime a lamb arrives at a specific point of a path a rock falls down and crushes the lamb. My guess is that after 3 or 4 lambs you will start to consider the hypothesis of “design” and after 10 rocks you will have no doubt that someone is intentionally killing those lambs. (even If you don’t know who he is, nor where did he came from)

You were not talking about the number of times before. You were claiming that one thing hitting another thing couldn't happen with out "fine tuning". And you were cherry picking by choosing a device that we already know requires an intelligence, and ignoring all of the other instances in nature where one object hits another object with no intelligence or intent behind it.

Before you skip on to other situation, do you acknowledge that, or not?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Finte Tunned simply means that multiple independent values and initial conditions have a very specific value in order to accomplish a target.

So you have to assume there's a target... IOW, you have to beg the question: you need to assume that something with intention exists in order to conclude that a particular outcome was a "target."

For example hitting the center of a bulls eye requires FT because multiple values need to be very specific to achieve that purpose (the arrow has to be thrown at a very specific speed, at a very specific distance, with a very specific angle, etc.) such that if any of this values the arrow would fail to hit the center of the bulls eye. obviously the arrow hitting the center of a bulls eye is evidence for an archer (design) even if you don’t have prior evidence for the existence of that archer and even if you don’t know who the archer is or where did he come from-

I would argue that the universe if FT in the same sense that an arrow hitting the center of a bulls eye is.

Multiple values and initial conditions (gravity, size of the electron, nuclear forces, entropy, etc.) would have to have very specific values, such that if they would have been a little bit different life would have been impossible,

Throw a dart blindly up in the air and it will land at a very specific point at a very specific angle that would be difficult if not impossible to replicate deliberately.

This does not mean that throwing a dart blindly up into the air involves superhuman aiming skill.

For you to establish that a bullseye has been hit, you would have to establish that there is a bullseye at all. "The universe is exactly as it is, and if it were the slightest bit different, it would be different" does not imply "the universe being exactly the way it is was intentional."