• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A challenge for atheist (From Youtube)

Ostronomos

Well-Known Member
"Aliens" as an explanation still isn't likely; it's just more plausible than a God.

It's like the difference between:

1. "This person is rich because he won the grand prize in the lottery," and
2. "This person is rich because he figured how to make alchemy work and transmogrifies lead into gold in his spare time."

One option is very unlikely but is in line with our understanding of how the universe works. The other would need our well-supported understanding of the universe to be fundamentally wrong on many points.
Oooh you calculated the cosmic probability of God versus aliens?
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Well...I think I've shown that it actually takes a greater leap of faith.
Well, I am afraid you did not, as I showed you in previous posts.

Bootstrapping a complete new metaphysical reality to explain what could be explained by more instances of what we already know to exist, is not more parsimonious at all. It could be like saying (without knowing anything about cosmology) that planets are carried around by invisible angels with an obsession for conic section (only one hypothesis) vs. complicated theories involving the constancy of the speed of light, the character of spacetime continuum and the deformation equations it is subjected to (many entities).

Sure, it could give a philosopher Ala Swinburne a warm feeling to have satisfied Ockham and be on the path of truth. But that is all. It is nothing than intellectual sloth. Ergo, deployment for such things, renders Ockham not only useless, but actually detrimental to find truths.

Ciao

- viole
 

setarcos

The hopeful or the hopeless?
I am sure Sherlock Homes novels also represent London quite faithfully.
:smirk:Your quite right. One of the things that makes it so fun for Sherlockians I'm sure. There were - probably are still - some who claim Sherlock Holmes to have been a real person. So how do we tell the real from mere fiction in the past?
One way might be to apply a rational investigation into the matter.
Manuscript analysis, archeological examinations, contemporary eyewitness testimonies, cultural investigations...etc.
So why do most people believe Sherlock Holmes was merely a fictional Character placed into a real background?
1) The Character's Author testified to this fact. Though he based his Character on a real doctor, Sherlock Holmes according to the Author was a fictionalized persona.
2) The statements of contemporary people of the times experienced the Character as fictional
3) The culture of the time was into fictionalized serialization of crime stories and the first appearances of the Name Sherlock Holmes in association with detective work was in one of these fictional serializations.
4) There is no verified records of any of the exploits of Sherlock Holmes having taken place in reality. In real places within the real backdrop of London. Police records, Newspaper accounts, eyewitness testimony etc.
Is it possible that some Character form of Sherlock Holmes actually existed and that all this other evidence to the contrary actually collectively conspired to hide that fact? Strange as it may be...it could be possible but it would be so improbable that that possibility would be as close to zero as any science would accept as equaling zero.
So, what about the biblical scriptures?
1) In those parts not taken to be allegorical or metaphorical (which takes a certain amount of biblical analysis) we find that the authors wrote their manuscripts not as fiction but as testimony to real history.
2) The statements we have and that are being actively collected from contemporary peoples of the time testify to their belief that the events were fact not fiction.
3) The cultures depicted did not have a written system of fictionalized story telling concerning religious events. They would have considered fictionalizing stories about God or events taking place in a religious text anathema.
4) As mentioned previously there are verified archeological finds testifying to real places and events having taken place that are mentioned in the bible. Some places having been found solely from the testimony of the bible.
So...we have a connection to reality. A culture which wouldn't have knowingly fictionalized religious events. Archeological finds which mention many of the persons mentioned in the bible...including Jesus and Pilot. And with the discovery of the dead sea scrolls and continuing discoveries of other manuscripts we have verification of some of the most accurately and oldest reliably transcribed scriptures in the world.
That is something, not nothing as you so quaintly put it.
I'm afraid no matter what evidence is presented, unless you were there or Jesus pops out of the woodwork and gives you a big ole hug and says here I am, your not going to accept any of it as a possibility. That's your approach to the journey. Not mine.
Well, I know many Jews, They told me Jesus was not the Messiah, according to their reading of Scriptures.
I have no quarrel with that. If you are a Jew, you ipso facto believe that Jesus was not the messiah.
My point was that the issue was a real issue at the time. Some Jews stayed Jewish. Some Jews became Christian.
So, if religious people, sharing the same prophecy, completely disagree whether there was a fulfilment or not, it is mind boggling to expect outsiders to buy that.
As the scriptures says, you must work out your own salvation. Truth is a journey. If your serious about finding the truth of a matter you study the matter. Even atheist scientists sometimes disagree on what the truth of a matter is. The attempt at finding the truth is a testament to who you are and that's the most important thing. Christ said ...I'd rather you be hot or cold than luke warm.
I don't expect outsiders to "buy" anything. I only wish outsiders to respect the journey.
And life threatening dangers does not entail that the belief concern truths.
No it certainly doesn't guarantee that. Scripture says...Many will think they are on the right path but it will only lead them to death. It also emphasizes testing the waters before jumping in and thereafter always being prepared to defend the reason for your faith. You may find this ironic but the bible emphasizes that your faith should be a rational one.

proposed a naturalistic alternative, that totally defuse the logical necessity of a fine tuner. I think that should suffice to put the argument to rest. As all arguments that intend to prove X, when there are equally valid alternatives which prove not-X.
The point was that your alternative is more irrational than what it argues against. So irrational that we may consider whether or not it IS an equally valid point proving not-x.
Even atheistic scientists consider at some point a things probability that is so close to zero to be zero. So the question becomes, why should something so irrational be suffice to put the argument to rest? Imagine a theist taking that form of logic. They have proposed an alternative to naturalistic explanations so that should suffice to put the argument to rest right?
And God is not a speculative metaphysical alternative?
God is the thing being proven. Not the evidence that proves that thing. The evidence of the multiverse becomes itself the very definition of what we are applying to God since it does not exist. It is only speculative. The evidence for design does exist. Its been proven to exist. What it itself proves is another matter.
the multiverse pops out in many scientific theories, although I concede it might never be validated experimentally.
I know of no other current theories who's solutions imply the multiverse other than the ones I mentioned. I could very easily be wrong if you'd care to point me in the right direction.
That is what his equations tell him. And it would be right, and Ockham wrong.
Not quite. The point of Ockham's razor is that all else being equal to postulate different theories purporting to solve the same problem the simpler solution is the favorable one. This has to do with entropy among other things, in that simplicity in nature overcomes complexity as the norm when approaching a solution. In other words it takes an decrease in entropy to increase complexity in a system whereas nature's tendency is towards an increase in entropy and decrease in complexity towards simplicity.
Example from yours....The known phenomena is our Galaxy being the only observed thing in the universe. Propositions are made, evidence gathered, equations are made. The preferable equations explaining the same phenomena are the simpler ones in that for instance 2+2=4 is preferable to (2+1+5)/8=4 in that until proven otherwise the simpler expends less energy in solving which is the preference in nature.
Ockham's rule of thumb can of course be locally wrong but it is the universal natural tendency. The point I think he was trying to make is that the proposition is even more irrational than the alternative is accused of being.

Ockham is applicable only for hypothesis, not physical things
Not exactly...its about what's preferable in studying physical things. The rule of thumb was never meant to be a proof of anything though. Just a help in deciding which direction is best to go in.

the multi-world interpretation of QM requires less assumptions on the theory, at the price of an inflation of worlds. Yet, it is still preferable according to Ockham.
Yes...preferable within the theory itself yet it still doesn't solve the fine tuning conundrum with less complexity or even verifiable evidence making it still less preferable than the alternative according to Ockham's razor.
I mean, it is really easy to find naturalistic (not necessarily scientific, wonder where you got that scientific part) alternatives to non-naturalistic ones. Just challenge me.
Science deals with the study of natural processes and apposed to supernatural processes. That's where I got that from. When you say its easy to find naturalistic explanations I didn't think you meant simply observed phenomena as an explanation - to what I don't know- I thought you meant an explanation to why observed phenomena is the way it is.
I thought I was challenging you here? Of course like I said...it seems to me your set in your thinking and will not except any opposing views anyway:shrug:. But this has been fun.
 

Jack11

Member
Neither Gods is not an alien although he has likely created aliens the numbers alone say so it would be unlike God to create a universe that is void of all life except earth. God is suppose to be life in abundance he wouldn't of stop with only the earth. Man is just so self centred he can't see past himself.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Your quite right. One of the things that makes it so fun for Sherlockians I'm sure. There were - probably are still - some who claim Sherlock Holmes to have been a real person. So how do we tell the real from mere fiction in the past?
One way might be to apply a rational investigation into the matter.
Manuscript analysis, archeological examinations, contemporary eyewitness testimonies, cultural investigations...etc.
So why do most people believe Sherlock Holmes was merely a fictional Character placed into a real background?
1) The Character's Author testified to this fact. Though he based his Character on a real doctor, Sherlock Holmes according to the Author was a fictionalized persona.
2) The statements of contemporary people of the times experienced the Character as fictional
3) The culture of the time was into fictionalized serialization of crime stories and the first appearances of the Name Sherlock Holmes in association with detective work was in one of these fictional serializations.
4) There is no verified records of any of the exploits of Sherlock Holmes having taken place in reality. In real places within the real backdrop of London. Police records, Newspaper accounts, eyewitness testimony etc.
Is it possible that some Character form of Sherlock Holmes actually existed and that all this other evidence to the contrary actually collectively conspired to hide that fact? Strange as it may be...it could be possible but it would be so improbable that that possibility would be as close to zero as any science would accept as equaling zero.
So, what about the biblical scriptures?
1) In those parts not taken to be allegorical or metaphorical (which takes a certain amount of biblical analysis) we find that the authors wrote their manuscripts not as fiction but as testimony to real history.
2) The statements we have and that are being actively collected from contemporary peoples of the time testify to their belief that the events were fact not fiction.
3) The cultures depicted did not have a written system of fictionalized story telling concerning religious events. They would have considered fictionalizing stories about God or events taking place in a religious text anathema.
4) As mentioned previously there are verified archeological finds testifying to real places and events having taken place that are mentioned in the bible. Some places having been found solely from the testimony of the bible.
So...we have a connection to reality. A culture which wouldn't have knowingly fictionalized religious events. Archeological finds which mention many of the persons mentioned in the bible...including Jesus and Pilot. And with the discovery of the dead sea scrolls and continuing discoveries of other manuscripts we have verification of some of the most accurately and oldest reliably transcribed scriptures in the world.
That is something, not nothing as you so quaintly put it.
I'm afraid no matter what evidence is presented, unless you were there or Jesus pops out of the woodwork and gives you a big ole hug and says here I am, your not going to accept any of it as a possibility. That's your approach to the journey. Not mine.
Well, of course I was not there. Alas, I was not even there when Mohammed flew on a winged horse. You weren't there , either, I expect.

Does "not being there" increase the credibility of any claim in any significant way, in your opinion?

have no quarrel with that. If you are a Jew, you ipso facto believe that Jesus was not the messiah.
My point was that the issue was a real issue at the time. Some Jews stayed Jewish. Some Jews became Christian.
Yes, and? Do you have an explanation how you can still refute that after all the wonders that allegedly took place? You know, like saints breaking free from their tombs and wander round town. I don't think resurrections were so much in the mainstream to consider that as something mundane. Were they?

As the scriptures says, you must work out your own salvation. Truth is a journey. If your serious about finding the truth of a matter you study the matter. Even atheist scientists sometimes disagree on what the truth of a matter is. The attempt at finding the truth is a testament to who you are and that's the most important thing. Christ said ...I'd rather you be hot or cold than luke warm.
I don't expect outsiders to "buy" anything. I only wish outsiders to respect the journey.
I respect the journey. I have good friends from Iceland who believe in literal trolls and elves. I respect them, even though I cannot resist a chuckle every now and then. They have no problem with that. Hope it is not a problem for you.
No it certainly doesn't guarantee that. Scripture says...Many will think they are on the right path but it will only lead them to death. It also emphasizes testing the waters before jumping in and thereafter always being prepared to defend the reason for your faith. You may find this ironic but the bible emphasizes that your faith should be a rational one.
Well, I hope you appreciate the fact that for me your Scriptures enjoy the same credibility status as Pinocchio. Since your God and Pinocchio enjoy the same ontological status, given the evidence available. It is not very difficult to make predictions like that. Write nonsense, and then prophecies that you will be scoffed at. Everybody can do that.


The point was that your alternative is more irrational than what it argues against. So irrational that we may consider whether or not it IS an equally valid point proving not-x.
Even atheistic scientists consider at some point a things probability that is so close to zero to be zero. So the question becomes, why should something so irrational be suffice to put the argument to rest? Imagine a theist taking that form of logic. They have proposed an alternative to naturalistic explanations so that should suffice to put the argument to rest right?
You are not paying attention. My model provides probability 1 for any scenario. Including the one that sets the right condition for humans and Ebola viruses. Without a tuner. And why is that irrational?

Not quite. The point of Ockham's razor is that all else being equal to postulate different theories purporting to solve the same problem the simpler solution is the favorable one. This has to do with entropy among other things, in that simplicity in nature overcomes complexity as the norm when approaching a solution. In other words it takes an decrease in entropy to increase complexity in a system whereas nature's tendency is towards an increase in entropy and decrease in complexity towards simplicity.
Example from yours....The known phenomena is our Galaxy being the only observed thing in the universe. Propositions are made, evidence gathered, equations are made. The preferable equations explaining the same phenomena are the simpler ones in that for instance 2+2=4 is preferable to (2+1+5)/8=4 in that until proven otherwise the simpler expends less energy in solving which is the preference in nature.
Ockham's rule of thumb can of course be locally wrong but it is the universal natural tendency. The point I think he was trying to make is that the proposition is even more irrational than the alternative is accused of being.
Well, since you look to be confused, I can easily change my claim in a way that it will require only one entity, while providing the same exact results. Actually, that is very easy. Let's see if you can think it out for yourself. It just takes a bit of logic.

God is the thing being proven. Not the evidence that proves that thing. The evidence of the multiverse becomes itself the very definition of what we are applying to God since it does not exist. It is only speculative. The evidence for design does exist. Its been proven to exist. What it itself proves is another matter.
If you really had proof of the God who justifies your belief, be it Allah, Jesus, the Great Juju at the bottom of the sea, Apollo, whatever, you would not need complicated arguments involving philosophy, cosmology, modal logic, or whatever.

So, why are you a Christian?

Not exactly...its about what's preferable in studying physical things. The rule of thumb was never meant to be a proof of anything though. Just a help in deciding which direction is best to go in.
Again, that can easily be adapted to satisfy Ockham, while reaching the same results.

Science deals with the study of natural processes and apposed to supernatural processes. That's where I got that from. When you say its easy to find naturalistic explanations I didn't think you meant simply observed phenomena as an explanation - to what I don't know- I thought you meant an explanation to why observed phenomena is the way it is.
I thought I was challenging you here? Of course like I said...it seems to me your set in your thinking and will not except any opposing views anyway
No. I never mentioned scientific motives. I am sure you understand that ontological naturalism does not entail scientism. It is perfectly possible, and even probable, that there are naturalistic entities that cannot possibly be evaluated by science. My example of the scientist in the lone galaxy is representative. He will have no way, through science, to prove a naturalistic truth.

:shrug:. But this has been fun.
So, who is next? Sort of tedious to win so easily.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

Sheldon

Veteran Member
your burden proof is to show that somehow “positive additions” are more common than negative ones

You're asking why a gene, that gives the recipient more chance of surviving long enough to reproduce, and thus pass that gene on, is more often passed on, than genes that do not offer that advantage? Seriously?:rolleyes: It doesn't matter whether it increases complexity or not, the environmental pressures of natural selection will mean as long as it gives an advantage by best fitting it's environment it will be more likely to survive long enough to replicate itself in reproduction. Clearly environments exist that are fit for both complex organisms, and for simple organisms, thus a variety evolve to suit those environments. If the starting point were the simplest organisms, then obviously more complexity is what you'd expect to see over time.
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
You're asking why a gene, that gives the recipient more chance of surviving long enough to reproduce, and thus pass that gene on, is more often passed on, than genes that do not offer that advantage? Seriously?:rolleyes: It doesn't matter whether it increases complexity or not, the environmental pressures of natural selection will mean as long as it gives an advantage by best fitting it's environment it will be more likely to survive long enough to replicate itself in reproduction. Clearly environments exist that are fit for both complex organisms, and for simple organisms,
That is my point, if natural selection can select both “more simplicity” or “more complexity” depending on the environment, then the average complexity should stay the same.

The issue is that we do seem to observe a trend towards more complexity, so how do you explain that trend?

The only point that I am making is that there is no evidence that natural selection on average “prefers” complexity over simplicity.

So ether agree with this statement, or prove me wrong by presenting such evidence.



thus a variety evolve to suit those environments. If the starting point were the simplest organisms, then obviously more complexity is what you'd expect to see over time.

But if you grant that simplicity can also be selected, then most organisms wouldn’t go far beyond the simplest organisms.

the average complexity will stay moreless the same, with a few lucky exceptions
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Sheldon said:
I note, since this is not my first rodeo, that you defend the principle of the claim, yet offer nothing in the way of objective evidence for anything specific. I cannot help but infer something from that. Why not cite what you think is the most solidly evidenced miracle, and why, straight off the bat?
I would say that the best argument for God is the Fine Tunning argument , are you familiar with it? Or would you want me to expand on it?

(I am talking about WLC version of the argument)

That's not a miracle? You'd also have to demonstrate evidence that our universe is fine tuned, it's not enough to simply point to a perception that it's existence is extremely unlikely, since we have no other universes to measure this one against, to see how likely any other type of universe is. Once you have achieved this, you'd then need to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence that this "fine tuning" required a deity. Then finally that it required a specific deity.

A big problem for Lane Craig's argument is the high percentage of atheism among scientists, and of course the fact that science does not claim to have evidenced any deity, this assumption based on the phrase "fine tuned", is not supported by science, it's merely an assumption apologists like Lane Craig has tacked on, and of course he is not a scientist himself.

This also is rather ironic given your continued denial of scientific facts elsewhere, facts like species evolution which are supported by a global scientific consensus. This indicates a pretty obvious selection bias on your part.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
That is my point, if natural selection can select both “more simplicity” or “more complexity” depending on the environment, then the average complexity should stay the same.

Of course not, with a starting point of the simplest life forms, and environments that will support both simplest and most complex life forms you'd expect evolution to produce diversity, as it has of course.

The issue is that we do seem to observe a trend towards more complexity, so how do you explain that trend?

Natural selection explains it. Environmental pressure produce life that best fit those environments. They clearly can support complex living organisms, and started with the simplest, and from there complexity evolved.

The only point that I am making is that there is no evidence that natural selection on average “prefers” complexity over simplicity.

Natural selection is insentient, and if complex life forms have evolved, and they have, it is because they match those environments.

So ether agree with this statement, or prove me wrong by presenting such evidence.

Evidence for what, you've created some bizarre straw man based on your ignorance of species evolution. If you want to learn about evolution and it is a vast subject, then I already linked the talkorigins website. You could also go to scientific forums where people with expertise can answer your questions. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism per se. It is simply an accepted scientific fact.


But if you grant that simplicity can also be selected,

That's a fact since we have such life forms.

then most organisms wouldn’t go far beyond the simplest organisms.

Why? This is the straw man you have created, and the diversity of complex life disproves it.

the average complexity will stay moreless the same, with a few lucky exceptions

Then publish your ideas, in a worthy peer reviewed scientific journal, and turn the entire field of biology back to naught. When you get your Nobel prize, I will be the first to congratulate you.

I will remain an atheist though as there is no objective evidence for any deity, and creationism will remain an unevidenced superstitious myth, that has no explanatory powers for either the origin of life, or the origin of the universe, or the origin of species and the complexity of life we now see.

In the meantime you are denying a scientific fact supported by an overwhelming amount of objective evidence, from multiple fields of scientific study, supported by a global scientific consensus, and evidenced and explained by accepted scientific theory.
 
Last edited:

Sheldon

Veteran Member
I can’t disprove the existence of Santa Clause,(especially because there is not a clear definition of what you mean by Santa Clause) but I can prove that there are better explanations for all the stuff that is commonly attributed to Santa.

If you can do the same with God, that would be good enough to justify atheism.
b6a.jpg
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
OBEs are evidence for and after life

No they're not.

an afterlife is evidence for God,

No it isn't, again you are simply leaping to an assumption youm like.

I agree that none of this follow logically and inescapably,

It is pretty obviously using begging the question fallacies, to create a circular reasoning fallacy.

I am pretty sure that if you ever have a real and verifiable OBE you will move at least one step closer towards theism.

Your confidence is misplaced, an "experience" I couldn't explain, fascinating though it might be, does not justify leaping to unevidenced assumptions.
 

setarcos

The hopeful or the hopeless?
No, I didn't. There's a reason why I used the word "plausible" and not "likely."
Suppose aliens seeded life on earth. You've then simply pushed the problem of origins of life onto the aliens and their origins. The questions concerning God and creation are categorically and definitionally different from aliens and the origins of life on earth. As concerns the origins of life on earth...the question isn't so much as who did it but whether natural processes did it or an intelligence. If aliens did it that's still intelligent design. And would still be very interesting and amazing in my view.

Of course maybe I'm reading your post wrong...I haven't read all of yours.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Assuming that you have the simplest possible organism then yes you can only go up, but after that you can always go either up or down.
So you'd expect to see a diversity of complex and simple organisms, and again this is precisely what we see? This pecking order you've imagined simply doesn't exist, as neither type is favoured, it is about how well they fit their environments. One the more complex life forms humans, are currently being held at the mercy of one of the simplest, a virus.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Suppose aliens seeded life on earth. You've then simply pushed the problem of origins of life onto the aliens and their origins. The questions concerning God and creation are categorically and definitionally different from aliens and the origins of life on earth. As concerns the origins of life on earth...the question isn't so much as who did it but whether natural processes did it or an intelligence. If aliens did it that's still intelligent design. And would still be very interesting and amazing in my view.

Of course maybe I'm reading your post wrong...I haven't read all of yours.
God, and angels of the Lord, all imaginary aliens.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Oooh you calculated the cosmic probability of God versus aliens?
It doesn't appear to be that complex a logical deduction, we have objective evidence that life and natural phenomena exist, and thus alien life is at least theoretically possible. We have no such evidence for any deity, or anything supernatural.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Is the scientist omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient? Yes. In that case an abstract scientist is not far fetched.
The threshold question is much simpler than that ─ what real entity is intended to be denoted by the word "God", such that if we found a real candidate, we could determine whether it was God or not?

Or is it true that the only way God is known to exist is as a concept / thing imagined in individual brains?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
That's not a miracle? You'd also have to demonstrate evidence that our universe is fine tuned, it's not enough to simply point to a perception that it's existence is extremely unlikely, since we have no other universes to measure this one against, to see how likely any other type of universe is. Once you have achieved this, you'd then need to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence that this "fine tuning" required a deity. Then finally that it required a specific deity.

A big problem for Lane Craig's argument is the high percentage of atheism among scientists, and of course the fact that science does not claim to have evidenced any deity, this assumption based on the phrase "fine tuned", is not supported by science, it's merely an assumption apologists like Lane Craig has tacked on, and of course he is not a scientist himself.


Fine Tunning simply means that there are many values and initial conditions in our universe (force of gravity, size of the electron, electromagnetic force, cosmological constant etc.) such that if any of these values would have been a tiny bit different life would have not been possible

For example if the force of gravity would have been 1% stronger the universe would have collapse in a black hole shortly after the Big Bnag. (an dlife would have been impossible)

This is what is meant by FT, as you can note there is nothing “theological” in the definition. and scientists in general don’t disagree with the claim that the universe is FT

So given this definition do you grant that the universe is finely tuned for life?

(at this point we are only dealing with defintions)


This also is rather ironic given your continued denial of scientific facts elsewhere, facts like species evolution which are supported by a global scientific consensus. This indicates a pretty obvious selection bias on your part.


Please quote a comment where I denied a scientific fact…………. If you fail to quote such comment, I expect an apology for your false accusation.
 
Top