Atheism and Materialsm

[osgart]

I disagree. I believe it was Paul in one of his letters said “faith is substance of things hoped for, evidence of things unseen. I know of no place in the Bible where faith is mentioned and suggested empirical evidence should be involved because If such evidence were involved, it wouldn't be unseen. If such evidence were involved it would be proof; not faith

As human beings, the only method we have of verifying things is through naturalistic methods.

Faith being the substance of things hoped for, and evidence of things not seen is a rather useful and rational faith to have. I hope for honesty and can evidence honesty in actions, expressions of value and merit, and sensing my own intentions, but I can't see honesty. Same goes for patience, compassion, and all the qualities one cannot see.

If we call the evidence of things not seen spiritual in nature then spiritual discernment is most rational indeed.

 

[Kfox]

So show me as say a stone exist? I can tell you the properties of stone and show them. Do the same with exist.

The reason what you are saying does not make sense is because you are attempting to treat a verb as if it were a noun. Stone is a noun; nouns have an actual existence. Verbs on the other hand describe actions of things that exist (nouns) but the verb does not have an actual existence the way a noun does

 

[Kfox]

Faith being the substance of things hoped for, and evidence of things not seen is a rather useful and rational faith to have. I hope for honesty and can evidence honesty in actions, expressions of value and merit, and sensing my own intentions, but I can't see honesty. Same goes for patience, compassion, and all the qualities one cannot see.

So you agree with me that empirical evidence is not a involved with Faith as described in the Bible?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The reason what you are saying does not make sense is because you are attempting to treat a verb as if it were a noun. Stone is a noun; nouns have an actual existence. Verbs on the other hand describe actions of things that exist (nouns) but the verb does not have an actual existence the way a noun does

So that I can write this has no actual existence! Okay.

 

[osgart]

So you agree with me that empirical evidence is not a involved with Faith as described in the Bible?

Yes, evidence of the spiritual; such as honesty, and patience, is not based on empirical evidence.
Although empirically evidenced things reveal things such as honesty and patience. The evidence of literal spiritual things does not originate in observation, and experience.

 

[Kfox]

So that I can write this has no actual existence! Okay.

Yes! Writing is an action. Actions do not have an existence, they are just descriptions of things that have an existence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes! Writing is an action. Actions do not have an existence, they are just descriptions of things that have an existence.

Well, you can't show me a thing as a thing, because that is an action in your brain processes and not observable.
I can observe say a cat, but I can't observe a thing.

 

[Kfox]

Well, you can't show me a thing as a thing, because that is an action in your brain processes and not observable.
I can observe say a cat, but I can't observe a thing.

Cats are things. By showing you a cat, I am showing you something.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Cats are things. By showing you a cat, I am showing you something.

No, you have show me a cat. You can't show me something, because it is an abstract, not a concrete and even those 2 are abstracts.

 

[KWED]

No. they believe that only science can determine truth about the world. Just as some people believe that only God can determine truth about the world.
Natural science scientism is that belief that in the end that only the objective is really real. The problem is that real has no objective referent just like God.
We have at least some of those believers here on RF.

If you don't believe in facts or reality, how are you able to read people's minds?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you don't believe in facts or reality, how are you able to read people's minds?

I believe in it with blind faith. I admit that and am honest. But that is not knowledge.

 

[KWED]

There are many philosophers and theologians out there making rationally sound arguments for the existence of God.

Really? I haven't heard any. Could you present a few of the best?
Thanks.

For instance, I fail to see how seeing design and order in nature and coming to the conclusion that there is a designer is in any way irrational,

It is the insisting that the natural world is designed that is the irrational bit. It may give the appearance of design to the ill-informed, but arguments based on flawed premises can't be considered "rational".

To most people it seems that it is impossible to win the lottery, but an argument based on the premise that it is impossible is clearly irrational.

or that, with majority scientific consensus, believing that the universe had a beginning and believing that God is the ultimate cause of the beginning of the universe is irrational.

It is irrational to invoke a cause for which there is no evidence.
Do you think it is rational for me to claim that my missing keys were stolen by pixies rather than just mislaid?

 

[Rival]

Really? I haven't heard any. Could you present a few of the best?
Thanks.

It is the insisting that the natural world is designed that is the irrational bit. It may give the appearance of design to the ill-informed, but arguments based on flawed premises can't be considered "rational".

To most people it seems that it is impossible to win the lottery, but an argument based on the premise that it is impossible is clearly irrational.

It is irrational to invoke a cause for which there is no evidence.
Do you think it is rational for me to claim that my missing keys were stolen by pixies rather than just mislaid?

So basically you and other atheists think the premises are flawed?

It's not theists who coined 'fine-tuning' this is a word in Physics:

"In theoretical physics, fine-tuning is the process in which parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to fit with certain observations. This had led to the discovery that the fundamental constants and quantities fall into such an extraordinarily precise range that if it did not, the origin and evolution of conscious agents in the universe would not be permitted.[1]"

And see 1.1.1 here,

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It's not that it's believed 'impossible' but highly improbable based on the numbers. This is not a debated topic. This is why so many atheists are now espousing the 'multiverse' theory, which is in itself also not a satisfactory answer. The idea of a universe such as we live in is highly improbable, and once you get down to 'where did it come from?' and 'why?' you're into theoretical territory because the best scientific model suggests a finite beginning to the universe. The idea that the universe was thus brought into being at a point some time in the finite past is indicative to many that something rather than nothing must have brought it into existence.

This is hardly 'not evidence' or however one thinks of it.

But this is not what this thread is for.

But I think I have my answer. Atheists start off as de facto materialists because that's the standard Western view and rather than challenging their materialism they become atheists as a result. As I said, a very modern view.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
It is irrational to invoke a cause for which there is no evidence.
...

How do you know that it is irrational? It is irrational is a positive claim and thus you have burden of proof with objective evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So basically you and other atheists think the premises are flawed?

It's not theists who coined 'fine-tuning' this is a word in Physics:

"In theoretical physics, fine-tuning is the process in which parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to fit with certain observations. This had led to the discovery that the fundamental constants and quantities fall into such an extraordinarily precise range that if it did not, the origin and evolution of conscious agents in the universe would not be permitted.[1]"

And see 1.1.1 here,

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It's not that it's believed 'impossible' but highly improbable based on the numbers. This is not a debated topic. This is why so many atheists are now espousing the 'multiverse' theory, which is in itself also not a satisfactory answer. The idea of a universe such as we live in is highly improbable, and once you get down to 'where did it come from?' and 'why?' you're into theoretical territory because the best scientific model suggests a finite beginning to the universe. The idea that what the universe was thus brought into being at a point some time in the finite past is indicative to many that something rather than nothing must have brought it into existence.

This is hardly 'not evidence' or however one thinks of it.

But this is not what this thread is for.

But I think I have my answer. Atheists start of as de facto materialists because that's the standard western view and rather than challenging their materialism they become atheists as a result. As I said, a very modern view.

A few of us as atheists do stop being materialists, but that makes us weird.

 

[Kfox]

No, you have show me a cat. You can't show me something, because it is an abstract, not a concrete and even those 2 are abstracts.

The term "something" is a noun that has to be applied to something with an actual existence. What is your point in all of this anyway?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The term "something" is a noun that has to be applied to something with an actual existence. What is your point in all of this anyway?

Would you please hold something as something? And, no, not e.g. a cat. You are confusing abstracts with concretes and doing that fallacy of reification.
A fallacy is a noun. Now hold it.

 

[KWED]

So basically you and other atheists think the premises are flawed?

"The universe is designed" is a flawed premise, yes.

It's not theists who coined 'fine-tuning' this is a word in Physics:

"In theoretical physics, fine-tuning is the process in which parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to fit with certain observations. This had led to the discovery that the fundamental constants and quantities fall into such an extraordinarily precise range that if it did not, the origin and evolution of conscious agents in the universe would not be permitted.[1]"

And see 1.1.1 here,

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It's not that it's believed 'impossible' but highly improbable based on the numbers. This is not a debated topic. This is why so many atheists are now espousing the 'multiverse' theory, which is in itself also not a satisfactory answer. The idea of a universe such as we live in is highly improbable, and once you get down to 'where did it come from?' and 'why?' you're into theoretical territory because the best scientific model suggests a finite beginning to the universe. The idea that the universe was thus brought into being at a point some time in the finite past is indicative to many that something rather than nothing must have brought it into existence.

This is hardly 'not evidence' or however one thinks of it.

But this is not what this thread is for.

But I think I have my answer. Atheists start off as de facto materialists because that's the standard Western view and rather than challenging their materialism they become atheists as a result. As I said, a very modern view.

"Fine tuning" is not "design". Physicists do not claim that the fundamental constants being what they are suggests design. To claim they do is dishonest or ill-informed.

So, do you have any other examples of these "rational arguments for god" other than "the universe appears designed to the ill-informed"?

 

[KWED]

How do you know that it is irrational? It is irrational is a positive claim and thus you have burden of proof with objective evidence.

The "objective evidence" that my keys were not stolen by pixies is the complete lack of evidence or rational argument for the existence of pixies.
Are you claiming that the "pixies" argument is rational and should be considered alongside the "mislaid" argument?

 

[Rival]

"The universe is designed" is a flawed premise, yes.

"Fine tuning" is not "design". Physicists do not claim that the fundamental constants being what they are suggests design. To claim they do is dishonest or ill-informed.

So, do you have any other examples of these "rational arguments for god" other than "the universe appears designed to the ill-informed"?

No, I have no other examples you won't just say 'IRRATIONAL' or 'ILL INFOMRED!!!!!!' at, because you don't actually want to consider them.

Once again, it is not irrational or ill-informed to see design in a finely-tuned universe. I don't even know why atheists deny this fine-tuning when the the mathematics prove decisively otherwise. And if they don't deny that, why say it's irrational to believe in a fine-tuner? It seems like grasping at straws to me. You will basically throw out every argument with 'Stupid theist doesn't know what he's talking about' when we actually do you just don't reach the same conclusions.

 

[KWED]

No, I have no other examples you won't just say 'IRRATIONAL' or 'ILL INFOMRED!!!!!!' at, because you don't actually want to consider them.

Why not present them and we can examine them.
Promise I won't "just say" irrational or ill-informed. I will explain why.

Once again, is it not irrational or ill-informed to see design in a finely-tuned universe. I don't even know why atheists deny this fine-tuning when the the mathematics prove decisively otherwise. And if they don't deny that, why say it's irrational to believe in a fine-tuner? It seems like grasping at straws to me. You will basically throw out every argument with 'Stupid theist doesn't know what he's talking about' when we actually do you just don't reach the same conclusions.

It is not irrational to accept that the fundamental constants are they way they are. I'm not sure of anyone who claims that they aren't what they are.
However, it is irrational to then go on and insist that because the constants are the way they are, they must have been designed by a conscious entity with a plan.

The reason why it is irrational to insist that the way the universe is must have been designed by a god is because there is nothing we know about the universe that suggests this. Furthermore, invoking a god doesn't explain anything, so we now have an extra layer of unexplained complexity.

Again, do you think it is rational for me to insist my keys were stolen by pixies rather than just mislaid?