Atheists - A Question...

[nPeace]

How we describe anything can and does vary depending on who is doing the describing, often significantly. That doesn't necessarily make any of those descriptions accurate or correct though. How the thing actually is remains the same regardless of who is describing it (accurately or not).

In all sorts of contexts, plenty of things are defined and described in one way, based on one set of knowledge, understanding and perception, only for the reality to turn out to be entirely different. Again, that is why I said we wouldn't be able to attribute the events in the OP scenario to any proposed cause without (much) more evidence.

You make some really good points.

 

[Alien826]

Yes. ...and?
I don't see anything saying God created diseases. Do you?
Are you using a special kind of binoculars that sees invisible ink?

OK, try John 1:3.

"All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."

I assume you will agree that disease is a "thing".

 

[nPeace]

I asked you why your God created chilred with defects and cancer. You didn't answer.

You believe your God is the creator of the universe, yes? The universe includes humans, yes? In this universe your God created it includes children with defects and cancers, yes?

Yet somehow these were not caused by your God? Then how did they happen? Other Gods? Where did they come from? Natural causes? Well, nature is what your God created, yes?


No. We ask direct questions that might be responded to, but are not answers.

For example: Jim asks Mary how much flour goes into the cookie batter, and she answers "Cat". Yes, Mary responded but she didn't answer the direct question. You creationists often do this. A direct question is asked of you and you respond with a non-answer.

I asked you why your Creator created defects and cancers and you avoided answering. It is your claim that your God exists and created everything. Yet it didn't create things that make your God look bad.


It would be a miracle if you believers could demonstrate that your God exists, and your beliefs are reasonable.

This is not an answer. Answer
What is it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God did not create diseases. Who fooled you with that lie?

So how do diseases happen?

 

[F1fan]

Well, maybe I am not so skeptical.

I am not gullible, but one thing I do know is this...
If I went to the doctor feeling ill - and I know how I feel, and suddenly I am feeling okay, at the very moment a whole bunch of sick people (I don't think they were in the waiting room to get raffle tickets), got up and left, I would think that either I as well as those people got sick from an airborne disease that was designed to wear off after a certain precise time, or something from an unnatural source occured.

Since "unnatural source" is equivalent to imaginary no rational person would think it's likely or true. Rational people will look for a natural and plausible cause. And coincidence is always possible.

I would not dismiss one and hold to the other, but I would investigate.

While it is good to keep an open mind it's a waste of time to ponder implausible causes.

The fact that the majority of atheists would cling to a natural explanation, when they have not even investigated, tells me they are closed-minded... and so, nothing would convince them.

Because natural causes are the only causes for phenomenon that is discovered on a consistent basis. When has a supernatural cause ever been a known cause for anything (outside of religion, which isn't relevant here)?

That's what I conclude.
One does not have to assume anything.

But you assume your religious beliefs are true. And as an extension you assume this supernatural is a reasonable option for rational people to explain anything they encounter. It isn't.

 

[F1fan]

This is not an answer. Answer
What is it?

It wasn't an answerr, it was a denial.

Here's the reply:

God did not create diseases. Who fooled you with that lie?

Well you creationists are who told me this lie. You insist God created all things, but then some of you will deny God created the bad things of His creation. But then you dont explain how these bad things formed in a creation a perfect God created. So answer that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Since "unnatural source" is equivalent to imaginary no rational person would think it's likely or true. Rational people will look for a natural and plausible cause. And coincidence is always possible.


While it is good to keep an open mind it's a waste of time to ponder implausible causes.
...

I want actual physical evidence that you are rational. Find a scientific instrument that can measure that you are rational. I don't accept 1st person self-reporting. You have the burden of proof. Now do the science and bring the evidence.

 

[nPeace]

I remember that debate. Bill Nye didn't do to well (as a debater) I thought. And I remember Ham retreating to "faith" at one point.

I have to say there is one line of argument that does work for Creationists, though it's logic is valid but not sound. Basically it says that if scripture is true, then anything that contradicts it must be false. We can't argue with that. The Creationist will add that as God is all powerful (says so right here in the Bible and the Bible is true) any apparent contradiction is explained by the ability of God to create things that look any way he wants them to, which leads inexorably to "lastTuesdayism", to which the reply is that didn't happen 'cos it says so right here ....

@nPeace:

I should probably give a serious response to your OP.

Your problem I think is that you left too many doors open for people to offer alternative explanations. May I attempt a rewrite?

A good friend of mine died a few months ago of cancer. He had stage 4 lung cancer that had spread to other areas of his body. He had chemotherapy but was never expected to live long. The disease was documented fully with Xrays and so on and he saw a doctor on a regular basis.

Now, let's leave what really happened and pretend that one day some guy walked up to him, looked at him, and he immediately felt better. The doctor took more Xrays and did more tests to find that the cancer had totally disappeared. Cancer does get better on its own sometimes and they call that spontaneous remission, but I've never heard of that happening at such an advanced stage.

Now, the question is would that cause me to consider some supernatural agency? It certainly should be a reason to do an intensive investigation. I'm not sure how I would investigate a supernatural cause, but I wouldn't rule that out.

Something else:

You seem to be unhappy that people aren't giving your arguments sufficient value, and suggesting that they are closed minded and so on. You may be overlooking something. Most of we skeptics that have frequented discussion forums like this one have heard these Creationist arguments over and over for decades, and have seen convincing rebuttals to all of them. We may be polite enough to read what you have to say to see if you have come up with something new, but that seldom or never happens. So what you are seeing may not be the result of closed minds, but simple unwillingness to tread a familiar path one more time.

By the way, I'm at that stage in the other thread. We seem to be talking past each all the time, and our world views are so far apart, that's inevitable. So I'll take this opportunity to thank you for the polite discussion, and move on.

Thank you for your polite expressions.
If you read my posts throughout this thread, you would see... at least I hope you would... I accept skepticism as long as it has not closed the door on the "divine foot".

When you close and bolt the door to "a divine foot getting in the door", you have demonstrated your close-mindedness.

A few atheists like yourself, has not demonstrated that, and I acknowledged and commended them.

The OP had a special design, you see.

 

[nPeace]

Actually they work every well ... underwater. To an evolutionist that's an adaptation of an existing feature, and well evidenced. To a creationist, probably just God doing different things.

Adaptation of what existing feature? Want to tell me in another thread?
No, it's not God doing things.
Neither is this...

 

[nPeace]

It wasn't meant to be taken too seriously, except to point out that there could be multiple explanations for what the patient observes. It removes the idea that all the other patients felt better, for example. And I don't know that I'm cured, just that some symptom/s went away. I have to talk to the doctor and maybe get tests to establish a cure. And I don't know about the odor, that's part of it. Hmm, maybe I would smell it if my blocked nose was cured ... anyway see my next post. All this just illustrates my point. Your example can do with some work.

This is what I said earlier... atheist need to change the scenario in order to answer it. Why?
You changed the scenario totally, when you ignore...
You feel it. You are assuming they feel it too.
Feel what? You no longer feel like when you came to the doctor.
Whatever you were experiencing - runny nose / headache / stomach cramps / ___ was gone.

I didn't say you are cured.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Adaptation of what existing feature? Want to tell me in another thread?
No, it's not God doing things.
Neither is this...

So how does it happen?

 

[Nimos]

Name something scientists have proven to be true. Just one thing.

Science doesn't work with absolutes. But the closest you can get is any scientific theory, as they explain why something is a fact.

God has been proven to be true.

I highly doubt it, otherwise I'm pretty sure that it would be all over the news

You see, what you believe to be true may be proven from the data that's determine as true.
Not everyone agrees with that determination, but you don't let that stop you from accepting those facts.
Neither do I.

That is why you have scientific theories. It is not about whether someone agrees with it or not. It's about what has been demonstrated to be true. And you might try to claim that they ain't certain or they might just be guessing or whatever. But the fact is that we have computers, planes, cars, medicine etc. If all these theories were wrong, my guess is that we would still be living in caves.

 

[Alien826]

Thank you for your polite expressions.
If you read my posts throughout this thread, you would see... at least I hope you would... I accept skepticism as long as it has not closed the door on the "divine foot".

When you close and bolt the door to "a divine foot getting in the door", you have demonstrated your close-mindedness.

A few atheists like yourself, has not demonstrated that, and I acknowledged and commended them.

The OP had a special design, you see.

I think it depends on just how closed the door is.

I'm sure you have heard the expression "the god of the gaps". This follows a progression in human thinking, as the things that are attributed to gods shrinks and the things that are explained naturally grows. God is squeezed into a smaller and smaller area of explanation as more and more of the natural world is explained by science. In many people's view the "god area" is now very small, and some believe it to be gone altogether. Personally, I apply my skepticism to my skepticism, and will never say I am 100% sure of anything. That doesn't mean I consider the likelihood of everything to be the same, or even close in many cases.

Closing any door totally is unwise in my opinion. By all means don't waste time on it if you consider the probability is very low, but leave just a crack in the door. There were black swans after all.

It's only fair though to turn the question back on you. If you demand a limit to certainty from us, do you demonstrate a similar skepticism about your own beliefs? If not, then who is closed minded?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think it depends on just how closed the door is.

I'm sure you have heard the expression "the god of the gaps". This follows a progression in human thinking, as the things that are attributed to gods shrinks and the things that are explained naturally grows. God is squeezed into a smaller and smaller area of explanation as more and more of the natural world is explained by science. In many people's view the "god area" is now very small, and some believe it to be gone altogether. Personally, I apply my skepticism to my skepticism, and will never say I am 100% sure of anything. That doesn't mean I consider the likelihood of everything to be the same, or even close in many cases.

Closing any door totally is unwise in my opinion. By all means don't waste time on it if you consider the probability is very low, but leave just a crack in the door. There were black swans after all.

It's only fair though to turn the question back on you. If you demand a limit to certainty from us, do you demonstrate a similar skepticism about your own beliefs? If not, then who is closed minded?

So what is your take on Rene Descartes' Evil Demon, brain in a vat and all the other variants?
And how do you explain this:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
"Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions[edit]
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[43][44] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[45] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality,[46] and Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47] ..."

 

[Alien826]

Adaptation of what existing feature? Want to tell me in another thread?
No, it's not God doing things.
Neither is this...

This thread will do.

The penguin's flipper is an adaptation of a bird's wing. It is shaped and moves similarly to the wing, but doesn't work for flight. Incidentally other birds, like the cormorant "fly" under water, so it's not a great stretch. When you say "it's not God doing things", do you mean you think God didn't design and create it? Explain please.

If God set up the whole world and how it works, I don't see how that's little girl's condition is not ultimately his responsibility. But that's another much discussed subject.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have to say there is one line of argument that does work for Creationists, though it's logic is valid but not sound. Basically it says that if scripture is true, then anything that contradicts it must be false. We can't argue with that.

I'd call it sound as you wrote it in the conditional form, but theists don't ask if God is real. They claim it as fact, in which case you would be correct if their reasoning were valid, but how many of these apologists can write a fallacy-free argument?

The fact that the majority of atheists would cling to a natural explanation, when they have not even investigated, tells me they are closed-minded... and so, nothing would convince them.

Except that is YOU who has the closed mind. Never even investigated? Most atheists you encounter here are humanists and critical thinkers. Of course they've investigated the claims of theists, and found them wanting, which is why they are atheists. Critical thinkers aren't faith-based thinkers. They NEED a sound reason to believe before believing. If they reject religions and gods, it's because to conclude otherwise is unsound. Maybe YOU should investigate THAT world. You might discover what it takes to persuade a critical thinker, and understand why you can't with the kind of claims and arguments you make.

I guess you can't even conceive of the possibility that your claims have been analyzed and rejected, since you ignore it every time you read it and come back to this trope that implies that whoever doesn't come to a god conclusion hasn't tried hard enough, which is why I say that it is YOU who is closed-minded here. Here you are with your hair on fire complaining that your faith-based thought doesn't get enough respect. What respect does it deserve? It's wrong. The concept of the supernatural is incoherent the way the phrase married bachelor is. Neither exist for the same reason.

You still haven't tried to refute my argument against the possibility of the supernatural. Why? Because you can't. Why? Probably because it is sound. (correct). If it isn't, you can refute it. If it is sound, you cannot successfully refute it. Think of a courtroom trial. The prosecution has provided evidence establishing guilt. If it isn't successfully refuted (rebutted), it will result in a conviction. Your arguments are judged by the same standards. You can't rebut my argument? You don't even try? Do the math.

Where does religion not do what you just stated scientists do?

You responded to, "Also, scientists are usually painfully aware they can be wrong." Could you be wrong about your god existing? How about the resurrection? Will you tell your god that that might not have happened?

There is design, and there is design. Hope you figure out the difference.

I already know what design is, and I gave you several examples. You should try to be clearer about what you mean when using words.

Let's be clear. Are you referring to design... as in patterns? I wasn't.

Too late for you to be clear. You've already muddied the waters, and here you are back peddling. Does anybody here know what YOU mean by design? I don't. You rejected four designs, and then said there is design and there is design.

 

[Alien826]

This is what I said earlier... atheist need to change the scenario in order to answer it. Why?
You changed the scenario totally, when you ignore...
You feel it. You are assuming they feel it too.
Feel what? You no longer feel like when you came to the doctor.
Whatever you were experiencing - runny nose / headache / stomach cramps / ___ was gone.

I didn't say you are cured.

I didn't say that it had to be changed to be answered. People did answer it, but mostly without addressing the point you were trying to make.

I was just pointing out that if you give such vague situation that has so many obvious ways to get round the basic point, you will get just what you did get, a lot of unfocused comments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's be clear.
Are you referring to design... as in patterns?
I wasn't.

To me they are the same.

A design is a design and a pattern.
And there's natural design and artificial design.

I reject your criteria by which you claim to be able to detect artificial design.

I detect artificial design by signs of manufacturing.

Like the use of bolts, copper wires, trademark stamps, use of certain materials that don't naturally occur like plastics, or signs of carving etc.

That is how we recognize artificial design.

Compare for example a random rock with a stone tool used for cutting.
The difference is obvious. The stone tool shows signs of manufacturing, of unnatural manipulation.
And we can recognize it because we understand the techniques used.

We can tell the difference between a carved rock and one that is just eroded by wind or water.

Nature designs things all the time through natural processes.

 

[Polymath257]

Show me the difference.
Where does religion not do what you just stated scientists do?

it never seriously questions matters of faith by testing them to see if they work in the real world. It doesn't change its mind when ideas don't work.

 

[blü 2]

Scenario :

You are in the waiting room of a medical facility.
There are about 30 people in the room.
A man enters the main entrance. Stands in the doorway. Looks around the room at everyone, and then leaves.
You see people looking at others, and reacting as if they are having mixed reactions... and some get up and start exiting the room.
You and the few remaining are looking at each other.
You feel it. You are assuming they feel it too.
Feel what? You no longer feel like when you came to the doctor.
Whatever you were experiencing - runny nose / headache / stomach cramps / ___ was gone.​

Not wanting to look like an idiot sitting there by yourself (everyone else has left), you get up... to leave.

I'd ask the receptionist what was going on.

If I was told all the doctors had been called away, I'd leave.

It would very much depend on what symptoms I was seeing the doctor for, before I'd decide to stay or go. To take only one example, many cancers have symptoms other than outward signs like pain.

Maybe you should shift your scenario to a psychiatrists' practice ...