To the Anti-Religious

[Dunemeister]

<snipping genetic information that I already know>

By evolution being "blind", I mean that it doesn't have a specific goal in mind.

Why assume this? If God is behind it (as I suppose), then it must be fulfilling his intentions. So perhaps the individual mutations are random but the macro-effect -- a world containing life and us in particular -- is/was the goal.

If you make the case that God is in control of the dynamic environment and therefore (indirectly) controls evolution, that's a much stronger case for you than what I've heard some theists -especially Catholics- claim (that God directly controls evolution). And it's certainly an original argument (at least I've never heard anyone make this case before).

Well, it's not so much an argument as a suggestion. To make it an argument would probably take a book. I'm surprised it's so novel. Hey, maybe I should make it into a book; there's money in debates like this!.

The whole "randomness" bit is the rain on the whole parade. Something cannot be random if it is controlled by something else with intent.

Why not? As I've tried to argue, how can you know for sure that any particular mutation is random? It may in fact fit into an overall pattern that we cannot discern. Or, pehaps God can use real randomness to do what he wants. Perhaps there are different kinds of "random" just as there are different kinds of infinity, and God used a particular kind of randomness which does what he wants it to. Or perhaps God has built in enough random mutations into a sufficiently complex system that it was somehow bound to eventuate in us (a very bold kind of anthropic principle). Or perhaps..... Really, the possibilities here are endless.

Anyways, would you not agree we are imperfect? We sin, do we not? So if God designed us, God must have designed us to sin. If God did not design us to sin, then God's design has a grave flaw in his design.

Or perhaps God's design included the possibility of our sinning (and our redemption). Or perhaps it's not possible for God to create a creature of sufficient grandeur to recognize and love him without that creature, of its own free will ("free" used advisedly), coming to resent the boundaries imposed by the creature/creator distinction. In other words, perhaps sin is inevitable for creatures like us.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Why assume this? If God is behind it (as I suppose), then it must be fulfilling his intentions. So perhaps the individual mutations are random but the macro-effect -- a world containing life and us in particular -- is/was the goal.

themadhair made a very good point in another thread that I'll bring over here. The life we witness today are the winners of evolution. There have been way more losers than winners. If everything has intent (specifically God's intent), then why would God create so many failed life forms that went extinct because they could no longer adapt to the environment (for any number of reasons)?

If everything in the universe is controlled by God's intent, there is no possibility for free will. There is also no possibility for randomness simply because randomness does not have intent. If something is controlled and geared towards a specific outcome, it isn't random.

It's exactly like saying "Rolling a dice is random, but God controls it. I roll a six. The six is random, but God turned the dice so the six was face-up." It makes absolutely no sense.

Well, it's not so much an argument as a suggestion. To make it an argument would probably take a book. I'm surprised it's so novel. Hey, maybe I should make it into a book; there's money in debates like this!

I would definitely encourage it. It's an interesting point of view to argue from. It's the only way your idea of mutations being random but evolution is controlled works.

But this has a few flaws, albeit less so than most Creationist arguments. If I ever were to enter bizzaro-world and argue for design, that's probably how I'd go about doing it. One of the more prominent flaws in this argument is - as it relates to themadhair's point - God would have intentionally made very many species extinct and there would be no logical reason why God would do such a thing, unless those organisms served the purpose of creating the environmental pressures to shape humans into what they currently are. But even then, why would an all-loving God have such a cold, utilitarian approach to creating humans? His omnipotency suggests that the method of evolution to create humans is wasteful and unnecessary as he simply could have willed us into existence.

But I'm sure if you work out some of those flaws, it would be a better approach to design.

Why not? As I've tried to argue, how can you know for sure that any particular mutation is random? It may in fact fit into an overall pattern that we cannot discern. Or, pehaps God can use real randomness to do what he wants. Perhaps there are different kinds of "random" just as there are different kinds of infinity, and God used a particular kind of randomness which does what he wants it to. Or perhaps God has built in enough random mutations into a sufficiently complex system that it was somehow bound to eventuate in us (a very bold kind of anthropic principle). Or perhaps..... Really, the possibilities here are endless.

I tried to indirectly answer it in the genetics bit you snipped out, but I'll try and make myself more clear.

When a mutation occurs, the mutation can give a positive or negative benefit. If mutations were not random, we would expect to see directionality (either completely, or at least mostly positive mutations....or completely or mostly negative mutations). But rather than seeing the rate of positive mutations approach 0 or 100%, the rate of positive and negative mutations is closer to 50%. That isn't to say the probability of each is 50%, but closer to 50% than the extremes of 0 and 100.

That sort of distribution indicates that mutations are random.

God would not be able to use randomness to his will because that would defeat the purpose of being random. Being random indicates an equal possibility of a particular outcome working in his favour or against his favour.

I'm not sure what you mean by "different kinds of randomness", so I can't really respond to that.

Yes, there are a million possibilities, but we have to look at the most probable of those possibilities, examine data to see if the data fits those possibilities, and if it does, accept it as the probable truth.

Or perhaps God's design included the possibility of our sinning (and our redemption). Or perhaps it's not possible for God to create a creature of sufficient grandeur to recognize and love him without that creature, of its own free will ("free" used advisedly), coming to resent the boundaries imposed by the creature/creator distinction. In other words, perhaps sin is inevitable for creatures like us.

If God's design included us sinning, why do we have to be thankful to Jesus dying on the cross? Jesus died for our sins. Jesus (who is somehow God and the Son of God and the Holy Spirit at the same time :S...Damn Catholics making the trinity so vague and confusing...)/God would have created humans with the intent of us sinning (so our sinning would be inevitable). So Jesus dying on the cross for us isn't really much of a sacrifice when you consider God was the one who made it inevitable we would sin anyway!

The problem with speculation like this is that if you choose to argue and accomodate facts like evolution, you have to contradict your own theology. Your arguments may make slightly more sense and have more plausibility from a scientific standpoint, at least, but these sorts of possibilities often conflict with what is traditionally taught.

 

[Vile Atheist]

But what sort of evidence could you have (that I haven't already considered)? The only arguments that have been offered for the universe's non-design are (a) well, it's possible it wasn't designed (which I agree with, but nothing follows from this), (b) the positive arguments for design aren't very good (a point I disagree with, but I further agree that the positive arguments at their best are not in themselves sufficient to support full-fledged Christian theism), (c) there are instances of randomness and apparent poor design in the universe (I agree with the first but fail to see the relevance; the latter hangs on the strength of the word "apparent" and human omniscience).

I won't start another thread, but I will briefly outline some reasons why I accept atheism/the beliefs I have.

- Atheism makes no claims. Some atheists may make the claim "God does not exist", but that's not exactly atheism. This is further compounded by obscure and plainly false definitions of atheism, even in reputable sources.
- It's a position of scepticism. If someone makes a claim, they are held to a burden of proof.
- Empirical evidence is always demanded. This makes any claim a more rational one.
- The existence and variety of so many different religions in the world suggest that religion is a socially evolved phenomenon.
- Neurology and psychology can explain why we have beliefs in God.
- Historical accounts rarely match up with Holy Scriptures.
- The evidence presented by theism is very lacking, especially in light of such an extraordinary being like God with extraordinary attributes.
- God is not logical. By this, I mean some attributes of God conflict with each other.
- There is empirical data that shows any theism has no effect on the overall morality of any one person. Thus the claim that religion is meant to help one lead a moral life is plainly false.
- The universe does not appear to have any design suited to humans. We are stuck in our own little backwater solar system in our backwater galaxy in our backwater corner of the universe.
- Evolution shows that humans little, if any, more special than any other animal.
- Arguments for design almost always rely on speculation or some misunderstanding of a scientific concept. (Ex. Someone on RF once tried to tell me that everything was cause and effect. I asked this person to please provide me with the cause for photons. They said something like "All matter comes from the singularity." Which is a complete non-sequitur. I then asked them "If that's the case, what property of matter is a photon: solid, liquid, or gas?" He just kept repeating "cause and effect". And when we went through a few cycles of this, he finally said "God did it" without any further explanation. I literally facepalmed.)

 

[Dunemeister]

I won't start another thread, but I will briefly outline some reasons why I accept atheism/the beliefs I have.

- Atheism makes no claims. Some atheists may make the claim "God does not exist", but that's not exactly atheism. This is further compounded by obscure and plainly false definitions of atheism, even in reputable sources.
- It's a position of scepticism. If someone makes a claim, they are held to a burden of proof.
- Empirical evidence is always demanded. This makes any claim a more rational one.
- The existence and variety of so many different religions in the world suggest that religion is a socially evolved phenomenon.
- Neurology and psychology can explain why we have beliefs in God.
- Historical accounts rarely match up with Holy Scriptures.
- The evidence presented by theism is very lacking, especially in light of such an extraordinary being like God with extraordinary attributes.
- God is not logical. By this, I mean some attributes of God conflict with each other.
- There is empirical data that shows any theism has no effect on the overall morality of any one person. Thus the claim that religion is meant to help one lead a moral life is plainly false.
- The universe does not appear to have any design suited to humans. We are stuck in our own little backwater solar system in our backwater galaxy in our backwater corner of the universe.
- Evolution shows that humans little, if any, more special than any other animal.
- Arguments for design almost always rely on speculation or some misunderstanding of a scientific concept. (Ex. Someone on RF once tried to tell me that everything was cause and effect. I asked this person to please provide me with the cause for photons. They said something like "All matter comes from the singularity." Which is a complete non-sequitur. I then asked them "If that's the case, what property of matter is a photon: solid, liquid, or gas?" He just kept repeating "cause and effect". And when we went through a few cycles of this, he finally said "God did it" without any further explanation. I literally facepalmed.)

Fair enough.

 

[Dunemeister]

I'd like to get back to one of Smoke's objections to my idea that it's possible for Christian belief to receive warrant (and therefore be rational) by means of the internal instigation of the holy spirit:

Christianity is false. I know this by the internal instigation of Eris (IIE). IIE is the means by which one may have true beliefs about God, if Discordianism is true. If you wish to object to the evidence provided by IIE, you have to show that Discordianism is not true.

The complaints seems to be that if Christians can claim to have special access to religious truth, then anyone else can do the same.


Let me once again summarize my view that Smoke objects to. On my view, belief in God (and the central themes of Christianity) can be rational and have warrant even when not accepted on the evidential basis of other beliefs or any argument whatsoever (explicit or implicit). Warrant for these beliefs doesn't come by way of warrant transfer from other beliefs. In this respect, they are like memory, perceptual, some a priori, and testimonial beliefs (among others). They are properly basic with respect to warrant. They are properly basic because, if Christianity is true, they arise in us by the proper functioning of a reliable belief-producing mechanism, namely the sensus divinitatus (sense of the divine), together with hearing the gospel message (bible or preaching, where the belief is proposed) and IIHS (where God Himself testifies to the recipient to the truth of the belief).


Smoke appears to be objecting to the underlined portion. It says that Christians have a faculty for obtaining truths that not everyone else on the planet enjoys simply by virtue of being human. And if so, its existence and deliverances are beyond rational scrutiny: they are unfalsifiable. Also, if it's legitimate for Christians to take this line with respect to Christian beliefs, why can't anyone else for their distinctive beliefs? This is the problem of generalizability. In this post, I deal with the falsifiability objection. In the following post, I deal with the generalizability objection, which is related but a bit trickier.


The objection is that if Christianity is properly basic with respect to warrant, then arguments and objections to it are irrelevant to it; it is insulated from objections and defeaters. But obviously, objection and argument are relevant to theistic belief; therefore, it can't be warrant-basic.


This is a confusion about how basic beliefs work. Theistic belief is not immune to defeat simply by virtue of being basic. Theistic belief merely looks like other basic beliefs. Smoke tells me (say) that she was in Maui last year on vacation. I acquire the belief that she was there in the basic way. (I don't hold it on the evidential basis of an argument such as Smoke says she was in Maui; most of what Smoke says is true; so probably this is. I could accept it this way, and in some circumstances -- a trial, say -- I would; but in the typical case, I don't.) But then Smoke's partner says it wasn't Maui but the big island of Hawaii which, she says, Smoke always confuses with Maui. Furthermore, Smoke goes on to rave about Mauna Loa (which is on Hawaii, not Maui). Thus my original belief that Smoke was in Maui is defeated even though it was originally acquired in the basic way.


Another example. I see what I take to be a sheep in a field across the road, and I form the belief in the basic way. You, the owner of the field, tell me that there aren't any sheep in it, although there is a dog in the neighborhood that kind of looks like a sheep. I now don't believe that I saw a sheep despite the fact that I originally obtained the belief in the basic way.


So it's not true, in general, that basic beliefs are indefeasible. So why think that about theistic beliefs if they too are basic? Even though acquired in a basic way, Christian belief would be untenable if the believer heard/read, understood, and believed an argument that it was false (or the truth of which entailed that Christianity was false).

 

[Dunemeister]

This post continues considering Smoke's objection to my argument that Christianity could be warranted by the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit:

Christianity is false. I know this by the internal instigation of Eris (IIE). IIE is the means by which one may have true beliefs about God, if Discordianism is true. If you wish to object to the evidence provided by IIE, you have to show that Discordianism is not true.

Argument for warrant via IIHS generalizable?


Here the objection might be that if theistic belief is properly basic, then so can any other belief be, no matter how bizarre. If theistic belief is basic, you might as well make the same claim for atheism, voodoo, astrology, whatever.


This objection is plainly false. To recognize that some kinds of beliefs are properly basic doesn't mean all other kinds of beliefs are. Even if the IIHS model I've described is correct, it doesn't follow that these others are properly basic.


Perhaps the objection is that my view is radically relativistic. Voodoo followers (the objection runs) would be able to claim that insofar as their beliefs are basic in the voodoo community they are rational and that Christianity is irrational in this community. Indeed, any community whatsoever can argue their particular beliefs are properly basic. According to this objection, someone who took any proposition p in the basic way could legitimately claim that p was properly basic; it can therefore be rationally accepted in the basic way. This is the Generalizability Argument:


(1) If Christian epistemologists can legitimately claim that belief in God is rationally acceptable in the basic way, then for any other belief accepted in some community, the epistemologists of that community could legitimately claim that it was properly basic, no matter how bizarre the belief.


But


(2) The consequent of this conditional is false.


So


(3) The Christian apologist cannot legitimately claim that belief in God is rationally acceptable in the basic way.


Problems with the second premise


There are problems here with (2). What kind of rationality are we dealing with here? Are we talking about whether the voodooists could be justified? That is, are we asking whether they could be within their intellectual rights, flout no epistemic duty, do their intellectual best while believing as they do? That's too easy. Of course they could; hence they could be justified. So presumably the voodooists could legitimately claim they were justified. So premise (2), if we're thinking about justification, is clearly false.


Are we talking internal rationality, rationality "downstream from experience"? Given their experience, is it compatible with proper function that they accept voodooism? That could be so. The voodooists have always been taught their voodoo beliefs are true; all alleged contrary evidence is cleverly explained away by the priests; or perhaps they are all subject to cognitive malfunction "upstream from experience" that skews their doxastic experience. Such voodooists could certainly claim that their beliefs are internally rational. So here premise (2) fails again.


Problems with the first premise


The only option left is warrant. What does it mean to make a legitimate claim to warrant? There are three possibilities: claim truthfully; claim justifiably, and claim warrantedly. Truthfully won't work. If belief in God is truthfully warrant basic, voodoo beliefs might not be. It's possible for theistic belief to be true and voodoo false. What about justifiably? Perhaps if belief in God can be justifiably said to be warrant basic, so can voodoo belief. Again, too easy. Obviously, the voodooists might be justified in thinking voodoo belief is warrant basic. It might just seem obvious to them. So taken, premise (2) fails.


So what about the claim that if belief in God is warrant basic, so is voodoo? If this is the claim, the argument is (1) if the claim that belief in God is properly basic with respect to warrant has warrant, then for any proposition p, no matter how bizarre, accepted by some community, if the members of that community were to claim that p is properly basic with respect to warrant, their claim would itself have warrant; (2) the consequent of (1) is false; therefore the Christian apologist's claim isn't warranted. A problem with this argument is that I don't claim that belief in God and the deliverances of IIHS do have warrant because in all likelihood they have warrant only if they are true, and I am not arguing that they are in fact true (only that they are possible). I'm prepared to claim they're true even though I'm not prepared to mount an argument. So let's suppose I'm claiming that belief in God (etc) enjoys warrant. Let's further assume that my claim is legitimate -- that is, the claim indeed has warrant. Would it follow that for any proposition p, if there were a community of people who endorsed p, these people would be warranted in believing that [p is properly basic with respect to warrant for those in their community?


No, it wouldn't. Suppose the IIHS model I've described is true (not just possible). Then (a) Christianity is in fact true, (b) there really are such cognitive processes as the sense of the divine and IIHS, and (c) their deliverances meet the conditions for warrant. Suppose (1) a Christian believes the gospel on the basis of IIHS (etc); (2) he notes further that his belief and that of many others is accepted in the basic way (testimony). (3) He further comes to believe that God intends his children to know him and the gospel, but also that it isn't possible for enough of us to know about him by way of inference from other beliefs; (4) he correctly concludes that God has instituted cognitive processes by which we humans can form these true beliefs in the basic way. (5) He concludes that these cognitive processes are functioning properly when they deliver those beliefs, and are also functioning in a congenial cognitive environment according to a design plan successfully aimed at truth: that is, his belief, taken in the basic way, has warrant. He thus concludes that these beliefs are properly basic with respect to warrant, drawing this conclusion from beliefs that themselves have warrant; but forming a belief in that way itself meets the conditions for warrant; hence, his belief that theistic belief is properly basic with respect to warrant is itself warranted.


It doesn't follow that the voodooist is also warranted in claiming that voodoo belief is properly basic with respect to warrant. For suppose (1) that voodoo belief is in fact false and (2) that it arose initially in some kind of mistake or confusion, or out of a fearful reaction to natural phenomena. If so, the original voodoo beliefs do not enjoy warrant. Suppose (3) these voodoo beliefs were passed down by way of testimony. Now if a testifier testifies to something that has no warrant for her, then it has no warrant for anyone believing it on just the basis of her testimony.


So consider the voodooist and suppose he accepts voodooism on the basis of testimony and reasons from their truth together with other premises to the conclusion that they are properly basic with respect to warrant. Then his conclusion that voodoo beliefs are warrant-basic will not itself be warranted because it is accepted on the basis of an argument at least one premise of which has no warrant for him. That is because inference is warrant-dependent in the same way as testimony. I believe p and q; these logically yield r; r will have warrant for me if p and q do; but if either p or q lacks warrant for me, the same will go for r. The voodooist is mistaken in holding their voodoo beliefs; therefore his claim that voodoo views are properly basic with respect to warrant is both false and unwarranted.


So it could happen that the views of the Christian are legitimate (warranted) but those of the voodooist, who arrives at his views in a structurally similar way to the Christian, are not. That could be if the central claims of Christianity are in fact true and voodooism false. So it's not true that if the claim that basic belief in God is properly basic with respect to warrant is itself warranted, then any parallel claim is warranted.

 

[Smoke]

They are properly basic because, if Christianity is true, they arise in us by the proper functioning of a reliable belief-producing mechanism, namely the sensus divinitatus (sense of the divine), together with hearing the gospel message (bible or preaching, where the belief is proposed) and IIHS (where God Himself testifies to the recipient to the truth of the belief).

There's the problem right there. Your own argument states that it is valid only if Christianity is true. We have no way of knowing that Christianity is true except for what you imagine to be the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit. This instigation can only be reliable if Christianity is true. Your argument looks like this:

If a, then b.
If b, then a.
Therefore, a and b.

This is the fallacy of circulus in probando, or arguing in a circle. It's sheer nonsense. And that's without even addressing whether a or b is true in the first place.

Smoke tells me (say) that she was in Maui last year on vacation.

You have a habit of referring to Smoke as she that he does not care for.

 

[Smoke]

This post continues considering Smoke's objection to my argument that Christianity could be warranted by the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit

------------> snip <--------------

Suppose the IIHS model I've described is true (not just possible).

------------> snip <--------------

For suppose (1) that voodoo belief is in fact false and (2) that it arose initially in some kind of mistake or confusion, or out of a fearful reaction to natural phenomena. If so, the original voodoo beliefs do not enjoy warrant. Suppose (3) these voodoo beliefs were passed down by way of testimony. Now if a testifier testifies to something that has no warrant for her, then it has no warrant for anyone believing it on just the basis of her testimony.

Here's what your second argument comes down to:

If I am right, I am right.
If voodoo adherents are wrong, they are wrong.
Therefore, I am right and they are wrong.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Here's what your second argument comes down to:

If I am right, I am right.
If voodoo adherents are wrong, they are wrong.
Therefore, I am right and they are wrong."

That is correct but I think you should add the MOST important presupposition.

He WANTS to believe. With that fixed firmly he can than produce all this nonsense with a straight face.

The human capacity for self-delusion is large indeed.

 

[Vile Atheist]

The human capacity for self-delusion is large indeed.

If it is indeed self-delusion, I don't think it's an intentional self-delusion.


And I was sleeping as this thread continued!? This is one of my favourite threads .

 

[Dunemeister]

There's the problem right there. Your own argument states that it is valid only if Christianity is true. We have no way of knowing that Christianity is true except for what you imagine to be the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit. This instigation can only be reliable if Christianity is true. Your argument looks like this:

If a, then b.
If b, then a.
Therefore, a and b.

This is the fallacy of circulus in probando, or arguing in a circle. It's sheer nonsense. And that's without even addressing whether a or b is true in the first place.

You have a habit of referring to Smoke as she that he does not care for.

Whoops! Sorry about referring to you as "she". It was an honest mistake, and I'm glad you corrected me.

I'm not arguing in a circle. I would be doing so if I were arguing for the TRUTH of Christianity from IIHS. But I'm not. I'm saying that if Christianity were true, it would be warranted via IIHS. IIHS would be a reliable truth-obtaining rational faculty; therefore, if Christianity is true, it would be rational. This argument is not designed to rebut those who argue Christianity is false. Rather, it rebuts those who claim that, whether Christianity is true or not, it is irrational to believe it.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Rather, it rebuts those who claim that, whether Christianity is true or not, it is irrational to believe it."

I am not aware of any position taken here (or anywhere else) that says Christianity is true and believing it is irrational.

That is absurd on its face. What IS irrational is accepting christianity AS true.

 

[fantome profane]

it rebuts those who claim that, whether Christianity is true or not, it is irrational to believe it.

Could you please introduce me to one of these people. I don’t think I have ever met anyone who claimed it was irrational to believe something that is true.

 

[Commoner]

Could you please introduce me to one of these people. I don&#8217;t think I have ever met anyone who claimed it was irrational to believe something that is true.

It's irrational to believe your lottery ticket has the winnig combination (before knowing it), even if it were true.

It really depends on the exact use of the word "irrational" and "true".

Oh, and - nice to meet you!

 

[Dunemeister]

"Rather, it rebuts those who claim that, whether Christianity is true or not, it is irrational to believe it."

I am not aware of any position taken here (or anywhere else) that says Christianity is true and believing it is irrational.

That is absurd on its face. What IS irrational is accepting christianity AS true.

Of course it's absurd. It's also not the actual objection. The actual objection is subtler. It's "Well, I can't prove Christianity is untrue. Who could do a thing like that (or even want to)? Maybe it is true for all we know. Nevertheless, it's irrational to believe it." In other words, I'm refuting the apparently charitable objection that Christianity is possibly true (in the sense of broadly logically possible). But even if so, believing it (as true) is irrational. I've argued that this objection is incoherent as it stands. Instead, it is actually question begging because it actually amounts to the objection that Christianity is untrue (in the first instance, the point at issue).

 

[Dunemeister]

Could you please introduce me to one of these people. I don’t think I have ever met anyone who claimed it was irrational to believe something that is true.

See my reply to Omar. However, people have indeed said that, at times, someone can irrationally believe something true. As a result of a brain lesion, I believe every mathematical proposition presented to me, whether it's true or false. As a result, I have learned a great many true propositions of mathematics (together with many false ones). But my belief in them can hardly be rational. It's irrational to believe these true propositions on the basis of testimony combined with the brain lesion.

Another example. I'm in a drug-induced stupor and have not taken any science. In that state, I form the belief that all life has evolved from simpler forms. That's true (say), but my belief is hardly rational for reasons similar to the previous example.

In both of these examples, we have a case where someone believes something true but by virtue of improper functioning. Some atheists (Freud, Marx, Nietzsche) have argued that Christianity may well be true for all we know. However, the belief arises by way of cognitive malfunction (Marx) or by means of cognitive processes not aimed at the truth (Freud) or through political resentment (Nietzsche). Thus, even if it is true, it's irrational to put any stock in the belief once we realize where the belief originated. (Note that this isn't a version of the genetic fallacy.)

 

[Dunemeister]

Here's what your second argument comes down to:

If I am right, I am right.
If voodoo adherents are wrong, they are wrong.
Therefore, I am right and they are wrong.

No, the conclusion to draw is that my argument does not entail generalizability. The truth of Christianity itself (or voodoo) is not at issue.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Of course it's absurd. It's also not the actual objection. The actual objection is subtler. It's "Well, I can't prove Christianity is untrue. Who could do a thing like that (or even want to)? Maybe it is true for all we know. Nevertheless, it's irrational to believe it." In other words, I'm refuting the apparently charitable objection that Christianity is possibly true (in the sense of broadly logically possible). But even if so, believing it (as true) is irrational. I've argued that this objection is incoherent as it stands. Instead, it is actually question begging because it actually amounts to the objection that Christianity is untrue (in the first instance, the point at issue).

Male bovine feces.
All this philosophical gobbledygook you have been posting is just verbiage to cover up the fact that believing in YOUR god is no different than believing in Athena or Thor or any of the thousands of other gods we have invented. And your attempt to justify your position with this HS nonsense is even less intellectually honest. It elevates Elwood P. Dowd’s Harvey to the level of actual fact.

 

[Dunemeister]

Male bovine feces.
All this philosophical gobbledygook you have been posting is just verbiage to cover up the fact that believing in YOUR god is no different than believing in Athena or Thor or any of the thousands of other gods we have invented. And your attempt to justify your position with this HS nonsense is even less intellectually honest. It elevates Elwood P. Dowd&#8217;s Harvey to the level of actual fact.

The absence of any argument from you (not to mention your inability or unwillingness to read mine) speaks volumes.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Male bovine feces.
All this philosophical gobbledygook you have been posting is just verbiage to cover up the fact that believing in YOUR god is no different than believing in Athena or Thor or any of the thousands of other gods we have invented. And your attempt to justify your position with this HS nonsense is even less intellectually honest. It elevates Elwood P. Dowd’s Harvey to the level of actual fact.

I don't think this is entirely fair. Whether or not Dunemeister's argument is valid, it's quite evident he sincerely believes it. That warrants a counter-argument, at the very least, and optimally your own argument to replace it.

Regardless, he's at least being respectful. And his argument - regardless of its validity - is admittedly more sophisticated than the other theistic arguments proposed by most theists on these forums. I think that deserves a more respectful response than this.