Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[kjw47]

Creation is proof of what?

Yes evolution is a Theory which is the highest something can be in science.



Evolution doesn't describe how life came to be....that's Abiogenesis.

Evolution teaches that something crawled out of the water and evolved into man eventually.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Evolution teaches that something crawled out of the water and evolved into man eventually.

Creationism teaches that an invisible space-man wished everything into being... Sounds a lot more reasonable:sarcastic

You know life didn't start with humanity, right? Evolution does not seek to explain the origin of life

 

[Philomath]

Evolution teaches that something crawled out of the water and evolved into man eventually.

Here is a link to what evolution actually is. I recommend that you take some time out of your day and read it, at least partially to get some sense of what evolution is.

The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs

 

[McBell]

All over this forum? Are you kidding me I have been a member of this forum for over a year and all I see are weak arguments and crappy logic.

That is exactly what he is talking about, all the weak arguments and crappy logic used to "prove" god exists.

So, based on these many imaginary refutations of the arguments...lets take 3 arguments that Christian theists use:

1. The kalam cosmological argument
2. The ontological argument
3. The argument based on the historicity of Jesus Christ (the Resurrection)

Give me your best refutation of each of those three. Since there are so many, as you claim, this shouldn't be a problem.



Thats cool but I don't recall saying that "one" does.

:biglaugh:

Why, so you can present even more weak arguments and crappy logic in defense of the weak arguments and crappy logic?

 

[McBell]

Creation is proof enough------ evolution is a theory--no proof

The only thing creation proves is that there are a lot of people who do not know what the "proof" means.

If evolution were truth--then all in a instance--trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions of atoms all of a sudden all fell into perfect place to make everything work precisely. it could never happen in a gazillion years--- Gods use of science and math with precision caused all of creation.

and here we see even more weak arguments and crappy logic...

 

[McBell]

Evolution teaches that something crawled out of the water and evolved into man eventually.

Well, at the very least you have shown you know little to nothing about evolution...

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Not really. No matter how much anybody is familiar with any number of fields, this will always pale in comparison to their complete and nearly complete ignorance of many, many, many other subjects. It's not a criticism to say that someone who doesn't present themselves as an expert in a field doesn't know the field. If you don't study cosmology and related fields of physics (QFT, astrophysics, etc.), then you don't know what "we" know ("we" being the sum total of knowledge available to humanity even though a incredibly small number of individuals actual have more than a speck, if that, of familiarity with that knowledge). That makes you human, rather than omniscient. If you claim present yourself as an expert, by claiming to be so explicitly or by repeatedly making statements about the field, what is known, what isn't, and why, then I tend to get pretty hostile (even though I shouldn't). Specialists work hard to become so, and even those who aren't specialists in some field they talk about but who have spent energy and time studying specialist literature also have gone beyond what idle curiosity generally entails. As someone who has worked with specialists and has spent time, money, energy, and other resources to learn about the things I discuss, I have a great deal of respect for those who have devoted themselves to some area of study (whether academic or not) to gain a level of expertise. As a consequence, I have little patience and too much hostility against those who have not devoted themselves in such a way yet present themselves as if they have anyway. You didn't do this with singularities. So my comment was simply a statement that your ignorance (I use that term without the negative connotation it usually has but merely to refer to a property that is true of anyone who isn't omniscient) is not a good metric for what "we" know. My ignorance is better because it is less, but on this forum alone I know of at least one other whose is a better metric for what "we" know than mine. And I know that my knowledge is simply the acquaintance with research and publications by others, not any achievement of my own.

Fair Enough. I concede the point in totality.

 

[kjw47]

Well, at the very least you have shown you know little to nothing about evolution...

That's what they taught when I went to school--- their is nothing but confusion in the darkness.

 

[Willamena]

Well, at the very least you have shown you know little to nothing about evolution...

Non-literally, it's correct.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Give me your best refutation of each of those three. Since there are so many, as you claim, this shouldn't be a problem.

Sure thing, its like shooting fish in a barrel.

1. The kalam cosmological argument

... doesn't prove the desired conclusion (that God, specifically, exists, not that some first cause exists which could be God, or could be something else), and is either flatly invalid (supposing all causal sequences originate with the same first term) or involves a fallacy of composition (i.e. that the universe as a whole has a beginning because everything IN the universe does).

2. The ontological argument

... is simply invalid, and is rife with other problems as well. Simply put, its the WORST of the 3 arguments you've listed. At best it proves that, IF God existed, he would exist necessarily; but it does not prove that God exists.

The modal ontological argument is no improvement- it is logically invalid, and involves a fallacy of equivocation on its most popular formulation, that of Plantinga.

3. The argument based on the historicity of Jesus Christ (the Resurrection)

... is simply a bad a posteriori argument; the evidence is wanting, and even if it existed, it wouldn't follow necessarily that God exists- there are other possible explanations- nor would this be the best explanation, if we stick with the principle of parsimony.

 

[McBell]

Non-literally, it's correct.

I suppose it is...
...for a second grader.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

... doesn't prove the desired conclusion (that God, specifically, exists, not that some first cause exists which could be God, or could be something else)

Actually it does, it is only when you get in depth with the argument you find out that the attributes needed to create the universe can only come from an entity that itself was not part of the universe and had the POWER to create from nothing. God is the only thing that comes close to meeting these criterias.

, and is either flatly invalid (supposing all causal sequences originate with the same first term)

Philosophical arguments, such as the argument against an infinite past implies that if these causal sequences DIDN'T originate within the same first term, the concept would be illogical because the sequences themselves cannot be extended to past eternity. Only an absolute "first cause" can avoid this absurdity.

or involves a fallacy of composition (i.e. that the universe as a whole has a beginning because everything IN the universe does).

This is not a fallacy of composition, because we have evidence that OUR universe, the one that we live in, had a beginning, which would imply that our universe is contingent. If you then believe that our universe originated from some naturalistic event, then you are right back to the infinity problem as mentioned above, and all you are doing is pushing the problem back one step further and the infinity problem is not dealt with.

... is simply invalid, and is rife with other problems as well. Simply put, its the WORST of the 3 arguments you've listed.

Actually, I've come to like this one better than the Kalam

At best it proves that, IF God existed, he would exist necessarily; but it does not prove that God exists.

And the question is; is it possible for God to exist? I maintain that it is possible for God to exist because the concept is logically valid. The concept does not violate any laws of logic, so therefore it must be true in some possible world, and if it true in some, it must be true in all.

The modal ontological argument is no improvement- it is logically invalid, and involves a fallacy of equivocation on its most popular formulation, that of Plantinga.

It is logically valid, actually. I challenge you to point out why the argument is invalid and I also would like for you to point out what word is being equivocated.

... is simply a bad a posteriori argument; the evidence is wanting, and even if it existed, it wouldn't follow necessarily that God exists- there are other possible explanations- nor would this be the best explanation, if we stick with the principle of parsimony.

Um, if Jesus rose from the DEAD, I would like to know what "possible other explanations" that can be given to explain this. It would have to be a naturalistic explanation, too. Please enlighten me.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Actually it does, it is only when you get in depth with the argument you find out that the attributes needed to create the universe can only come from an entity that itself was not part of the universe and had the POWER to create from nothing.

Well, not "the argument", as in, this argument; to establish this, a separate sub-argument needs to be adduced (because the argument is, as stands, invalid).

God is the only thing that comes close to meeting these criterias.

This is an argument from ignorance- we don't know that "God is the only thing" that could satisfy this criteria.

Philosophical arguments, such as the argument against an infinite past...

Except, and this is strictly for the record, such arguments have historically failed- there has hitherto been no valid argument establishing that an infinite regress is self-contradictory (i.e. "illogical").

...implies that if these causal sequences DIDN'T originate within the same first term, the concept would be illogical because the sequences themselves cannot be extended to past eternity.

The premises of the causal argument imply that causal sequences cannot extend back indefinitely- thus there is AT LEAST ONE first cause. That's as far as the argument gets. Supposing there IS NO MORE THAN ONE is non-sequitur.

Only an absolute "first cause" can avoid this absurdity.

No, ANY first cause can avoid to so-called "absurdity" of an infinite regress (which is no real absurdity anyways)- but it also creates an absurdity of its own, i.e. uncaused first cause.

This is not a fallacy of composition, because we have evidence that OUR universe, the one that we live in, had a beginning

No, we don't. This is a misinterpretation of contemporary physics.

If you then believe that our universe originated from some naturalistic event, then you are right back to the infinity problem as mentioned above, and all you are doing is pushing the problem back one step further and the infinity problem is not dealt with.

No. The zero-energy universe- a hypothesis that the universe DID include a beginning (as opposed to competing hypothesis in physics right now which include NO beginning, such as the Hartle-Hawking universe) is naturalistic and does not admit of any "infinity problem".

Actually, I've come to like this one better than the Kalam

How unfortunate for you, then.

And the question is; is it possible for God to exist? I maintain that it is possible for God to exist because the concept is logically valid.

For one, whether it is possible that God exists is not relevant to the ontological argument, only the modal ontological argument- and the standard ontological argument is invalid and only establishes the conditional, as I said before, that IF God exists THEN he exists necessarily. Second, you continue to betray your absolute unfamiliarity with logic- sort of a prerequisite for this subject-matter, unfortunately- validity does not apply to concepts, but to arguments- a "valid concept" makes no more sense than a "neurotic triangle". What you mean to say is that it is not self-contradictory- it is coherent. But even that is highly contentious, and likely depends on how one defines God in the first place.

It is logically valid, actually. I challenge you to point out why the argument is invalid and I also would like for you to point out what word is being equivocated.

I have already pointed this out to you a number of times, but I'm not sure you understood it since you apparently have very little understanding of modal logic- there are many modal logics, and these are distinguished by having slightly different axioms/rules of inference. And in all modal systems weaker than S4, "<>[]P->P" is not included as an axiom, which renders the modal ontological argument formally invalid.

And Plantinga's version of the argument rests on a bait and switch between logical possibility and epistemic possibility (i.e. the equivocation is on the term "possibly").

Um, if Jesus rose from the DEAD, I would like to know what "possible other explanations" that can be given to explain this. It would have to be a naturalistic explanation, too. Please enlighten me.

No, it wouldn't have to be a naturalistic explanation- although naturalistic explanations would not be logically ruled out either. The point is that God's existence would not be logically implied, even if it would undoubtedly become more probable- nevertheless "Jesus rose from the dead and God does not exist" is NOT a logical falsehood, so the inference is non-sequitur.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And the question is; is it possible for God to exist? I maintain that it is possible for God to exist because the concept is logically valid. The concept does not violate any laws of logic, so therefore it must be true in some possible world, and if it true in some, it must be true in all.

Do you agree that it is possible that there can be an invisible magic Unicorn spreading untangible essence around the universe and stops by here every thursday because he enjoys Hotpockets? If it is not of this universe and has attributes that don't necessarily require it to follow the laws of our universe then logically it doesn't mean its impossible.

By your next step of reasoning it means that it is possible, therefore it has to exist in a scenario somehwere. And if it exists anywhere it has to exist everywhere. Therefore the invisible magic unicorn that spreads its juicy untangible essence everywhere that comes to visit on Thursdays to eat Hot pockets has to exist.

Checkmate Atheist.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well, not "the argument", as in, this argument; to establish this, a separate sub-argument needs to be adduced (because the argument is, as stands, invalid).

Invalid on what grounds?

This is an argument from ignorance- we don't know that "God is the only thing" that could satisfy this criteria.

Well when you find out what this other “thing” is, holla at me.

Except, and this is strictly for the record, such arguments have historically failed- there has hitherto been no valid argument establishing that an infinite regress is self-contradictory (i.e. "illogical").

Historically failed? Baseless assertion.

The premises of the causal argument imply that causal sequences cannot extend back indefinitely- thus there is AT LEAST ONE first cause. That's as far as the argument gets. Supposing there IS NO MORE THAN ONE is non-sequitur.

If it was more than one that would fall right into the absurdity that you have been stuck in all alone. The point is, one uncaused cause is NECESSARY if we are to remain coherent.

No, ANY first cause can avoid to so-called "absurdity" of an infinite regress (which is no real absurdity anyways)- but it also creates an absurdity of its own, i.e. uncaused first cause.

Baseless assertion.

No, we don't. This is a misinterpretation of contemporary physics.

It is a misinterpretation of contemporary physics, yet there are all these wacky cosmological models that are postulated to give a naturalistic explanation for the ORIGINS of our universe??? Hmmmm.

No. The zero-energy universe- a hypothesis that the universe DID include a beginning (as opposed to competing hypothesis in physics right now which include NO beginning, such as the Hartle-Hawking universe) is naturalistic and does not admit of any "infinity problem".

Instead of mentioning the philosophical errors in the Hartle/Hawking universe, I will just mention the fact that you’ve just contradicted yourself in the quotation above this one. This is the second time you’ve blatantly contradicted yourself on a subject, the first was during a lengthy discussion on the OA, and now on the KA. I will respond to this last post and then leave you and your absurdities alone.

For one, whether it is possible that God exists is not relevant to the ontological argument, only the modal ontological argument- and the standard ontological argument is invalid and only establishes the conditional, as I said before, that IF God exists THEN he exists necessarily. Second, you continue to betray your absolute unfamiliarity with logic- sort of a prerequisite for this subject-matter, unfortunately- validity does not apply to concepts, but to arguments- a "valid concept" makes no more sense than a "neurotic triangle". What you mean to say is that it is not self-contradictory- it is coherent. But even that is highly contentious, and likely depends on how one defines God in the first place.

First of all, this is a clever attempt to get off subject. No one is discussing the “standard ontological argument”. We’ve never even discussed that version, so why you are bringing it up as if I made reference to it is beyond me. Second, however you define “valid” is up to you, that has no barren over whether or not the concept of God is logically coherent or not. That is what you need to deal with to refute the argument.

I have already pointed this out to you a number of times, but I'm not sure you understood it since you apparently have very little understanding of modal logic- there are many modal logics, and these are distinguished by having slightly different axioms/rules of inference. And in all modal systems weaker than S4, "<>[]P->P" is not included as an axiom, which renders the modal ontological argument formally invalid.

All possible necessary truths must be possibly necessarily true in all possible worlds. And if it is possibly necessarily true in all possible worlds, there must be at least one world that it is necessarily true in, and if it is necessarily true in one world, it must be true in all worlds. I don’t know what part of this you don’t understand. There is nothing you can say that can change this fact.

And Plantinga's version of the argument rests on a bait and switch between logical possibility and epistemic possibility (i.e. the equivocation is on the term "possibly").

How so?

No, it wouldn't have to be a naturalistic explanation- although naturalistic explanations would not be logically ruled out either. The point is that God's existence would not be logically implied, even if it would undoubtedly become more probable- nevertheless "Jesus rose from the dead and God does not exist" is NOT a logical falsehood, so the inference is non-sequitur.

Cmon now, lets be serious here. Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? If Jesus rose from the dead, he either rose naturally, or supernaturally. Those are the only two options. Are you postulating that Jesus could have risen naturally from the dead? If so, why can’t anyone else rise naturally from the dead? If not, then his Resurrection was a supernatural occurrence. Either way, you have problems. If Jesus rose from the dead, and God does not exist, how did he rise??

As a matter of fact, this is my last post to you. I just can’t keep responding to stuff like this.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Do you agree that it is possible that there can be an invisible magic Unicorn spreading untangible essence around the universe and stops by here every thursday because he enjoys Hotpockets?

Ok, I will play along. Answer the following questions for me...this unicorn;

1. Is it ominpresent
2. Is it ominipotent
3. Is it omnibenevolent
4. Is it ominiscient
5. Is it immaterial
6. Did it create the universe

Of course I see where you are going with this, and these are trick questions, and I am already letting you know that you will fall right into the trap even before it happens

So go ahead, answer those questions how you see fit.

If it is not of this universe and has attributes that don't necessarily require it to follow the laws of our universe then logically it doesn't mean its impossible.

By your next step of reasoning it means that it is possible, therefore it has to exist in a scenario somehwere. And if it exists anywhere it has to exist everywhere. Therefore the invisible magic unicorn that spreads its juicy untangible essence everywhere that comes to visit on Thursdays to eat Hot pockets has to exist.

Checkmate Atheist.

Not so fast. Before you have your victory celebration, please answer the questions above. Go ahead, pick a card :beach:

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Invalid on what grounds?

Oh dear... If your argument requires an additional premise or sub-argument for the conclusion to follow necessarily, then your argument is not, as it stands, logically valid.

Well when you find out what this other “thing” is, holla at me.

I'm not required to. The argument you're advancing is a deductive argument concluding that God exists- that means it must be logically impossible for the premises to be true, and the conclusion false; in other words, it must be logically false for the premises of the KA to be true and for something other than God be the first cause.

Historically failed? Baseless assertion.

Not really, most analysts have agreed that the standard arguments, including those of WLC, against an infinite regress, either fail to prove the point or beg the question.

If it was more than one that would fall right into the absurdity that you have been stuck in all alone.

You simply use the word "absurdity" to label any conclusion opposed to your own. Unfortunately, when we use this term in a logical context, what we mean is "contradictory", not "weird". Simply stating that something is an absurdity is not a counter-argument; if it is absurd, then derive a contradiction and show us where.

The point is, one uncaused cause is NECESSARY if we are to remain coherent.

Begging the question...

Baseless assertion.

Not really; prima facie, an eternal and uncaused cause is counter-intuitive, novel, and absurd, in the same sense that you use the term "absurd". But I, unlike you, don't need to rely on claiming that something seems weird- I have plenty of other counter-arguments at my disposal, because the KA is logically unsound.

It is a misinterpretation of contemporary physics, yet there are all these wacky cosmological models that are postulated to give a naturalistic explanation for the ORIGINS of our universe??? Hmmmm.

Righ; "wacky cosmological models" which are merely hypotheses- neither established nor discredited- about something accepted physics doesn't speak to; what happened prior to the Big Bang.

Instead of mentioning the philosophical errors in the Hartle/Hawking universe...

Because A. you can't and B. "philosophical errors" don't refute a genuine scientific hypothesis

... I will just mention the fact that you’ve just contradicted yourself in the quotation above this one.

But you wont- or can't, rather- say how or where I've contradicted myself.

This is the second time you’ve blatantly contradicted yourself on a subject, the first was during a lengthy discussion on the OA, and now on the KA

Just like you won't- or can't, rather- say how or where I've contradicted myself here either.

I will respond to this last post and then leave you and your absurdities alone.

Translation: My argument is overmatched, and rather than entertain the possibility I'm mistaken, I'm going to tuck tail and run once more.

First of all, this is a clever attempt to get off subject. No one is discussing the “standard ontological argument”. We’ve never even discussed that version, so why you are bringing it up as if I made reference to it is beyond me.

You failed to specify "modal" ontological argument in your first post, so I addressed both the standard OA and the MOA, just to cover all the bases. You're welcome.

Second, however you define “valid” is up to you, that has no barren over whether or not the concept of God is logically coherent or not.

No, it isn't- validity is a technical concept in logic. It is the relation that holds between the premises and conclusion of an argument (i.e. when the conclusion "follows", or is "entailed" by the premises such that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false). We don't get to redefine key technical terms to suit our own purposes- although that you would think this explains quite a few of the problems with your argument.

All possible necessary truths must be possibly necessarily true in all possible worlds. And if it is possibly necessarily true in all possible worlds, there must be at least one world that it is necessarily true in, and if it is necessarily true in one world, it must be true in all worlds. I don’t know what part of this you don’t understand. There is nothing you can say that can change this fact.

I understand your argument, it simply is irrelevant. It is is simply a fact that no modal system weaker than S5 includes the axiom in question (i.e. that "if it is possibly necessary that X then X"), and if it is not an axiom, the inference is not allowed, and the argument is formally invalid. Moreover, there isn't a sensible argument for adopting an S5 system in this context since this inference makes no conceptual sense- that there is some possible world such that X is true in all possible worlds? If X is true in all possible worlds, then X is true in SOME possible world (clearly), but what does it even mean to be "true in all possible worlds in some possible world"?

How so?

He introduces the premise that it is (epistemically) possible that God exists, then later refers to the premise that it is (logically) possible that God exists. Without this equivocation, the argument is hopelessly unsound.

Cmon now, lets be serious here. Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? If Jesus rose from the dead, he either rose naturally, or supernaturally. Those are the only two options. Are you postulating that Jesus could have risen naturally from the dead?

I don't think anyone rises from the dead, PERIOD. But IF someone did rise from the dead, I can't rule out, out of hand, that this occurs by some hitherto unknown natural mechanism. Ruling this out would require omniscience.

Either way, you have problems. If Jesus rose from the dead, and God does not exist, how did he rise??

Even if we suppose it is a supernatural occurance, this still doesn't get you where you want to go; there could be supernatural occurences which are not of the Christian theistic variety- perhaps God does not exist, but spirits and demons do, and some demon possessed Christ's body and animated it, appearing before the disciples and so on...

The point is, it is irrelevant how unlikely we think these options are, they are nevertheless logically possible.

As a matter of fact, this is my last post to you. I just can’t keep responding to stuff like this.

Not a bad idea. You're sort of in over your head. Its unfortunate that it looks like you failed to take advantage of an opportunity to learn something, in favor of dogmatically clinging to a sinking ship of a position.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Call_Of_The _Wild:
You've yet to respond to my refutations of the arguments you listed...
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3434080-post358.html

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Call_Of_The _Wild:
You've yet to respond to my refutations of the arguments you listed...
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3434080-post358.html

U can expect a response tomorrow good sir.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Some theists are exercising their faith, others had experiences and personal evidences.