Thursday, 21 April 2011

Do You Want to Convert an Atheist?

If you want to convert an Atheist your task should be simple. Atheists believe in evidence; our opinions are based on it and when the evidence changes, or we discover new evidence, we change our opinions. We have no sacred dogmas which can't be questioned; no tenets of 'faith' to which we must subscribe.

This should make us very easy to convert.

All you need is authenticated, incontrovertible evidence that your god exists and your evidence only needs to pass a few simple tests which, presumably, you believe it's already passed:

  • You will need to explain why your evidence is evidence ONLY for your god and not any other.  Since people have believed in over 3000 different gods in recorded human history, obviously you will need to show why your evidence couldn't be evidence for any of those.
  • You will also need to explain how a god is the ONLY possible explanation for your evidence and why it can't possibly be explained as the result of a natural process.
Now, since, presumably, you were convinced of your god's existence by just such evidence, it shouldn't be too difficult to tell us Atheists where it's to be found and how it meets the above criteria.

In your own time....

(p.s. Opinion isn't evidence and nor is a quote from a book unless the quote refers to authenticated, observable evidence meeting the above criteria).

[Later note] It seems many Creationists are unsure of what constitutes 'evidence' and imagine it includes ignorance and even the opinions of others. The following blogs may help them gain the necessary understanding to be able to use the above method:

http://anotheratheist.tumblr.com/post/4050923890
http://anotheratheist.tumblr.com/post/5524880161

(Thanks to @kaimatai on Twitter for providing these helpful link)

142 comments :

  1. It won't work. As A C GRayling commented - how would you really react if you were presented with a Monty Python sized hand with protruding forefinger aimed at your head descending from the clouds accompanied by a deep bass voice a la Paul Robeson that said "Ok, now do you believe ?"

    I'd suspect a psychotic episode.

    Supernatual evidence fails on two counts either in the performance (a natuarlistic explanation is available) or in the observation (I could be going quietly insane).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hence peer reveiwed evidence

      Delete
  2. So why not go for real evidence instead of 'supernatural evidence', which is, incidentally a contradiction in terms?

    How come the 'conclusive' evidence which religious people claim is so elusive?

    ReplyDelete
  3. 'supernatural evidence' is simply shorthand for evidence for the supernatural as opposed 'natural evidence' which is evidence for the natural.

    To me, evidence is evidence. The key point is what caused the evidence ?

    Theists must contend, as you've said in the OP, that in order to prove that their God exists the evidence must only have a supernatural cause, and not a possible natural one. I don't think it matters at all which of the 3000 Gods is officially claiming responsibility.

    It's an impossible position for any and all of them.

    If the event causing the evidence is not witnessed first hand then a naturalistic cause cannot be dismissed.

    If the event causing the evidence is witnessed first hand then the observer having a delusion cannot be dismissed.

    So, for a theist to contend that the evidence for the supernatural is conclusive is question begging ie why is the cause exclsuively supernatural and why is the observer not having a delusion ?

    Thus when an an atheist is asked the question 'what evidence would convince you that God exists' the correct and honest answer to give is 'none'.

    Consider a witness being given the winning lottery numbers for the next 52 draws by God - would that be acceptable evidence ?

    Consider an in-patient at a mental hospital winning the lottery for the next 52 draws - would that be acceptable evidence too ?

    Of course - noone has done either, but there are cases of multiple Lottery wins in non-consecutive draws so technically it's possible.

    Just my tuppenceworth.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the point of whether it matters which of the 3000 gods the 'evidence' supports, I think it matters to the person trying to convert an Atheist which god he/she is being persuaded to believe in. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony.. A rabbi, a priest and an imam are trying to convince you by summoning Abraham, in which they ALL believe.. As they are praying like the madman they are the clouds in the sky vaporize and there stands a big golden cat.. Bastet has come..

      The look on their faces? Priceless!!!

      My own sanity? Gone forever...

      Delete
  5. On the old Richard Dawkins forums, there was a thread collecting all of the known gods. They came to a number above 5200, iirc.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Come, come, now Felix. Let's not make things too difficult for them. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ Rosie:

    "On the point of whether it matters which of the 3000 gods the 'evidence' supports, I think it matters to the person trying to convert an Atheist which god he/she is being persuaded to believe in. :-) "

    If the argument were that simple life would be much easier :-)

    The argument seems to go along the lines of

    1) get the unbeliever to accept the existance of an ideal or generic God
    2) then get the unbeliever to believe in your God.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm glad you wrote this article. Now I can prove to the world that my religion of Xialuthianism is true. Here's my evidence:

    One day I was walking down the road and I saw a tree, I cut the tree down and inside I saw the words "Xialuthu Exists". I was a staunch atheist at the time so I went home and searched up Xialuthu and found that he did actually exist and was also the god of the universe. So I went back to the tree and the text had changed to "I told you". I was shortly joined by 3 or 7 Unicorns and we ate some hot cross buns and had a game of football.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, at least that's no less plausible than some of the 'evidence' presented to us in books such as the Bible. Perhaps you should write it in a book and include the words, "This book is the holy and inerrant word of Xialuthu". That sort of 'evidence' seems to be enough to convince many people.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think there is another problem though, the reason I cannot possibly be convinced that the Christian God exists, or many similar other gods, is that there already should have been some proof/evidence. Suddenly if prayers were being answered and a study showed that, it wouldn't change the fact that prayers weren't answered for such a long time before. Etc. that's why aliens, a Matrix type scenario, or simply "I must be insane" would all be more likely than the Christian God, even if we were "talking" to him face-to-face and seeing him performing miracles.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There is always that. The whole notion is so absurd that insanity is a more plausible explanation of any 'evidence' than it being evidence of a god.

    But surely, those who claim to be convinced of their god's existence were convinced of it by evidence... er... weren't they?

    After all, the alternative explanation for their belief is delusion, and they always vigorously deny that...

    ReplyDelete
  12. The most reasonable people who believe in religions/god are brainwashed/convinced that "everyone" believes it so it must be true. XD I think. Or they're clinging to Pascal's Wager because they've never heard the MANY obvious objections to it. Otherwise they're just denying the obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Pascal's Wager, of which Pascal should be ashamed, only works with the false dichotomy fallacy. If one allows the possibility of any god, or any other idiotic notions anyone has, or could ever dream up, then the wager collapses, since the probability of YOUR favourite god being the right one is infinitely small and far less likely than there being no god at all.

    And of course, what you lose with Pascal's Wager is a life free from fear and superstition, in exchange for a vanishingly small probability of your guess being correct and a far larger one of it being wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pascal's Wager I'm sure worked best BEFORE the internet, before airplanes and cars and things that made people of different religions interacting way more common and easy. The fact that Christians marry Jews and have kids in the USA all the time, and the kids see that it's not just "God or no God" but "religion #1 vs. religion #2 vs. my next door neighbor's other religion and oh some people are atheists?" means that more and more kids are non-religious.

    The trend is only likely to keep increasing as fear/bigotry towards atheists/agnostics/Jews/people of other religions and cultures dies down and more and more people are exposing their children from a very young age to multiple types of belief or lack thereof. As soon as it becomes obvious that not "everyone" believes in "something" (religious that is), many more closeted, confused doubters who don't understand why they don't see the god that is so obvious to everyone around them will finally understand what I came to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It's funny you say this, but not even secular science lives up to the standards you have set forth here. Using the very same model which you have presented here, I would like for you to prove to me that there are other galaxies in our universe (An alleged photograph won't cut it as it could have been fabricated, or taken from a different universe for all I know). Actually, go ahead and prove that you exist. Maybe you're just an advanced form of "clever bot", an artificial intelligence posting pre-programmed responses and adapting to the people posting back. By the standards you have laid out here, practically nothing is provable. That's the problem with most of your posts. They lack substance. All of your "incredulous" questions may be answered with simple answers. You merely pose them in a way that makes it difficult for certain people to respond in a reasonable way (I'm not one of them. I'd be happy to expose the gaps in any of your supposed "concrete" logic).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We can see other galaxies; measure them and even predict their movements. In astrophysics we use instruments and tools built to look into deep space and, not only detect with light in the visible spectrum, but infrared and many other frequencies. These tools are not built to show us galaxies; they are built to catch light that has traveled billions of light-years. The fact that we find these other galaxies is only an effect of the intended purpose. This is objective evidence. You will see the same thing if you look into a telescope as I would looking into the same telescope. The evidence does not change according to how you feel about it or what you believe. The evidence just is. Every condition she listed is met by all universally held (in their respective fields) scientific beliefs; including, but not limited to, GALAXIES, stars, evolution, gravity, heliocentric theory, etc... Your refusal to see the evidence does not make it disappear.

      Show me a God that has even a fraction of this amount of objective evidence.
      And please do not presume you know the evidence we have for the existence such things when you have probably never even watched a discovery channel special on it. Your remark about photographs was quite amusing.

      Delete
  16. LOL! I don't know about other people but I love it when religious people use a computer to post a message on the Internet telling me science has got it all wrong.

    When it's an excuse for their acute difficulty with reality it makes it all the more amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  17. RR in the OP: "We have no sacred dogmas which can't be questioned.."

    I question this assertion. Surely you accept naturalism, that is, that only natural causes are allowed?

    The rest of the sentence, "..no tenets of 'faith' to which we must subscribe." claims faith is not applied, implying it is also not allowed, which then is another dogma which cannot be questioned.

    You claim before that, "Atheists believe in evidence; our opinions are based on it and when the evidence changes, or we discover new evidence, we change our opinions." This appears again to be a sacred dogma, namely that evidence only will be allowed, and thus faith is ineligible as an argument. You state later in your OP, "Now, since, presumably, you were convinced of your god's existence by just such evidence.." again that only evidence, not faith, is considered.

    Your presuppositions thus expose the error of your claim of not having any 'sacred dogmas'.

    ReplyDelete
  18. PB: "Supernatual evidence fails on two counts either in the performance (a natuarlistic explanation is available) or in the observation (I could be going quietly insane)."

    Why does a supernatural explanation have to be secondary to a natural explanation? Your option of insanity explaining an apparent supernatural explanation pushes supernatural explanations even further down in preference. Do you see this is a presupposition, a philosophical choice you've made?

    ReplyDelete
  19. PB: "..Monty Python sized hand.."

    Indeed! There were people who, according to the Bible, were eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection, yet they doubted. Clearly, evidence alone, the premise in the OP, cannot convince people.

    ReplyDelete
  20. RR: "But surely, those who claim to be convinced of their god's existence were convinced of it by evidence... er... weren't they?

    After all, the alternative explanation for their belief is delusion, and they always vigorously deny that..."

    This is the fallacy of false dilemma. Your claim is that only two explanation exist, either evidence or delusion. By this you expose your sacred dogma again, that faith is disallowed, and that only evidence is valid.

    ReplyDelete
  21. RR: "LOL! I don't know about other people but I love it when religious people use a computer to post a message on the Internet telling me science has got it all wrong."

    This is the fallacy of equivocation. You equate operational science, which deals with current phenomena, and thus can be observed and experimented on, and which resulted in technology like computers and the Internet, with origins science, which is the explanation of how life and the universe came to exist. The latter is the question you posed in the OP, about the existence of God, ie., a supernatural origin.

    To claim one must not accept the fruits of operational science if one does not accept a purely natural explanation for the past is illogical.

    ReplyDelete
  22. LOL! I don't know about other people, but I love it when secular laymen act like they know more about science than actual scientists. Benjamin Franklin, Isaac Newton, Leonardo DaVinci, Thomas Edison all believed in God, just to name a few. Religion does not defy science it defines it.
    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stupid cannot be argued with. Forget my last response. I'm sorry I assumed you were intelligent.

      Delete
    2. Greg

      Do you not have any scientists who agree with your superstition from the 20th Century or later or is it only the ones who believed Earth stood at the centre of a very small universe which was just a few thousand years old and who didn't know about natural selection as a more plausible explanation of apparent design than magic and a magic man in the sky?

      Delete
    3. Are you asking Greg to "appeal to popularity"? So what if a million of scientists disagreed with him. Does that make his position untrue? Joe Rogan just had on his show 4, FOUR, Ph.D Scientists in their respective fields that actually are convinced that bigfoot is real. How do you know their reasoning is valid? Peer Review?

      "The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities." ~http://bit.ly/3gUcsN

      Delete
    4. The question I asked Greg can be read in er... my question.

      I assume you aren't trying to get away with the daft idea that, if a few scientists agree with you, and a few scientists believe stupid things, and that a few dishonest scientists manage to cheat the peer-review process like a couple of Discovery Institute frauds did recently that that means all scientists are wrong apart from those few who agree with you.

      That would be stretching credulity beyond breaking point even though it might fool a few people who still need imaginary friends and find joined-up thinking problematic.

      Delete
    5. By the way, Dan, I don't suppose you have the courage to deal with the subject of the blog and meet the challenge it presents, do you? You know - evidence and all that stuff?

      Delete
  23. Thanks Rod. To summarise then, you think Atheists should believe in your favourite god because they can't trust reality, especially since there must be something wrong with it when it isn't what you need for your 'faith' to be true.

    And, we should accept that reality might not exist, so we should believe in a creator of it and that it's your favourite god, and not worry ourselves about the lack of evidence.

    Will you soon be dealing with the problem of showing why it's your particular god and not some other one, or why your evidence-free 'evidence' can't have a natural explanation?

    Are you a theologian by any chance? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi Greg.

    It's always nice to see that old Einstein fallacy brought out, dusted off and given another airing.

    Here's a link to it's refutation in Einstein's own words, and in his own hand, so you can avoid making the same mistake again:

    http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.html

    You'd have thought somone who claims to be so versed in the opinions of 'actual scientists' would have been aware of it... hmm...

    Any chance of attempting to convert an Atheist using the honest method outlined above, BTW?

    ReplyDelete
  25. RR: "Thanks Rod. To summarise then, you think Atheists should believe in your favourite god because they can't trust reality, especially since there must be something wrong with it when it isn't what you need for your 'faith' to be true."

    Actually, I did not make even close to that very condescendingly phrased assertion. I was focused on addressing your fallacious assertions about your claimed "honest method" in the OP.

    However, if we are going to address this issue, please explain to me how, if our senses came about through purely undirected random change over time, they can be considered basically reliable? On what rational basis do you consider your memory to be basically reliable, since it too in your worldview is the result of undirected random change? On what basis can you expect that the various laws and constants in our universe will be the same today and tomorrow as they were in the past, if they are the result of undirected random processes?

    ReplyDelete
  26. RR: "And, we should accept that reality might not exist, so we should believe in a creator of it and that it's your favourite god, and not worry ourselves about the lack of evidence."

    I never said there was no evidence. I only said evidence would not convince anyone. You claim there is no evidence, but this is the fallacy of equivocation. It is not the evidence alone which appears to support microbes to man evolution, it is an interpretation of the evidence from a microbes to man evolutionary presupposition which makes it appear to support it. Likewise, to be fair, largely the very same evidence, interpreted from a creation presupposition, appears to support creation. This is why evidence alone will not convince anyone of creation and that God exists.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Rod. If you were hoping for a free education you've come to the wrong place. Since there are very many excellent books on biology which include sections on evolution, very many books on evolution itself, and a vast number of web sites dealing with evolution, I can only assume your ignorance of it is either willful or feigned, so any request for imformation is disingenuous at best and bogus at worst.

    Either way, I'm not about to wast my time trying to educate someone who cleary doesn't want to be educated.

    Please confine yourself to the subject of the blog in future. Obvious attempts to divert the discussion simply highlight your difficulty with it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. RR: "Will you soon be dealing with the problem of showing why it's your particular god and not some other one.."

    This is not an area where I have personally studied. I take the expert word of those who have studied it when they say that all other religions besides Christianity to not be "philosophically defensible, each of them being internally incoherent or undermining human reason and experience."
    http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf page 38

    "..or why your evidence-free 'evidence' can't have a natural explanation?"

    The second law of thermodynamics makes it clear that order does not come out of chaos even when energy is applied. Energy requires direction.

    The first law of thermodynamics shows that matter and energy cannot be created, so a purely natural cause for the Big Bang is unscientific.

    "Are you a theologian by any chance? :-) "

    No I am not. Are you a person who is impressed by credentials, that this would make a difference in how you treat my arguments?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Rod.

    >This is not an area where I have personally studied. I take the expert word of those who have studied it <

    So your 'evidence' is that someone said it was true. And that convinces you?

    >The second law of thermodynamics makes it clear that order does not come out of chaos even when energy is applied.<

    It's a pity that you never checked. Had you done so you would see that that only applies in a closed system. It is perfectly permissable locally in an open system.

    >Energy requires direction.<

    Indeed, and gravity supplies exactly that direction.

    >The first law of thermodynamics shows that matter and energy cannot be created, so a purely natural cause for the Big Bang is unscientific.<

    Unfortunately this is untrue also. Since gravity is the direct oposite of the other three forms of engy and exactly balances them out, the sum total of energy in the universe is zero. Any reading of scientific books on the BB theory would have told you that.

    Strangely, you seem to see nothing wrong with quoting the opinion of 'experts' that your god is the only one and all others are false, even though you don't know why, and claiming this as 'evidence', yet you dismiss the opinion of the very many experts in cosmology who tell you the BB is not only possible but fully consistent with the first law of thermodynamics with the wave of a hand. And likewise you've ignored all the experts on chaos and cosmology who tell you order is an emergent property of chaos acting under gravity.

    I wonder if you can shed any light on this strange inconsistency.

    My advice is to learn some real science and not simply regurgitate the traditional parody sciences dished up by creationist scientists to sell you their books.

    It might work on creationists but your task here is to convert Atheists who are often well versed both in real science and in the creationst parodies of it.

    Better luck next time.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Rosa: "So your 'evidence' is that someone said it was true. And that convinces you?"

    I accept the expertise of someone else, yes. I am willing to even call that faith in their expertise if this is the point you're going for. Do you claim to only accept evidence you have personally experienced, or do you accept conclusions others have made as true as well?

    Rod: "Energy requires direction."

    Rosa: "Indeed, and gravity supplies exactly that direction."

    How exactly does gravity supply direction to the assembly of information in DNA? How does gravity, in any example, provide direction toward greater complexity? Gravity instead provides direction toward sameness, that is, it tends to pull things that are higher in a gravity well down, removing the stored (kinetic) energy in it.

    Rod: "The first law of thermodynamics shows that matter and energy cannot be created, so a purely natural cause for the Big Bang is unscientific."

    Rosa: "Unfortunately this is untrue also. Since gravity is the direct oposite of the other three forms of engy and exactly balances them out, the sum total of energy in the universe is zero. Any reading of scientific books on the BB theory would have told you that."

    This is a new one to me alright, and I have studied material on thermodynamics and also the big bang. My understanding is that the amount of energy in the universe is constant, but have never encountered this claim that the net energy is zero before. You're not confusing Newtonian laws of motion with laws of thermodynamics, are you? Perhaps you could provide a link that elucidates on this information? I have googled on this just now and found nothing.

    Rosa: "Strangely, you seem to see nothing wrong with quoting the opinion of 'experts' that your god is the only one and all others are false, even though you don't know why, and claiming this as 'evidence', yet you dismiss the opinion of the very many experts in cosmology who tell you the BB is not only possible but fully consistent with the first law of thermodynamics with the wave of a hand. And likewise you've ignored all the experts on chaos and cosmology who tell you order is an emergent property of chaos acting under gravity."

    I cannot say I have encountered experts who claim there is no issue between the Big Bang and the first law of thermodynamics before. I cannot in fact say I've ever seen a big bang expert who said anything at all about this. e first law of thermodynamics. From what I have seen it has been as if it's a taboo subject. I have had, however, a good amount of non-experts, in various debates, claim there is no issue here when I've brought it up, but none have ever made the claims you have here before. Everyone up to now, at best, have simply made pronouncements that there is no issue without detailing why. They, in fact, have been the ones dismissing my arguments with a wave of a hand.

    Rosa: "I wonder if you can shed any light on this strange inconsistency."

    This is the fallacy of false dilemma. Why do you think it is inconsistent to accept the expertise of only certain people? Do you think consistency then would be to accept the expertise of everyone? The expertise of the two that you have put in your false dilemma are not even on the same issue, let alone on different sides of it.

    Rosa: "It might work on creationists but your task here is to convert Atheists who are often well versed both in real science and in the creationst parodies of it."

    You assume that I have actually accepted the task you assigned in your OP, which I have not. I think what you ask is impossible to do. My task is to expose the fallacies. In the midst of this interaction I do expect to continue to learn, but probably not what you would like me to learn (ie., come to accept as true).

    ReplyDelete
  31. Very clever response Rosa :) However, please allow me to clarify that I, in no way, asserted myself as being any sort of expert on scientists, their personal beliefs, or their quotes. It doesn't take an expert to know that the men I listed above all believed in God. If you will note, Herr Einstein was not listed, merely quoted. While Einstein may have had mixed feelings on the subject, many others did and do not, and I, personally, believe that his quote still rings true (whether he believed it throughout his whole life or not). My point being that there are many people out there who firmly believe in science as well as God, and I am one of them. Believing in one does not by default negate the other. In fact my knowledge of science only serves to further my belief. I would, also, like to clarify that it is not my intention to convert anyone who does not seek conversion. I am not so arrogant as to think that I am able to change the minds or hearts of men. God, in His infinite wisdom, instructed us that it is He and He alone has this ability. All we may do is share what we know and what we have experienced in hopes of uplifting those around us. However, I would be more than happy to see you use the method you have outlined to enlighten me on what exactly brought about the existence of energy and matter in our universe. Or, for that matter, (referring to my first post) I'd be happy to see you prove to me that galaxies exist outside of our own, or even that you exist, using your "completely scientific" method(<-- Please note the excessive sarcasm). I think we both know that your method is unscientific and invalid.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" -Carl Sagan
    Perhaps you can dig up some dusty old letter where HE recants THAT statement. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  32. Do You Want to Convert a Christian?

    If you want to convert a Christian your task should be simple. Merely explain how energy and matter were brought into our universe (using factual science). If ANY Atheist can successfully do this, I WILL FORSAKE MY CHRISTIAN FAITH. This is no joke. I give you all my word.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Greg.

    BTW, I noticed you haven't tried the honest method for converting Atheists which I outlined above.

    Have you completely ruled it out as impracticable now you know the Creationist parodies of science don't work on an educated audience?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Greg.

    Great. I'm pleased it's that simple as it shows an honesty and open-mindedness rare in fundamentalists.

    My blog "What makes you so special" outlines how it happened and there are several good books giving much greater detail. I can recommend "Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and almost anything by Richard Feynman, especially on his "Sum over Histories" model of quantum theory. Other books you might like are "Eveyone's Guide to Science" by John Gribben and "A brief History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson (Both written fior the lay reader).

    When will you go public and announce your conversion to Atheism (though the correct term is deconversion, of course)?

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'm sorry Rosa, maybe you're having difficulty understanding the things which I am saying (or maybe you're, just, not a very good reader). Allow me to reiterate (that means to repeat what's has already been said or done). I have asked you to prove how energy and matter came into existance. I asked this because we know that they cannot be created, and it is impossible that they could have always existed. You have merely reffered me to a handful of theories speculating how the UNIVERSE came to be, based on the preexistance of energy and matter as a singularity. Singularity or not energy and matter must still obey the laws of physics. You have neither supplied any information which I have not already heard, nor have you given me the explanation I am looking for. It would appear as if you are avoind the question. Furthermore, I will, once again, say that I have no intention of attemting to convert anyone who does not have the capacity to understand that which is undefinable by physical science (i.e. conscience, regret, "soul"), using your outlined method or any other. I guess you didn't understand me the first time. I, suppose, I must also repeat myself in challenging you to use your own method to prove to me things that we both know exist (specifiaclly, other galaxies, and yourself). You appear to be avoiding this as well. I must, therefore, presume that it is because you are fully aware of the fallacious nature of your "method". Now, I will do what you cannot...

    ReplyDelete
  36. We understand that energy cannot be created (likewise it is impossible for them to have always existed) according to the laws of physics. Many scientists speculate various theories for the existance of the universe, but none of them have a feasible explanation for the paradox which is the creation of energy and matter. The only POSSIBLE explanation is that some force at some point had the ability to act outside of the definable laws of physics and was able to bring time and space into existance. We have observable evidence that there are things which do act outside the definable realm of known physical science. A few examples are electrons, relativity in general, or the simple bumble bee. So, it is conclusive that such a force either exists or did exist at some point. As, we know that space and time are one and were brought into existance in conjunction, it is apparent that whatever force was able to bring about their creation, obviously, does not exist inside of time or physical space. Therefore we can varify three main facts. First, time and space can only exist if there exists a force which is not ruled by physical law and has the ability to create energy and matter. Keeping things scientific we will refer to this forcwe as "Force X" or "Fx". Second, because this force exists outside of time, it is eternal and must always exist (It is unchanged and undefined by time). Third, "Fx" does not exist in our own physical realm, therefore, it must exist in an alternate realm (or in the very least a dimension outside of the four which we can define scientifically). We will call this "Realm Y" or "Ry". Now, at this point i have not established anything about "Fx" or "Ry", merely that they must exist. Whatever you might believe "Fx" to be, I call it "God", and whatever you choose to believe about "Ry", I choose to call it the "spiritual realm" (as it is intrinsically not physical). Before, I move on to the only remaining part of your ludicrous "method" (proving that "Fx" is my God and defined by my particular beliefs), I will, once again, clarify that conversion is in no way my intention here. I am sharing gained knowledge, that is all. At this point I'm going to allow you to catch up before moving on. Please feel free to prove to me that you exist and that other galaxies exist using authenticated, observable evidence. No photographs, as they are unrelieable and easily fabricated. I will accept scientific evidence proving that you/they must exist or I will have to see you/them in person. (That's esentially the same as what your "method" proposes). Until you can accomplish that, I will continue to accept the fact that your method is utter nonsense, and that you, as its creator, lack a fundamental understanding of science. (Not really, but it makes for a dramatic post XD)

    ReplyDelete
  37. Greg.

    Goodness! I seem to have provoked a regression into infantile mode.

    However, to deal with the excuses you're now throwing up:

    I've provided the evidence you requested and pointed you to books and reference material, all of which will explain it to you. All these sources will detail other reference material including original peer-reviewed papers.

    I'm sorry you made a promise you can't keep but I doubt many people expected you to, least of all yourself. After all, anyone who lacks the honesty to himself read any science which might shake his 'faith' is scarecely going to be honest with other people.

    BTW, Your demand that science fill a gap in your understanding, otherwise your god did it, is an amusing example of three of the common fallacies Creationists fool themselves and try to fool others with.

    A shame you didn't heed my warning that you were dealing with an educated audience when trying to convert Atheists but most of us will have seen through them immediately.

    To be precise:

    1. The argument from personal incredulity fallacy. This assumes that if you can't understand something no one can and therefore it is unexplainable. This of course is utter nonsense.

    2. The god of the gaps fallacy. This has three fallacious components:

    a) If there IS a gap, science will NEVER be able to fill it.

    b) Whatever science can't explain MUST have been done by a god. This is the false dichotomy fallacy in it's own right since it assumes there are only two possible explanations, yet offers no reasons for that assumption.

    c) The god which did it MUST be my favourite god because that's the only one I believe in. There is of course no reason why it sould be your favourite god, even IF we ignore all the other fallacies for a moment and allow it was a god.

    3. There is no need to present any supporting evidence that your favourite god did it because your belief it did is sufficient evidence.

    Unfortunately, honest people don't fall for those fallacies, which is precisely why I spelled out what you need to do.

    YOU have to provide the evidence to support YOUR hypothesis. To reiterate:

    - it must show the authenticated evidence supporting it;

    - it must explain why it could ONLY have been your favourite god and no other;

    - it must explain why no natural explanation is or will ever be possible.

    Would you like to try again, bearing this honest method in mind or are we to have yet another rehearsal of the tired old Creationist fallacies and parody science, which I sure you've tried and failed with before and which you must be well aware have all been refuted long ago.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "A shame you didn't heed my warning that you were dealing with an educated audience when trying to convert Atheists but most of us will have seen through them immediately."

    Are you daft (jk)? I have made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that I have no intention of converting anyone. You, are choosing to ignore this as you are choosing to ignore the rest of my logically sound statements. Why do you choose ignorance, over knowledge? Let's just pretend that one of the texts you mentioned did in fact explain the creation of energy and matter (which they do not, you would know that if you had taken the time to read any of them). They would still be, merely, unproven theories. In that case the theory presenting an undefined force acting outside of physics is just as feasible, scientifically. I have neither proven this force to be God, nor have I proven that it even bears consciousness (yet). So, there is nothing unscientific or fallacious about it. It is a sound, logically deduced theory. Your quick dismissal of it shows that you are unwilling to accept or learn anything outside of what you have already convinced yourself to be true. I'm reminded of a time in history when secular science knew FOR CERTAIN that our galaxy was geocentric or when it was a GIVEN FACT that the earth was flat. In both instances it took a radical mind that loved science and firmly believed in God to expose the truth. You are just as blind as these men of old. You would do well to learn from the mistakes of the past. You are being blinded by bias, and decieved by your own ego. I am trying to exchange a difference of opinion back and forth between us in an attempt that we may both sharpen our wits (steel against steel and all that), and maybe even learn a little in the process. Unfortunately, you are being close-minded and a little bigoted. I am familiar with the information you have presented me. I am not "just dismissing it". I am aware of many theories of this sort, but i have yet to see one that explains THE CREATION of energy and matter. You, on the other hand, are completely dismissing the information i have presented because you don't "like it". In addition you have continued to belittle and insult me, as well as make assumptions about me based on experiences you have had with other "believers" in the past. I thrown a slight jab or two, but have always baked it up with a wink or some other sign to show that it's all in good fun or that I'm being sarcastic. Frankly, I find you arrogant and offensive. It seems obvious that you consider me unlearned and backward, and assume that my belief in God is based fully on blind faith and nothing else. It was my intention to show you that my faith in God is as fully backed in science as your lack thereof (faith in God that is), but I see that you cannot hear me. You continue to ignore things I am saying, responding only to that which appeals to you. If you do not wish to exchange knowledge with me on an equal and intellectual level, then I have no desire to continue this discourse with you. I hope that as you mature you will learn to open your mind to knew and different possibilities and thought processes. Good day and God bless (or whatever would be the appropriate Atheist equivalent of that statement).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're starting to sound idiotic. You are always asking, "If matter can't be created, where did it cone from?" The best answer, right now, is "we don't know." It's certainly the most honest one. Rosa is right on, you're acting out on the common fallacies most theists engage in when positing this question. Since matter can neither be created NOR DESTROYED (the part you so conveniently leave out) isn't it possible that the universe has ALWAYS existed in a perpetual state of expansion/contraction with no beginning and no ending? There are several variations of this theory but they all fundamentally follow the same pattern; either colliding m-branes in a higher dimensional space over and over or a series of big bangs followed by a series of big crunches stretching infinitely backwards and forwards in time. We really don't know, but these models have mathematics and evidence going for them. With all due respect if you don't know something, find out. Don't assume a supernatural explanation.

      Delete
    2. Absolutely, and well, said.

      In fact, this is just another version of the KCA with which William Lane Craig bamboozles his credulous audiences. Of course, if relies on the deception of assuming there is a class of things which don't begin to exist (and thus have no 'cause') into which proponents assign their preferred hobby-horse (usually a god) as the exclusive occupant with no justification other then the desire to beg the question. There is never any discussion over how this class of objects was arrived at nor why it should be restricted to just one, invariably supernatural and evidence-free, member.

      Delete
  39. Greg

    > I have made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that I have no intention of converting anyone. <

    In that case, I wonder what you're getting so hyterical about that you need to keep shouting.

    > I'm reminded of a time in history when secular science knew FOR CERTAIN that our galaxy was geocentric or when it was a GIVEN FACT that the earth was flat.<

    Er.. I think if you check, you'll find it was Judeo-Christianity which made those claims. You probbaly haven't heard of Gallileo and how he was persecuted as a heretic when he showed scientificaly that Christianity had got it wrong.

    But, hey! Why spoil a good rant with a nasty fact eh?

    You see, this is precisely why I have spelled out the honest way to convert Atheists. I'm afraid the dishonest method you're employing here just doesn't work on us. It's that old intellectual integrity and education thing. It keeps getting in the way of us swallowing all that bullshit.

    In answer to your opening question, no, clearly not. Sorry, but you need to better taylor your 'message' to your audience. Trickery and deception don't work on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I'm sorry, Rosa. It is completely apparent to me that you have absolutely no intention of speaking with me respectfully or as an intellectual equal. I'm sorry if my use of caps sounds loud to you. Personally, I can't audibly hear the difference between capital and lower case letters. I chose to use capital letters because you continue to ignore what I am saying. I will remind you that, not only, was Galileo deemed a heretic by the Roman-Catholic church, but was ousted by the whole scientific community. The fact does remain that Galileo himself was a Christian, and as far as the church is concerned might I remind you that the Roman-Catholic church was considered corrupt by many Christians and eventually brought about the Protestant revolution due to its unwillingness to adhere to what they(/we) consider Biblical truths. I see that you've chosen not to make a response to the earth being flat (still choosing ignorance I see). I do fully cherish good old intellectual integrity and education. It'd be nice if you possessed either of those qualities. You have not once through this entire debate responded to any of the "challenges" proposed to you. Obviously, you have no response. Your comments have merely consisted of putting me down and ignoring my attempts to reason with you. I must, therefore, conclude that you are clearly not the intellectual I thought you were. I will not return to this blog after this is posted. Your arrogance combined with intentional ignorance are beyound logical reasoning. If you DO respond I will never read or even see it... I wish this could have gone differently.

    ReplyDelete
  41. So,in your world, Galileo was a Christian being persecuted for heresy by science.

    Perhaps we are failing to agree because you live in a different world, where reality is dutifully obedient and becomes whatever you say and changes whenever the need arises, whilst I live in the real one.

    You'll be telling me you believe in myths and fables next....

    ReplyDelete
  42. Galileo was persecuted by the RC church of the time because of his arrogance, not because of his scientific views. The flat earth belief was not part of Hebrew beliefs, and thus was also not carried on into Christian beliefs. There were, of course, some compromisers who tried to reconcile the Bible with man's ideas, but that is not the same as saying it was standard dogma within the RC church.

    "Many critics of creationists attempt to malign by suggesting that what creationists teach is akin to belief in a flat Earth. This attack is easy to refute, because the Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat, and virtually no one in the history of the church taught this. In fact, the belief in a flat Earth is a 19th century myth that was concocted to discredit critics of Darwinism. "
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp

    ReplyDelete
  43. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claims that gravity provides the necessary directing force to cause an increase in complexity in order for microbes to man evolution to work.

    Meanwhile, I have some things to say regarding the fundamental scientific premise of cause and effect, as that applies to the discussion regarding how the matter/energy came about that became the big bang.

    The first law, the conservation of matter and energy, means matter remains constant and that matter and energy cannot create itself - it had to have had an external cause. Since no effect can be greater than the cause, that cause had to be transcendent to natural space and time: something supernatural by definition.

    For every effect there must be an adequate cause. No effect can be greater than the cause. This is fundamentally axiomatic to science. If cause and effect were not true then there is no such thing as science. The scientific method would be impossible to employ. If you don't believe in cause and effect relationships, how could you ever run an experiment?

    The Second law of thermodynamics says the universe is running down, eventually there will be no usable energy. Since the universe will have an end, it also had to have had a beginning.

    1 The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
    2 It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
    3 The universe therefore requires a cause.

    The First Cause of limitless Space must be infinite
    The First Cause of endless Time must be eternal
    The First Cause of boundless Energy must be omnipotent
    The First Cause of universal interrelationships must be omnipresent
    The First Cause of supreme Complexity must be omnicient
    The First Cause of Moral Values must be moral
    The First Cause of Spiritual values must be spiritual
    The First Cause of Human Responsibility must be volitional
    The First Cause of Human Integrity must be truthful
    The First Cause of Human Love must be loving
    The First Cause of Life must be living

    If evolution were true, it would seem incredible to me that barely literate Bronze Age sheep herders in the Middle East managed to include in the Bible without Divine direction all of these traits both stated and demonstrated without contradiction. It seems obvious to me that God does exist, and that He is living, loving, truthful, volitional, spiritual, moral, omnicient, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal and infinite, just as the Bible says, just as he demonstrates today, and just as science shows that He must be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "1 The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
      2 It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
      3 The universe therefore requires a cause."

      1: no. there is a point in the history of our universe which we can not extrapolate beyond, that doesn't mean we've 'shown' that the universe had a beginning.
      2: causality presumes temporality. if, (per no.1) time had a beginning, causality must have as well. can we presume, therefor, that causality itself must have a cause?
      3: IF the universe has a cause, you haven't demonstrated that a deity is the best possible definition.

      "The First Cause of limitless Space must be infinite
      The First Cause of endless Time must be eternal
      The First Cause of boundless Energy must be omnipotent
      The First Cause of universal interrelationships must be omnipresent
      The First Cause of supreme Complexity must be omnicient
      The First Cause of Moral Values must be moral
      The First Cause of Spiritual values must be spiritual
      The First Cause of Human Responsibility must be volitional
      The First Cause of Human Integrity must be truthful
      The First Cause of Human Love must be loving
      The First Cause of Life must be living"

      whoa whoa whoa, why? if a deity can be any/all of the above without having a 'cause', why must we invoke a deity to explain the occurrence of the above in our own universe?

      Delete
  44. Rod.

    Interesting re-write of history re the persecution of Galileo about which nothing more need be said since it doesn't relate to the real world.

    >I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claims that gravity provides the necessary directing force to cause an increase in complexity in order for microbes to man evolution to work.<

    Since I have never made that claim I have no need to substantiate it. Maybe you should substantiate your all to obvious need to use falsification as your modus operandum.

    Of course, as you know, the directing force for evolution is natural selection acting on random variance, as my blog makes abundantly clear to anyone who has read it.

    I'm sorry you felt unable to be honest. Maybe you should re-think your superstition so you needn't use falsehod to defend it in future.

    >If evolution were true, it would seem incredible to me<

    Fortunately, reality doesn't feel the need to meet your aproval nor to be take note of your personal incredulity.

    Maybe education would help if the prospect isn't too frightening for you, though it may, of course, harm your superstition and cause cognitive dissonance, which you probably discovered for yourself by now.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Loved the article (and now re-writing my comment from memory as Blogger seems to have lost it). You have great patience in responding to these comments.

    Greg's 'logically sound statements' were really much more like 'logical sounding statements' presented in a condescending way.

    Meanwhile Rod has taken to the tactics of pseudo-physics and is trying to bore us into submission by saying these things all over again as if they prove anything.

    Both of them might benefit from getting to a good library and reading something. That way they could learn fascinating truths instead of preaching twaddle at us.

    I see nobody has yet successfully responded to your initial reasonable challenge. That's a surprise!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Rosa,

    As we see it, we observe evidence all around us. The Atheist will say "Well, that is not evidence for God. Because I have another explanation for all of those things..."

    "In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism." ~Dr. Bahnsen

    >>Do You Want to Convert an Atheist?

    Not our job to. People do not convert people Rosa. You must keep in mind though that my argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands.

    ReplyDelete
  47. D.A.N.

    So you're not going to attempt the honest, evidence-based method then.

    As I said, people will understand.

    Have you read my blogs on the evolution of gullibility and on the phobia of religion? You might find they have some more answers you don't want either.

    ReplyDelete
  48. CONCEPT OF GOD
    Quran 2:255
    "Allah is He besides Whom there is no god, the Ever living, the Self-subsisting by Whom all subsist; slumber does not overtake Him nor sleep; whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His; who is he that can intercede with Him but by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they cannot comprehend anything out of His knowledge except what He pleases, His knowledge (throne) extends over the heavens and the earth, and the preservation of them both tires Him not, and He is the Most High, the Great."
    It is mentioned in Quran
    112:1 Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
    112:2 Allah is He on Whom all depend.
    112:3 He begets not, nor is He begotten. (It means neither He has parents nor he has children)
    112:4 And none is like Him.
    It is mentioned in Quran 13:16 “Allah is the creator of all things; and He is the One, the Irresistible.”
    The Arabic word used for The Creator in Glorious Quran is Khaliq. And the word Khaliq is derived from the word Khalaqa . And the Word Khalaq has got four meanings as follows
    - To Create Something from Nothing [ This is only possible for Allah ]
    - To Create Something New from pre-existing thing
    - Programming or planning
    - To make smooth
    One Can Call Allah with any beautiful name.
    Say: "Call upon Allah, or call upon Rahman: by whatever name ye call upon Him, (it is well): for to Him belong the Most Beautiful Names Quran 17:110
    Let me summarize here about Allah
    - Allah is ever living
    - Allah is one and only
    - Allah is he on whom all depend
    - None is like Him
    - Allah has no parents and no children
    - Allah is the creator of all things
    - Allah is most powerful and supreme etc.


    Let us analyze it here
    Can the Universe be considered as god?

    In the early period most of the humans considered the Earth as Superior to All. As the Stars and the moon was seem to be very small from our eyes. Even Few Humans considered themselves as superior to all. On the other hand, Scientists considered that the Universe is ever living. Few people worshiped Sky for the rains. The Question Arises Can the Universe or heaven be considered as god?

    Continue your reading at >>> http://twextra.com/amkqf6

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Click comes from Clack? Lightswitch? Interesting how that does fit as a metaphor.. This is undeniable proof of two things. First the writers were clairvoyant, divine if you will, because they have foreseen the light-switch. And also that they had an immense sense of humor. In programming terms (which again fits in nicely) we would call this an ... Easter-egg..

      OMG, I just vindicated the Quoran!

      Delete
    2. sorry, me again...

      "Few people worshiped Sky for the rains. "
      Correct.. only the Celts, the Vikings and most northern american native tribes and IIRC the aboriginals... But these don't count, these were/are barely 'people' right?

      Delete
  49. Unfortunately you appear to have posted a cut and paste from the Qur'an.

    Was this a mistake or have you really not bothered to read the challenge nor the links explaining what 'evidence' means?

    You have neither answered the challenge nor offered any evidence.

    Normally such blatant spamming of this blog with irrelevant, unsubstantiated quotes would be deleted, however, I've no doubt that you would then claim to have answered my challenge in full and that I have refused to make your triumph public.

    Therefore I will allow it to stand so people can see for themselves what passes for evidence with Islamic fundamentalism and how you've needed to completely avoid my challenge whilst publicly boasting about meeting it easily.

    No doubt they will draw their own conclusions about your honesty and the 'faith' which leads you to it.

    ReplyDelete
  50. As is typical of the religiose, in the absence of evidence they preach and proselytize. The misconception of evidence, or what constitutes evidence, is ubiquitous in religious communities out of necessity, else their faith (denial in the face of overwhelming evidence) collapses under the weight of said evidence. This thread exemplifies the continuance of that practice, but mostly it exemplifies the inability of the religiose to persuade those of us of an evidentiary bent of anything, least of all their opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Shah Alam.

    Your preaching has been removed. Please restrict your comments to the subject of this blog.

    Any further abuse of this blog will be similarly deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  52. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Greg, you may be interested, as Rosa noted, in "Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking. We have observed the spontaneous creation of matter from nothingness; it doesn't violate any laws because at the same time a particle is created, an antiparticle is also create. On the quantum level, the zero-energy state of nothingness is unstable, which I think is pretty awesome. These events are unlikely, but they happen. An even more unlikely event of spontaneous quantum fluctuation creating matter from nothing, notably an equal amount of matter and antimatter, would be the spontaneous creation of all the matter in the universe. As far as we know, that's only happened once. We call it the Big Bang.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @Rod: "include in the Bible without Divine direction all of these traits both stated and demonstrated without contradiction. "

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Go on Reddit, and go to the search bar. Type in Bible Contradiction of the Day. It's been going on for a while now.

    Also, I don't know why you assert everything must have a cause or a creator. We don't know for sure if it truly is impossible for matter to be created. There are incredibly difficult concepts that science has been discussing, such as matter and anti-matter. Anti-matter has been man-made in a vacuum. After anti-matter comes into contact with any matter, both the anti-matter and matter are destroyed.

    Science is slowly growing, and doesn't always know the answer. However, that doesn't mean that anything science can't explain right now is the work of god. If you can provide any evidence for God filling these holes of science, please bring it forward. I know evidence is hard for you guys, but as long as it's not opinion or an 'experience.'(I know you guys are going to argue about the nature of the human soul, but it has been shown that certain chemical reactions in the brain can actually cause hallucination. Therefore, it would be impossible to differentiate between a hallucination and a true experience with any deity)' I will consider your evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  55. These comments are hilarious. nice post by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Love how there is a muslim posting, as well as well as a christian. Would love to see them try to show us why their own god is the true one!

    ReplyDelete
  57. Andrew,

    >>Love how there is a muslim posting, as well as well as a christian. Would love to see them try to show us why their own god is the true one!

    I just hate how they do it now. I used to have a link that explained this, but its broken now.

    For us to see it now, you will have to click HERE and scroll to the very bottom to find in the far right column the title:

    "Does Allah = Yahweh?"

    And enjoy.

    Its a slam debunk.

    ReplyDelete
  58. D.A.N
    I might be wrong but I think Alan was alluding to the fact that both Christians and Muslims use identical arguments to prove their respective gods are real.

    Clearly, you can't both be right, but you can both be wrong, of course.

    Given you record of evasive sophistry and dishonesty here I've no doubt that you'll not want to deal with that problem. I expect you'll try to give the impression that you already have, or that it isn't a problem, however.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I would think there have been many more than 3000 gods invented by man in his long history. It has been estimated that some 100 billion human beings have ever lived. Most of those in small tribes each of which most likely had a pantheon of gods. There are undiscovered tribes in the amazon that no doubt have their own gods. I would think that there have been millions of gods that have come and gone that we have never even heard of.

    ReplyDelete
  60. As Dawkins has said, even if we accept that there must be a creator of life, the universe and everything that brings the theist exactly 0 steps closer to proving his own particular interventionist god, so don't even waste your time going there!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Rosa,

    How do you know your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?

    Part two of the question, Is it viciously circular to reason your reasoning is valid? If not, why not?

    Ok that is three, but who is counting?

    (Resume ducking - with obfuscation).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. D.A.N.

      Just found this in the spam folder. It seems even Google Blogger is recognising your unmitigated twaddle for what it is.

      Delete
    2. This is quite late to the party, but if you really want answers, YouTube user KnownNoMore has an excellent to your parroting of Sye Ten Bruggencate: http://youtu.be/hcDebJuWcww

      Delete
  62. Kyle, you are not justifying your ability to reason, you are telling us where you learned things. For the sake of this argument, I could not care less where you learned anything. I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid? Could you, for instance, be wrong about EVERYTHING that you know?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Rosa (since it was deleted),

    How do you know your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?

    Part two of the question, Is it viciously circular to reason your reasoning is valid? If not, why not?

    Ok that is three, but who is counting?

    (Resume ducking - with obfuscation).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We do experiments, D.A.N. and check it against reality. It's called 'science'.

      We find it more honest and with greater integrity than to do what you appear to do and just compare what we would like to be true with er... what we would like to be true, and then demand that other people defer to out greater wisdom.

      I hope that helps

      BTW, the only things of your which I deleted, as I recall, were things you insisted on the right to post here but which were either merely repetitious or had no bearing on the matter being discussed, and despite a warning that I would do so.

      The policy is set out very clearly below.

      Can I suggest that if you wish to post your thoughts on the Internet that you create your own blog and use that rather than just parasitising other people's efforts in the apparent belief that you are exempt from the normal rules of courtesy.

      Delete
    2. >>just compare what we would like to be true with er... what we would like to be true

      Is it viciously circular to reason your reasoning is valid? If not, why not?

      That aside, if "collective moral reasoning" as you're claiming were true, then "morality" is a relative term. Moral relativism is illogical. Here, we will demonstrate that by taking this point through its logical course.

      >>I hope that helps

      Not in the least. Of course you cannot agree to absolute truth, because of your worldview not allowing it, but is it absolutely false that there is no absolute truth?

      Something to think about.

      >>Can I suggest that if you wish to post your thoughts on the Internet that you create your own blog and use that rather than just parasitising other people's efforts in the apparent belief that you are exempt from the normal rules of courtesy.

      Done, It's called Debunking Atheists My newest post points to the fact that Atheism is indeed a religion, and the Atheists admit it, at least the honest one on the mount, giving his sermon. I digress.

      Delete
    3. D.A.N.

      I take it the idiocy of arguing that atheism is a religion and is therefore wrong is completely beyond your grasp?

      Delete
  64. Peer reviews, huh?

    "The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities." ~http://bit.ly/3gUcsN

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you remind us please of the process put in place by it's publishers to validate all the various claims in the Bible?

      I'd appreciate it if you actually dealt with this question this time instead of hiding your inability to do so in another heap of irrelevant verbiage.

      Many thanks.

      Delete
    2. >>Can you remind us please of the process put in place by it's publishers to validate all the various claims in the Bible?

      Sure, I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right? Its is through God's revelations, both natural and special, that I know He exists. How am I certain that the revelation is valid? Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it.

      Also, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.

      The revelation is not something you can escape. Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible you are still in the world of natural revelation. This just reminded me of something Bahnsen said.

      "Man was created as the image of God (Gen. 1:16-27) and thus cannot escape the face of God. There is no environment where man can flee to escape the revelational presence of God (Ps. 139:8). God’s natural revelation goes out to the end of the world (Ps. 19:1-4) and all people see His glory (Ps. 97:6). Therefore, even when living in open (idolatrous) rebellion, men are in the condition of “knowing God” (Rom. 1:21)—the living and true God, not merely “a god.” Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9), and so Calvin declares: For we know that men have this unique quality above the other animals, that they are endowed with reason and intelligence and that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light does not penetrate...the common light of nature, a far lowlier thing than faith (Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. T.H.L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1959)." ~Bahnsen, Greg; Booth, Robert (2011-03-03). Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith

      In other words, you know He exists and by crying "where is the evidence" is denying your own existence. Its absurd to reason with someone that is actually denying their own existence, all the while, demanding evidence for God.

      Delete
    3. D.A.N.

      Are we supposed to be impressed by your ability to not answer a simple question and the heap of verbiage you attempt to hide that fact under? It seems to be all you come here for.

      BTW, the subject of this blog is how to convert an atheist. The method is very simple and spelled out in terms a child should be able to follow.

      Are you ever going to pluck up the courage to try, or have you ruled it out as impracticable, what with needing evidence and honesty?

      Delete
    4. First of of all, my argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands. So I reject the premise of your post. People do not convert people, Rosa.

      Second, It's like an unarmed criminal mocking a policeman for not giving up his gun. The reason for the mockery is obvious, but surely it would be foolish for the cop to hand over his gun?

      "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." ~Proverbs 26:4-5

      "Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you." ~Matthew 7:6

      What you're asking is for us to do something that is unbiblical, which is understandable considering.

      BTW, the verses addresses your question to Christians. They are not used to preach to you. So you have zero excuse to delete it besides your own disdain of God.

      Plus the question still stands: Is it viciously circular to reason your reasoning is valid? If not, why not?

      Delete
    5. >First of of all, my argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands. <

      I think readers will readily understand you seeking to disclaim responsibility for the stuff you post here.

      But, if you're not prepared to accept responsibility for it, can I ask you to stop spamming this forum and doing anything but answer questions with honest answers and avoiding the subject at all costs.

      I appreciate you don't regard yourself as being bound by the normal conventions of courtesy and good manners but maybe you can have a word with the imaginary friend whom you are trying to blame for your behaviour.

      Thank you.

      Delete
    6. I'm loving reading this back and forth but it is an exercise in futility you cant convert a true atheist. Now an unknowing never had studied atheist maybe but I don't know that they're truly atheist in the first place. I recently read a book by a claimed atheist converted to christianity and it was ripe with intellectual dishonesty(she was using rabbits feet, crossing her fingers etc.)Anyway on to why I wanted to comment here. D.A.N. says omnipotent omniscient god haha.
      Does omniscient god who knows the future,
      Have the omnipotence to change his future mind?
      I love that. Theists think about it if you don't get it you never will

      Delete
    7. Anon,

      >>Does omniscient [G]od who knows the future, Have the omnipotence to change his future mind?

      I addressed this is a past post. This "gotcha" is within a time frame. "So really, all things are instantaneous for God. For us, there is a time line sequence. So did God "plan"? I don't believe it works that way. " ~Predestination for Atheists?

      Anyway, it also must be pointed out that...you and I seem to be in disagreement with regards to the meaning of ‘omnipotent’. Omnipotence simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do the logically impossible, as logic is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God.

      God cannot contradict His own character, as then he would be able to be both ‘God’ and ‘not God’ at the same time and in the same way, which means He could also be both omnipotent and not omnipotent as well (which is absurd, of course).

      It’s also important to note that the ability to contradict oneself is not a ‘power’, but a weakness and is necessarily precluded from the scope of omnipotence by definition.

      Delete
    8. Which god are you talking about? A deist/pantheist god? The god that christianity professes certainly does plan and is contradictory. If god doesn't plan wouldn't that make the whole jesus thing a moot point?

      Delete
    9. We accept the Christian faith as the grounds of all logic, because we accept the notion that scripture teaches there is only one God, he's the creator of all things and thus he created logic. For the unbeliever, he/she must first believe in Christ and repent before they can ever come to any conclusions at all about anything at all. If they have no basis in which to place their faith in logic or exists then they've yet to understand that logic or matter exists because their faith is based in logic and reason itself, yet you can't use either to explain where either originated from (enter circular reasoning). They must assume and accept that both logic and reason originated from a single omnipotent source because without that source, there is no logic or reason, man didn't create logic or reason, we only use them as the tools that were provided to us by God. If we say there is no God, then we put the cart before the horse and look pretty stupid... As for which God (which I believe is where this argument gets hung up) that falls to the legitimacy of the scriptures and the foundation of where the God you serve comes from. I lean on the God of the Bible, not only because he revealed himself to me and I chose to accept and believe on his son, and because the endless truth IN scriptures let alone the countless prophecies that God's word has spoken that have come true and are still coming true. The God of Israel and the Bible is real and the only true God, not because I say so, but because He does.

      Delete
    10. >We accept the Christian faith as the grounds of all logic,

      Unfortunately, you seem to have forgotten to apply logic in formulating that policy. No doubt that that's where you went, and are still going, wrong.

      I glad we've sorted your problem out at long last.

      Delete
  65. One of the difficulties of trying to do apologetics with a fundamentalist Protestant is that they are always trying to get you to prove Catholicism using evidence ONLY found in the bible. I can only indicate but not prove for if I could prove then I would be a Protestant and not Catholic. The point of Catholicism is that scripture alone doesn't prove and trying to use scripture alone to prove that scripture alone doesn't prove is circular nonsense. The atheist position for what is accepted as proof is the same thing as the fundamentalist Protestant. You want me to prove that my faith is true by only using empirical evidence. I can only indicate but not prove for if I could prove then I would be an atheist not Catholic. The point of Catholicism is that empirical evidence alone doesn't prove and trying to use empirical evidence alone to prove that empirical evidence alone doesn't prove is circular nonsense.


    Fundamentalist Protestants and most modern atheists are two sides of the same coin. Epistemologically you are both empirical materialists. A proof of this is that you both interpret scripture in the same overly literal empirical way. A Fundamentalist Protestant reads scripture comes up with a loony interpretation and accepts it as a mark of faith. A modern atheist reads scripture, comes up with the same loony interpretation and rightly rejects it because it is loony.


    The way to convince an atheist that Christianity is true is not to have a theological discussion but a philosophical discussion. Epistemologically the atheist has to come to the conclusion that empirical materialism is overly restrictive and doesn't allow for non-empirical evidence which obviously exists in the world. For example, in a court of law, inductive evidence is accepted as proof but this is not empirical evidence.


    The first step for an atheist in accepting the reasonableness of Christianity is for them to come to the position that being an atheist doesn't restrict them to an empirical materialism in their epistemology and in fact restricting epistemology to empirical materialism does not correspond in a demonstratable way to how the world works -- it is simply bad philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >Fundamentalist Protestants and most modern atheists are two sides of the same coin.

      I take it you don't know what an atheist is then.

      I wonder if others will notice how you avoided the challenge and tried to get round that by blaming me. Nice ploy.

      How did you know you would need tactics instead of evidence, reason and logic?

      Delete
    2. Lurker #59,

      With all the love and gentleness I can muster about Catholicism, the Bible says to evaluate everything to see if it is of God by its fruit, good tree = good fruit; a bad tree can never bear good fruit. We don’t even have to address the Catholic Church and the mass pedophiles, and the crusades to determine the fruit, it is obvious.

      False religions, like Catholicism, have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation.

      Have you ever seen http://constantinessword.com/? If you have not, please do! It will say plenty of the fruit of the RCC and its involvement in Germany. I am sure you will not ignore history for the sake of worship. Truth is the goal right? Blessings.

      Delete
    3. Of course I know what an atheist is. Don't be silly.


      Again let me state what should be obvious: Most modern atheists and Fundamentalist Protestants are two sides of the same coin when it comes to epistemology. Your Fundamentalist Protestant cannot be convinced by science because they see an epistemological divide between faith and reason. Most modern atheists cannot be convinced by faith because they see the same epistemological divide between faith and reason. Both are largely empirical materialists when it comes to understanding epistemology. Your Fundamentalist Protestant reads scripture in an extremely literal and materialistic fashion and thinks that is faith -- it is really just a logical positivist reading of scripture -- same as how most modern atheists do.


      You seem to want to say that you are not like a Fundamentalist Protestant. Ok. According to the Book of Genesis, what is the correct and legitimate interpretation for the number of chronological days in which creation occurred? That 6 chronological days is a silly answer does not void the creation account it just voids the method that you are using to interpret scripture.


      I am sure that those reading this can tell that I clearly stated that given your parameters of your challenge, I cannot achieve that precisely because the presuppositions behind your parameters is false. I agree with you that it cannot be done, but I disagree with you that your criteria matches epistemology. You are a priori truncating epistemology to force the outcome.


      Can God be proved using only empirical evidence? Of course not because by definition empirical evidence can only tell us positively about the natural world. God is supernatural, above the created order, thus empiricism cannot tell us what God is but can tell us what God is not (namely god is not I nor the created world). Negative evidence is though not proof but rather indication. Thus it is not possible for empiricism to give us proof.


      That said, it should be equally obvious that empiricism is not the extent of epistemology and in understanding, then non-empirical positive evidence, such as evidence from induction, can be given.

      Delete
    4. Lurker #59,

      >>Your Fundamentalist Protestant cannot be convinced by science because they see an epistemological divide between faith and reason.

      Non Sequitur and a strawman. Really? My only problem is naturalism. No, naturalism didn't produce this laptop. Science and God did. Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence for one. Do you agree there are real dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this? Naturalism has not been scientifically evidenced, simply its taken as a philosophical paradigm.

      >>our Fundamentalist Protestant reads scripture in an extremely literal and materialistic fashion and thinks that is faith

      Wrong, because of the obvious parables and hyperbole we read the Bible plainly. Its not literally but literary. You're confused.

      The Christian worldview is the only one with an epistemological foundation. Thus, Atheists statements about "uncertainty" fails because without the Christian God, the alternative results in rational absurdity and contradiction (since there is no longer a basis for rationality). This is why we speak of the "impossibility of the contrary."

      >>That said, it should be equally obvious that empiricism is not the extent of epistemology and in understanding, then non-empirical positive evidence, such as evidence from induction, can be given.

      "Inductive evidence" is a non-sense term. Being inductive is a property of an argument form, and not a property of evidence used in an argument. Please explain.

      Delete
    5. Atheism is acceptance that there is no evidence for any god, not just yours or the locally popular one in whichever culture you happened to be born.

      I hope that helps, though it looks like you have managed to rationalise away any connection between your opinions and reality.

      Delete
    6. Rosa,

      >>Atheism is acceptance that there is no evidence for any god, not just yours or the locally popular one in whichever culture you happened to be born.

      Genetic fallacy -FTW

      Your very ability to reason about evidence is evidence of God.

      Rosa, I don't expect you to like what I write. Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.

      >>I hope that helps, though it looks like you have managed to rationalise away any connection between your opinions and reality.

      Are you absolutely certain of that? If so, how?

      Delete
    7. Have I not just been saying that? Modern Atheism is that that only empiricism can provide evidence and no empirical evidence exists for any god.


      That, as I have been saying, is obvious because empiricism doesn't have the metaphysical capability of giving positive evidence for supernatural things. This is a basic point even in Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics.


      We are not in disagreement here on this point.


      What we disagree on is over whether or not empiricism is the only source of epistemology. I have given you evidence that this is demonstratably false.


      Now if you do not believe that empiricism is the only source of epistemology, I would kindly ask that you adjust your challenge to allow for non-empirical evidence.


      As it stands now, this is not a theological issue as it is a philosophical issue over epistemology and metaphysis.


      I am sure that you will agree, as I do, with Richard Dawkins who understands that empirical evidence can neither prove nor disprove the existance of gods. You went over this a awhile ago, so I know you get what I mean and I mean nothing more than exactly what you said.


      It is again a philosophical issue not a theolgical one.

      Delete
    8. D.A.N.


      I wasn't discussing you I was discussing Fundamentalist Protestantism. Nor was I addressing you directly.


      I don't want to hash through your argument because I am not here to debate with a Protestant about philosophy, but I will respond briefly.


      You prove my point by saying "The Christian worldview is the only one with an epistemological foundation." By stating this, you are saying that the only way we can know anything about the world (epistemology) is by revelation. If reason and science cannot give you knowledge (probably because you believe that, due to the fall, man's nature is depraved and thus man cannot rely upon his reason to tell him knowledge and rather his senses deceive him), and you can only rely on revelation then that means that you can only know what is revelation by revelation, then epistemologically you are a gnostic. You have this divide between faith and reason and nothing can cross it.


      Atheists are not without epistemological foundation (and I hope that Rosa is reading this) and they actually have a stronger epistemological foundation than fundamentalists (because they are not gnostics) even though they are two sides of the same coin. Fundamentalists are faith without reason and Atheists are reason without faith. Different positions but epistemologically the same -- strict epistemological divide between reason and faith or between the natural and supernatural.


      No I am not confused on how fundamentalists read the bible because I was trained to do as such. Please note that I did not say "completely literal" but I said "extremely literal". Your "plain sense" of scripture is far from plain because it doesn't follow normal rules of how one reads a piece of literature but is overly materialistic. Need I remind you of Luther's disdain for allegory?


      Inductive evidence -- please see Sherlock Holmes.

      Delete
    9. How do you know your reasoning about inductive evidence, or anything, is valid?

      I would say God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses, memory and reasoning such that I can make determinations. What say you?

      Delete
    10. I believe we have previously discussed your difficulty with understanding reality. It often seems to be your sole reason for posting your monotonous gibberish here.

      Delete
    11. D.A.N.

      I think you should print off some of your more obviously insane messages and take them to show a psychiatrist before you decide your voices are telling you to do something more serious than merely making a fool of yourself on line.

      Delete
    12. D.A.N.


      If you are predicating your ability to trust your senses upon revelation, then how can you determine that the revelation that you are receiving comes from the actual God and not another source, including your own subconscious?


      The problem with gnosticism is that it requires one to a priori accept specific fundamental epistemology and metaphysics as true without having the ability know that those actually correspond to reality.


      How do Christians know if revelation is true? It is not because it "gives a warm feeling in the chest^tm but because revelation corresponds with that which is already knowing through our senses.


      Yes senses can be tricked or not give us as precise information as we would wish and we experience reality through mediums, but the fundamental building block in anything that deserves to be called knowledge is that we can indeed know true things about our selves and the world around us through our reason, intellect, and senses.


      Revelation may give one a deeper insight to the world around us, or illumination to the world that we cannot see, but revelation is not the foundation to our knowledge.


      Please see the pertanant chapters in the Summa Theologica.

      Delete
  66. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  67. God created the Big Bang so therefore created evolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who created god? That is not convincing to convert atheists.

      Delete
    2. You forgot to show your evidence for that claim. This would have been inconceivable if you had actually had any evidence.

      I invite people to draw their conclusions from your obvious failure to do so.

      Delete
    3. My argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands.

      The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have. I don't expect you to like what I write. Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.

      Delete
    4. >My argument is not intended to be convincing,

      At least you're achieving that objective.

      Delete
  68. This is too easy to debunk. Stay tuned to my blog. I will debunk this post and the 2 links Rosa provided. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Such a pity you couldn't support that claim with an actual example of you doing so here, eh?

      Delete
    2. BTW, there was nothing to debunk. It is a challenge - which you manifestly failed.

      Did you not actually read what you were commenting upon?

      Delete
  69. I could, but I would take up most of your page since I tend to write a lot. :) Here it goes: http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/06/rosa-rubicondior-evidence-gaffe.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you.

      Your claim is, of course a lie.

      Your challenge was to provide the evidence which meets the above criteria and so will convert an atheist. Your blog merely gives your excuse for not being able to do so, as people can see should they go to your blog at http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/06/rosa-rubicondior-evidence-gaffe.html.

      For example "Atheists will always demand "evidence" for the claims of believers; however, they will never provide evidence for their counter argument."

      From previous experience of your 'debating' style I am not at all surprised to see you again trying the intellectually dishonest and cowardly ploy of trying to divest yourself of the responsibility for substantiating your claim of the existence of your god and demanding that atheists disprove it instead. This is, as you probably know, an example of one of the more dishonest debating ploys - the False Dichotomy Fallacy - and as such illustrates both your moral and scientific bankruptcy. It is so blatant that it is normally only ever attempted by people who know their claim is a lie or who lack the intellect and integrity to realise that they have been fooled by it themself.

      Since you employ very little else as a debating tactic, I assume you are trying to fool people into agreeing with you in the belief that, should you succeed, it will turn the lie you know you are pushing into a truth.

      Thank you for showing once again the close link between intellectual dishonesty and God Delusion. Since very many people are now freeing themselves from religious delusion and regaining their intellectual integrity, it looks like religion causes dishonesty rather than dishonesty causing religion but then when you are too afraid to not follow the herd but know you are living a lie, what other option do you have but to pretend, even to yourself?

      Delete
    2. By the way, I have put a comment on your blog. I wait to see if you have the integrity to allow it through.

      Delete
  70. As usual, you resort to Ad hominem. Instead of attacking the arguments, you attack the arguer. This is common among Agnostics/Atheists such as yourself who do not have the intellectual confidence to articulately construct a rebuttal. They attack the arguer and falsely throw around fallacy accusations in order to save face.

    Moreover, you erroneously make charges of False Dichotomy. No such attempt was made to force anyone to accept a position. A False Dichotomy is when one is not of A then one is of B. Any well read person would see that my blog post has no such content. It is merely a commentary of your blog and why it is irrational.

    To date, you have not provided any evidence supporting your counter argument that my blog post is "bankrupt." Until you do so, your ad hominem comments proudly display your defeat.


    PS. I have no problem posting comments as long as they are not vulgar, hateful, and they pertain to the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  71. If you don't like your lies being publicly pointed out, try not lying.

    I appreciate you wouldn't win any arguments with it but you can't imagine you're actually winning any with your present tactics, can you?

    Maybe you don't know what a false dichotomy is. It's where you don't offer any evidence for your claim but just attack your opponents argument. It relies on your audience being gullible, parochial and stupid enough to think your god is the only alternative on offer. I can't speak for your normal audience, and maybe your obvious contempt for their intelligence is justified, but I wish you wouldn't insult the readers of this blog with that condescending assumption.

    They will, of course, have noticed that you don't have any evidence for your god - which is why you know you need to use dishonest tactics in the first place.

    Will you have the courage to take the challenge in this blog soon, or are we to be treated to lots more excuses for not doing so, coupled with more abuse and dishonest tactics in an attempt to divert attention from your abject failure?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Rosa, by your own definition you are guilty of false dichotomy. I do not see any evidence for the claims you make here. However, your understanding of the False Dichotomy fallacy is incorrect.

    A False Dichotomy deals with an "Either/Or" argument.

    For example:

    First: Propositions made are reciprocal to one another.
    A can be either T or F
    B is the converse of A whether A is T or F
    (A Concise Intro to Logic - Hurley)

    As you can see, I am not the one relying on an audience being gullible. You are the one misinforming your audience. Perhaps my presence here irritates you because this is not the first time I have corrected you. :)

    Furthermore, my comments were not about providing evidence for anything, rather, they are a critique of your nonsensical post.

    Someone retweeted your tweet and I saw this "evidence" blog link you were advertising and laughed at it as I read it because it holds no ground as I have demonstrated on my own blog. I then decided to write on it so others can see how you and kaimatai proposed ideas that have no weight to them. Had the person not retweeted your tweet, I would not have seen it due to your cowardice act of blocking me after I proved myself to be an opponent you could not deal with intellectually last year.

    Rosa, with all due respect, your blog offers no challenge. Your blogs repackage the same misconceptions and lack of knowledge on Scripture and Christianity that Atheists and Agnostics have demonstrated throughout the centuries. You quote Biblical passages as if you've discovered some strange thing about each that no one else has. Your misconceptions have answers. Whether you accept them or not is another issue.

    I will not even touch upon your blog's scientific illiteracy...

    It seems to me that your blog is your way of indirectly asking questions regarding religion. I think behind that "atheist/agnostic" facade is a curious person looking to learn about God, Scripture and Faith. This seems to be very common I have noticed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So we are to have long rambling excuses, ad hominem abuse and attempts to divert the conversation rather than dealing with your abject inability to meet my simple challenge then, eh?

      Don't you ever feel any shame or embarrassment at having to abandon personal integrity so spectacularly and publicly to defend your infantile superstition and give yourself an excuse to condescend to people and to try to control them through fear and ignorance?

      Delete
    2. By the way, your dishonest and intellectually bankrupt use of the false dichotomy fallacy is exactly as you describe. You attack science but never provide any evidence to support your own claim in the hope that your victims will be gullible, stupid and parochial enough to assume your imaginary friend is the only alternative on offer, just as I described. It should be obvious to anyone why you need to use this tactic.

      Now you have revealed that you understand the deception fully, we can exclude ignorance or you having been fooled by it yourself from the possible reasons you use it.

      So that just leaves dishonesty as the reason. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

      Delete
    3. Attack science?? nooo wayyy Did you not read Sacerdotus' blog? He owned you RosaRubicondior. Your blog has no credibility at all. I would love to debate Sacerdotus some time. Please read my email I sent you if you see this comment!

      Delete
    4. You 'forgot' to say how, exactly. Did you hope no one would notice?

      You also 'forgot' to give your name. I wonder if people can work out why.

      Delete
    5. There was, of course, no email. Did you realise it would reveal your identity?

      Delete
    6. Sacerdotus. I have used your contribution here to illustrate my blog on cognitive dissonance (How Fundamentalists Get Their Head Round It) as it is an almost perfect example of a coping strategy for the problem of needing to believe your 'faith' has an evidential basis whilst being unable to find any. You merely assert there is some which you could produce if you wished, then try to shift the blame onto the person who points out that you have none. It also neatly illustrates another point in that blog - how fundamentalist are often so preoccupied with coping with cognitive dissonance that they trample roughshod over the very 'faith' they are trying desperately to cling to.

      Many thanks for your help.

      Delete
    7. Rosa, again you misunderstood the intention of my comments and blog posting critiquing your evidence posting. My intention was to show that evidence is subjective, not objective. What YOU consider evidence is only applicable to YOU.

      Think about your post. Let's take evolution for example. Have you had direct tactile and visual interaction with evidence indicating evolution occurred or have you read of it online or in books? If you have had direct tactile/visual interaction, can you provide us with video or photographs of your interaction? Can you provide us with verification that you have studied evidence first hand and did not receive data by means of second or third hand transmission?

      If you have never had direct tactile/visual interaction with evidence indicating evolution occurred, then your blog's argument is self contradictory. You are therefore taking in evolution on belief not by direct evidential means.

      Moreover, once again you are misapplying the definition of cognitive dissonance. It is obvious that you post ideas without fully comprehending them. There is no conflict here, just a clarification of the obvious.

      It is interesting to note that not once have you offered to refute my blog. :) Instead you rely on ad hominem and condescension to save face. This is indeed embarrassing and shows that arrogance, not intellect is what fuels your Atheism/Agnosticism.



      To "anonymous" I am not sure if you're the same person posting on my blog, but it would be an honor to discuss/debate with you. I have no problem engaging anyone as long as it is in a mature, logical and respectful manner. However, please have some valid academic credentials from a higher learning institution before engaging me.

      Delete
    8. The fact that you deleted my comment shows you have failed and lost. :) Moreover, you do not attack my points but instead attack me. Nevertheless, I took screen shots and will post on my blog showing the world the dishonesty you represent and the fear you have of engaging someone who has corrected you on countless occasions. Thank you for showing the world that Atheism is irrational and cannot be defended.

      Delete
    9. Your comment was not deleted, as readers can see.

      Delete
  73. Rosa, did you delete my comment? I copied it and took screen shots when it was posted. :)


    Sacerdotus30 June 2012 07:15
    Rosa, again you misunderstood the intention of my comments and blog posting critiquing your evidence posting. My intention was to show that evidence is subjective, not objective. What YOU consider evidence is only applicable to YOU.

    Think about your post. Let's take evolution for example. Have you had direct tactile and visual interaction with evidence indicating evolution occurred or have you read of it online or in books? If you have had direct tactile/visual interaction, can you provide us with video or photographs of your interaction? Can you provide us with verification that you have studied evidence first hand and did not receive data by means of second or third hand transmission?

    If you have never had direct tactile/visual interaction with evidence indicating evolution occurred, then your blog's argument is self contradictory. You are therefore taking in evolution on belief not by direct evidential means.

    Moreover, once again you are misapplying the definition of cognitive dissonance. It is obvious that you post ideas without fully comprehending them. There is no conflict here, just a clarification of the obvious.

    It is interesting to note that not once have you offered to refute my blog. :) Instead you rely on ad hominem and condescension to save face. This is indeed embarrassing and shows that arrogance, not intellect is what fuels your Atheism/Agnosticism.



    To "anonymous" I am not sure if you're the same person posting on my blog, but it would be an honor to discuss/debate with you. I have no problem engaging anyone as long as it is in a mature, logical and respectful manner. However, please have some valid academic credentials from a higher learning institution before engaging me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, your comment was not deleted.

      Are you going to be using honesty and showing a little personal integrity soon, or have you excluded those as not fit for your purpose here?

      Delete
  74. Eeny meeny I will say
    Which god shall I pray to today
    It depends on how I feel
    And which one gives a better deal.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Here is authenticated, incontrovertible evidence that the God of the Bible exists.

    This evidence only needs to pass a few simple tests.

    This website gives evidence ONLY for the God of the Bible and not any other. Since people have believed in over 3000 different gods in recorded human history, this website shows why the evidence couldn't be evidence for any of those.

    It explains how the God of the Bible is the ONLY possible explanation for the evidence and why it can't possibly be explained as the result of a natural process.

    The website is http://NeedGod.com/

    (This website has converted many atheists. May you be one of them.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you could tell my readers what your incontrovertible evidence is rather than simply whoring for hits.

      Unless you are able to do so, I will remove your obvious spam.

      Delete
  76. I don't think you understand what a god is.
    (1)"Evidence for the existence of your god" - I don't have a god myself , being a-theos or godless. I can certainly show evidence of someone else's god.
    The Sun is, and has been, a god to many people - its existence is evidenced by it appearing to rise and set over the horizon every day and give light and warmth to the earth. So "existence" is trivial to demonstrate.
    (I could have picked the Pharaoh Ramses II - I could show you his tomb and even his body!)
    Lots of real existent things have been gods throughout human history.

    (2) "Why this evidence is evidence for this god and no other" This is an impossible task.
    Believers in Jehovah would take the existence of the sun as evidence for their God. Believers in Thor would not take the existence of the sun as for OR against the existence of Thor, as it would be entirely irrelevant. Polytheists are perfectly happy for there to be many gods. So your question shows a deep lack of understanding about the diversity of religion as actually practiced by humans on the planet Earth. I would take the "evidence for the existence" of the sun-god (That I presented above) and say - "yeah it exists but I don't worship gods whether they exist or not"

    (3) "need to explain how a god is the ONLY possible explanation for your evidence"
    Another impossible/incoherent/meaningless request.
    Gods are not really meant to be explanations for evidence - its not what they are for - well thats not the whole truth - some creationists and fundamentalists do use god as explanation but even for them its a minor role.
    Its the one that Richard Dawkins obsesses about - how God is a poor explanation - but it really shows how little an idea he has of what gods are for.
    An Anglican accepts that there is zero "evidence" of the sort you are talking about and goes on happily believing - because "God" is not an explanation so its *failure* to be an explanation is irrelevant to them.
    This question also shows a astounding lack of insight into epistemology - David Hume and Bishop Berkeley and many others have shown that we cannot escape the possibility that our explanations are wrong. We all chose the kind explanations we like - the ones that fit with our other beliefs, other evidence, other experience etc.
    Also even in science there are often more than one possible explanations for a phenomenon - that's what "hypothesis" are - and they are then tested and discarded as needed - There is no Great Rule that says only one explanation can ever be around at any one time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course I understand what a god is. It's a figment of the imagination. This is why no one can produce any evidence for the existence of one.

      Delete
    2. Rosa,

      Let's use your own argument against you.

      You just said a god is the figment of the imagination, then said that there is no evidence for one. But you admit that a god resides in imagination, ergo a god exists.

      Take you for instance, you believe in the god of "self" and you really believe your god is the only god that exists. Get it?

      I'm not arguing my worldview, I'm pointing out your inconsistency in your application of your worldview. The atheist is the one who claims one worldview yet operates on another.

      Here's the gist of the matter; you have no basis from which to judge your opinion to be superior over another's without having a common standard by which to make such a judgment. The same common standard your worldveiw denies exists.

      See, without even mentioning my worldview, your worldview eliminates any possibility of judging others. You barely assert your god, the god of "self" is all that exists.

      Here is the real kicker, God revealed that everyone knows He exists, He created the world. He revealed that His existence is necessary for knowledge, ethics, aesthetics, etc. So you're making an implicitly positive claim by saying you do not believe He exists, and therefore you own a burden of proof.

      My buddy lays out the real burden that you have in his blog that is worth checking out.

      Delete
    3. You really do have difficulty imagining that anyone could possible think differently to you, don't you.

      I'm afraid figments of your imagination just don't magically become real, difficult though that concept may be for you to accept. You're just not that important, you see, no matter what your mummy and daddy might have said.

      Delete
    4. >>You really do have difficulty imagining that anyone could possible think differently to you, don't you.

      You really are speaking into a mirror aren't you? Because Freud would have a field day with you, from what has been said up until this point. I am sure you missed the irony of your statement here.

      >>I'm afraid figments of your imagination just don't magically become real, difficult though that concept may be for you to accept.

      Except for you, you mean? You believe your god is all there is. Right?

      >>You're just not that important, you see, no matter what your mummy and daddy might have said.

      Hey! I am over here. Looking at a mirror that long is what we call vanity in the field. So, who are you trying to convince, me or you? :)

      Delete
    5. Sorry you have had to degenerate so quickly into abuse. Christians normally last a little while longer before the abuse starts.

      Unless you find the courage to tackle to subject of this blog and show you can meet the challenge, your abusive excuses and attempted diversions will be removed.

      Even Christians are required to behave in a civilised manner here. I appreciate this may affront you.

      Delete

Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers.

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.

Sorry but the spammers are back so I've had to restrict who can post again.

ShareThis

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Web Analytics