Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
Burden of proof, mother****er, can you bear it?
|
Victory mentality, can you drop it? Looks like no.
I'm challenging you to think differently than you have been for the past many years. This is something you might not process easily, because you mostly see "victory" and "defeat." Your thought process would lead you to assume that I'm attempting to evade your question because I do not have an answer, or my argument is weak, or I'm scared of "losing." For you, this is a "ranked match" or "scrimmage", for me this is just tossing cat poop around in a sandbox.
Also, for someone who was just getting on my case about "respect" for referring to you as a "secular humanist," sure is awkward to then be referred to as a "mother****er" soon after. Do you hold yourself to your own standards of respect? Seems like not.
I understand that it might be irritating to discuss these matters with someone that knows a lot and doesn't immediately yield to your pre-hashed canned statements devoid of factual basis such as "extraordinary measures," but when you resort to name-calling,
it makes your argument look even weaker. It is an indication that you are losing the argument, not that I care if you are or not, but for someone that wants to win, I would think that would be undesirable. Might want to abstain from calling the opposing party
a "mother****er."
Your worldview is just like any other, full of positive assertions that you do not bear a burden of proof for, so why should I? You really do not hold yourself to your own standard, though I'm certain you think you do.
BTW, do you believe in the big bang? yes/no?
You are welcome to dismiss my statement entirely if you wish. I'm certain you had dismissed the notion entirely years before I even brought it up anyway. I'm not going to burn my tires towards futility. If you are actually curious as you claim to be, there are plenty of books on the topic that you can read, though I'm sure you will not.
More than likely everything you have seen from me in this discussion has only served to push you further towards your secular humanist worldview. More than likely my words are being filtered into a pre-created box labeled "Theist" where all my words are associated with all the other "idiotic Theists" that you have come across before.
You will go and tell your friends "I asked him one simple question and he wouldn't even answer it, because he knew he couldn't" and feel like a winner. I will be Theist #101 that couldn't provide a single good reason to believe in God, right? Just another notch in your belt of "ultimate surrender."
I used to think exactly like you for a long number of years. Then I found out I was wrong about everything I believed.
Anthony Flew is not an exception, there are droves of people like me, that were once Atheists, and were guided by logic, science, and overwhelming evidence towards an inevitable knowledge of the truth that an intelligent creator exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
It's not my job to prove your point for you.
|
I'm not asking you too. Nor would I. Nor would answering your question in any form yield any admission from you. You would only then move the goal post again and counter with another question.
You might want to consider a different approach than always trying to win if you want to learn, grow, and adopt new information and new perspectives.
In other words, start seeing discussion as less about "winning/proving" and more about "learning/playing with new ideas."
After all, there are so many things that can't be proven in the world that you already believe, such as the likely non-existence of God. Discussion on the non-provable nature of negative assertions is not necessary, I am well aware.
Lastly, the question you asked, anyone with a rudimentary imagination could answer it.
Are you admitting that you couldn't even conceive or imagine what a direct experience with a being far more intelligent than you might be like?
I think you can.
Please tell me what you think it might be like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
Well, here we have a little problem. Because I'm not convinced that the universe is in fact fine tuned. It may appear to be, but it has not yet been demonstrated that this appearance is not a coincidence.
|
Well then you disagree with most every scientist, cosmologist, astrophysicist, etc.., which is fine.
I myself said that it is ok to disagree with mass opinion. That is well within your right and I do not find it foolish. Often it can be highly intelligent.
The suns rays cross millions of miles across a vast vacuous space and end up on your property just hot enough to ripen a tomato, within a few degrees.
If that is not fine-tuning, what is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
So the question becomes: how did you determine that the universe is in fact fine tuned, and doesn't just accidentally look it? What would a non-fine tuned universe look like?
|
If you are curious what a non-fine tuned universe might look like, throw a water balloon full of dog-poop on an open canvas, and then imagine something with 100x less order and structure.
More than likely a giant blob of crap composed of a singular chemical composition, all the same color, filling up the entirety of empty space. Since my imagination is limited, I would say that it probably has even less structure than I just described.
You can have plenty of fun with this topic. It's a great one.
There are lots and lots of books on the topic. I'm sure the authors could do a much better job than I could explaining it. Read about what all the scientists say, they have interesting ideas.
However, scientific minds pretty much all agree that it is very finely tuned.
The math behind it is insane as well. The probability of it happening is next to impossible.
Your own worldview will work against you in this case, if you choose to believe otherwise, you will have to go against your own school of thought, which is fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
Aside from the problem with apparent fine tuning described above, the answer to these questions is "I don't know". Are you going to pull god of the gaps now?
|
Nope. I have no intention of baiting or "trapping" you. Nor did I have any such intention of mentioning gap theory, as I do not find it very compelling at all. I fear you have talked with too many people with a victory based mentality, so you have learned to expect it from others.
I was just honestly curious what you thought.
Those are some of the questions my mind is fascinated with...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
...so?
|
So, many secular humanists believe in the supernatural without realizing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
See above. What is the universe fine tuned for, and how did you determine that it doesn't just accidentally appear fine tuned?
|
Fine tuning:
https://www.amazon.com/Fortunate-Uni...s=books&sr=1-1
Geraint F. Lewis - Wikipedia
Not fine tuning:
https://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Fine-.../dp/1616144432
Victor J. Stenger - Wikipedia
Read for yourself and draw your own conclusions. I would recommend reading the book on fine-tuning first, as we are all guilty of having an inclination to read the information that lines up with our own world-view.
I do not believe that either of these books are written from a Theistic worldview, so they might be a smooth read for you. I tried to find both books written by Atheists but I am not certain if I succeeded.
If you would like we can read them together and discuss them. Just let me know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
I feel like you're glossing over my point just to pick holes in my verbiage. Anyway, we'll put a pin in this until you explain what you think the universe is fine tuned for.
|
That's a fair point.
I'm happy to indulge a bit more on the fine-tuning:
You walk into a hidden control room in your own house you never knew was there.
On the wall you see eight dials, each of them with 1 million settings on them.
If you were to touch any single one of these dials and move them to even one notch to the right or left, the universe would explode.
This is the universe we live in.
If you were to adjust any of the natural parameters that are held constant by an unknowable force, the aftermath would be cataclysmic.
If you think of a car and how fine-tuned it is, our universe is exponentially more fine-tuned than that to a laughable degree. All the parts must work together in tandem for our universe to function as it does.
Every well-read science-based-thinker and Atheist I have spoken to has quickly agreed to this fine-tuning and it has always served as common ground. Believing in fine-tuning does not logically force you into a Theistic world-view at all. It is simply facts about the math and physics behind the universe and how it operates.
If you are well-informed on the topic and adhere to the universe not being fine-tuned, I'd be super curious as to how/why you drew those conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
This is patently false. What you're describing here is a spurious correlation, and it plays nicely into my conversation with amRam about how religion comes about as a product of people's hyperactive pattern detection.
|
Indeed it is a spurious correlation. Often these correlations get us into trouble.
I definitely yield on this point and agree that I drew a spurious conclusion.
And yet, if someone knocked on your door, and you opened it, and they beat you up. The next time you saw that person, you would not open the door for them?
Why not?
It's just a spurious correlation after all right? It could have been sheer luck/chance that the guy beat you up. Maybe he was having a bad day?
Pattern seeking is a survival tool that we all use to get by.
There is nothing foolish about not opening the door when that dangerous individual came back.
I'm not saying that all spurious correlations are correct.
You are welcome to argue that my previous correlation between Theism and Scientific Discovery doesn't hold up. That's a totally acceptable argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
Maybe it will. But the time to believe in that thing will be when that experience comes, not a minute before.
|
Sounds good to me!
The way I came to be a Theist was by researching both sides of the argument, and selecting the worldview that had far more evidence.
Atheism loses easily on the evidence front.
The fact that you claim there is not even one piece of good evidence to support Theism is a scholastic nightmare.
Before I solidified my worldview, I found compelling arguments on both sides, though it took me a very long time to realize that the Theistic arguments and evidence were far more compelling. Many many debates and books were consumed before I was swayed one way over the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
And I explained why your example doesn't work. Are you just going to straight up ignore my replies now?
|
No, I just disagree with you, and you have moved towards a bottomless pit. By that I mean, define extraordinary?
Your entire counter argument was that a burning car was not extraordinary when indeed it is.
Marriam-Webster - extraordinary: very unusual or remarkable.
Your car suddenly lighting ablaze is quite unusual and remarkable indeed. If you want to say otherwise it's just semantical nonsense. This is just more evidence to me that you are willing to dismiss things outright because they don't line up with your worldview.
You said it's not extraordinary enough and then you mentioned the belief in supernatural things, but that's a discussion on the "supernatural" when we were discussing the "extraordinary". Your words, not mine.
If you wanted to use supernatural, you should have said "Supernatural claims require extraordinary evidence," but you did not. Your argument was "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and I gave a very clear, brief, and concise example proving that they do not. You are fine to reject it and turn a blind eye. But I used pure logic that anyone could understand.
If you want to be an ostrich with its head in the sand, it's fine by me.
Try the "extraordinary" thing the next time you are in a formal debate in front of a large group of people and see what happens... you will not like the result unless the other person is a giant noobsicle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
As a matter of fact, you lost super hard.
|
See? Victory mentality. A clear indication of a closed-mind. Told you I was right about that.
Also, nobody can win or lose. It's a discussion, not a tennis match.
If we were to say it was "winnable," the real winner would be whoever learns and grows the most from the interaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
The rational position is to withhold belief on any claim until sufficient evidence has been presented. I don't need evidence to withhold belief in god, in the same way I (or you) don't need evidence to withhold belief in leprechauns, seven-headed dragons, or tehvul's massive silver cache. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
|
Yes, and irrational people can stare at any amount of evidence and simply dismiss it regardless of how compelling it actually is.
A: "There's jim the murderer, look he has a bleeding dagger in his hand."
B: "Naw, someone probably put the dagger in his hand."
A: "But we've got video footage of him commiting the act."
B: "Naw, it was all CGI."
A: "But we have DNA evidence."
B: "Obviously planted."
A: "But he admitted to the crime himself!"
B: "Obviously forced into a confession."
A: "Uhhhhhh... But look, there he goes doing it again, he's murdering someone right now!"
B: *has already walked away having "won" the discussion using "science and logic"*
In short, people can believe however they please and slap a "science" and "logic" label on it, when it's really faith and religion.
Atheists are mostly faith based in their worldview, more so than Theists. They are just keenly unaware of their own plight.
When overwhelming evidence comes at them, they simply do the above, then they hide behind the word "burden of proof."
It's a fullproof strategy.
As an Atheist, you will never have to change your thinking. The structure of defense is perfect. The only problem is that it is perfectly wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
And here I should point out that I never posited the non-existence of a god, hence I don't carry a burden of proof. I'm simply withholding belief, waiting for sufficient evidence.
|
I know it feels that way. But look at how eager you were to say the universe was not fine-tuned. Did you do your research on that? Watch a debate on it? Read a book on it before deciding? Likely not. An open-minded individual may have done extensive research before deciding...
You are welcome to tell me the book you read on it and I will back down on this point.
If I had used another form of physical evidence pointing towards God, likely you would have been heavily influenced to reject it outright before researching, as it conflicts with your worldview. You do not desire for there to be any physical evidence of God's existence when there clearly is, and science agrees.
You probably also deny the historicity of religious figures throughout history, no?
Virtually no historians would do that. It's pretty much facts. Disregarding them, you may as well disregard history in general as a source of truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
See, the problem is that you keep proving me right on multiple levels.
First, when you do present your suppposed evidence for god, it's very bad evidence. It doesn't line up with the methods that we otherwise use to reliably arrive at truth.
Second, you continuously fail to admit that you have presented bad evidence, proving my very first point: that if these discussions are a waste of time, it's because of people refusing to admit when they are wrong.
So you'll excuse me if I carry on, because so far, the evidence shows that you're another theist without a good reason to believe.
|
No, and for two reasons.
1) You are only proving my point that you can rinse and repeat "there's no evidence" to your hearts content despite what anyone shows you. It is effortless for someone to dismiss fantastic evidence because they have a desire not to believe. If you were shown a bleeding dagger murder weapon that was your own family member's, you would be immediately inclined to disregard it as evidence because your own family member "could never do that." Your conclusions would be clouded by your own bias.
2) These are your own methods that are being held up to scrutiny. What was it you said? You know love to exist because there is evidence that can be measured and is observable? Well, the fine tuning of the universe is measured and observable and mostly agreed upon as scientific fact. Yet you reject it by your own standards that you use to accept other things. In short, you are holding my evidence to a fully different
standard because you do not like the conclusions that are drawn from it. In the case of love, you used hormones and brainwaves. In the case of the fine-tuning, it's multiple physical laws coming together in harmony that are measurable and observable.
If anything, this is a heavy lynchpin that very clearly points to the fact that you are not willing to accept clear and ready evidence, because you yourself refuse to use your own standards of what constitutes good evidence in the case of the evidence I am presenting.
This is akin to:
A: "I like chocolate because it is delicious. I find anything delicious to be good."
B: "What about tacos?"
A: "Oh tacos are delicious, but they are bad."
It is effortless to say "it's bad evidence" when you are given good evidence. It's work free and lazy. It's also unscientific and illogical and it's a double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
Good thing I'm not making that argument then.
|
Too bad that you did.
You suggested that intelligent design can be dismissed as being false because it is not taught in cosmology. (If I made a mistake please correct me, it's been a long discussion)
That is the same as saying "everyone agrees that the world is flat" therefore the world being round can be dismissed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
You said, and I quote, that "all of the scientific evidence that the universe presents to us overwhelmingly points to the existence of an intelligent designer". That statement is at odds with the actual scientists who have actually spent their actual lives actually studying the actual evidence you're talking about, but did not arrive to the same conclusion you did.
|
It is also at odds with all the scientists that did the exact same thing and drew the conclusion that God does exist?
"Some smart guy that dedicated his life to study disagrees with you" is also a bad argument similar to the argument featured above "mass opinion equals truth." It's especially bad when there are plenty of identical smart guys drawing a different conclusion that opposes your argument. In this case the same exact argument can be used against you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
I'm not saying you should believe them because there's a lot of them and they all agree. I'm saying you should believe them because through their work, they have much, much, MUCH better informed conclusions on the subject than you, who have never even heard of Carl Sagan until now, do.
|
Just because I hadn't heard the name doesn't mean I was unfamiliar with the argument. I heard that argument probably around 8 years ago? And I've heard it countless times since then, many times in formal debate. I've also never once seen it succeed in a debate. Every time I see the argument get dropped, some guy that is much smarter than me crushes it.
You don't have to know the name Pythagoras to use his math on a triangle and understand it on a deep level.
Anyway, by your own argument, you are now a Theist, because you should believe the work of theist scientists that have much MUCH better informed conclusions based on science right?
That argument basically can be turned right back around against you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
Because the principles that drive that work are the same principles that have brought you the very computer you're using to have this discussion. And your house, your car, and pretty much everything you own. They're principles that demonstrably and reliably give us more and more accurate knowledge.
|
Well then you must love religion, because most of the morals of our society that hold us together "do not steal, do not murder" came from religion.
Those morals served as the foundation for the people inventing computers to not get their eyes gouged out for fun.
You seem keenly unaware that most of your arguments are equally applicable to be used against you.
Thanks for the very fun discussion Amadeus, I really appreciate you.