Need help responding.
Offline I have been in an ongoing discussion with husband's fundamental cousin and her husband since this summer. Their latest post is so full of bs I am currently just sitting with my jaw open because they are so illogical. Perhaps I should just take the high ground and give up the discussion, but I keep remembering the guy that Sapient continued debating who finally "deconverted." So any help is appreciated. I will try to edit the post to make it understandable since it has been ongoing. I will put my comments in parentheses and theirs with bullets. I know I will have a lot of help from everyone here. FreeThinkingWill always seems to have excellent arguments put forth in a non-argumentative way. Thanks to all! Peg
("When we have reasons for what we believe, we have no need of faith; when we have no reasons, or bad ones, we have lost our connection to the world and to one another." -author Sam Harris)
>>I guess it sounds good if you want to forego logic, but Mr. Harris should be reminded that naturalism/materialism is a religion that requires faith as well. Reason alone is non-sense because reason pre-supposes faith. Defense of reason by reason is circular, therefore worthless. His own arguement makes the same mistake he insists theists make and thus his statement self-destructs. [WTF?]
>>When you study the information that we have concerning our existence it is clear that the odds of the existence of this world are beyond astronomical (no pun intended) and in fact would be deemed a miracle...... and that naturalism of course cannot provide any answer. ( I do not arrive to the conclusion that that which is highly improbable must therefore be a miracle. Where is the evidence for this? This is a false premise. Any argument which rests on a false premise is invalid. Beyond astronomical odds are still within the realm of natural possibility and therefore require no supernatural supposition. If one shuffles and reshuffles a deck of cards the chance of one particular sequence being dealt is miniscule. (1in10 to the 68th power). This is a highly unlikely event, yet we know that some sequence will be dealt and that event is not highly unlikely. That earth developed in exactly the way it did and we exist exactly as we are now may be highly improbable. But that life developed somewhere within the 50 billion visible galaxies may not be highly improbable. Conservative estimates of number of existing galaxies currently are 100 billion galaxies each with an estimated 100 billion stars. This equals 10 thousand, billion, billion stars, or 10 sextillion. Even if only one in one million stars has a planetary system capable of sustaining life this still equates to 10 billion.  
[I would have bet a million dollars at this point they would bring in an argument about "the card having a designer" and what do you know, that is exactly what happened.] >>The simple fact that science states before time, matter and space exploded into being there was nothing. It doesn't take a great deal of logic to conclude that those properties coming from nothing and coming together in a life sustaining manner is in fact a miracle. We can debate the meaning of the word for all time but it wouldn't change the meaning for the majority. The card analogy does not match up because it is not making an equivical comparison. To make such a comparison we would first have to determine how the cards already exist then explain why they have logical designed principles to create such sequences. The universe will continue to "work" reqgardless of anyones philosophical beliefs. Herein lies why naturalism/materialism self-destructs because if there was no transcendant God and creator then the naturalist world has the burden of explaining how this world exists at all. Not only can "science" not explain the why, but it can't explain the how either. If everything is material then how did it come from nothing? Beyond the existence, naturalism can't even explain the species as bacteria has never been observed to mutate into anything, it stays bacteria. Time + matter + chance doesn't equate to new species because it has never been observed and time creates disorder, not order. The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes this clear in the principle of entropy. Darwinism self-destructs. All of this requires the naturalist to have a great deal of faith and this is just one reason why I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. [Know everyone here has heard this tired point.] >>How can someone honestly search for truth if they've already discounted a possible conclusion? That is what is happening when a naturalist dogmatically asserts that life arose spontaneously from it's non-living chemical components. Richard Lewontin confessed that materialism "cannot allow a divine foot in the door." This is pure, ideology giving way to unsupported theories. For the thinking Christian, based on the laws of logic and the observation of the evidence it requires more faith to believe in naturalism. There is such a thing as good science and bad science. Just as an example, bad science is believing in macroevolution JUST becuase microevolution can be observed. Unfortunately this sort of "science" is lumped into what is taught to the public as the only science and the public has unknowingly accepted it as truth. I come to my conclusions that best answers what we can logically determine based on observation and forensic evidence and is why I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
- Login to post comments
Offline OK, that's not gonna end well, you'll probably sceptically freak out, but I think these christians in some sense are right. You have heard this argument 100x before, you think we, as a highly organized and compicated system can exist as a result of a coincidence, because of a chance. There is so much molecules, that there are possible combinations which allows an existence of life.
But this is not a question of a chance. It's a question of enthropy. Enthropy is a force of chaos, it smoothes differences (like energetic) in a system, disorganizes it. It's commonly seen as an effect of decay. All living organisms can survive only because they fight with the enthropy all the time, they multiply their cells and individuals, they read, repair and copy their DNA all the time, without a rest, this is the only way how a DNA information may be preserved. A cell is designed to do this purposely, to preserve and multiply itself, except of common functions, like serving as a muscle.
We imagine, that a "primordial soup", a warm place, rich for water, carbon, sulphur dioxide, and so on, is simply a machine, which first produces amino-acid molecules and then combines them one after another as a brute force algorithm, to break the password of life, to invent DNA and let it multiply. Let's put aside for now how this is coincidential or natural.
This is, when the enthropy ruins the job. Whenever any molecules connects together, there will be always enough of them around, so there will be inevitably another, "wrong" molecule, which connects to it and makes the macromolecule useless. (useless? For what use?)
A basic parts under an influence of enthropia are restricted from forming a higher systems. The only way how to surpass enthropia, is a highly organized and intense activity directed on survival, or no activity at all.
It's impossible for nature to have a protected pond, where a molecule develops, by one correct piece of adenin, guanin, thiamin and cytosin after another. There is theoretically a chance, but it isn't enough for the time of milliards of years we can consider as a reasonable. The life just appeared too quickly. And imagine, how this succesful hit would look under a microscope. Imagine these molecules connecting to one another in a correct order. It would look just like a controlled process. Humans have about 3 milliards of base pairs in DNA. Unfortunately I couldn't find how many a simple bacteria, possibly primordial, can have, but it would be still a lot, for them to be all generated correctly, before a sun of our type would burn out and destroy such a promising place for life.
Even if by some miracle such a molecule appeared, there are no mechanisms how to protect it, feed it, repair it and copy it. This requires a cell, fully equipped by enzymes, cell membrane, mitochondria, vacuoles, DNA coiled into chromozomes, and so on. These things can't multiply without DNA, and DNA can't multiply without them. There is no way how they could appear, sustain themselves and come into unity with a DNA, which of course already must contain an information of their construction.
We know, that some viruses are really simple. They can be created by mere mixing together a DNA solution with compounds for a cell membrane. But viruses are not a primordial form of life. They are parasites on cells, they do nothing by themselves, when they're not in cells. And in cells they just rewrite DNA already present there, to produce more viruses. Viruses wouldn't survive without cells.
All this problem is a variation of the classical "was the first a hen or an egg?" Its solution is a "dinosaur egg", because we know the birds evolved from dinosaurs, but this can't be applied on the life itself. I have heard that a possible principle are crystals, but how can organic, amino-acid molecules, still in a water, become a crystal, is unknown to me.
Of course I still don't consider it as a reason to be a Christian. This thought is relatively logical, but most of the rest of religion isn't.
Please, if there is any mistake in my theoretical mind exercise, feel free to point it out, but I am here, unlike the christian couple who probably won't read all the hateful BS by which you show how nice person you are.
Note, that I usually know nothing of common logical and illogical arguments, until you mention them here and I google em up.
Summary:
Here is my argument a considering the life too complicated to appear by a natural cause. The coincidential life creation wasn't yet repeated in a laboratory, and it currently isn't proven by an experiment. This may sound as an argument from ignorance, but just after it I point out the lack of supportive mechanisms, without which a DNA isn't able to persist. Even DNA itself is a complicated structure, like these spinal base molecules, keeping it together, you see, the double helix beauty...
Now it is a typical argument of the fine design. I honestly tried to fix that error, to study this argument and I have found
this link:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=91 on this argument, so I hope to find there its flaws. But this document is very long and so far there still are just supportive arguments and defeated objections, gotta read further. Or did I really stumble upon a theistic web page? Maybe yes, there are sacred incantations like "quantum/vacuum fluctuation", "pre-existing superspace", or "spontaneously".
This objection is quite interesting.
Objection 4: The "Who Designed God?" Objection
As I would describe the problem, the major difference, between things, which needs a designer (universe) and which doesn't need a designer (God) is a time. If a time is a property of this universe, then this universe has a beginning and an end. The time is believed to start with the big bang, about 10-20 milliards of years ago. If God is independent on this universe, (which we suppose it is) then it is not dependent on a time, as we know it, so there is no need for God to have a beginning or an end. Note, that physicist still didn't explore the time precisely, what it exactly is, they haven't mastered it, so there is too much of blank space for the atheistic side of the argument. Theists, on the other side, doesn't understand the time either and can just rely on the argument of ignorance, and assume things, thus this objection isn't much objectively discussable.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
- Login to post comments
Offline
>>When you study the information that we have concerning our existence it is clear that the odds of the existence of this world are beyond astronomical (no pun intended) and in fact would be deemed a miracle...... and that naturalism of course cannot provide any answer.
The information that we have concerning our existence is something we have thanks to scientific investigation and intellectual application, not the result of religious belief which, in the christian sense as in most others of that nature, tended to provide "answers" to that question before any data had even been assembled.
"Beyond astronomical", whether the pun is intended or not, is not an amount. It is simply a figure of speech that indicates the speaker has encountered a numeric value beyond their imagination's ability to appreciate in terms of quantifying. That this undefined amount can then be deemed a criterion by which a miracle can be declared depends therefore completely on how willing the speaker is to believe in the miraculous. Rubbish, in other words, since the conclusion has been reached even after they have admitted that the available data has not been read by them, let alone understood.
"Naturalism", if it means a refusal to accept answers that do not have demonstrable rationale in their deduction, is the antithesis to faith. Contrary to the speaker's assertion this approach has yielded, thus far, the only answers we have that we can trust. Blind faith on the other hand, if it had never been informed (often against its holders' will) by the results of scientific deduction, would never have arrived at anything even approaching as credible and trustworthy an answer to life's origin as an understanding of physics, biology and evolution has given us.
Subjectively of course we can all choose to accept or reject any answers we we are told apply, but in adopting certain answers as being the only correct ones we must expect to be taken to task over them and explain our choices rationally. Scientifically deduced answers can be thus explained. Faith-based answers are unequal to this very simple test and the rest of the quoted passages from your husband's relations bear this out. Her repeated assertion that she "doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist" is, given her exposed ignorance of the subject matters that she herself raises, simply a synonym for the fact she does not have the inclination or ability to read, learn and assess the available data before arriving at a conclusion.
Her mind is made up and in a manner that precludes normal debate. Unless she entertains the possibility of this being true no meaningful debate, let alone a conversion to rational thinking, is likely.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
- Login to post comments
Offline >>I guess it sounds good if you want to forego logic, but Mr. Harris should be reminded that naturalism/materialism is a religion that requires faith as well. Reason alone is non-sense because reason pre-supposes faith. Defense of reason by reason is circular, therefore worthless. His own arguement makes the same mistake he insists theists make and thus his statement self-destructs. [WTF?]
"Forego logic?" Them's fightin' words.
First, they must express exactly the precepts of faith on which naturalism rests. Otherwise, they are merely making unfounded assertions. Then ask how reason presupposes faith. (I've seen this in another thread, with Paisley, and it didn't make sense there, either. Where did this meme arise?)
Defence of reason by reason might be circular, but defence of reason by observation is not. Science, which is a combination of observation and reason, has provided us with a coherent ontology that is congruent with reality. There is no other epistemology that can make similar claims. So, for now, the scientific method is the only way we can attain knowledge with any degree of certainty. (There's never 100% certainty with science, but we can approach 100% asymptotically.)
Finally, "nature" is comprehensive of all that is in the universe, by definition. What do they propose that is outside the universe, and by what epistemology did they arrive at that knowledge?
>>When you study the information that we have concerning our existence it is clear that the odds of the existence of this world are beyond astronomical (no pun intended) and in fact would be deemed a miracle...... and that naturalism of course cannot provide any answer.
The odds of existence of our world were incalculable just a couple of years ago. We had no data concerning the distribution of planets in various solar systems. We now have much better data, and it turns out that planets are very common. Consider: we have only surveyed a couple of hundred solar systems, and have found dozens of planets. As you pointed out, there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. So the odds of the existence of our world, even if a billion to one (which we now know is extremely pessimistic) would still give our planet excellent odds for existence.
As far as the chances of us evolving -- sure, if you think about evolution having a "goal" (that is, us), then it's damned near impossible without some guiding force. Once you understand evolution is a mindless, directionless process that wanders wherever the genetic raw materials and the lathes of environment take it, you realize that chance didn't make us. Evolution made us. We aren't here because we were a goal. We only think we're special because we observe us, and think we're somehow special. (And maybe that thought itself makes us special.)
The other thing to consider: we're not done. If mankind survives, we will continue to evolve. The only difference is, we might guide our own evolution. And that is a scary, wonderful thought.
In the end, their assertion is just plain, flat-out, incontrovertibly wrong.
>>The simple fact that science states before time, matter and space exploded into being there was nothing. It doesn't take a great deal of logic to conclude that those properties coming from nothing and coming together in a life sustaining manner is in fact a miracle. We can debate the meaning of the word for all time but it wouldn't change the meaning for the majority. The card analogy does not match up because it is not making an equivocal comparison. To make such a comparison we would first have to determine how the cards already exist then explain why they have logical designed principles to create such sequences. The universe will continue to "work" regardless of anyone's philosophical beliefs. Herein lies why naturalism/materialism self-destructs because if there was no transcendent God and creator then the naturalist world has the burden of explaining how this world exists at all. Not only can "science" not explain the why, but it can't explain the how either. If everything is material then how did it come from nothing? Beyond the existence, naturalism can't even explain the species as bacteria has never been observed to mutate into anything, it stays bacteria. Time + matter + chance doesn't equate to new species because it has never been observed and time creates disorder, not order. The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes this clear in the principle of entropy. Darwinism self-destructs. All of this requires the naturalist to have a great deal of faith and this is just one reason why I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
They really like explosion metaphors, don't they? ("Self-destructs." Hah!)
Science does not state that matter and space exploded from nothing. Scientists believe that is one possibility, but we know relatively little about the first few picoseconds of the universe, let alone the state of the universe before time even existed. (And can something "exist" before time?)
But even more mind-boggling than nothing existing before the universe, is the concept that God existed before the universe, If the chances of mankind evolving are astronomical, what are the odds of God even existing? Way beyond astronomical. If mankind is complex and therefore improbable, God is infinitely more complex, and therefore infinitely more improbable.
So the existence of God self-destructs.
And as far as the second law of thermodynamics: these guys haven't studied physics, have they?
Applies to closed systems. Sun provides massive energy gradient. Blah blah blah.
>>How can someone honestly search for truth if they've already discounted a possible conclusion? That is what is happening when a naturalist dogmatically asserts that life arose spontaneously from it's non-living chemical components. Richard Lewontin confessed that materialism "cannot allow a divine foot in the door." This is pure, ideology giving way to unsupported theories. For the thinking Christian, based on the laws of logic and the observation of the evidence it requires more faith to believe in naturalism. There is such a thing as good science and bad science. Just as an example, bad science is believing in macroevolution JUST becuase microevolution can be observed. Unfortunately this sort of "science" is lumped into what is taught to the public as the only science and the public has unknowingly accepted it as truth. I come to my conclusions that best answers what we can logically determine based on observation and forensic evidence and is why I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
Jeeeee-zus on a unicycle.
As has been stated (but I must state again, because I'm OCD that way, and I want to yell at them directly), macroevolution has been seen among bacteria. It's been observed in viruses, too (though viruses aren't "alive" ). And the only people who draw a distinction between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are those who wish to confound the issue.
What makes the theory of evolution through natural selection "bad science?" The "proof" of a theory lies in deduction. A theory must describe new knowledge. It must tell us something about our world we didn't know before. And that knowledge must be verifiable against observation. The theory of evolution through natural selection did just that. It made bold, bizarre predictions that have all turned out to be congruent with reality. From basic biology, through sociology, to medicine, and genetics, and anthropology, and dozens of other disciplines, the theory of evolution through natural selection has made many predictions, and all have turned out true.
That is the epitomy of good science. I'd say the only theory that has been more thorougly tested is Newton's laws. And even those laws turned out to be valid only within certain relative parameters.
What do your friends have to offer that comes close? What do they have that has produced a coherent ontology that is congruent with reality?
Sorry. I know I repeated a lot of what's already been said. I just had to vent.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline
For the thinking Christian, based on the laws of logic and the observation of the evidence it requires more faith to believe in naturalism.
i would advise you to challenge this person's faith in Christianity by exposing the evils of the God of the Bible in scripture. first you must remove this person's faith before you will be able to appeal to his reason. if you were to simply pose the questions that he should be asking himself and allow him to come to the conclusions on his own then that will be more effective than going back and forth with the same arguments over and over again. once this person's faith is weakened or hopefully removed completely then you will be able to introduce logic to him. rest assured, until he begins to let go of his faith he will always have a counter to whatever logic one introduces to him. this is my opinion, of course, and i could be wrong but i am convinced that this person's faith must get out of the way before any reasonable dialogue can take place. i do hope your exchanges will eventually progress beyond its current state. peace, jp =)
- Login to post comments
Offline The only way to forgo logic is to forgo thought. What many theists fail to grasp is that thoughts which generate conclusions are logical. That's the definition. If you go from one piece of information to another and put them together in any way whatsoever, you're using logic. The only question is whether you're using valid or invalid logic, and whether your information is true or false.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
naturalism/materialism is a religion that requires faith as well. Reason alone is non-sense because reason pre-supposes faith.
Have this person pull out a dictionary and look up the words religion, naturalism, materialism and reason. Have them show you where the definitions for naturalism or materialism includes the word "religion." Or have them show you what part of the definition of religion applies to naturalism/materialism. It doesn't and it won't. Also have them point out to you where in the def of reason "presuposition of fath" is included. It isn't...no where...no where at all.
When you study the information that we have concerning our existence it is clear that the odds of the existence of this world are beyond astronomical (no pun intended) and in fact would be deemed a miracle...... and that naturalism of course cannot provide any answer.
"Naturalism" as they put it does provide an answer. It is called science. The natural answer to life as it exists now is evolution. The natural answer to the universe is called the big bang. I would like to know what "information" they think they are privy too here. And don't let them say "the bible." If the bible is used to support itsself then they are using the same circular reasoning they accuse you of (by the way, your reasoning is in no way circular.)
As for odds and miracles, they really have no idea what those odds are. But highly improbable events are not miracles. In fact given enough time a highly improbable event will happen and is in fact inevitable. But just for fun...tell them you will only discuss the odds of the universe coming into existance on its own if they accurately calculate those odds. Tell them you can't discuss the subject intelligently unless you all know exactly what it is you are talking about.
How can someone honestly search for truth if they've already discounted a possible conclusion?
Oh that is BEAUTIFUL!!! The could not have given you better amunition if they loaded a gun and handed it to you. Faith is, by definition, a choice to believe on highly improbable explanation while rejecting all others no matter what the evidence might be. They have just declaired themselves to be Anti-truth seekers by their own definition.
Macro evolution is observable through the fossil record. That is the basis of the science of paleontology. If they disagree have them open that dictionary again. And since they enjoy using the word "logic" so much, start challenging them on the logic of biblical stories. Ask them how nine million animals could logically fit on the ark. Ask them for the evidence FOR biblical creation (not just gaps in evolutionary theory). And ask them how a logical person can ignore the contradictions between the two biblical creation stories. The list doesn't stop there!
Go get 'em!!!!
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
-James Madison-
Naturalism/materialism are simply the extension of the Burden of Proof...
We can easily establish the burden of proof by assuming the opposite. Suppose that there is a burden of disproof. Anything that can be postulated must be disproven before we can know what is true.
Once we have the burden of disproof established, we can make two proposals:
1) Everything that you hear is incorrect. You have never and will never accurately comprehend anything that anyone says.
Have your opponent try to disprove this. He'll probably make some kind of attempt by saying that he can see from how people react to him that he has understood them. Then, make your next proposal:
2) Everyone else on the planet sees and hears you incorrectly. Nobody on the planet has ever or will ever interpret anything you do or say correctly.
Have him try to disprove this, while laboring under the possibility that nothing he has heard about the propositions is correct.
Pretty soon, you'll have him twisting like a pretzel if you just keep adding propositions that make any attempt at proof possible. What you're hoping is that you can get him to either admit that the burden of disproof is nonsense, or go into some kind of nihilistic nowhere land. In either case, you win. If he admits that the burden of proof is real, this is the response:
1) Naturalism/materialism, then is simply the extension of the Burden of Proof. If we cannot prove something, we don't believe it. You've already proved this, since you don't accept any of my unprovable propositions as true.
If he goes nihilistic, you respond like this:
2) Ah, but where did you learn about God? From other people! You have no reason to believe in God, for you have no reason to trust your senses, since you can't disprove that everything you perceive is completely wrong.
It's likely that after you establish the Burden of Proof, he'll go on to faith vs. reason, which will just loop you back into the burden of proof.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I would suggest saying this.
You sir,are an idiot. I am loath to be in your presence lest your incredible lack of intelligence forms a black hole that sucks mine away too. It appears that in a ironic quirk of the evolution you don't believe,you are getting stupider with every passing moment,until you revert back to the mind state of your single celled ancestors. I perceive your intelligence in currently on par with that of the common crab.Except where crabs are fun to look at and can be eaten,you have no apparent purpose.Do everyone a favor and read a book.I suggest starting with a coloring book,before moving on to the great literary works of our time,such as Dick and Jane.
ok don't really say that,but we can dream.
WTF? Like Rocas said,ask him to show you where materialism or reason are religions. It is ridiculous he is accusing you of circular logic when he's using the bible.
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.