tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post1364787037982289662..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Loftus' account of a world in which he would believe: Gosh, I wish the gaps were bigger!Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger129125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53993143704232684432014-02-05T23:29:47.172-07:002014-02-05T23:29:47.172-07:00>Right. Because I think evidence is important t...>Right. Because I think evidence is important to ground your beliefs. Unlike the Thomist who thinks a philosophical argument trumps the evidence.<br /><br />Category mistake from the Positivist fundamentalist.<br /><br />Like saying the Second Law of Thermodynamics trumps natural selection.<br /><br />Even in a godless universe empiricism alone is not the sole means of knowledge.<br /><br />Get the frak over it or go have a good cry about it. Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32581217419546599042014-02-01T15:56:20.747-07:002014-02-01T15:56:20.747-07:00"Positivism boy strikes again."
Right. ..."Positivism boy strikes again."<br /><br />Right. Because I think evidence is important to ground your beliefs. Unlike the Thomist who thinks a philosophical argument trumps the evidence.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67397480928096483502014-02-01T08:13:13.858-07:002014-02-01T08:13:13.858-07:00Positivism boy strikes again.Positivism boy strikes again.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15233430693569602112014-01-30T09:58:09.793-07:002014-01-30T09:58:09.793-07:00RD,
1. Don't compare me to an unruly child tr...RD,<br /><br />1. Don't compare me to an unruly child trying to extort his daddy. What I ask for is quite reasonable.<br /><br />2. The evidence I require is objective. How you interpret it is up to you, as long as you can overcome your childhood indoctrination. That's why I don't believe and you do.<br /><br />3, 4. The evidence has to be objective and is everybody doesn't see it directly, they must have well-documented proof. This, of course, goes far beyond the flimsy tatters of ancient manuscript that you rely on. Give me eye-witnesses, and lots of them. Written descriptions from numerous sources (not just members of a particular sect, but people from all kinds of backgrounds, and especially skeptics), video, etc. Let me see wide-spread agreement that these things did in fact happen. And what do I mean be skeptics? I mean people who are both open to and critical of the available evidence.<br /><br />5. I don't specify how much evidence is needed for me to be a naturalist. I am satisfied that the evidence is sufficient (in fact it is overwhelming). Likewise, I would say that a single miraculous incident leaves too much room for doubt, and wouldn't be convincing enough for me. I'd need more than that.<br /><br />6, 7, 8. Why would I like to see a consensus in the scientific community? Because I understand how science works enough to realize that there will be no consensus until the evidence has been thoroughly tested and genuine efforts to debunk it have failed.<br /><br />9. If Michael Shermer sees evidence of aliens, let that evidence be examined too.<br /><br />10. By my definition, a supernatural being that can perform miraculous acts is some kind of deity. I don't care what you call it.<br /><br />Finally: "What attempts have you taken to properly and thoroughly investigate miracle claims?"<br /><br />Don't give me your hypocritical double-speak. If you were interested in evidence, you you would look at the evidence the world we live in. Sure there are people who talk and write books about miracles. Show me one. All I ask is to see the evidence. That's not unreasonable. You can't claim that I'm not really interested in evidence because I reject your mumbo-jumbo.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7722245110850718652014-01-30T08:38:38.428-07:002014-01-30T08:38:38.428-07:00Oh Skep, one more quick question:
Given your clai...Oh Skep, one more quick question:<br /><br />Given your claim that such a miraculous event would convince you that God exists, and given that this topic is important to you, and further given that you admit that you would not have to see the miracle itself but would trust the testimony of certain people, then I have to ask: <b>What attempts have you taken to properly and thoroughly investigate miracle claims?</b><br /><br />Have you, for example, read Craig Keener's book on Miracles and then gone out to try to meet with the people that experienced the miracle in order to test their reliability and veracity?<br /><br />Have you gone to different Churches in order to speak to people that experienced miracles?<br /><br />Have you sought out exorcists in order to discuss the topic with them and maybe try to observe an exorcism to see if something supernatural occurs?<br /><br />Have you spoken to Wiccans and other occult users to investigate their claims?<br /><br />Have you spoken to the Doctors that verified the alleged miracles at Lourdes?<br /><br />Etc.<br /><br />Please let us know the steps that you have taken--over and above discussing the issue on internet blogs--to determine the truth of miracle claims.<br /><br />Or are you just lazily waiting for a grand, earth-shaking miracle to just fall into your lap while you are sitting at your computer.... <br /><br />RD MiksaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20047740935961448052014-01-30T08:20:35.584-07:002014-01-30T08:20:35.584-07:00Dear planks length:
Your fantasy invention of &qu...Dear planks length:<br /><br /><i>Your fantasy invention of "every reasonable person", when you get down to it, translates to "every person who thinks like I do".</i><br /><br />Bingo!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27414348100564168062014-01-30T08:19:15.907-07:002014-01-30T08:19:15.907-07:00Finally…
You see? It's exactly as I said. We ...Finally…<br /><br /><i>You see? It's exactly as I said. We give an answer to the question, and you deny our sincerity.</i><br /><br />That would be because I was not born yesterday, and in my now seven years of experience reading and debating on the internet, I have found internet atheists to be slippery little bastards. Therefore, via inductive reasoning, I have concluded that the best initial approach when dealing with them is to be skeptical of their sincerity and candor. They have to earn my trust and good-faith, they don’t just get it.<br /><br /><br /><i>Here's why: We remain steadfast in our insistence on having sufficient evidence.</i><br /><br />Skep, I will not insult your intelligence by claiming that you are foolish enough to believe what you just wrote given that, only a few comments ago, I provided numerous examples of high-level atheists clearing stating that <b>no amount of evidence</b> would convince them that God exists. <br /><br /><br />RD Miksa<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27789779735441756602014-01-30T08:08:45.887-07:002014-01-30T08:08:45.887-07:00…but they would need to be genuine miracles as agr...<i>…but they would need to be genuine miracles as agreed by large numbers of skeptics.</i><br /><br />And suddenly, what I thought was going to happen did happen. The many “people” who needed to witness the miracle suddenly became the many “skeptics” that need to see it. How convenient. But this raises further questions, such as, what is a “skeptic?” After all, if by skeptic, you just mean a naturalist, then your whole argument turns into a joke, given that we have already seen that many naturalists (Richard Dawkins & Michale Shermer) admit that no miracle would ever convince them. Or do you mean skeptics in general? Would Intelligent Design proponents count, given that they are skeptical of Darwinian evolution? What about the skeptics who argue against human-caused global warming? Do they count? <br /><br /><br /><i>6, 7, 8. I have no doubt that some skeptics would remain unconvinced, but there has never been universal agreement on anything. Some may advance various theories.</i><br /><br />But that was not the question. The question was: <b>How would you answer the naturalists who invoked the multi-verse, or the Super-ETs, or the “We-live-in-a-computer-simulation” scenarios as a means to avoid accepting the miracle in question?</b> How would you show them that they are mistaken. Clearly you must have thought about this, so answer please?<br /><br /><br /><i>I would be satisfied if there was general consensus in the scientific community.</i><br /><br />Now I am just confused. All in the same comment, we went from many “people” needing to see the miracle, to many “skeptics” needing to see it, to a “scientific consensus” being required before it is accepted. Wow, the goal-posts keep on a-moving!<br /><br />But this “scientific consensus” thing raises another issue. Did you purposely pick a scientific consensus because you know that given the current scientific principle of methodological naturalism, there would never be a scientific consensus that a miracle occurred? Instead, you would be accused of “gaps” reasoning by the scientific community and then offered a note of promissory naturalism. So is this why you seek a scientific consensus for a miracle, precisely because you know that in today’s scientific climate, that would never happen.<br /><br />And what makes scientists so bloody special, especially concerning a historical event such a miracle? When it comes to witnesses for a miracle, I would, for example, put substantially more trust in the testimony of ten jaded cops than ten geeks in lab-coats.<br /><br /><br /><i>9. Real means that it stands up to all scrutiny. No tricks, no illusions.</i><br /><br />Except again, that was not the question. The question was: What standard of “real” would it have to meet and why? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Preponderance of the evidence? <br /><br />And if the miracle has to stand-up to “all” scrutiny and it cannot be a “trick” or “illusion”, then again, how would you answer someone like Michael Shermer who would just claim that the miracle was a trick caused by aliens. And he would claim this no matter what type of miracle occurred. Surely such a scenario is at least possible, so how would you answer him.<br /><br /><br /><i>10. Supernatural but non-theistic? What is that?</i><br /><br />Ummm, like certain sects of Buddhism that believe that Buddhas can perform “miracles” but that God does not exist.<br /><br />More to follow… <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28484752442390580192014-01-30T07:44:24.510-07:002014-01-30T07:44:24.510-07:00Con’t…
3. It should be something that in principl...Con’t…<br /><br /><i>3. It should be something that in principle, anyone could observe and examine.</i><br /><br />How can people who were not witnesses to the miracle actually observe and examine it, given that it is a historical event? At best, they would have to rely on testimonial evidence of the miracle or aspects of the miracle. Given this fact, would examining testimonial evidence count as “observing and examining” a miracle claim?<br /><br /><br /><i> It should be something that is actually seen by many thousands or millions of people.</i><br /><br />Hold on there…there is a major difference between thousands and millions. Which is it? Thousands or millions? And why? What is your objective reason for the number you chose? Can you give an objective reason, or is your number wholly arbitrary? And what would you say to the atheist who says your number is too low? Or are you leaving the exact number specifically vague so that if a miracle was presented to you with a thousand witnesses, then you could claim that you needed many thousands of witnesses before you believed, and if many thousands were presented, then you could move the goal-posts again and claim that you needed a million witnesses, and so on and so forth. Is that what you are trying to do? If not, then give us a damn objective number for the amount of witnesses that you would need.<br /><br /><br /><i>4. I wouldn't necessarily have to see it myself, but I would need to know that many people have - people that I could trust to be truthful.</i><br /><br />Oh no, we have some weasel words here. After all, what is the statement “people that I could trust to be truthful” except a means to arbitrarily move the goal-posts when desired and label someone (or some group) as “untrustworthy” when it suits your needs. Let me ask: would you consider theists trustworthy? Buddhists? Muslims? Or are the only people you find trustworthy fellow atheistic naturalists, which would be strangely convenient.<br /><br />Furthermore, you just claimed that the miracle would have to be confirmed by thousands or millions of people. Would you confirm the trustworthiness of each person before you accepted their testimony? How would you do that?<br /><br /><br /><i>5. I don't specify how many miracles or exactly what miracles…</i><br /><br />Actually, in your scenario, you did. But nevertheless, this point raises a concern. If you won’t specify how many miracles or exactly what miracles, then are you just, once again, purposefully leaving the scenario vague so that you can always have a way out. After all, given your lack of specificity, if God did perform one miracle, you (and other atheists) could then say: Well, it was just one fluke event and besides, it was not the type of miracle that would convince me anyway! And if he performed two miracles, then you could say: Wow, what a really strange fluke, but they were not the type of events that would convince me anyway. And this could go on endlessly.<br /><br />So, I ask again: given us the type and number of miracles it would take to convince you. Stop being so bloody vague.<br /><br /><br />More to follow…. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81387768356029890342014-01-30T07:28:39.162-07:002014-01-30T07:28:39.162-07:00"It should be something that would convince e..."It should be something that would convince every reasonable person."<br /><br />I have to second R.D. here. I consider myself a "reasonable person", and am convinced by the evidence that we already have (existence itself, order, predictability, love, objective morality, the witness of the Gospels, etc.). Mr. Reppert seems totally reasonable to me, and he appears to be convinced as well. Saint Thomas Aquinas is the very definition of a "reasonable person" and he was convinced. Your fantasy invention of "every reasonable person", when you get down to it, translates to "every person who thinks like I do".planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12928678080097294592014-01-30T07:16:06.812-07:002014-01-30T07:16:06.812-07:00OK Skep, here we go:
(And please note: I apologiz...OK Skep, here we go:<br /><br />(And please note: I apologize in advance for the length of my posts)<br /><br /><br /><i>1. How dare I demand proof? If he did it before, he can do it now. I need evidence to believe.</i><br /><br />An evasion of the question. Answer the question that I asked. Stop avoiding the issue! Once a proper answer is given, then we can discuss. So, I ask again: Do you have children? If so (and if not, then think of this as a thought-experiment), then when one of your children approaches you and makes some asinine demand like “Daddy, if you really love me and want to show me that you love me, then you will go out and buy me the whole set of Star Wars Lego right now”, do you actually give in to this demand? If yes, why? If no, why? And would you be more or less likely to give in to such demands if all your children were similarly insistent that you had to do all sorts of different subjective tasks and scenarios in order to “prove” that you loved them?<br /><br /><br /><i>2. Nothing subjective about my scenario.</i><br /><br />Of course your scenario is subjective <i>in terms of its power to convince and convert.</i> The event may be objectively visible to all, but that does not mean that it is not subjective in terms of its evidentiary power. You claim that your scenario would convince you. Well, maybe it would, but that does not mean it would convince the atheist beside you. He might need to see a different type of miracle. And another atheist may yet need to see another type of miracle. And so on and so forth. So, yet again, properly answer the question: If (for the sake of argument) it is assumed that God exists, would you expect God to perform this miracle for you even if it convinced you and you alone? If yes, why? If no, why? At the same time, if every atheist had his own subjective “scenario” that would be convincing to him but not to others, then would you expect God to perform each subjective scenario for every individual atheist? If yes, why? If no, why? Finally, if God did make all these scenarios happen in order to individually convince each subjective atheist, then do you concede that doing so would minimize the evidentiary value of each individual experience, turning the experience into more of a parlor trick than a miracle, and thereby negating the essential value of the experience in the first place?<br /><br /><br /><i>I specifically said it should be observable by all. It should be something that would convince every reasonable person.</i><br /><br />Ahhh, but what definition of reasonable are you using? The legal definition? Your own definition? What? <b>And do you thus concede that Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer are unreasonable given that they have clearly stated that even such a scenario as the one you describe would not convince them of God’s existence—in fact, they admit that no scenario would.</b> I am truly looking forward to your answer for the latter question.<br /><br /><br />More to follow…Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49028600087803624852014-01-30T05:47:08.173-07:002014-01-30T05:47:08.173-07:00VR: "OK, so what you guys are saying is that ...<b>VR:</b> "<i>OK, so what you guys are saying is that what God really should have done is create a universe so chaotic that there can't even be science, and therefore we would all have to believe in God? <br /><br />Really?????</i>"<br /><br />Yes, that's exactly what the God-haters are saying (that fact being the point of one of my prior posts).<br /><br />Another way to look at that is that they are saying that "what God really should have done is create a [world] that [*isn't* a world], and therefore we would all have to believe in God".<br /><br />At the same time, these vain-and-vapid God-haters, in their '<i>Science!</i>' fetishist mode, *really do assert* that the world really is "so chaotic that there can't even be science", as witness Carl Sagan in 'The Demon-Haunted World': "<i>Consider this claim: as I walk along, time -as measured by my wristwatch or my ageing process -slows down. Also, I shrink in the direction of motion. Also, I get more massive. Who has ever witnessed such a thing? It's easy to dismiss it out of hand. Here's another: matter and antimatter are all the time, throughout the universe, being created from nothing. Here's a third: once in a very great while, your car will spontaneously ooze through the brick wall of your garage and be found the next morning on the street. They're all absurd! But the first is a statement of special relativity, and the other two are consequences of quantum mechanics (vacuum fluctuations and barrier tunnelling,* they're called). Like it or not, that's the way the world is. If you insist it's ridiculous, you'll be forever closed to some of the major findings on the rules that govern the Universe. <br /><br />*The average waiting time per stochastic ooze is much longer than the age of the Universe since the Big Bang. But, however improbable, in principle it might happen tomorrow.</i>"Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42005100607945194862014-01-30T05:38:43.157-07:002014-01-30T05:38:43.157-07:00Concerning im-skeptical's demand for "con...Concerning im-skeptical's demand for "convincing evidence": Might I recommend <a href="http://catholicexchange.com/faith-demons" rel="nofollow">this article</a>? You really need to read it through to the very end, because what you are asking for is precisely what the demons have right now - intellectual assent minus any change of heart that would make such assent at all worthwhile.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43752660042155478972014-01-29T23:36:40.531-07:002014-01-29T23:36:40.531-07:00RD,
You see? It's exactly as I said. We giv...RD,<br /><br />You see? It's exactly as I said. We give an answer to the question, and you deny our sincerity.<br /><br />Here's why: We remain steadfast in our insistence on having sufficient evidence. That's precisely why we don't believe, and why we think nothing will ever appear to us that will be convincing - there simply is no good evidence. That's not the same as saying that we wouldn't believe if the evidence actually existed. But it doesn't. The bible is not good evidence. It's just hearsay from ancient times, revised over the years to fit the narrative. Show us the evidence.<br /><br />To answer your questions:<br /><br />1. How dare I demand proof? If he did it before, he can do it now. I need evidence to believe.<br /><br />2. Nothing subjective about my scenario. I specifically said it should be observable by all. It should be something that would convince every reasonable person.<br /><br />3. It should be something that in principle, anyone could observe and examine. It should be something that is actually seen by many thousands or millions of people.<br /><br />4. I wouldn't necessarily have to see it myself, but I would need to know that many people have - people that I could trust to be truthful.<br /><br />5. I don't specify how many miracles or exactly what miracles, but they would need to be genuine miracles as agreed by large numbers of skeptics.<br /><br />6, 7, 8. I have no doubt that some skeptics would remain unconvinced, but there has never been universal agreement on anything. Some may advance various theories. I would be satisfied if there was general consensus in the scientific community.<br /><br />9. Real means that it stands up to all scrutiny. No tricks, no illusions.<br /><br />10. Supernatural but non-theistic? What is that? I don't claim to know what form this deity would take. I don't claim it has to be anything at all like the one you believe in. In fact I expect it wouldn't, because there are too many logical problems with the Christian god anyway.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36777952926503544572014-01-29T22:56:00.322-07:002014-01-29T22:56:00.322-07:00Con't...
4) In your scenario, would you neces...Con't...<br /><br />4) In your scenario, would you necessarily have to observe this miracle yourself in order to believe it? Or would it be sufficient for “all” to observe it and then advise you of it via their testimony? And if you did need to see the miracle yourself, why?<br /><br />5) In your scenario, you stated that a number of miracles (4) would have to occur. Would all these miracles have to happen for you to believe? What if one less happened? Is there an objective criteria that you used to determine how many miracles would need to happen before you believed? What is this criterion?<br /><br />6) What would you say to the naturalist who remained unconvinced even if he witnessed all these miracles as you describe them?<br /><br />7) What would you say to the naturalist who claimed that these miracles were just caused by super-advanced aliens playing a trick on us?<br /><br />8) What would you say to the naturalist who claimed that many weird and wonderful things happen when you live in a multi-verse / Many Worlds Universe, and that we just happened to live in the one universe where these apparent “miracles” just happened to happen naturally?<br /><br />9) Your caveat is that these miracles would have to be “real.” What the hell does that mean? “Real” as in: beyond a reasonable doubt? “Real” as in: beyond a shadow of a doubt? Who determines what the “real” is? What objective criteria do you have to determine these miracles as “real.”<br /><br />10) Miracles might be possible in a supernatural but non-theistic world. Therefore, how would you respond to the supernaturalist atheist would scoffed at you for believing that the miracles were from God just on the say-so of the miracle worker in question?<br /><br /><br />I await your responses.<br /><br />Take care,<br /><br />RD MiksaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58158847976780691912014-01-29T22:55:40.880-07:002014-01-29T22:55:40.880-07:00Skep. said:
”Let me offer another scenario that ...Skep. said: <br /><br /><i>”Let me offer another scenario that I would find convincing: There's a guy who does real miracles, observable by all. He can walk on top of ordinary water in his bare feet without breaking the surface. He can transform water into wine with no tricks or gimmicks. He can make a person's amputated arm grow back by touching him. And when he dies, and has lain in the tropical heat for three days with no heartbeat and no breathing, and his body is reeking as it decomposes, he gets up and walks and speaks. The caveat here is that it has to be real. It has to be open to scrutiny by anyone. If these things happen, and this man says it was God who gives him these abilities, then I'd be convinced.</i><br /><br /><br />OK, Skep., here are a couple of questions concerning your scenario (and given that this is the scenario you claim would convince you that God exists, then I hope you have thought about it deeply enough so that you can answer these questions comprehensively):<br /><br />1) First, a general question: do you have children? If so (and if not, then think of this as a thought-experiment), then when one of your children approaches you and makes some asinine demand like “Daddy, if you really love me and want to show me that you love me, then you will go out and buy me the whole set of Star Wars Lego right now”, do you actually give in to this demand? If yes, why? If no, why? And would you be more or less likely to give in to such demands if all your children were similarly insistent that you had to do all sorts of different subjective tasks and scenarios in order to “prove” that you loved them?<br /><br />2) Next, since your scenario is completely subjective—after all, you claim that <i>you</i> would find it convincing, but not necessarily that other people would—then, if (for the sake of argument) it is assumed that God exists, would you expect God to perform this miracle for you even if it convinced you and you alone? If yes, why? If no, why? At the same time, if every atheist had his own subjective “scenario” that would be convincing to him but not to others, then would you expect God to perform each subjective scenario for every individual atheist? If yes, why? If no, why? Finally, if God did make all these scenarios happen in order to individually convince each subjective atheist, then do you concede that doing so would minimize the evidentiary value of each individual experience, turning the experience into more of a parlor trick than a miracle, and thereby negating the essential value of the experience in the first place? <br /><br />3) In your scenario, you state that this miracle would have to be observable by “all.” What does “all” mean? Every human being on the planet? One billion humans? One million? One thousand? One hundred? Ten? And whatever number you pick, why that number and not some other number (either greater or smaller)? What objective criteria did you use to establish that number? What answer would you provide to the atheist who argued that the number you picked was too small (or too large)? <br /><br />Con't...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78081436197397135432014-01-29T22:18:26.814-07:002014-01-29T22:18:26.814-07:00Skep. said:
How many times has the question been ...Skep. said:<br /><br /><i>How many times has the question been asked: What would it take to make you believe? And how many answers have been given? And every single time, they deny that anything would ever convince us - you know, because we're not about evidence, or anything like that.</i><br /><br />Skep, this time, you are absolutely correct: many of you Gnus are indeed not about evidence, or anything like that. <br /><br />For example, there is Michael Shermer, who has basically said that even if an event like you describe, and which would convince you, actually occurred to him, then he would believe that it was caused by super-advanced <i>natural</i> aliens rather than God. This is based on Shermer’s so-called “Last Law.” So no such super miraculous event could convince Shermer, because any event could always be the work of a Super-ET.<br /><br />Thomas Nagel, in <i>The Last Word</i> admits: “In speaking of the fear of religion … I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time.”<br /><br />Next, both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins admit that they would remain skeptical of God’s existence even if a 15-foot tall Jesus appeared to them and boomed “I exist” (http://www.newstatesman.com/2011/06/dawkins-myers-religion-faith). Richard Dawkins, recently, even further confirms that, essentially, no evidence would convince him of God’s existence (http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/dawkins-finally-admits-he-is-closed-minded-about-the-existence-of-god/). Watch the video, it is seriously worth it.<br /><br />Atheist Steve Zara, writing on RichardDawkins.net, claims that “There CAN BE NO evidence for God” (http://old.richarddawkins.net/discussions/642394-there-can-be-no-evidence-for-god-revisited).<br /><br />And, as a final example, atheist JJ Smart, in the book <i>Atheism and Theism</i>, admits the following: “Suppose that I woke up in the night and saw the stars arranged in shapes that spelt out the Apostle's Creed. I would know that astronomically it is impossible that stars should have so changed their position. I don't know what I would think. Perhaps I would think that I was dreaming or that I had gone mad. What if everyone else seemed to me to be telling me that the same had happened? Then I might not only think that I had gone mad-- I would probably go mad" (pg. 46, 2nd Edition).<br /><br /><br />So yes, Skep., you are entirely correct: for many prominent atheists, it has nothing to do with the evidence at all.<br /><br />And furthermore, it is clear from the examples above that many of your fellow Gnus would be entirely unconvinced by the very events which you—as you describe below—would find convincing, which just goes to show how utterly subjective and fickle many atheists are in terms of what type of “evidence” would convince them (and this thread about Loftus’s ‘World-Without-Science’ is another case in point).<br /><br />More to follow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4338793506308399132014-01-29T20:20:48.728-07:002014-01-29T20:20:48.728-07:00"OK, so what you guys are saying is that what..."OK, so what you guys are saying is that what God really should have done is create a universe so chaotic that there can't even be science, and therefore we would all have to believe in God?<br /><br />Really?????"<br /><br />...<br /><br />"Because with certain atheists, the modus operandi is always: tails I (atheist) win, heads you (theist) lose."<br /><br />How many times has the question been asked: What would it take to make you believe? And how many answers have been given? And every single time, they deny that anything would ever convince us - you know, because we're not about evidence, or anything like that.<br /><br />Let me offer another scenario that I would find convincing: There's a guy who does real miracles, observable by all. He can walk on top of ordinary water in his bare feet without breaking the surface. He can transform water into wine with no tricks or gimmicks. He can make a person's amputated arm grow back by touching him. And when he dies, and has lain in the tropical heat for three days with no heartbeat and no breathing, and his body is reeking as it decomposes, he gets up and walks and speaks.<br /><br />The caveat here is that it has to be real. It has to be open to scrutiny by anyone. If these things happen, and this man says it was God who gives him these abilities, then I'd be convinced.<br /><br />And by the way, its "heads I win - tails you lose".im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40360765257476244662014-01-29T17:58:27.704-07:002014-01-29T17:58:27.704-07:00Victor
"OK, so what you guys are saying is th...Victor<br /><i>"OK, so what you guys are saying is that what God really should have done is create a universe so chaotic that there can't even be science, and therefore we would all have to believe in God? <br />Really?????"</i><br /><br />No. What we are saying is that the God concept is simply an abstraction, an irrelevancy which has no useful purpose or epistemological value at all in discourse on the universe, chaotic or otherwise. What we are saying is, "Give it up". "Ditch it". The trouble is there are far too many competing, contradictory and incompatible religions, and there is only one public square. <br /><br />Professor Peter Boghossian, a real philosopher makes it abundantly clear: <i>"If a belief is based on insufficient evidence, then any further conclusions drawn from the belief [God created the universe] will at best be of questionable value. Believing on the basis of insufficient evidence cannot point one toward the truth. For example, the following are unassailable facts everyone, faithful or not, would agree upon:<br /><br />1. There are different faith traditions.<br />2. Different faith traditions make different truth claims.<br />3. The truth claims of some faiths traditions contradict the truth claims of other faith traditions, For example, Muslims believe Muhammad (570-632) was the last prophet (Sura 33:40). Mormons believe Joseph Smith (1805-1844), who lived after Muhammad, was a prophet.<br />4. It cannot both be the case that Muhammad was the last prophet and someone who lived after Muhammad was also a prophet.<br />5. Therefore: <b>At least</b> one of these claims <b>must</b> be false (perhaps both)."</i><br /> <br />OR<br /><br />3(a). The Christian tradition makes the truth claim that Jesus was the Son of God.<br />4(a). The Muslim tradition makes the truth claim that Jesus was not the Son of god but simply an earthly prophet.<br /><br /><br /><i>"It is impossible to figure out which of these claims is incorrect if the tool one uses to do so is faith. As a tool, as an epistemology, as a method of reasoning, as a process for knowing the world, faith cannot adjudicate between competing claims. Faith cannot steer on away from falsehood and toward truth. This is because faith does not have a built-in corrective mechanism. That is, faith claims have no way to be corrected, altered, revised, or modified."</i> Boghossian (p.31)<br /><br />That is why the under thirties are leaving Christianity in droves. It simply isn't kosher [to use a wonderful Jewish term]. The best that Christianity can ever hope to salvage from this change in public sentiment is to accept the dominant paradigm in America today, <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2010/09/mutant-fake-christianity-on-loose/" rel="nofollow">Moralistic Therapeutic Deism [MTD]</a>. <br /><br />While many of the religious papers and commenters attempt to put a positive spin on it, what it is signaling is the halfway house in which most young people are prepared to reside. They have moved on from Christianity on their way towards, as Dawkins would note, science and reason.<br /><br />There is no winding back to the good old days of theo-philosophical placemarkers.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70887983514656515072014-01-29T17:34:43.469-07:002014-01-29T17:34:43.469-07:00Dear Dr. V. Reppert:
You said:
"OK, so what...Dear Dr. V. Reppert:<br /><br />You said:<br /><br /><i>"OK, so what you guys are saying is that what God really should have done is create a universe so chaotic that there can't even be science, and therefore we would all have to believe in God? Really?????"</i><br /><br />And the best part about this whole line of "argumentation" is that we all know what the atheists in such a world would <i>really</i> say:<br /><br />"Oh course God does not exist. After all, how could you stupid theists believe that a rational and loving God exists when this means that He would have created such a chaotic and dangerous universe where there is little order, regularity, or rationality to natural processes, where we, his creatures, cannot even create the most basic technology given the unstable nature of nature, and thus cannot alleviate our human condition or improve our lot. It is obvious that no rational and loving God would create such a universe."<br /><br />Indeed, I would be willing to bet a paycheck that that is exactly what atheists in that universe would say.<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />Because with certain atheists, the modus operandi is always: tails I (atheist) win, heads you (theist) lose.<br /><br />Take care,<br /><br />RD MiksaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90793741933756204882014-01-29T15:56:30.895-07:002014-01-29T15:56:30.895-07:00OK, so what you guys are saying is that what God r...OK, so what you guys are saying is that what God really should have done is create a universe so chaotic that there can't even be science, and therefore we would all have to believe in God? <br /><br />Really?????Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68368910419955142622014-01-29T15:33:17.440-07:002014-01-29T15:33:17.440-07:00As usual, the old man desperate for attention has ...As usual, the old man desperate for attention has to be reminded that I <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/09/was-aquinas-dualist.html?showComment=1349025520932#c7285703798154290064" rel="nofollow">don't interact with plagiarists</a>. Or, for that matter, hatemongers.<br /><br />Then again, if there's one thing this thread has taught us, it's that the more desperate Cultists of Gnu have reading comprehension issues.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25801450121873233462014-01-29T15:27:20.360-07:002014-01-29T15:27:20.360-07:00"Aren't you always going on about the imp...<i>"Aren't you always going on about the importance of probabilities, John? Give us the probabilities God would make a rational, orderly universe with predictable properties versus a universe with no discernible rhyme or reason to it."</i><br /><br />This is the delusional reflexive blurting gush of the superstitious supernaturalist, the unsophisticated immaterialist, of "Sophisticated Theology™" , desperately attempting to cloak their argument with a sniff of respectability by disguising the nonsense as if it were a matter of probability, rationality, order, and predictability. Christian theism is none of that, never has been. Indeed probability, rationality, order and predictability are anathema to the religious enterprise. Faith is the operative paradigm. Substitute the word 'God' with the Australian Aborigine's 'Giant Water Serpent' and the question on whether an orderly universe or one with no rhythm and one quickly appreciates how the argument is simply a risible non sequitur that even christians would pooh-pooh. There is no causal tie back for either an arhythmic or an orderly universe to the presence or otherwise of an anthropomorphic or animistic spectral numen. None whatsoever, nada, nil, zilch. Whether it be a god or a giant water snake is a scurrilous irrelevancy and a neanderthalic response to explaining the properties of the universe. <br /><br />You see, Loftus moved away from theistic irrelevancies when it became clear that to hold onto such primitive ideation was a compromise too great if one is to wade from the miasmic swamp of primeval religion. <br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65191673145220207652014-01-29T08:11:07.394-07:002014-01-29T08:11:07.394-07:00One way to look at my argument is that if science ...<i>One way to look at my argument is that if science were not possible, given my scenarios, then there would be no scientific objections to faith.</i><br /><br />The straightforward way to look at your argument is the way you yourself summarized it: you're endorsing God of the gaps arguments. You just don't think the gaps are big enough, according to some arbitrary measure.<br /><br />What's more, you didn't say 'if there was no science there would be no scientific objections to faith'. You said "The existence of this kind of universe and the creatures in it could never be explained by science apart from the existence of God." And now you're suggesting, well, even if science couldn't explain the universe apart from God (which is, even in your scenario, a poorly thought out claim) that 'textual, historical and moral' considerations would trump empirical observation?<br /><br />Aren't you always going on about the importance of probabilities, John? Give us the probabilities God would make a rational, orderly universe with predictable properties versus a universe with no discernible rhyme or reason to it. And after that, give us the probabilities either universe would be expected to exist or come into existence without God, by brute fact or the like.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44842899805905027172014-01-29T07:41:31.829-07:002014-01-29T07:41:31.829-07:00One way to look at my argument is that if science ...One way to look at my argument is that if science were not possible, given my scenarios, then there would be no scientific objections to faith. There are other objections though (textual, historical, moral, etc). Whether those other objections would undermine faith when there are no scientific objections would have to be seen, but I suspect those other objections would be enough to undermine Vic's sect-specific Christianity good enough to reject it.John W. Loftushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07167826997171207256noreply@blogger.com