- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Fallacy Content
-
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
@MayCaesar @Factfinder @21CenturyIConoclast Atheists have no evidence that a Creator does not exist; therefore, the Atheist is a deceiver and exists in self-deception.
-
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
May you were asked to provide scientific explanations for the miracle at Calanda and Barbara Commiskey's miracle - you didn't provide that. Its hard to say someone is not interested in the scientific explanation when they keep asking you to provide it. Now, the 4 doctor's who amputated the man's leg and were with him in the hospital afterwards, and the 2 doctors, who verified the leg was back 2 years later, testified under oath to these points. In fact 24 persons testified under oath and more were available, but the record keeper for the king, limited the number of witnesses who were examined under oath.MayCaesar said:Factfinder said:@just_sayin
Got any direct evidence linking your god to any of your failed claims? No? All hearsay? Nothing tangible that say yes my god did it? Lack of evidence speaks volumes. When you get god dna and direct links to god and the universe then you can talk science in your fantasy realm. Until then, lack of evidence speaks volumes to the fact there is none to support your gods existence. Plenty that supports scientific theory as to our universe however.This is the crux of the issue that trips off believers: the question of whether something happened is completely separate from the question of, if it were to happen, what its causes would be. For instance, I could ask if the peak of mount Everest is above or below 7.5 km above the sea level (I honestly do not know without looking it up) - but knowing which it is tells me almost nothing about how it came to be so.Now, I just looked it up: it is actually the staggering 8.85 km. What would I do if I was a scientist interested in this stuff, say, a geologist? Well, I would perform analysis of samples of the mountain's materials at different heights and in different locations and try to reconstruct the history of its formation according to the best theories known to me. The hypothesis on its history would be firmly grounded in hard data and its rigorous analysis.A believer would employ a fundamentally different approach. Suppose I was a believer in the Mighty Ice Unicorn, and in my holy text of choice ("Ice Unicorn's Adventures") there was a cryptic passage about the Unicorn one day hitting the ground with its hoof and causing an earthquake of unimaginable proportions leading to formation of mountains of highly variable heights.Then I would look at that unimaginably tall peak and say, "This is clearly a handiwork... sorry, a hoof-work of the Mighty Ice Unicorn. All hail our Equidaic master!" What is the difference from the previous case? Instead of performing logical analysis driving the conclusion, I instead assumed the conclusion and backwards-rationalized it through pretense of an analysis.The difference is that a scientist formulates a hypothesis and sees if a) it matches the evidence and b) its negation contradicts the evidence - while a believer already has a conclusion in mind and looks for any information that can be interpreted as supporting that conclusion. The latter is exactly what the scientific method is tasked to combat: individual preferences and biases.This is also why there have been thousands of religions, but only one science. A Muslim and a Christian will never agree on much because each has different preferences and biases and simply interprets all information as proving them right. But a Chinese and an American scientists will agree on virtually everything since they are dealing with the same underlying reality and see the same outcomes of the same experiments. If a Chinese scientist believes that the free fall acceleration on Earth is 8 m/s^2, then he can conduct a very simple experiment and be proven wrong - and unless he deliberately lies about the outcome (in which case he is a lousy scientist), he must correct his belief. But if a Muslim believes that upon death he will arrive at the afterlife and have 72 virgins (or however many) waiting for him, then nothing a Christian can say or do will convince him otherwise: it is the afterlife, so the data is unavailable.Science deals with reality, while religion deals with fantasy. This is just a fact, and, in fact, honest religious people not only admit it, but see it as the strength of religion: it liberates humans from the constraints of this narrow physical world. It is the dishonest ones that try to see religion as a serious competitor to science. It clearly is not, and anyone who disagrees is free to show me a single technological invention that contradicts science, but aligns with religion. Any cars designed as a consequence of prayer to Allah the Merciful? Planes having miracle-driven engines? Anyone?
Still waiting on you to stop singing the 'science of the gaps' song, and provide the scientific explanation. Oh - the evil second referee excuse has already been used. Instead of looking for some science explanation, as you claim (that was funny), you have engaged in wild speculation that does not work with the facts we know. Again, you are the science denier, May. Your atheistic faith is willing to ignore established facts. While I have no problem admitting that the incident was not a miracle if the evidence proved such. If the event was shown to not be a miracle, it would not destroy my faith. Its your faith that can't accept the science, not mine. -
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
The definition of a miracle is an event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency. If a miracle exists - then God exists and has shown Himself.Factfinder said:@just_sayin
Got any direct evidence linking your god to any of your failed claims? No? All hearsay? Nothing tangible that say yes my god did it? Lack of evidence speaks volumes. When you get god dna and direct links to god and the universe then you can talk science in your fantasy realm. Until then, lack of evidence speaks volumes to the fact there is none to support your gods existence. Plenty that supports scientific theory as to our universe however.
Lack of evidence??? The miracles I've mentioned all have eye witnesses, doctor's attestation, and medical records. Some have video evidence, news reports, peer reviewed case record accounts, and certified under oath in a court eye witness accounts. But you know that. Its not that there is no evidence, just that your atheistic faith won't allow you to admit that there is evidence. Your special pleading doesn't change reality though. -
Christianity
@Factfinder ; You did not choose to be placed in Time as hundreds of thousands of warriors did not "choose" to be placed in harms way to fight for their County and they too had the option of cowardliness and treason of loyalty to the Nation and people depending upon them. You have chosen the path of the cowardly fool.
-
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
I think they comprehend that in other areas of their life, in those in which getting things wrong has immediate negative consequences. No one crosses the road by holding onto fantasy: every adult, and even probably a kid, understands that this is no time to mess around.The more abstract and removed from immediate reality things become though, the more room for fantasy there appears to be. I can believe that the Moon is a large piece of Swizz cheese without immediately dying or getting hurt. The problem with this belief is more metaphysical: the reasoning I have to employ to hold this belief will poison my thinking in other areas of life, and eventually something is likely to give.Ayn Rand used to say that people do not take philosophy seriously enough, thinking it some kind of game, of the stuff people do in their spare time. Yet philosophy matters a lot, and if we look at a place like Saudi Arabia or North Korea, we will see clearly why. Believing in prophets flying to the sky on a horse seriously leads to terrible life choices, and those aggregated across time and population lead to terrible societies.---I will also add that all the criticism I make of religious people also applies to me. In general, I am most interested in errors in other people's thinking or actions because I realize that they come from the source that I also must have, and identifying them in others allows me to do some debugging in myself. I am sure I am guilty of all the same mistakes I point out in others, they just manifest in different ways.
-
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
@MayCaesar
Well I know that, you know that, pity most believers won't even comprehend that. But it does help to say and hear it once in awhile!
-
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
Factfinder said:@just_sayin
Got any direct evidence linking your god to any of your failed claims? No? All hearsay? Nothing tangible that say yes my god did it? Lack of evidence speaks volumes. When you get god dna and direct links to god and the universe then you can talk science in your fantasy realm. Until then, lack of evidence speaks volumes to the fact there is none to support your gods existence. Plenty that supports scientific theory as to our universe however.This is the crux of the issue that trips off believers: the question of whether something happened is completely separate from the question of, if it were to happen, what its causes would be. For instance, I could ask if the peak of mount Everest is above or below 7.5 km above the sea level (I honestly do not know without looking it up) - but knowing which it is tells me almost nothing about how it came to be so.Now, I just looked it up: it is actually the staggering 8.85 km. What would I do if I was a scientist interested in this stuff, say, a geologist? Well, I would perform analysis of samples of the mountain's materials at different heights and in different locations and try to reconstruct the history of its formation according to the best theories known to me. The hypothesis on its history would be firmly grounded in hard data and its rigorous analysis.A believer would employ a fundamentally different approach. Suppose I was a believer in the Mighty Ice Unicorn, and in my holy text of choice ("Ice Unicorn's Adventures") there was a cryptic passage about the Unicorn one day hitting the ground with its hoof and causing an earthquake of unimaginable proportions leading to formation of mountains of highly variable heights.Then I would look at that unimaginably tall peak and say, "This is clearly a handiwork... sorry, a hoof-work of the Mighty Ice Unicorn. All hail our Equidaic master!" What is the difference from the previous case? Instead of performing logical analysis driving the conclusion, I instead assumed the conclusion and backwards-rationalized it through pretense of an analysis.The difference is that a scientist formulates a hypothesis and sees if a) it matches the evidence and b) its negation contradicts the evidence - while a believer already has a conclusion in mind and looks for any information that can be interpreted as supporting that conclusion. The latter is exactly what the scientific method is tasked to combat: individual preferences and biases.This is also why there have been thousands of religions, but only one science. A Muslim and a Christian will never agree on much because each has different preferences and biases and simply interprets all information as proving them right. But a Chinese and an American scientists will agree on virtually everything since they are dealing with the same underlying reality and see the same outcomes of the same experiments. If a Chinese scientist believes that the free fall acceleration on Earth is 8 m/s^2, then he can conduct a very simple experiment and be proven wrong - and unless he deliberately lies about the outcome (in which case he is a lousy scientist), he must correct his belief. But if a Muslim believes that upon death he will arrive at the afterlife and have 72 virgins (or however many) waiting for him, then nothing a Christian can say or do will convince him otherwise: it is the afterlife, so the data is unavailable.Science deals with reality, while religion deals with fantasy. This is just a fact, and, in fact, honest religious people not only admit it, but see it as the strength of religion: it liberates humans from the constraints of this narrow physical world. It is the dishonest ones that try to see religion as a serious competitor to science. It clearly is not, and anyone who disagrees is free to show me a single technological invention that contradicts science, but aligns with religion. Any cars designed as a consequence of prayer to Allah the Merciful? Planes having miracle-driven engines? Anyone? -
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
@just_sayin
Got any direct evidence linking your god to any of your failed claims? No? All hearsay? Nothing tangible that say yes my god did it? Lack of evidence speaks volumes. When you get god dna and direct links to god and the universe then you can talk science in your fantasy realm. Until then, lack of evidence speaks volumes to the fact there is none to support your gods existence. Plenty that supports scientific theory as to our universe however. -
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
You said you agreed to point 1. I pointed out that if something appears to be complex, like code, then it needs a coder, an intelligence to make it. You said you agreed.ChewingTinFoil said:@just_sayin 1. “I agree” it’s settled.
2. All of your astronomical and cosmological arguments wouldn’t matter because nothing can limit god. Also you comparing my argument against Mona Lisa is incorrect because there is a limit to Leonardo da Vinci's paintings. For god he can make an infinite amount of better universes. Also, before you say “Well then every universe would be trash compared the infinite amount of others.” Doesn’t make them finely tuned now does it? 3. The origin of DNA still remains a mystery.The DNA is a molecule, But the theory is that minerals are integral to the chemical evolution that formed dna. On to my argument, I was explaining how this excellent coder killed many creatures with his coding. Example. The Pyrenean ibex. The lack of genetic diversity made it difficult for the species to adapt to diseases, inbreeding depression, etc. Leading to its extinction around 2000 or so.
4. I have yet to be received any type of evidence of regaining eyesight or limb reattachment from this “miracle”.
The issue of being finely tuned is not based on if the universe could support human life, just that the universe wouldn't either collapse instantly due to its own weight or atoms fail to be able to be formed because gravity is too low. There is nothing within the fundamental forces that says they have to have the values that they do. That's why even atheistic or agnostic scientists agree the universe appears finely tuned for life. It is much more likely that our universe would not be inhabitable. There are only a very view values which will allow a universe like ours to form, and the odds of those values happening randomly are astronomical as Penrose and Hawking observed.
Some people will appeal to the anthropic principle and say that 'the only universe we could observe would be one where we could live', but that does not explain how we got so lucky. Imagine if you are about to be executed by firing squad and one hundred men aim loaded guns at you and fire and they all miss. You might reason "I'm alive so they all had to miss", but that would not explain what happened to cause them all to miss you. In the same way, it is much more likely that some intelligence tuned the universe to the right parameters than that it happened accidently.
Arguing that God could have made it better or more efficient, seems to miss the fact that it is finely tuned as it is. These arguments about a better universe impose some standard that can't really be defended as an objective one - it is subjective. For instance, someone may argue that God waisted so much stuff - this implies God is limited and can't afford to waist anything. In actuality, the size of our universe goes against many theories of the origins of the universe such as it coming from a virtual particle or two branes touching. In those scenarios, it is massively more likely we should be observing a much smaller universe, no larger than our own solar system - due to the likelihood of how energy discharges.
No evidence for miracles?????
Look here: https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/171231/#Comment_171231
Here: https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/166928/#Comment_166928
here: https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/174115/#Comment_174115
here: https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/167362/#Comment_167362
Here's a few to get you started.
-
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
I recommend that you feed my comments to ChatGPT so it can explain them to you.
