A challenge for atheist (From Youtube)

[leroy]

And what explanatory power do miracles actually have? Absolutely none. THAT is the problem.

Each specific miracle falls or stands by its own merits

Absolutely. I agree. What does that have to do with miracles?

I am taking for granted that out body experiences are miracles

That depends on the controls and how much was known previously.

Sure and those controls would help you to decide which is the best option

At this point, the evidence is against such events happening. Do you agree?

There is good evidence for some miracles (out of body experiences, origin of life, complexity of life)

And very good evidence for other miracles (fine tuning, resurrection of Jesus, origin of the universe etc.)

(this is my view)[/QUOTE]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am taking for granted that out body experiences are miracles

Why would that be a reasonable assumption?

 

[leroy]

And we should also consider the possibility that the Invisible Pink Unicorn sneezed the universe out of her divine nostril?

The problem is that the 'God hypothesis' offers absolutely no actual explanatory power over the IPU.

That is easy a unicorn (thing with matter) by definition is part of the universe and could have not been the cause of the universe.

The cause of matter by definition can´t be something with matter.

First question: how would you falsify the involvement of a deity?

How would you falsify the hypothesis that an asteroid/comet/ meteorite killed the dinosaurs?

Just provide a better alternative explanation, or show that the existence of a deity is impossible or highly unlikely.

There is nothing special about God hypothesis, it simply plays by the same rules than any other potential explanation.

 

[leroy]

Why would that be a reasonable assumption?

Because based on what we know about science and natural laws your conscience shouldn’t exist independently of your physical body,.

 

[leroy]

May I ask what you think of all claims concerning miracles coming from religions different from yours? Do you accept that Mohammed flew on a winged horse organized by God as shuttle service to Heaven?

Easy we have multiple independent reliable and early sources that confirm that there was a resurrection of Jesus, you don’t have the same thing with Mohamed flying

and again, just tell me what point you would like me to address.

- viole

I pick the fine tuning of the universe,

Which alternative explanation do you offer and why is it better than God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because based on what we know about science and natural laws your conscience shouldn’t exist independently of your physical body,.

And you assume that there can be no explanation for OBEs that doesn't involve existing independently of your physical body?

 

[Polymath257]

That is easy a unicorn (thing with matter) by definition is part of the universe and could have not been the cause of the universe.

The cause of matter by definition can´t be something with matter.

No, the IPU is an *invisible* pink unicorn and hence is not made of matter. So your objection isn't relevant.

How would you falsify the hypothesis that an asteroid/comet/ meteorite killed the dinosaurs?

Quite a large number of ways.

For example, if the iridium layer that signifies the meteor hit doesn't align with the last layer for dinosaurs, the hypothesis is falsified.

Just provide a better alternative explanation, or show that the existence of a deity is impossible or highly unlikely.

There is nothing special about God hypothesis, it simply plays by the same rules than any other potential explanation.

Which requires falsifiability. It requires that enough detail be known about the deity to be able to make reasonable conclusions about the state of the universe. it requires that the porbabilities of what we see be different depending on whether a deity exists or does not exist. NONE of those criteria is met.

 

[Polymath257]

Easy we have multiple independent reliable and early sources that confirm that there was a resurrection of Jesus, you don’t have the same thing with Mohamed flying

This is false. There are no eye witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. The quality of the evidence is the same.

I pick the fine tuning of the universe,

Demonstrate that there actually is a fine tuning in the sense that the basic constants *could* be different.

Which alternative explanation do you offer and why is it better than God?[/QUOTE]

How does God explain it? Which verifiable properties of God make this more likely?

How about the hypothesis that the 'constants' change over time and the current values are an equilibrium set of values? That is *at least* as good as the proposal of a deity.

 

[Polymath257]

Because based on what we know about science and natural laws your conscience shouldn’t exist independently of your physical body,.

So all that means is that *if* such things happen, we need to modify our understanding of the physical laws. This happens all the time in science.

Now, how would our understanding of the laws change? That very much depends on the specifics of what is observed. At the very least, it would add a whole new collection of phenomena to study.

Now, what does that have to do with miracles (actual violations of physical laws)?

 

[viole]

Easy we have multiple independent reliable and early sources that confirm that there was a resurrection of Jesus, you don’t have the same thing with Mohamed flying

All your evidence is just words on a book. Made up by some guys nobody knows. For what we know, those tales might have been written to entertain bored Romans at home. Something like “adventures from the colonies”. You got nothing. Not even the Jews, the closest we have in terms of eye witnesses, and expertise in prophecy, ever bought that.

So, what else do you have?

I pick the fine tuning of the universe,

Which alternative explanation do you offer and why is it better than God?

Ok. That is an easy one. I might mention that the whole fine tuning argument is nothing more than an instance of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, but it would not be fun.

so, i will accept the premise that there is a fine tuning to accommodate life that begs for an explanation. So, here is one of my possible naturalistic explanations:

There are possibly infinite universes. Covering all possible combinations of tunings. So, our universe is just one of the relatively few that have the right conditions to host life.

now, why is it better than God? Does it need to be better, or is equal enough? Anyway, Simple, we have experiences of universes, ours, and so, again, it takes a smaller leap of faith to believe in a multitude of what we know to exist, than in a single instance of something that has no reality track record at all.

easy.

ciao

- viole

 

[HonestJoe]

Which one of these 2 options is closer to your view? (or do you suggest a third option?)

I'd personally say a bit of both. There is a fundamental issue with you using the term "God" (capital G), which carries a specific set of definitions and assumptions (which form the basis of the part 2 here). Any given theist will (typically) belief in a specific god or gods, which will be entirely different to the god or gods believed in by other theists.

An atheist doesn't believe in any god or gods. That will generally involve not believing in any of the specific proposed gods they're aware of and also not believing in the existence of any kind of god in general, however defined. The first statement will apply to the specific gods and the second statement would apply to the general concept.

1 If you go for option “1” you do have a burden proof, you are expected to provide an alternative explanation for the origin of the universe, fine tuning, morality, free will miracle claims and all the stuff comonly attributed to God, in the same way I can provide an alternative explanation for presents in the Christmas tree

I don't entirely agree. For a start, you're referring to the characteristics of a specific subset of gods (probably the specific god modern Christianity given the terminology). Not all god concepts are presented as explanations for all of those things, and certainly not in all cases.

But even beyond that, I don't agree that there is a requirement to present any definitive alternative explanation to declare that a specific explanation isn't valid. If, for example, there are internal logical contradictions within the definition of a god or the explanation of how and why they cause these effects, we can say that specific god as defined can't exist. It is similar to someone accused of committing a crime but providing an alibi. If the alibi proves they were somewhere else at the time of the crime they can't have committed it (it would a be a logical contradiction for them to be in two places at the same time). They don't need to provide anything to explain who did commit the crime to demonstrate their innocence.

Anyway, "mundane" explanations for all of the things you list can be and have been presented. They're not always definitively proven explanations but they are at least as viable as the unsupported assertions attributed to gods and are therefore sufficient to support the non-belief in those specifically defined gods with the current evidence.

2 if you go for option 2, you have to give miracle claims a fair shake, you can’t dismiss them by default. You have to consider seriously the possibility of miracles. Or “god did it” answers.

Consider sure, but in the absence of any definitive evidence supporting a specific god as the definitive cause (as opposed to any different "supernatural" alternative, let alone any mundane ones), it will never progress beyond consideration. Ultimately, you can't use miracles to prove the existence of a god because you need to prove the god exists to present them as the cause of the miracles.

For example if we ever find the ruins of an ancient city on an other planet, you will naturally conclude that Aliens build that city (because “Aliens are not so unlikely)

Aliens as a general concept sure. Not any specifically defined type of alien.

 

[Polymath257]

There is good evidence for some miracles (out of body experiences, origin of life, complexity of life)

Why would any of those require miracles?

We can artificially produce out of body experiences including the sensation of being in a completely separate body.

We have many proposals for the origin of life. What we lack is good evidence from that time.

The complexity of life is very well described by mutation and natural selection.

And very good evidence for other miracles (fine tuning, resurrection of Jesus, origin of the universe etc.)

Why would any of those require miracles?

Even getting a good definition of fine tuning is problematic. How do we even know the basic constants *could* be different than they are? And, if they can, what laws determine how they change? That needs to be considered long before other hypotheses are considered.

The resurrection of Jesus isn't all that well documented. There are no eye witnesses and only writings from quite a long period of time after the supposed event. Furthermore, people are easily fooled: look at how many people saw Elvis after he died.

The origin of the universe may well not have a cause at all. In fact, I see that as almost guaranteed since all causality happens within the universe.

How does the God hypothesis help with any of these?

 

[Twilight Hue]

What does a real universe look like?

Excellent question.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's not so much that I think God has been proven false as that I don't think God is worth the effort to even try to prove him true or false.
What "type of atheist" do you think that is?

Clear in his thoughts, very likable.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why would any of those require miracles?

The miracle is a pig's heart in a human body.

 

[Altfish]

There is a challenge for atheist that has been circulating on youtube, this chalenge has basically two parts

Part 1

Define what type of atheist are you

1 God is like Santacluase, a character that is obviously fictional , we know that he doesn’t excist

2 God is like Aliens, he may or may not exist, “we don’t know” there is no conclusive evidence on either side, so atheism is simply the default answer

Which one of these 2 options is closer to your view? (or do you suggest a third option?)

Part2

The second part of the challenge is to accept the implication of your selection

1 If you go for option “1” you do have a burden proof, you are expected to provide an alternative explanation for the origin of the universe, fine tuning, morality, free will miracle claims and all the stuff comonly attributed to God, in the same way I can provide an alternative explanation for presents in the Christmas tree

2 if you go for option 2, you have to give miracle claims a fair shake, you can’t dismiss them by default.
You have to consider seriously the possibility of miracles. Or “god did it” answers.

For example if we ever find the ruins of an ancient city on an other planet, you will naturally conclude that Aliens build that city (because “Aliens are not so unlikely)…...... but the benefit is that you have no burden proof if you pick option 2, the theist has to provide his arguments. and only then you can ether accept them or reject them
---------------
so how woudl you answer this challenge?

The problem is that many atheist compare God with Santa clause, but they don’t what to have a burden proof, the point of the challenge is to show that you have to choose ether one or the other

Can we have an Option 3?

"I can find absolutely no evidence for any god, so I live life as if none exists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can we have an Option 3?

"I can find absolutely no evidence for any god, so I live life as if none exists.

Extra options would defeat the point of the false dichotomy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The thing is that we have good positive reasons to think that Santa is not responsible for gifts in the Christmas tree so if you whant to make God analogous to Santa Clause you would have to provide good positive reasons for all the stuff that is commonly attributed to God (origin of the universe, Ft of the universe, miracle claims, etc.)

BTW: have you ever given "good positive reasons" to attribute any of those things to God?

 

[osgart]

A certain many, and most Gods are like Santa Clause because of the idea of omniscience, and omnipotence, or supernatural powers. That's comic book stuff.

Some other gods may fall under the category of being somewhat like aliens.

My option 3 is that a freakish intelligence spawns all of life in the cosmos. For me there must be an eternal source reality that is the ultimate ground of being. This reality contains intelligence and has nothing to do with benevolence, nor omnipotence. I don't subscribe to methodological naturalism as a means to answer ultimate questions. Something metaphysical is going on.

I'm atheist toward all gods throughout history and see it as obvious mythology.

 

[blü 2]

your unbelief in miracles is based strictly on the appearance of a strictly classical world.

As I said, 'miracles' are a form of magic, 'magic' is the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality, and to date, impartial skeptical enquiry has found no examples in reality, the world external to the self.

Nor am I aware of any testable hypothesis as to how magic might work as an aspect of reality.

So at this time the only way in which miracles are known to exist is as concepts, or things imagined, in individual brains.