A challenge for atheist (From Youtube)

[Sheldon]

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

Neither 1 nor 2 remotely defines my atheism, nor atheism come to that. My atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. The rest of this straw man challenge are therefore irrelevant.

 

[Sheldon]

Choose God? You mean I can pick the god of my own choosing and with the same morals as me?
Where do I sign?

Macuilcozcacuauhtli

All hail, the Aztec deity of gluttony...

 

[leroy]

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.

Sure but most people would identify a real out of body experience as a miracle. It is hard to even imagine a naturalist that believes in OBE

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

Irrelevant you can simulate any environment in a lab, based on what we know th erigin of life requires multiple “unlikely” events to occur at the same time , under that basis I propose ID as a possible explanation

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

This explanation lacks explanatory power, there is nothing intrinsic in the mechanism of random variation and natural selection that makes “increase in complexity” the trend…. For all we know life could have (and should have) stayed simple.

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.

One of the strengths pf the FT argument is that it doesn’t really matter if the constants could have been different or what laws determine them. The argument would still work

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.

This is not analogous to “Elvis” people saw (or claimed to have seen) Jesus eat with him, touched him, talked with him etc.

Multiple people saw jesus at the same time

Besides we have the empty tomb, as we would expect if the resurrection was real,

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.

Ok we have discussed that multiple times

How does the God hypothesis help with any of these?

God/Miracles is the best explanation of that stuff.

I suggest you pick one and lets focus on that

 

[loverofhumanity]

I've never heard an atheist make that claim.

Plenty of theists, but never an atheist.

It’s one and the same thing, saying there’s no God or no higher intelligence than us.

 

[Sheldon]

Sure but most people would identify a real out of body experience as a miracle.

Where to start here?

It's obviously circular reasoning, an out of body experience is itself tantamount to a begging the question fallacy. However it is also a meaningless phrase. I will say it again before I get accused of being dismissive, it is meaningless. Unless of course someone can offer some objective definition of it? Oh I know, there's that word again darn it, nevertheless.

It is hard to even imagine a naturalist that believes in OBE

Well natural phenomena exist as an objective fact, as much as anything can exist as such. So this is like blaming science for not being able to explain what mermaids eat and how they reproduce. It's presenting something and asking someone to falsify it, when they know it is unfalsifiable,

The Italians have a lovely word for such things, foogazi. Oddly they don't apply it to unevidenced and unfalsifiable beliefs, but like other nations, they are a culture of contradictions. If you ever get the opportunity to visit Rome do so, I'd recommend April, before tourism gets into full swing, and when the temperature is not unbearably hot for a crowded city.

 

[Sheldon]

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

This explanation lacks explanatory power,

No offence, but that is hands down one of the stupidest things I've read on here, seriously. The mechanisms that have been demonstrated to drive species evolution are the very definition of explanatory. As compared to say "goddidit"...using magic....

For all we know life could have (and should have) stayed simple.

Except it didn't... Arguing that something that has axiomatically happened, shouldn't have, or may not have, or is improbable to...have happened, is pretty futile reasoning. I always marvel when creationists claim life as we see it existing is too improbable to have happened....even though it has...when what they are claiming is it is improbable to have happened without of course the addition of an unevidenced deity, form an archaic superstition, using inexplicable magic. You can't dent that kind of rationale really, poor old Occam must be spinning in his grave...so to speak.

 

[leroy]

Where to start here?

It's obviously circular reasoning, an out of body experience is itself tantamount to a begging the question fallacy. However it is also a meaningless phrase. I will say it again before I get accused of being dismissive, it is meaningless. Unless of course someone can offer some objective definition of it? Oh I know, there's that word again darn it, nevertheless.



Well natural phenomena exist as an objective fact, as much as anything can exist as such. So this is like blaming science for not being able to explain what mermaids eat and how they reproduce. It's presenting something and asking someone to falsify it, when they know it is unfalsifiable,

The Italians have a lovely word for such things, foogazi. Oddly they don't apply it to unevidenced and unfalsifiable beliefs, but like other nations, they are a culture of contradictions. If you ever get the opportunity to visit Rome do so, I'd recommend April, before tourism gets into full swing, and when the temperature is not unbearably hot for a crowded city.

We are talking about hypotheticals here.

All I am saying is that you have to consider all alternatives whitin your poll of options, you cant reject miracles by default, and then look for other expalnations

 

[leroy]

No offence, but that is hands down one of the stupidest things I've read on here, seriously. The mechanisms that have been demonstrated to drive species evolution are the very definition of explanatory. As compared to say "goddidit"...using magic....

.

Well provide a scientific paper that concludes that random variation + natural selection = complexity.

If you cant quote such a paper your alternatives are

1 write your own paper because you obviously have secret knowledge that scientist lack

2 apologies for claiming that I made a stupid comment.

 

[leroy]

Except it didn't... Arguing that something that has axiomatically happened, shouldn't have, or may not have, or is improbable to...have happened, is pretty futile reasoning. I always marvel when creationists claim life as we see it existing is too improbable to have happened....even though it has...when what they are claiming is it is improbable to have happened without of course the addition of an unevidenced deity, form an archaic superstition, using inexplicable magic. You can't dent that kind of rationale really, poor old Occam must be spinning in his grave...so to speak.

The thing is that given the mechanism that you propose there is no reason to conclude that life should have become complex (nor that it is a probable outcome)

Given the existence of an intelligent designer, it´s obvious (or at least probable)that he would create life complex rather than simple. (ether by creating complex life directly or indirectly)

Darwinism (random variation + natu8ral selection) has many strengths (okams razor, elegance, consistency with previous knowledge etc.) but explanatory power is not a strength this “theory” when it comes to explaining complexity

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We are talking about hypotheticals here.

All I am saying is that you have to consider all alternatives whitin your poll of options, you cant reject miracles by default, and then look for other expalnations

Sure we can reject miracles by default. Miracles are things that - by definition - can't happen:

- miracles are things that violate the laws of nature.

- the laws of nature are descriptive: they're derived from what actually happens in reality.

- this means that anything that violates the laws of nature is not part of "what actually happens in reality"... i.e. it doesn't happen.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It’s one and the same thing, saying there’s no God or no higher intelligence than us.

... which is a hair's breadth from saying that there's no higher intelligence than us but God, and nothing higher than God.

I see quite a similarity between how you described atheist belief and the Ontological Argument.

 

[Sheldon]

We are talking about hypotheticals here.

All I am saying is that you have to consider all alternatives whitin your poll of options, you cant reject miracles by default, and then look for other expalnations

Miracles are irrational by definition, I don't need to accept or reject them, as this logical observation is independent of any decision I make; since they are defined using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. However my "poll of options" as you put it, is determined by what is objectively evidenced, and the weight of that objective evidence.

I note, since this is not my first rodeo, that you defend the principle of the claim, yet offer nothing in the way of objective evidence for anything specific. I cannot help but infer something from that. Why not cite what you think is the most solidly evidenced miracle, and why, straight off the bat?

 

[blü 2]

Each specific miracle falls or stands by its own merits

Or would, if we could find one.

I am taking for granted that out body experiences are miracles

Why would you do that when we can induce them in the lab?

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

So you think abiogenesis was a miracle? If (by which I mean when) we find how to create self-replicating cells from scratch in the lab, will abiogenesis still qualify as a miracle?

And very good evidence for [...] resurrection of Jesus

With respect, the quality of the evidence for Jesus' resurrection is absymal (and that's being kind).

No eyewitness account. No contemporary mention. No independent account.

The story exists in five versions, the earliest of which is Mark's, some 45 years after the traditional date of the purported event. There's little consistency in the stories, and each contradicts the other four in major ways.

Instead of the extraordinary evidence needed to support extraordinary claims, you couldn't renew a dog license on evidence whose quality was as low as that.

 

[Sheldon]

Well provide a scientific paper that concludes that random variation + natural selection = complexity.

The established scientific theory of evolution does this. After over 162 years of global scientific endeavour, the number of peer reviewed scientific papers supporting it is innumerable.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure but most people would identify a real out of body experience as a miracle. It is hard to even imagine a naturalist that believes in OBE

Well, there are all sorts of issues to address. But, suppose that someone was able to read a message on a shelf that was high in the room and nobody else in the room and nobody they interacted with knew the content of the message. And that they experienced this while the body was definitely not in a place that would be able to see the message.

That would be very interesting and would immediately lead to a host of good questions.

How were they able to 'see' if they don't interact with light? Are they able to see other wavelengths of light than what they can see with their eyes? Maybe see/distinguish other colors? This might give a clue to mechanism.

What circumstances are they able to demonstrate this ability? What other things are going on with them, with the room, with others around, etc? Again, this might be a clue to mechanism.

Is there a limit to the distances they can go, the speeds obtained, the acuity of the visions?

Answers to these might very well lead to good hypotheses concerning what is going on and how it happens. Without that information, it would be a single unexplained event, but with them, we could potentially get a scientific theory explaining what is happening.

Irrelevant you can simulate any environment in a lab, based on what we know th erigin of life requires multiple “unlikely” events to occur at the same time , under that basis I propose ID as a possible explanation

So the question is whether those 'multiple unlikely events' are simply our current best guess (when we know we don't know a lot) and how, precisely, an ID would be able to overcome that unlikelihood. Mechanisms are crucial for an explanation: HOW did some intelligence interact to produce this effect? Give the steps that were manipulated.

This explanation lacks explanatory power, there is nothing intrinsic in the mechanism of random variation and natural selection that makes “increase in complexity” the trend…. For all we know life could have (and should have) stayed simple.

Think of it as the difference between laminar flow and turbulence in a flowing liquid. We know of a great many situations where mutation and selection naturally lead to increased complexity. In fact, to keep the complexity low requires a very careful adjustment of parameters and would be more likely to constitute fine tuning.

One of the strengths pf the FT argument is that it doesn’t really matter if the constants could have been different or what laws determine them. The argument would still work

If the constants are moving to an equilibrium, that fails. Also, there is the sharpshooter fallacy operative here.

This is not analogous to “Elvis” people saw (or claimed to have seen) Jesus eat with him, touched him, talked with him etc.

So the story, as written, goes. But don't forget that story was not reviewed by the people who supposedly interacted with Jesus, the story was not written by an eye witness, and the story was written by someone with a theological axe to grind, making the story as a whole less creditable.

In fact, it makes it *far* less creditable than the sightings of Jesus, which were at least eye witnesses.

Multiple people saw jesus at the same time

If the story as written is accurate, that is. Now, which is more likely? That the story is exaggerated? Or that it was legit?

Besides we have the empty tomb, as we would expect if the resurrection was real,

Except that we *don't* have an empty tomb. We have a story about an empty tomb. Those are very, very different things.

Ok we have discussed that multiple times

God/Miracles is the best explanation of that stuff.

I suggest you pick one and lets focus on that

OK, fine tuning. How does the existence of a God explain fine tuning?

 

[Sheldon]

The thing is that given the mechanism that you propose there is no reason to conclude that life should have become complex (nor that it is a probable outcome)

Er, it is complex? And since species evolution is an objective fact, you seem to be pointing at reality and shouting Noooooo!

Given the existence of an intelligent designer,

Why do you get to assume that is a given without any objective evidence?

it´s obvious (or at least probable)that he would create life complex rather than simple. (ether by creating complex life directly or indirectly)

1 unevidenced assumption + 1 unevidenced assumption = nothing.

Do you know what a begging the question fallacy is?

Darwinism (random variation + natu8ral selection) has many strengths (okams razor, elegance, consistency with previous knowledge etc.) but explanatory power is not a strength this “theory” when it comes to explaining complexity

Nonsense, all this show is you haven't even a basic understanding of it. Complexity or diversity of life is precisely what the scientific theory of evolution explains. That's why Darwin named his seminal work "The Origin of Species". The title itself is an exemplary demonstration of what his theory explained.

More importantly, it is a false dichotomy fallacy that creationist use, to imply it is a choice between the scientific fact of species evolution or an unevidenced creator deity, using inexplicable magic, Now the creationist claim "goddidit" really does have no explanatory powers whatsoever, unless of course you can offer some objective evidence for the idea, and then some explanation that goes beyond bare assertions, that arbitrarily assign characteristics like omnipotence and omniscience to your deity of choice?

 

[Polymath257]

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

This assumes that the only reason to reject the Santa Claus explanation is because there is an alternative explanation that is better.

But even many 6 year olds can see through the Santa Claus story and see it as implausible. Even if they don't have an alternative explanation, they can see that explanation is not believable.

And one of the many reasons it is unbelievable is the the reliance on miraculous abilities on the part of Santa Claus and the reindeer.

 

[F1fan]

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.)

I already addressed this, and notice you dropped the fine tuning issue which is a bad religious claims out of ID, not science or factual. And claims of miracles are often dubious themselves, or have some reasonable explanation.

How the universe came about has many excellent explanations from a natural point of view. THESE are the default. Religious ideas about these are the alternatives that need to defend themselves, which they can't do.

So belief in God is also the alternative. Non-belief is the default.

 

[F1fan]

Well provide a scientific paper that concludes that random variation + natural selection = complexity.

This is part of basic biology. Part of what can happen in mutations is genes folding and duplication. This happens and new information is formed. It happens in evolution, which adds complexity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?)

3. God is like any other fantastical(*) entity that is asserted to exist without evidence.

(*) with "fantastical", I mean "out of the ordinary". Not like aliens. Aliens are biological creatures just like living organisms on this planet, only they live on another planet. And given the sheer size of the universe and everything we know today about biology, I'ld be extremely surprised if earth is the only planet in the entire universe with life on it. So "out of the ordinary" are things for which we have zero precedents and which, in this specific cares, borderlines magical creatures. Like centaurs, fairies and dragons.

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

That is utterly dishonest and riddled with fallacious thinking.
There's an argument of ignorance embedded therein which implies that unless one comes up with "alternative explanations" for all those things, then the claim that this undemonstrable god is responsible for it stands. That is off course ridiculous.

Secondly, there is no need at all to come up with alternative explanations that are simply asserted arbitrarily with no evidence at all. What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

2 if you go for option 2, you have to give miracle claims a fair shake, you can’t dismiss them by default.

False again. We can only give a fair shake to things that are presented with evidence. The "fair shake" would be to honestly evaluate the evidence. But there is none.
Alien abductees are treated in the same way.

You have to consider seriously the possibility of miracles. Or “god did it” answers.

Why? When did you even show that miracles are even "possible"?
In fact, miracles are literally things that are impossible yet happen anyway.

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)

Yes, we would assume aliens. Which are simply biological creatures like we know them on this planet. Aliens aren't extra-ordinary magical beings.

This is in fact why would assume natural aliens to be the builders and not magical unicorns.

so how woudl you answer this challenge?

To be honest, I'm not so sure what the "challenge" actually is?

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

Dear.... I wonder how many times I've already explained this.

When atheists compare god with santa clause, they aren't comparing the entities.
They are comparing the evidence in support of those entities. Which is non-existent.

It's the same reason why god is also compared to bigfoot, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, centaurs, etc etc etc etc. Magical beings where the only "evidence" for them are things like unverifiable anecdotes, dreams, visions, etc.