The Greatest Mistake Atheists Make

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The closest I've seen to an "evolution disproves God" argument is Steven Jay Gould's argument that the theistic evolution position (i.e. "God created us in his image and evolution was the tool he used to do it") goes against the reality of evolution as an undirected process where the endpoint cannot be predicted from the initial conditions. IOW, he claims that "theistic evolution" is a form of evolution denial.

This isn't quite the same thing, though.

 

[Storm]

The closest I've seen to an "evolution disproves God" argument is Steven Jay Gould's argument that the theistic evolution argument (i.e. "God created us in his image and evolution was the tool he used to do it") goes against the reality of evolution as an undirected process where the endpoint cannot be predicted from the initial conditions. IOW, he claims that "theistic evolution" is a form of evolution denial.

This strikes me more of a philosophical assumption than a scientific rebuttal. I've nver seen that argument, though, and I don't want to jump to conclusions. Have you an article with more detail?

 

[Sunstone]

This strikes me more of a philosophical assumption than a scientific rebuttal. I've nver seen that argument, though, and I don't want to jump to conclusions. Have you an article with more detail?

I think you can find it made in Gould's book, Wonderful Life.

 

[Storm]

I think you can find it made in Gould's book, Wonderful Life.

OK, thank you.

Of course, I make no promises of getting around to the library before forgetting, lol.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This strikes me more of a philosophical assumption than a scientific rebuttal. I've nver seen that argument, though, and I don't want to jump to conclusions. Have you an article with more detail?

Sure... on my bookshelf.

I don't have an online source, but I'll try to track down that particular essay and post a quote.

 

[Storm]

Sure... on my bookshelf.

I don't have an online source, but I'll try to track down that particular essay and post a quote.

Cool, I'd really appreciate that. And if you don't get around to it, no worries.

 

[Vansdad]

I notice many atheist who try to prove that God does not exist fall into the pit of one the pernicious of logical fallacies to ever exist. Yes my friends I am talking about the dastardly fallacy of the non-sequitur, which is Latin for "huh?".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

Take this old chestnut for example: The Problem of Evil

Some atheist like argue that just because evil exist this world, that must mean that God does not exist, we see it over and over again these forum. In fact postings or threads related The Problem of Evil are made at 20 per hour. I was bored one day so I counted. I still can't for the life see how The Problem of Evil is an argument against the existence of God? It just does not follow!

Here is another argument made popularized by Professor DeGrasse-Tyson, that is that God cannot exist because of the haphazard way we are put together. That is another non-sequitur.

Basically what atheist have a habit of doing is attack the tenets of religion and then suggest that by attacking the tenets they therefore have made a solid argument against the existence of God. But such is not the case. What they are doing is making an argument against what people think God is and not against the existence of God.

I find the biggest mistake is: no known evidence = non-existence. This is not even logical.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I find the biggest mistake is: no known evidence = non-existence. This is not even logical.

OTOH, no known evidence = "it's been made up" is quite logical.

While I'm sure there are things in the universe that no human being has ever experienced, but no human being can say anything meaningful about them at all.

All the god-claims I've ever encountered are also implicitly claims of knowledge. I haven't met a theologian yet who says "this is what I think God is, and while I have no reason to believe it's true, it hasn't yer been disproven, so there's a chance I'm coincidentally correct. After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day!"

 

[Falvlun]

OK, thank you.

Of course, I make no promises of getting around to the library before forgetting, lol.

FWIW, I absolutely love Stephen Jay Gould's essays in natural history (which he has published under multiple books, of which Wonderful Life is one). They are engaging, informative, thoughtful, and creative. You come away feeling like a genius, without feeling that tedious boredom assosiated with studying.

 

[Falvlun]

I find the biggest mistake is: no known evidence = non-existence. This is not even logical.

It's more like "no known evidence = no reason to believe in existence". A little more nuanced, but I feel it's a pretty rational position to take.

 

[Falvlun]

Dawkins points out that if organisms (or even parts of it, like the eye) are so highly complex that only an intelligent being could have made them, then the so-called creator must be so frighteningly complex that another super intelligent being must have made him. And so forth. Infinite regress.

That's exactly what the argument is. It has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with the argument, often put forward to prove that God must exist, that complexity requires a designer (and that designer is God). But if that were the case, then God-- who must be even more complex than the universe-- would require a designer.

 

[Storm]

FWIW, I absolutely love Stephen Jay Gould's essays in natural history (which he has published under multiple books, of which Wonderful Life is one). They are engaging, informative, thoughtful, and creative. You come away feeling like a genius, without feeling that tedious boredom assosiated with studying.

Heh. I've been meaning to read Gould for a few years now, actually. And I like studying.

 

[Vansdad]

It's more like "no known evidence = no reason to believe in existence". A little more nuanced, but I feel it's a pretty rational position to take.

There are other reasons to believe. However I wasn't talking about belief. I was talking about actual existence. Just because there is no known tangible evidence does not mean God does not exist. We exist and we have no known tangible evidence of how we got here.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There are other reasons to believe. However I wasn't talking about belief. I was talking about actual existence. Just because there is no known tangible evidence does not mean God does not exist.

And I think, as would Dawkins argue, that this is kind of a self-defeating position. You are correct in saying that just because there is no tangible evidence of something doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. What it does mean, however, is that you also have absolutely no rational basis on which to believe that something exists. Saying "just because there's no evidence of it doesn't mean it's not true" defeats the whole point of evidence as means to discern whether or not we should believe something in the first place.

We exist and we have no known tangible evidence of how we got here.

How we got here is irrelevant to the fact that we are here. We discernably and tangibly exist, indepedent of whatever our origin may be. You don't have to know exactly how something formed or where it came from in order to assured that thing exists.

 

[Vansdad]

And I think, as would Dawkins argue, that this is kind of a self-defeating position. You are correct in saying that just because there is no tangible evidence of something doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. What it does mean, however, is that you also have absolutely no rational basis on which to believe that something exists. Saying "just because there's no evidence of it doesn't mean it's not true" defeats the whole point of evidence as means to discern whether or not we should believe something in the first place.


How we got here is irrelevant to the fact that we are here. We discernably and tangibly exist, indepedent of whatever our origin may be. You don't have to know exactly how something formed or where it came from in order to assured that thing exists.

What you call rational and what I call rational are two different things. I was open minded enough for God to reveal Himself to me, as He does with so many people. Something atheists cannot understand. And I don't expect them too.

And it is just your opinion that says it is irrelevant of how we got here. Maybe once we do discover how, it will be very relevant. Often in life we are drawn to things and until we complete the "course" we do not know why.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What you call rational and what I call rational are two different things. I was open minded enough for God to reveal Himself to me,

I resent that remark, since you're implying that people who don't believe in God simply "aren't open-minded enough". I am open-minded, I simply refuse to believe something until I have sufficient rationalization for doing so. Please, do not judge me as being narrow-minded just because I don't share your beliefs.

And it is just your opinion that says it is irrelevant of how we got here.

No, it's not an opinion. You don't need to know how something came to be in order to identify that it exists, that's basic logic.

Maybe once we do discover how, it will be very relevant.

Or "maybe" not. You currently have no way of knowing, but I do have a way of knowing that something exists before I know how it came to be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Cool, I'd really appreciate that. And if you don't get around to it, no worries.

BTW: I looked last night and couldn't find it. Either it was buried in an essay about something else, or it was in one of his books that I took out of the library. I'll keep looking, but now I'm not sure I have it.

 

[Vansdad]

I resent that remark, since you're implying that people who don't believe in God simply "aren't open-minded enough". I am open-minded, I simply refuse to believe something until I have sufficient rationalization for doing so. Please, do not judge me as being narrow-minded just because I don't share your beliefs.


No, it's not an opinion. You don't need to know how something came to be in order to identify that it exists, that's basic logic.


Or "maybe" not. You currently have no way of knowing, but I do have a way of knowing that something exists before I know how it came to be.

But it does take being open minded in a certain manner. And just as you may think I have no rational basis for my belief it is also a judgement call on your part. Just because it cannot be shared to your satisfaction does not mean it is any less valid than your belief. My whole point is like you say we are here, we exist. And it is possible we were created and thus there could be a Creator even if there is no tangible proof. No evidence does not = no existence.

 

[Storm]

BTW: I looked last night and couldn't find it. Either it was buried in an essay about something else, or it was in one of his books that I took out of the library. I'll keep looking, but now I'm not sure I have it.

Don't sweat it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But it does take being open minded in a certain manner.

No, it doesn't. In my experience, people who believe in God can be just as close-minded as people who don't. To suggest that belief in God requires an open mind is not only arrogant, but insulting to people like me who strive to understand reality to the best of our ability and with as little bias as possible and simply happen to be atheists.

And just as you may think I have no rational basis for my belief it is also a judgement call on your part.

I didn't say you did. I said that to believe something without evidence means you don't have a rational basis for your belief, and that therefore the argument "just because there's no evidence of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist" is self-defeating.

Just because it cannot be shared to your satisfaction does not mean it is any less valid than your belief.

Again, never said it wasn't.

My whole point is like you say we are here, we exist. And it is possible we were created and thus there could be a Creator even if there is no tangible proof. No evidence does not = no existence.

And, as I have explained three times, that argument completely misses the point of evidence.