tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post2944927437654022926..comments2023-10-30T06:18:18.671-07:00Comments on Dogmatic Enigmatics: Evidentialist AtheismAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-40060923805175526642013-02-28T13:56:24.368-08:002013-02-28T13:56:24.368-08:00Glad you got something from it, and I'm happy ...Glad you got something from it, and I'm happy to have it linked. Thanks for reading. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-21996251002050879952013-02-28T05:12:01.131-08:002013-02-28T05:12:01.131-08:00Got a lot out this post. Cleared a few things up f...Got a lot out this post. Cleared a few things up for me.<br /><br /> My thanks. Linked to it on my blog. Hope you don't mind.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-43112016723943969062012-10-26T21:21:59.052-07:002012-10-26T21:21:59.052-07:00So faith is accepting inherent knowledge in the ex...So faith is accepting inherent knowledge in the existence of God and surrendering to his will? Do we also have inherent knowledge of his will? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-38000182347417650972012-10-26T13:12:53.048-07:002012-10-26T13:12:53.048-07:00Anon, this assumes a common but un-Christian under...Anon, this assumes a common but un-Christian understanding of 'faith'. Faith in the Christian sense isn't bare knowledge or belief. You can know someone exists and still not have faith in them. For example, James 2:19 says "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." Clearly the demons have no faith; they know God exists and rebel against him nonetheless. And this is actually the case for all humans, according to Christian teaching. The lack of knowledge or mental assent is not the primary matter of faith. It's the response to the knowledge i.e. taking up one's cross and following Christ. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-47863283790542520382012-10-24T21:41:10.402-07:002012-10-24T21:41:10.402-07:00If it were sufficient evidence you would no longer...If it were sufficient evidence you would no longer require faith as a justification for your belief.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-62539225190174357412012-10-18T14:59:21.742-07:002012-10-18T14:59:21.742-07:00Of course... how could it possibly deter me?Of course... how could it possibly deter me?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-83692996951189069222012-10-18T14:43:20.215-07:002012-10-18T14:43:20.215-07:00If the results of the double slit experiment were ...If the results of the double slit experiment were as you described, would you continue to have faith in your god?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-58517537811592330672012-10-07T19:13:56.003-07:002012-10-07T19:13:56.003-07:00You did not address any of my criticism. You simpl...You did not address any of my criticism. You simply misrepresenting what I said. I will restate it for you: Since the material does exist and it explains nearly everything, there is no reason to assume there is anything else, so materialism should be the default position. You should then need a reason to assume there is more. <br /><br />Wrong. How am I needlessly multiplying assumptions? By offering alternative explanation? That does not needlessly multiply assumptions. Each separate explanation comes with it's own, independent, set of assumptions. Please provide the reasoning that demonstrates that, if the particles dispersed in a way that spelled out "Yahweh was here." in the double slit experiments, it would be unlikely that the god you have interpreted from the Christian bible does not exist.<br />Nathanielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-40886624545821274622012-10-07T13:50:06.377-07:002012-10-07T13:50:06.377-07:00"That sounds strange. How did you come to the..."That sounds strange. How did you come to the conclusion that the Parbrahma of the Vedas in not the "one true God", and the "God of the Bible" is?"<br /><br />Uh, did you even read the discussion? Or the original post? Or the context of the sentence which you quoted on responded to? The hypothetical was that the double slit experiment spelled out "YAHWEH WAS HERE" and "JESUS CHRIST IS THE ETERNAL LOGOS". Hence it would be utterly irrational to deduce from this piece of evidence that Parbrahma of the Vedas is the One True God. So yeah, fail less egregiously please. <br /><br />And I'm perfectly content with the sophistication of my readership not to have to define the very well understood concept of God whenever the topic is breached. But thanks for the silly recommendation. And, of course, no science or archaeology contradicts the Biblical account of God in the least. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-54702737449639806472012-10-07T13:45:18.182-07:002012-10-07T13:45:18.182-07:00Nathaniel, you don't seem to understand what m...Nathaniel, you don't seem to understand what materialism is. It's not that the material exists and can be apprehended by the senses, can be studied etc. Virtually all systems of knowledge hold these things to be true, not just materialism. Materialism is the belief that the material is all there is, and no, there is absolutely no good reason to declare this stance should be the default.<br /><br />And of course, it's an absolutely valid inductive conclusion. You're violating your own principle of not needlessly multiplying assumptions one breath after making it. Again, thanks for copping to your utterly a prior and evidence-independent atheism. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-11424677935776900862012-10-06T10:48:58.356-07:002012-10-06T10:48:58.356-07:00"Yes, and the result of inductive reasoning w..."Yes, and the result of inductive reasoning without unnecessary assumptions (such as metaphysical materialism) given this datum is that the God of the Bible is the True God and that the supernatural exists." That sounds strange. How did you come to the conclusion that the Parbrahma of the Vedas in not the "one true God", and the "God of the Bible" is? <br /><br /><br />Also, before writing articles on why atheists cannot answer questions about what would comprise evidence for a god, perhaps it would be better if you took more effort to define what the word "god" even means? Let's just look at two alternatives: Is it the god of the various mythologies, including the Biblical ones? Then all the science and archaeology we know so far contradicts the important claims made in these mythologies, and evidence overturning a significant amount of our current scientific knowledge would be required before we can even consider the existence of those gods as a serious question. Is it a deist god? Then, by definition, not much evidence can exist, short of a complete unraveling of the origin on the universe.<br /><br />Before you give evidence for something, it is usually a good idea to specify what you are trying to give evidence for. Circenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-41674928435508712242012-10-05T23:16:19.556-07:002012-10-05T23:16:19.556-07:00Materialism is the best assumption to start with b...Materialism is the best assumption to start with because nearly everything can be explained materialistically. We know that material reality exist at least in a way that is meaningful to us. Since the existence of material reality is already given, adding a separate element to reality is making another assumption. <br /><br />Also, that is not a valid inductive conclusion. Why would the conclusion that the god you have interpreted from the christian bible exists be any more likely that "powerful aliens", "mass delusion", something we cannot comprehend currently, or any of the other possibilities. What makes it unlikely that your conclusion would be false? Nathanielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-18874743867629478992012-10-05T21:49:16.356-07:002012-10-05T21:49:16.356-07:00Yes, and the result of inductive reasoning without...Yes, and the result of inductive reasoning without unnecessary assumptions (such as metaphysical materialism) given this datum is that the God of the Bible is the True God and that the supernatural exists. But thank you for admitting that even in the face of radical evidence for God's existence you will equivocate and refuse to accept it and therefore your disbelief is evidence and reality independent, rather than based on those things. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-90745807145126285812012-10-05T21:36:41.448-07:002012-10-05T21:36:41.448-07:001) You misunderstand agnosticism. It is neither mu...1) You misunderstand agnosticism. It is neither mutually exclusive with atheism nor necessarily a stance on theism. If you do not believe in a deity, you are an atheist. Even if you acknowledge that you don't have knowledge that there is no god. <br /><br />3) How would it be good evidence of the supernatural? It would simply be a currently unexplained natural phenomenon. Just like the actual results of the double slit experiments were when they were first observed before wave-particle collapse was understood. It would provide no scientific evidence for the supernatural because it is outside the scope of science; scientific evidence can only exist in reference to a scientific theory or hypothesis. Since the supernatural is outside the scope of science, it can not be a scientific hypothesis or theory. Even when all conceivable natural explanations have been tested and exhausted it could not provide evidence for the supernatural. Reason tells us that adding a whole seemingly unnecessary and indescribable element to the essence of reality makes far more assumptions than assuming it is due to a natural process that is not currently understood. Reason also tells us that less assumptions = more likely. Nathanielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-90421110968817853722012-10-05T13:06:55.895-07:002012-10-05T13:06:55.895-07:00Nathaniel:
1) Although it's popular to denounc...Nathaniel:<br />1) Although it's popular to denounce it, you're describing a null starting position re: God, which is agnosticism, not atheism. And also, there's no reason to privilege the null position (agnosticism) over either atheism or theism. Indeed "it seems to [you]" i.e. it's an impressionistic conclusion, not one you've argued for.<br /><br />3) This is incoherent. First of all, the phenomenon described *is* natural, not supernatural. My theoretical is that the dispersal pattern naturally spells out those words per the laws of physics, and does so consistently. The question is whether this natural phenomenon would be strong evidence which points to a supernatural reality. And of course it would be. Alternative possible explanations don't make this any less the case because I've said 'evidence for' not 'proof of'. You are unaware of the distinction, it seems. <br /><br />4) Yeah, I said this short article doesn't apply to everyone, just a large swath of atheists. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-61900035984075133622012-10-03T14:57:09.686-07:002012-10-03T14:57:09.686-07:00Hi Nathan, wanted to respond to a few of your main...Hi Nathan, wanted to respond to a few of your main points. If you feel I am misrepresenting them let me know. <br />1.) By definition scientific evidence could not prove the existence of a god so atheism on the grounds of lack of evidence is a priori atheism.<br /><br />It seems to me that, with a lack of evidence and reason, athiesm should be the default position. Atheism does not require a positive belief that there is no god, but only a lack of belief in a god. Only those who make claims like, "there is no god" claim a priori knowledge. As well of those who claim to have knowledge that a god exists.<br /><br />2.)Science explains nature so the supernatural is outside of its scope. Expecting evidence for the supernatural is illogical.<br /><br />I agree. But just because I accept that there is a possibility that there could be something supernatural, and a process designed to describe nature is unfit to describe the supernatural, does not imply that we should accept the existence of the supernatural and abandon science as a tool for understanding reality. <br /><br />3.)Even if there was evidence, atheists wouldn't accept it. Double slit experiment yields particle dispersal that spells out "Yahweh was here". Is it strong evidence for existence of the Christian god? Atheists say no.<br /><br />Atheist will not accept this as evidence for the existence of a god because it simply isn't. There are several natural explanations that science would be fit to test. Once these are exhausted and shown to be unfit any supernatural explanations would still be speculation not arrived at through scientific process. Beyond that, even if there is no explanation of something through natural process it is better to assume that it is due to a currently unexplained natural process than to assume it is caused by a supernatural process. <br /> <br />4.)Atheists hold science to be the only sufficient justification for knowledge. <br /><br />I think lots of us accept reason as an acceptable justification for a priori knowledge. Do you have a compelling logical argument for the existence of a god? <br /><br /><br />In short, evidential atheism is not necessarily a priori atheism as no a priori knowledge is claimed. Instead, a lack of knowledge is simply being admitted. As long as there is no positive belief that there is no god, your arguments fall apart. There is no reason to justify a lack of belief. However, those who make positive claims like God exists or there is no god do have a responsibility to justify those beliefs if they expect to have any discourse on the subject. Nathanielnoreply@blogger.com