A Conversation Among the Four Horsemen

[_Chap]

The atheist position is, "I have heard the argument for your God, evaluated your evidence and or Holy books, and decided it's bogus."

That's just another atheistic creedal statement that avoids having to deal with evidence that challenges one's asumptions. The evidence is illustrated in the analogy above, which I believe is referring to matter that existed before the big bang. According to the general atheistic assumption, "In the beginning" there was matter. That's all science can prove, so that is all they accept. Matter existed, nothing else. As the theory goes, for some reason or another, matter became so dense and hot that a massive explosion took place, which created the universe we see around us. All planets, moons, galaxies, stars etc., exploded from the same clunk of matter that existed "in the beginning." Thus, I think the marble table is analogous to this event.

It is difficult to continue with any kind of dialogue when the most prolific poster gives us stuff like this. A poster says that, for her, the essence of being an atheist is simply that she is not convinced by the arguments, evidence, and scriptures adduced in favour of theism. By implication, her atheism is simply an absence of assent to theist arguments, and does not imply any positive assertion apart from the fact that she can see no convincing reason for supposing that a deity exists.

One is then told by dartagnan that there are atheist 'creedal statements', and that this is one of them. He does not deal at all with the fact that his interlocutor has carefully avoided making any positive statements of belief in any proposition, but just drags the discussion back to the lines he wants to follow by the bald assertion that it is the essence of atheism, as he sees it, to have certain beliefs. Then we are given a critique of a supposed 'atheist assumption' about the origins of the universe, and pulled back to the 'marble table' trope.

The poor old atheist has already tried to make it clear that her non-belief in deities is not dependent on some particular cosmogony:

We don't have to explain how the universe happened, how tables become aware of themselves, or even offer a hypothesis in order to reject creation myths.

Of course the reference to 'creation myths' lets dartagnan in under her guard, by making it seem that, in contrast to her earlier statement, she is not simply saying that she is not obliged to put forward a cosmogony in order to decline to accept theism, but is instead only committed to rejecting (e.g.) the first chapter of Genesis.

dartagnan then moves back to the position that suggests that atheists are committed to some particular explanation of the origin of the universe:

I'm not talking about creation myths. I'm talking about evidence for God via inference; by realizing the impossibility of the alternative explanation.

But then GoodK's text makes this impossible to maintain:

It seems like you are saying that in order for someone to not believe in God, they have to explain the creation of the cosmos and its contents.

and he concedes the essential point for GoodK, for me, and, I think, quite a few others on this board:

As far as I'm concerned, you don't have to explain anything.

So what HAS he been going on about? Here at last we have it:

I can tolerate disbelief, even if atheists here cannot tolerate belief. But if you want to keep pounding me with these gauntlet challenges to prove something, there is nothing wrong with me poiting out that science cannot prove the atheistic assumptions either.

Note by the way that we are back again with the claim that atheists have 'assumptions' whereas GoodK, and myself, and others have repeatedly pointed out that our kind of atheism at least simply consists of a lack of assent to theist arguments and evidence. But the real point is that if we want dartagnan to stop talking about atheists in his own special way (which for a significant group of us misrepresents the way we think), we have to stop 'pounding' him with 'challenges to prove something'.

And what does our 'pounding' consists of? For my part, it just consists of the quite reasonable request that, since he has made the statement that he 'knows' that the Abrahamic deity exists, he should tell us how he 'knows' that. As I have said before, since this is a discussion board a good way to avoid being 'pounded' would be to stop making the claim - or even, who knows, to withdraw it. But trying to insist, as a kind of retaliation, and in face of repeated atheist disclaimers, that the atheists he is arguing with have 'assumptions' that are just as devoid of justification as his so far unsupported knowledge claim does not seem to me to be a proper way of conducting a discussion.

[_Some Schmo]

"In considering our immediate experience, let us perform a thought experiment. Think for a minute of a marble table in front of you. Do you think that, given a trillion years or infinite time, this table could suddenly or gradually become conscious, aware of its surrounding, aware of its identity the way you are? It is simply inconceivable that this would or could happen. And the same goes for any kind of matter. Once you understand the nature of matter, of mass-energy, you realize that, by its very nature, it could never become 'aware, never 'think,' never say 'I.'

OMG... That's just embarrassing. Even a child could refute this ridiculous argument.

Marble is a specific composition of matter. It is not representative of all of the matter available to the world at the time when life began. And it doesn't in the least represent the changing nature of life matter over billions of years. It represents one static, miniscule subset of all the matter available to the Earth. Of course it's not going to become conscious. This is supposed to lead one to the god conclusion?

If I were to say, "Do you think that, given a trillion years or infinite time, this table could suddenly or gradually become liquid?" does that prove there has to be some outside force that causes this kind of matter to be drinkable? After all, we can't possibly expect the table to just melt on it's own, can we? If it can't, how do we explain liquid?

If this is the best argument you could come up with, that explains much.

[_dartagnan]

It is difficult to continue with any kind of dialogue when the most prolific poster gives us stuff like this. A poster says that, for her,...

Please try to comprehend what's been said, chap. GoodK didn't say this was a position only for her. She presumes to call my characterization a straw man by giving us the atheistic position. I am reading books dealing with debates between theists and atheists discussing the science that proves their assumptions. It is patently absurd to insist atheists don't have any assumptions regarding science, matter, the universe, etc. Of course atheists have assumptions. If God doesn't eternally exist, then matter does. From what we know of matter, it is impossible for life to just create itself on its own. Yet we know life exists, and that it had to have come from somewhere. God is the most rational explanation given the impossibility of the only other alternative explanation.

the essence of being an atheist is simply that she is not convinced by the arguments, evidence, and scriptures adduced in favour of theism.

Yes, and when presented an argument, there is no attempt to argue otherwise other than to suggest the theistic position has no evidence. Well, I just provided a piece of evidence, and thus far, none of you have even attempted to deal with it. Instead we get this silly, longwinded synopsis from you of what you think was just said.

By implication, her atheism is simply an absence of assent to theist arguments, and does not imply any positive assertion apart from the fact that she can see no convincing reason for supposing that a deity exists.

Well, maybe one would be convinced if one engaged the evidence, as has several scientists and philosophers who later converted to theism. Until you at least engage all the evidence, you won't even be making the initial steps to convince me that atheism is based on reasoning, rationality and scientific evidence. I've heard this too many times here.

One is then told by dartagnan that there are atheist 'creedal statements', and that this is one of them. He does not deal at all with the fact that his interlocutor has carefully avoided making any positive statements of belief in any proposition, but just drags the discussion back to the lines he wants to follow by the bald assertion that it is the essence of atheism, as he sees it, to have certain beliefs.

As has been proved on this forum. Atheists here at least, demonstrate the very same characteristics of religious fanatics. The only difference is that they have a blind faith and a misunderstanding of science. That is their dogma. They come up with their own creedal statements and rely on authorities the same as religious fanatics. It is the same social phenomenon in a different context. The only thing that has changed is the doctrine. The devotion, blind loyalty and cognitive biases are present, the same as with any LDS apologist or Bible thumper.

Then we are given a critique of a supposed 'atheist assumption' about the origins of the universe, and pulled back to the 'marble table' trope.

Well to be fair, I was simply citing a theist intellectual who was responding to typical atheistic intellectuals. Just because GoodK and others here don't want to deal with these questions, doesn't mean some atheists have. I am not speaking directly to internet atheists, who may or may not have the background to understand what Varghese is saying.

Of course the reference to 'creation myths' lets dartagnan in under her guard, by making it seem that, in contrast to her earlier statement, she is not simply saying that she is not obliged to put forward a cosmogony in order to decline to accept theism, but is instead only committed to rejecting (e.g.) the first chapter of Genesis.

You psychoanalyze way too much. And you refuse to be corrected on what my God is. I've already explained several times that I don't know what my God is. I know it/he/she exists based on reasoning and evidence.

Note by the way that we are back again with the claim that atheists have 'assumptions' whereas GoodK, and myself, and others have repeatedly pointed out that our kind of atheism at least simply consists of a lack of assent to theist arguments and evidence.

Yes, atheists have assumptions. You cannot claim that your atheism "simply consists of a lack of assent to theist arguments and evidence" while refusing to engage the evidence presented. That is essentially what's going on here. By analogy, imagine trying to convince a jury of atheists of your "kind" that a man killed his wife.

Jury: We have no assumptions that the man is innocent. We just don't by into your myth that he's guilty.

Prosecutor: But we found his fingerprints on a knife with her blood, and his DNA under her fingernails. His neighbors said he was in the house when they heard a struggle and the youngest daughter witnessed the crime.

Jury: Sorry, but until you present evidence we see no reason to believe you.

To ignore evidence is no excuse to maintain one's religious belief. The religion of atheism is no exception.

[_dartagnan]

Schmo, stop pretending you understand arguments.

It is rather humorous reading how atheists and theists take their arguments seriously, deal with them, and then offer counterpoints after serious thought, and then watch the non-scientists - to say the least - on the web dismiss everything with ease, as if they have a clue about what's actually been said.

[_dartagnan]

So in the beginning there was a huge clunk of matter that consisted of replicating matter, yet it became so dense and hot that it created a massive explosion, but wasn't so dense or hot enough to kill the replicating matter.

Gotcha!

Even in this far-fetched scenario, we're still left asking why, before the universe was created, a huge clunk of self-replicating matter existed in the first place.

Oh yea, you guys aren't interested in answering questions that might point to evidences.

But you're just interested in evidence. (rolls eyes)

[_Ren]

So in the beginning there was a huge clunk of matter that consisted of replicating matter, yet it became so dense and hot that it created a massive explosion, but wasn't so dense or hot enough to kill the replicating matter.

Errrr -what?!
...what exactly are you referring to here Dart? Are you suggesting that anybody is asserting that self-replicating molecules existed at the time of the Big Bang?!

...who are you talking to here? What 'hypothesis' are you talking about?

[_Some Schmo]

Schmo, stop pretending you understand arguments.

It is rather humorous reading how atheists and theists take their arguments seriously, deal with them, and then offer counterpoints after serious thought, and then watch the non-scientists - to say the least - on the web dismiss everything with ease, as if they have a clue about what's actually been said.

I understood that grade school "argument" you posted just fine. I doubt you really do, otherwise you'd never have posted it in the first place.

Just go on pretending you know what the hell you're talking about darte. It's pretty frickin funny.

[_Some Schmo]

So in the beginning there was a huge clunk of matter that consisted of replicating matter, yet it became so dense and hot that it created a massive explosion, but wasn't so dense or hot enough to kill the replicating matter.

Gotcha!

Even in this far-fetched scenario, we're still left asking why, before the universe was created, a huge clunk of self-replicating matter existed in the first place.

Oh yea, you guys aren't interested in answering questions that might point to evidences.

But you're just interested in evidence. (rolls eyes)

LOL... that's priceless. And you'd have us believe you know what you're talking about, eh? Pure comedy gold, right there.

Not that anyone needed additional confirmation that darte didn't have a clue what he was saying, he offers up this choice crap nugget just to ensure that nobody mistakes his ignorance for an informed idea.

Again, don't want to be laughed at? Quit acting so laughably.

ROTFLMAO... just too much.

[_Chap]

Dartagnan is beginning to increase the emotional charge of his replies to me. I can see it is only a matter of time before he tells me I am an idiot. When that time comes, I shall try to bear the magisterial rebuke with humble composure. Meanwhile ...

dartagnan:

It is patently absurd to insist atheists don't have any assumptions regarding science, matter, the universe, etc. Of course atheists have assumptions.

Of course, insofar as they are people, atheists can have assumptions - that, for instance, tomorrow morning their kids will answer to the same names they answered to this evening, that getting on the number 49 bus will still get them to their job, that next time they do an electrolysis it will indicate that the water molecule is H2O. But these are not assumptions they have as atheists, and solely by reason of the fact that they are atheists.

A large number of atheists, on this board and elsewhere, use as their preferred self-descriptor the sole fact that they reject the validity of those arguments for theism that have been presented to them. Dartagnan does not like this at all; he says

You cannot claim that your atheism "simply consists of a lack of assent to theist arguments and evidence" while refusing to engage the evidence presented.

Of course a person who has not even thought about the existence of a deity (e.g. a neonate) can only be called an atheist in a vacuous sense. But it would be equally vacuous to refuse the name of 'atheist' to someone who had not considered and rejected every argument in favour of theism that theists cared to put forward, and stood ready at any moment to consider the latest one presented.

Here, as a specimen of the challenge facing atheists, is dartagnan's latest argument:

From what we know of matter, it is impossible for life to just create itself on its own. Yet we know life exists, and that it had to have come from somewhere. God is the most rational explanation given the impossibility of the only other alternative explanation.

From what dartagnan knows of matter, he is sure it is impossible for life to emerge from previously non-living matter (if that is what is meant by the rather odd phrasing "it is impossible for life to just create itself on its own"). I do not think he will find his assurance is shared by the great majority of scientists who study such questions. As for the idea that introducing an entity labelled 'God' somehow makes everything simpler ... that rather depends on what one means by 'God', doesn't it?

And how does dartagnan explain the content of this wonderful concept 'God' which will solve the (for dartagnan scientifically insoluble) problem of life emerging from non-living matter? We wait with bated breath, and find the answer:

I've already explained several times that I don't know what my God is. I know it/he/she exists based on reasoning and evidence.

So dartagnan "knows" that there is exists an entity, X. When asked what the properties of X are, he refuses to give us any response whatsoever (except perhaps, by implication, that the properties of X are such that it solves whatever pseudoproblem he happens to want to put forward). But, it appears, it is this entity that he refers to when he utters the name 'God'. That really is a great help. As an atheist, I feel deeply challenged by this.

I think I must be an idiot. How hilarious!

[_EAllusion]

Chopra's argument, though, mimics what you said. He lists a series of things he charges science can't explain and argues the existence of God resolves them, therefore God.

But apparently what he has said - and I still haven't read it all - isn't exactly the same thing. He doesn't use the same examples, does he? I provided Chopra as a quick and accessible resource for an apologetic perspective, I was impressed with the detail in the seven part series but I didn't bother clicking on the other six. I didn't even finish reading the first part. I assumed it was merely the same stuff found in most books. Nobody here seems to be interested in reading books, or else I would have recommended Varghese, Flew or Swinburne.

Varghese lists five phenomena that "can only be explained in terms of the existence of God."

1. The rationality implicit in all our experience of the physical world.
2. Life, the capacity to act autonomously.
3. Consciousness, the ability to be aware
4. Conceptual thought, the power of articulating and understanding meaningful symbols such as are embedded in language.
5. The human self, the 'center' of consciousness, thought and action.


"In considering our immediate experience, let us perform a thought experiment. Think for a minute of a marble table in front of you. Do you think that, given a trillion years or infinite time, this table could suddenly or gradually become conscious, aware of its surrounding, aware of its identity the way you are? It is simply inconceivable that this would or could happen. And the same goes for any kind of matter. Once you understand the nature of matter, of mass-energy, you realize that, by its very nature, it could never become 'aware, never 'think,' never say 'I.'

But the atheist position is that, at some point in the history of the universes, the impossible and the inconceivable took place. Undifferentiated matter(here we include energy), at some point, became 'alive,' then conscious, then conceptually proficient, then an 'I.' But returning to our table, we see why this is simply laughable. The table has none of the properties of being conscious and, given infinite time, it cannot 'acquire' such properties. Even if one subscribes to some far-fetched scenario of the origin of life, one would have take leave of one's senses to suggest that, given certain conditions, a piece of marble could produce concepts. And, at the subatomic lavel, what holds for the table holds for all the other matter in the universe.

Over the last three hundred years, empirical science has uncovered immeasurably more data about the physical world than could ever have been imagined by our ancestors. This includes a comprehensive understanding of the genetic and nueral networks that underlie life, consciousness, thought, and the self. But beyond saying that these four phenomena operate with a physical infrastructure that is better understood than ever before, science cannot say anything about the nature or origin of the phenomena themselves. Although individual scientists have tried to explain them as manifestations of matter, there is no way possible to demonstrate that my understanding of this sentence is nothing but a specific neural transaction. Granted, there are nueral transactions that accompany my thoughts - and modern neuroscience has pinpointed the regions of the brain that support different kinds of mental activity. But to say that a given thought is one specific neural transaction set is as inane as suggesting that the idea of justice is nothing but certain marks of ink on paper. It is incoherent, then, to suggest that consciousness and thought are simply and solely physical transactions."

Roy Abraham Varghese, The "New Atheism": A Critical Appraisal of Dawkins, Dennett, Wolpert, Harris and Stenger as found in Appendix A of Antony Flew's, There is a God.

Awesome. This is no less an argument from ignorance than Chopra's. However, by all means explain how God meaningfully explains the answers to these questions. And no, in complete contradiction to what you said, this kind of argument - intelligent design - is not taken seriously in academia, especially in the scientific community.