Calling out Theists: Debate an Atheist

[Calcator_Capitibus]

1) Yes is it reasonable and I do believe.
2)I am a Christian
3)I used to believe because it was what I was taught from an early age, and because my father is a priest. Recently, I have questioned the logic of the church, as, on the outside, it appears to be pretty weak. However, recently, I delved deeper into this civil war in my head and found this.

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/w ... alysis.htm

4)mainly what Is in the article above^

5) None.

6) I invite anyone to respond, (not because I am overconfident in myself), but because I would rather hear many opinions than only one, there is knowledge in numbers.

Thank you

[brimstoneSalad]

However, recently, I delved deeper into this civil war in my head and found this.
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/w ... alysis.htm
4)mainly what Is in the article above^

Thomas Aquinas was a great thinker in his day, and it's hard to doubt he was a genius, but these arguments were refuted a long time ago. They're largely based on scientific ignorance, bad premises, and a few key logical fallacies.

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

False, our senses don't prove things; we are easily mistaken. As it turns out, we were mistaken about the nature of motion (Einstein showed this).
But moreover, relativity has since proven that all movement is relative to frame of reference.

Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

This is based on a complete misunderstanding of motion, from the 1200s
We're talking about a man who lived 400 years before Newton.

This is so, so incredibly wrong. And relativity makes it even MORE wrong.

Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

No. There's no such thing.

Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

False. Look into the concept of a probability wave, which is what makes up all matter and energy (and indeed, the universe itself).

Therefore nothing can move itself.

A conclusion based on many false premises- which turns out to be incoherent.
It's also false.
Everything that spontaneously comes into being, e.g. proven uncaused events due to quantum mechanics, possesses motion in its inception from different references frames.

Equal and opposite motion- or more specifically, equal and opposite momentum (which depends on mass, which is also relative to reference frame).

Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

Everything is in motion to different reference frames. There's no such thing as something that is not in motion. Aquinas had no grasp of this concept. The scientific ignorance of that time, and of this argument, is profound.

"No motion" is only relative to your motion. It just means something is moving at roughly the same velocity you are. Newton understood that, and we've known that for about 300 years.

There's no such thing as actual zero motion, because there is no privileged reference frame (which is something Einstein proved). We've known that for 98 years.

Again, this is not Aquinas' fault exactly - he was a genius in an era of ignorance, and he did the best he could with what he had.
Post-Newton there's little excuse for this kind of thinking.
Post-Einstein, Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg, etc. there is NO excuse for this kind of thinking.

You might as well say "the Earth is flat, therefore in order to be kept down upon the Earth, there must be an asymmetric force applied evenly to it through planar acceleration- thus a god must produce this force, because it's impossible for the Earth to accelerate forever naturally (it would require infinite energy, which only a god could provide)"

Why doesn't that prove god? Because the premise is completely false.

Only by believing in a flat Earth can the argument be sustained. And this argument you endorse is similar.

The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

This argument is also called first cause. It's usually made as a blind assertion today. It's false, proved so by quantum mechanics.

Even if it wasn't proved false empirically, this assertion (that it can't extend forever) is without grounds.
Many religions believe that the universe is infinitely old, and some that it is cyclical, which is simpler and more reasonable than believing in an infinite god.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

It's not necessary, and further, the notion of a god doesn't solve any of the problems that this argument claims to present (which aren't really problems, but a misunderstanding of the universe based on scientific ignorance).

Have I sufficiently debunked that one for you?

If so, I can move on to the next ones. If not, I can answer questions.

[bobo0100]

[quote="calcator_capitibus]http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/w ... alysis.htm[/quote]

Argument from Motion

this argument is guilty of stretching the evidence. an argument is only true for what the evidence concludes, this means, if you successfully use this argument all it proves is that there is a first cause. not that that first cause is god. your jumping to a conclusion that the evidence provided does not permit.

this argument is however false in another way. movement is a type of energy, and it is well known that energy is convertible. as for how the energy got here in the first place, the only honest answer is no-one knows.

Argument from Efficient Causes

this falls into the same fallacy. stretching the evidence.

i state again that is a much more honest answer to the question of first cause not on one knows?

Argument from Possibility and Necessity

guilty of the same fallacy. stretching the evidence. assuming this argument was correct, witch it isn't, would it not be more honest to conclude we don't know how life arose?

the bridge between chemistry and biology has been built. we know that it is possible to happen. simple organisms can arise from pure chemistry.

Argument from Gradation of Being

this argument asserts that goodness has a cause. unlike heat, another form of energy which can be converted, "goodness" is a concept. this raises another question. if god is omnipotent than it makes no sense to have us live in a world that has suffering. if your god exist his is ether not omnibenevilent or he is not omnipowerful as the suffering on earth causes a contradiction.

Argument from Design

species are elastic to there environment. aka evolution. this makes things look designed, but we have no reason to believe they are, or assert your god or anyone else's god as there creator.

[brimstoneSalad]

Argument from Motion

this argument is guilty of stretching the evidence.

It's not guilty of merely stretching evidence - the final claim is more of a semantic one (which may just be stretching the definition of 'god') - it's guilty of completely fabricating it, because it's based on a complete ignorance of physics.

Read my post above for an explanation.

this argument is however false in another way. movement is a type of energy, and it is well known that energy is convertible.

Movement is momentum, which is also conserved, it is not energy.

Differences in momentum represent potential energy, but only in respect to and when it interacts with something that has a different momentum (at which point can it do work in the system)- from a particular reference frame, an object has "kinetic energy" in that regard, but that is a classical term that is meaningless without a reference frame (a privileged one of which there is not); the "energy" itself with respect to relativity is represented as mass (when things go faster, they become more massive, dependent also on the reference frame).

as for how the energy got here in the first place, the only honest answer is no-one knows.

No, that's as dishonest and arrogant an answer as "God did it".

The only honest answer you can give is that you don't know. You don't know that no-one knows.
That's an honest answer. You only know your own knowledge- you can't assume that others don't have more knowledge than you do.

As a matter of fact, I do know.

σxσp≥ħ/2

I find that to be a perfectly satisfying explanation.

[bobo0100]

as for how the energy got here in the first place, the only honest answer is no-one knows.

No, that's as dishonest and arrogant an answer as "God did it".

The only honest answer you can give is that you don't know. You don't know that no-one knows.
That's an honest answer. You only know your own knowledge- you can't assume that others don't have more knowledge than you do.

As a matter of fact, I do know.

σxσp≥ħ/2

I find that to be a perfectly satisfying explanation.

i can state that no one knows until someone can come up with a plausible answer to the question. until this is done it is safe to conclude that no-one knows. as for your answer to the question, your going to have to explain that in a little more detail.

[brimstoneSalad]

i can state that no one knows until someone can come up with a plausible answer to the question.

No, no you can not. Not if you're trying to be honest. That's not how knowledge works.

Please don't start being an idiot, you've done a good job so far.

That's called an argument from ignorance. "I don't know, therfore X"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://www.skepdic.com/ignorance.html

Your reasoning is that you don't know that anybody knows the answer, therefore nobody knows the answer.
This is fallacious. You could just be incredibly ignorant of scientific knowledge on this topic.

It's no better than what theists do, you're also trying to shift the burden of proof, a related fallacy:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

YOU made the claims that "NOBODY knows!" The burden is yours to substantiate that claim.

If you made the claim that only you don't know, then your own word might be enough to substantiate it.

As it stands, this is a claim you can not substantiate, and so you attempt to shift the burden of proof to others: "Prove to my satisfaction that somebody knows".
That's not how the burden of proof works.

until this is done it is safe to conclude that no-one knows.

No, no it is not. You can only conclude this by rejecting logic, and throwing intellectual honesty out the window.

There is no proof or even evidence that nobody knows, or that these matters are unknowable.

as for your answer to the question, your going to have to explain that in a little more detail.

It has been done, many times. You just don't understand the answer.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

I don't have to do anything.

Is it reasonable for a theist to reject evolution and assert that god created humanity in its present form from clay a few thousand years ago unless you personally explain every single event and process in evolution in exacting detail?

Or can you maybe suggest that they read a book?

You're doing the same thing.

It doesn't really matter if I can substantiate my answer to you or not- your claim is without grounds. You can not say that nobody knows (whether anybody does know or not).

But as to my answer:
If you don't understand it, then look it up and do some reading on the subject.

It's one of the most basic equations of quantum physics (and one of the simplest, which is why I posted it).

Dr. Lawrence Krauss recently wrote a book on the subject, "A Universe From Nothing"
I suggest you read that.

But in the mean time, stop asserting that "nobody knows". It's incredibly ignorant and arrogant to claim that from your position, and it violates logic and any sense of intellectual honesty.

[Volenta]

Talking about intellectual honesty, I have read Krauss' book and he explicitly stated he doesn't know the answer for certain. So how come you think you can? He only laid down a plausible explanation based on everything we already do know about the big bang. It's the most plausible one I've heard and might very well be true, but you can't say for certain it is true. You still have a long way ahead of you before you can state that. Or you're having knowledge we and Krauss don't have. Anyway, writing down the uncertainty principle is not going to do it.

[brimstoneSalad]

Talking about intellectual honesty, I have read Krauss' book and he explicitly stated he doesn't know the answer for certain.

He doesn't want to say he knows anything "for certain". A lot of people are afraid of saying things like that.
Dillahunty likes to talk about "maximal certainty" - the greatest amount of certainty that can be had - and that's an interesting way to put it, but it probably just confuses people.

And then theists will turn that back around and say, "well you don't know anything, you admitted it!", as if lack of perfectly certain dogma negates knowledge.

Do you even know "for certain" that you're not a brain in a vat, hooked up to electrodes?
Do you know anything? Or are you opposed to "knowing" in general? Do you have something against using that word? Do you rail against anybody who uses it?

I hope not.

That's aside from the point, though, and irrelevant to the claim made that "nobody knows", which is a false one, as well as an unfounded assertion based on an argument from ignorance and attempting to shift the burden of proof.

I linked to several fallacies- do you deny he is making them?

So how come you think you can?

It's like waking up in a room with a solid floor, ceiling, four walls, and one door.
How did you get into the room? Do you know?

Yes, of course you know how you got in the room. Any reasonable person would accept that word usage. The only reasonable explanation is that you came in through, or were brought in through, the door.

"Maybe" a bunch of pixies chiseled through the wall, brought you in through said hole, and then spackled it back up behind them when they left.

No, sorry, the only reasonable conclusion is that I entered through the door somehow. That's something I know.

Do I need to know if I came in forward or backward, or if I was carried or dragged to know it clearly has something very much to do with the door?
No.

You can make up all kinds of absurd alternatives, but that doesn't make them reasonable, and lacking that reason and substantiation, they are not knowledge.

If we had even a remotely reasonable or viable alternative anywhere on the horizon, we might have to say "we don't know which of these two doors we came in through, but it was one or the other".

Which is what we have to do with abiogenesis. There are many plausible and demonstrated routes by which life could have (as far as we know) arisen from "non-life"; we're just not sure which one it actually took (but at the same time, it doesn't matter).

Would that mean that we don't "know" how it happened at all? No. We still know, it's just a slightly less narrowed down explanation. There are some options there, but they share many of the same characteristics so we can generalize an explanation that covers all of them.

It's even a bit easier to explain with MWI rather than dealing with the details of vacuum fluctuations, but it all comes down to the nature of the universe and what it contains being wave functions.


It's just insulting when people make claims about what other people don't know- because it's they who don't know. And to claim that anybody in the whole world who does know, or even thinks it's conceivable that somebody else knows, is dishonest -- that's even more insulting.

If YOU want to say you don't "Know", then go for it. But don't make wild assertions that nobody knows- because you don't know that; and that I do know.

I know you don't know that nobody knows.
I also know for certain that you don't know for certain that nobody knows for certain.

[brimstoneSalad]

he explicitly stated he doesn't know the answer for certain.

Also:

Claim: NOBODY KNOWS!

Response: I know.

Defense: Nobody knows for certain.


Please don't misunderstand me, I like both of you, you're also both very wrong.

[PrincessPeach]

Also:

Claim: NOBODY KNOWS!

Response: I know.

Defense: Nobody knows for certain.


Please don't misunderstand me, I like both of you, you're also both very wrong.

If it makes you feel any better, I totally get what you are saying!