Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

[Diogenes]

Resolved: Christian apologists only use scientific evidence and conclusions when they believe those conclusions verify some Biblical claim.
Sub-issue:
It is intellectually biased and inconsistent to claim "science provides convincing evidence" only when such evidence appears to favor the Christian fundamentalist POV, then to turn around and favor "divine revelation" over science, when the scientific evidence does not support a Biblical literalist POV.

[Purple Knight]

"Uncommitted" is equivalent to being 50/50, on the fence, a pure agnostic, while being atheist is a claim that gods absolutely do not exist rather than simply a lack of belief that they exist. He allows for no degree of being convinced towards one side or the other. It is either 50/50 (uncommitted), definite belief that gods do exist, or definite claim that they do not exist (his definition of atheist).

That's my sole objection to it. If you're intelligent (which everyone on this forum is), maybe covers practically the whole board, rendering this categorisation, at very least, a little inconvenient.

He's simply trying to force his own meaning of the word atheist (absolute denial of gods) via an incomplete logic argument, and further commented that anyone who uses any alternate definition is clumsy, vacuous and incompetent.

Where I agree with him is that I think lacks belief in gods is overly reasonable and may represent an attempt to "turtle" (for lack of a better word) in a definitionally unassailable position.

I think gods probably don't exist. You do too. We could be wrong. We don't need to bake "but I could be wrong" into our position to make it look like we can't actually be wrong, because we can. So can the theists.

I'm actually willing to put up or shut up. I deny that God exists. This is a positive position. I do need to defend it. But curiously enough, I also deny Bigfoot for the same basic reason (lack of hard evidence), at about the same threshold of certainty, and nobody bothers me about being irrational there.

I have a hunch that part of the problem is that the argument isn't usually atheism vs. theism, but atheism vs. Christianity and those aren't opposite positions. Even if my atheist position is no belief in any gods, I also have a non-Christian position that is that the Christian god doesn't exist. Whether or not there are some unknown gods out there, the god that is presented by most Christians is practically impossible and perhaps logically so. Biblical literalism, inerrancy, and a god that intervenes in human affairs, yet remains undetectable are positions that are much more difficult to defend than the notion that there might be some god somewhere.

I would bet on your hunch being right and I'm willing to step up and throw the baby out with the bathwater, because if I meet Q from Star Trek, to me, that doesn't qualify as God, even if it's very powerful. I'm not going to fall to my knees and provide worship to any superbeing I come across. It's just not like that.

Godhood is a two-way street. You want worship? You guide me, morally. You better me by this relationship. Nothing does this for me, so, as far as I can see, there are no gods. A god wouldn't even have to exist to provide this relationship. Knowing Athena is made-up, I could still have this relationship with Athena, and if it somehow made me more moral then that would be God.

Now if the Christian God does this for Eloi, then that is God for Eloi and that's the end of it. God exists. But still not for me, because I don't get anything that helps me be moral out of a genocidal, racist, angry, all-powerful immortal bearded Jewish guy.

I don't know why this issue gets complicated so often. Take everyone and line them all up. Draw a line in the sand in front of everyone. Then have all those who believe in god/gods step across the line. All those who didn't cross the line are atheists. Those who did are theists. It's astonishingly straightforward.

Yes I know. And this is exactly what everyone does for everything else - either you believe or you don't.

For me to exist, God is a must.

Life come from life; order comes from an organizer. There is no chaos that can generate life or beauty by itself.

My awareness of myself and of the outside cannot be casual. Life on this planet is too special to have arisen by chance. There is no real probability that this Universe arose by itself and by chance, without someone directing the process.

It is simple logic, but it seems to be very hard to understand for atheists. How can I help you to be more reasonable? Who needs science to understand that?

I actually see this as a decent argument. Just be aware that this proves any creator, not specifically the Christian creator. And it doesn't mean the creator needs to be perfect, just powerful enough to create. This creator's real pets could be the reptites of planet Gilgamech and we could be just afterthought, or a failed attempt God never got around to doing away with.

And don't let anyone tell you that you don't have evidence. You well might. But a revelation for you is for you alone. People are going to doubt the revelations of others because they have to, since so many people lie.

I've seen things I don't expect anyone to believe. Not to do with God, but just unusual things happening in nature.

[Difflugia]

Where I agree with him is that I think lacks belief in gods is overly reasonable and may represent an attempt to "turtle" (for lack of a better word) in a definitionally unassailable position.

I think gods probably don't exist. You do too. We could be wrong. We don't need to bake "but I could be wrong" into our position to make it look like we can't actually be wrong, because we can. So can the theists.

A large number of apologetic arguments, perhaps even the majority, devolve to a theist claim that the mere possibility of God's existence means that the atheist position is wrong. This is an explicit attempt to have "but I could be wrong" baked out of our position, as it were. While we shouldn't have to include an explicit "I could be wrong" into our argument, we do.

I'm actually willing to put up or shut up. I deny that God exists. This is a positive position. I do need to defend it. But curiously enough, I also deny Bigfoot for the same basic reason (lack of hard evidence), at about the same threshold of certainty, and nobody bothers me about being irrational there.

I actually agree with this, too. The big difference is that nobody tries to argue that Bigfoot must exist unless you can prove that it doesn't. The theist rebuttal seems simply to be, as in this thread, that the idea of Bigfoot (and leprechauns) is somehow intrinsically more silly and less worthy than the idea of gods.

[Purple Knight]

A large number of apologetic arguments, perhaps even the majority, devolve to a theist claim that the mere possibility of God's existence means that the atheist position is wrong.

Then they're being dishonest, trying to engulf all of the maybe in their position and turtle in something definitionally unassailable. In that case, they need to be called out for doing that.

I actually agree with this, too. The big difference is that nobody tries to argue that Bigfoot must exist unless you can prove that it doesn't.

I don't think Bigfoot is intrinsically more silly or less silly than anything else without a flat logical contradiction, and I think this is just one more reason we have to get away from the idea that positive claims are inherently needier of support than negative ones, or vice-versa.

When you always give your opponent black, they end up trying to make up for losing that valuable first move in these exact ways. So rather than arguing about whether something is or isn't true, we're arguing about who gets to play with the white pieces. It's degraded the conversation. And as I show here, I've believed this all along and many claims can be rephrased so the positive and negative labels for the positions are swapped.

I won't go as far as saying that Trump would've found enough fraud to overturn the election had he been successful with getting both manual recounts with added oversight, but the main point is had there been fraud, then it would've likely been caught under those conditions (recounts w/ added oversight). But as it stands, that wasn't done, and therefore I can't claim that this election had no fraud nor errors, and without knowing that, I can't claim that elections are "fair".

This is a perfect example of why I tend to reject the atheist mantra that negative claims are automatically superior to positive ones.

"The election was fair." Well, that certainly seems like a positive claim, ne?

"There was some sort of fraud or cheating." Oh. Well. This seems like a positive claim, too.

Yet these are logically contradictory premises. One must be true and the other must be false.

Which claim is positive and which claim is negative is often a matter of phraseology and there's not a clear, logical answer.

[JoeyKnothead]

I establish my own beliefs by myself. So do you, I guess.

The world is bigger than you or those "established" things for yourself.

Fair 'nuff.

The evidence for the existence of God is that I exist, and that's it.

The evidence for the Easter Bunny existing is cause here I sit.

Do you consider my argument rational?

For me to exist, God is a must.

For God to exist, man is a must.

Life come from life;

Do you contend that atoms're living?

order comes from an organizer.

Naw, that's just the pretty thing. She don't like her no clutter.

There is no chaos that can generate life or beauty by itself.

You might be having you a dull sex life on that one deal, and beauty's a subjective evaluation depending on how quick it is last call's acoming up.

My awareness of myself and of the outside cannot be casual.

How come not?

Life on this planet is too special to have arisen by chance.

That's your pride talking there.

The chance of something occurring, where there it done did, is 1.

There is no real probability that this Universe arose by itself and by chance, without someone directing the process.

So who directed the process of God being him all Goddy and all?

It is simple logic, but it seems to be very hard to understand for atheists.

I notice many theists can only grasp "simple logic".

How can I help you to be more reasonable?

Quit being you not you none of it?

Who needs science to understand that?

Not the theist, that's for dang sure.

When all questions're answered with "cause God", science don't even get invited to the dance.

[The Barbarian]

This is a perfect example of why I tend to reject the atheist mantra that negative claims are automatically superior to positive ones.

"The election was fair." Well, that certainly seems like a positive claim, ne?

"There was some sort of fraud or cheating." Oh. Well. This seems like a positive claim, too.

Yet these are logically contradictory premises. One must be true and the other must be false.

No, I don't think so. For example, there were, in 2016, several examples of dead people voting. Even though they voted for Trump in no case, did they affect the outcome in any state. So there was some sort of fraud and cheating, but the election was still fair. The candidate that got the most electoral votes got them without fraud making any difference whatever.

Another point relates to what happened in a precinct in Wisconsin. Some people in nursing homes were unable to make it to the polls. The law calls for a specific election official to go to the home and get their votes. But COVID rules prevented that, so the election official designated a nursing home person to do it for him. Which is technically illegal. It's also illegal to prevent a qualified voter from voting. The official judged that the latter was a more egregious violation than the former. The votes did not change the outcome, but if they had, would that have been unfair?

[Diogenes]

This is a perfect example of why I tend to reject the atheist mantra that negative claims are automatically superior to positive ones.

I confess I do not understand this.
1. What is your basis for claiming this is an "atheist mantra?"
2. Why would anyone assert negative claims are automatically superior to positive ones?

"There is no evidence for the existence of a personal God." Is that a positive or negative claim?
"There is no God;" positive or negative? ... and why does it matter?

No matter how the proposition is stated, whether supporting or denying the claim of God's existence or nonexistence, isn't the main question, "What is the evidence for the proposition?"

[Purple Knight]

This is a perfect example of why I tend to reject the atheist mantra that negative claims are automatically superior to positive ones.

I confess I do not understand this.
1. What is your basis for claiming this is an "atheist mantra?"
2. Why would anyone assert negative claims are automatically superior to positive ones?

I don't know, but they do. I have seen people assert, over and over, that a positive claim carries the burden of proof. I don't think this is true because of the specific examples when I can rephrase and change which side is the positive one.

"There is no evidence for the existence of a personal God." Is that a positive or negative claim?
"There is no God;" positive or negative? ... and why does it matter?

I'm saying it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because you can rephrase and change the positive and negative sides.

No matter how the proposition is stated, whether supporting or denying the claim of God's existence or nonexistence, isn't the main question, "What is the evidence for the proposition?"

+1

[Eloi]

It is a gesture of honesty, recognizing that believers do not have to prove with evidence acceptable to atheists that God exists. Can atheists consider any proof that God does not exist?

From my own point of view, the balance is totally tilted towards the existence of a Creator, if this is about what is the most feasible thing to accept. Human observation shows that life only comes from previous life, and that the beauty, harmony and order of the Universe cannot occur by chance.

[Tcg]

It is a gesture of honesty, recognizing that believers do not have to prove with evidence acceptable to atheists that God exists.

Of course not. Believers don't have to prove anything to support their faith. It is faith after all.

Can atheists consider any proof that God does not exist?

Atheists are individuals. What we may or may not consider would vary.

From my own point of view, the balance is totally tilted towards the existence of a Creator, if this is about what is the most feasible thing to accept. Human observation shows that life only comes from previous life, and that the beauty, harmony and order of the Universe cannot occur by chance.

It only takes a little view of our little bitty slice of the universe to realize that beauty, harmony, and order doesn't explain it well.





Tcg

[brunumb]

Can atheists consider any proof that God does not exist?

I'm willing to give it a try. Give us your best shot.