How to Argue for Atheism Effectively

[DrewPaul]

If the universe didn’t exist neither would we so there would be no theism to falsify.

Because in that case it would be falsified. Which means you agree it can be falsified.

 

[DrewPaul]

Yes. First prove there's a god/creator and that said god/creator actually and intentionally created the universe. Because you have come up far short of that and have made the assertion based on nothing but mere belief and certainly have not demonstrated any creator with intent.

I offer evidence in favor of my claim. Have you demonstrated that mindless forces could cause a universe with all the conditions for life to exist?

 

[devildavid]

Because in that case it would be falsified. Which means you agree it can be falsified.

Not existing is not the same as a human being falsifying a theory. Good grief!

 

[devildavid]

I offer evidence in favor of my claim. Have you demonstrated that mindless forces could cause a universe with all the conditions for life to exist?

Reality demonstrates forces at work every day. The sun. Is it intentionally doing what it does?

 

[DrewPaul]

Reality demonstrates forces at work every day. The sun. Is it intentionally doing what it does?

Do cars or computers intentionally do what they do? You agree however they were intentionally caused to exist. Why are you doubling down on your same failed argument?

 

[devildavid]

Do cars or computers intentionally do what they do? You agree however they were intentionally caused to exist. Why are you doubling down on your same failed argument?

No, cars and computers don’t exercise intention at all. Has your car or computer ever turned itself on to start their day and then taken off together to get away from you? Not that anyone would blame them.

Does the sun do the same things all the time? Yes, it does. How does it do that?

 

[DrewPaul]

Not existing is not the same as a human being falsifying a theory. Good grief!

Correct. A human falsifying an idea means there is a condition that could falsify the claim. If the condition is true, the claim is falsified.

 

[devildavid]

Correct. A human falsifying an idea means there is a condition that could falsify the claim. If the condition is true, the claim is falsified.

The falsification is of the theory and by science conducted by humans. The conditions are not what does the falsification.

 

[DrewPaul]

No, cars and computers don’t exercise intention at all.

Correct. But they were intentionally designed, true? The question isn't whether natural forces have intent, the question is were natural forces intentionally caused for intelligent life to exist.

 

[devildavid]

Correct. But they were intentionally designed, true? The question isn't whether natural forces have intent, the question is were natural forces intentionally caused for intelligent life to exist.

Human beings have the ability to intend things. You can’t extrapolate human intentions into everything that exists, which is what you are doing. It is not a logical extrapolation. Just because we have intention, doesn’t mean there is a force that has intention. One doesn’t follow the other.

 

[DrewPaul]

The falsification is of the theory and by science conducted by humans. The conditions are not what does the falsification.

You must be used to be wrong...

Falsification

The easiest way to do it is to find an example where the theory should apply, but fails.

The theory the universe was intentionally caused relies on the myriad of narrow conditions necessary for life to exist. If they weren't, there would be no life and theism would be falsified.

 

[devildavid]

You must be used to be wrong...

Falsification

The easiest way to do it is to find an example where the theory should apply, but fails.

The theory the universe was intentionally caused relies on the myriad of narrow conditions necessary for life to exist. If they weren't, there would be no life and theism would be falsified.

You are wrong. Falsification comes new evidence which doesn’t support the theory.

There is no scientific theory, supported by evidence, of the universe being intentionally created. So there is no theory to falsify.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

You must be used to be wrong...

Falsification

The easiest way to do it is to find an example where the theory should apply, but fails.

The theory the universe was intentionally caused relies on the myriad of narrow conditions necessary for life to exist. If they weren't, there would be no life and theism would be falsified.

As has been illustrated many times to you before, that isn't how falsifiability works.

If that were the case, every theory would be falsifiable, and the entire concept of falsifiability would have no value as a standard of evaluation.

Falsifiability presents a method to disprove a hypothesis by empirically testing the predictions of the hypothesis. Falsifiability applies to empirically testable predictions. It does not apply to post hoc hypotheticals that present no method for empirical testing.

If the universe didn't exist, that would disprove the theory that the universe was farted into existence by Rocket Raccoon.

That doesn't make the theory that the universe was farted into existence by Rocket Raccoon falsifiable. It isn't "evidence" that the universe was farted into existence by Rocket Raccoon. It doesn't turn the theory that the universe was farted into existence by Rocket Raccoon in to something other than nonsense.

Even though the nonexistence of the universe would disprove the theory that the universe was farted into existence by Rocket Raccoon, it is still a nonsense theory, just like philosophical theism.

 

[DrewPaul]

Human beings have the ability to intend things.

Correct. Like the virtual universe for instance. Intelligent beings have the ability to make something happen because they can intentionally cause the extremely narrow conditions to make something work as intended. In contrast no one would propose a car, a nuclear power plant, the virtual universe or even a house is the result of mindless natural forces that by sheer chance caused the narrow conditions for those things to exist. You have no problem believing that mindless natural forces caused the real universe to exist but you would never suggest mindless natural forces would unintentionally cause the virtual universe to exist. I would think causing the real universe with the laws of physics and the conditions for life to exist would be far more challenging than causing a virtual universe. Yet you'd never propose the virtual universe was caused by mindless natural forces...true?

 

[DrewPaul]

As has been illustrated many times to you before, that isn't how falsifiability works.

If that were the case, every theory would be falsifiable, and the entire concept of falsifiability would have no value as a standard of evaluation.

Falsification is merely the existence of a condition that would make a claim false. There are innumerable conditions that would falsify the claim the universe and life was intentionally caused by a Creator. If the myriad of conditions for life to exist didn't obtain theism would be false. There are in fact numerous conditions which have to occur for the claim the universe was intentionally caused for life to exist to be true. By the way what's the difference between mindless forces farting a universe into existence with all the conditions for intelligent life to exist or a raccoon to fart the universe into existence? Could a raccoon or mindless forces fart a virtual universe into existence? Or did the virtual universe have to be caused by intelligent forces instead of a fart?

 

[watsup]

We've already been discussing this for many pages now. But since you are new I'll respond.


The evidence that would render the theory of God causing the universe and life didn't occur. The universe didn't have to exist, if it didn't the theory God caused the universe would be false. If a universe did exist, but didn't cause or support life, the theory God caused the universe and life would be falsified. There are more events that have to occur for theism to be true than naturalism. Naturalism requires nature exist, but not a life creating and supporting universe, theism requires a life causing universe to be true. Nature doesn't require stars, planets, solar systems or galaxies to exist. Nature doesn't require atoms and molecules or gravity. Only us humans (and possibly other life) require all those conditions. I don't make theological arguments to support my theory. Just facts and data.



The evidence theism is true is the existence of the universe, the existence of the ingredients for life to exist. The existence of laws of physics which allow our existence all of which are necessary for our existence and unnecessary for natural forces to exist. The fact many of the conditions necessary for life fall in an extremely narrow range for it to occur is what we look for in things alleged to be designed.



No one is advancing an empty aquarium except you. Is there any way to convince an atheist the universe wasn't the result of mindless natural forces and sheer luck?

Repetition #1 for today. Hundreds and hundreds over the past 16 months.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

If the myriad of conditions for life to exist didn't obtain theism would be false. There are in fact numerous conditions which have to occur for the claim the universe was intentionally caused for life to exist to be true.

There are even more myriad conditions that would have to occur in order for the claim that the universe was farted into existence by Rocket Raccoon to be true.

That doesn't mean it isn't nonsense. It is still nonsense even though "numerous conditions" would have to occur in order for it to be true.

 

[watsup]

Part of a good theory is falsification but that isn't the strength of a good theory. Newton's formula for predicting the motion of planets was proven right. Einsteins further development was also proven correct by observing light bend. A theory that can be falsified but its predictions are incorrect isn't a good theory.


Right a theory doesn't have to be falsified, only a condition that if it occurred would falsify the theory.


If the universe didn't exist that would falsify theism no? If life didn't exist that would falsify the theory a Creator caused the universe and life. It took a series of conditions and laws of physics for life to occur anyone of which if it failed to happen or fall in an extremely narrow range would falsify the Creator theory. You're thesis that theism isn't falsifiable is mistaken.

I predict as scientists continue to study and observe, more examples of fine-tuning for life will emerge. For instance we discovered dark matter not to long ago, if it didn't exist...we would be here. That is a phrase you will here repeatedly in any science show regarding the universe.

See post #2591.

 

[watsup]

I offer evidence in favor of my claim. Have you demonstrated that mindless forces could cause a universe with all the conditions for life to exist?

Again: BIG BANG! Abiogenesis. Evolution. What do you not understand about that?

 

[DrewPaul]

By the way you're all providing excellent examples of how not to argue in favor of atheism. I hope would be atheists are taking notes.

 

[watsup]

By the way you're all providing excellent examples of how not to argue in favor of atheism. I hope would be atheists are taking notes.

What we are all providing is just how nonsensical your repetitive claims are.

 

[DrewPaul]

There are even more myriad conditions that would have to occur in order for the claim that the universe was farted into existence by Rocket Raccoon to be true.

That doesn't mean it isn't nonsense. It is still nonsense even though "numerous conditions" would have to occur in order for it to be true.

You're funny. Its nonsense because everyone knows a raccoon couldn't cause (or fart) a universe into existence with the exacting conditions for life to occur...but you replace a raccoon with mindless natural forces farting a universe into existence and blindly causing all the conditions for life to occur and somehow you think you've improved the case you're making. We do know intelligent agents can cause exacting conditions for a specific outcome.

 

[volitleaire]

We've already been discussing this for many pages now. But since you are new I'll respond.


The evidence that would render the theory of God causing the universe and life didn't occur. The universe didn't have to exist, if it didn't the theory God caused the universe would be false. If a universe did exist, but didn't cause or support life, the theory God caused the universe and life would be falsified. There are more events that have to occur for theism to be true than naturalism. Naturalism requires nature exist, but not a life creating and supporting universe, theism requires a life causing universe to be true. Nature doesn't require stars, planets, solar systems or galaxies to exist. Nature doesn't require atoms and molecules or gravity. Only us humans (and possibly other life) require all those conditions. I don't make theological arguments to support my theory. Just facts and data.



The evidence theism is true is the existence of the universe, the existence of the ingredients for life to exist. The existence of laws of physics which allow our existence all of which are necessary for our existence and unnecessary for natural forces to exist. The fact many of the conditions necessary for life fall in an extremely narrow range for it to occur is what we look for in things alleged to be designed.



No one is advancing an empty aquarium except you. Is there any way to convince an atheist the universe wasn't the result of mindless natural forces and sheer luck?

Allow me to borrow Dr. Sean Carol’s reasons fine tuning is a dubious argument:

1. We don’t really know that the universe is tuned specifically for life, since we don’t know the conditions under which life is possible.
2. Fine-tuning for life would only potentially be relevant if we already accepted naturalism; God could create life under arbitrary physical conditions.
3. Apparent fine-tunings may be explained by dynamical mechanisms or improved notions of probability.
4. The multiverse is a perfectly viable naturalistic explanation.
5. If God had finely-tuned the universe for life, it would look very different indeed.

Again, we get back to falsifiability. Come up with an experiment that can be repeated that shows theism is a better explanation than naturalism.

I’m not really arguing that god doesn’t exist. I’m arguing that we have no reason to believe in a claim that cannot produce conclusive experimental data.

 

[Gordy327]

I offer evidence in favor of my claim. Have you demonstrated that mindless forces could cause a universe with all the conditions for life to exist?

Your "evidence" does not demonstrate a creator with intent. Try again.

By the way you're all providing excellent examples of how not to argue in favor of atheism. I hope would be atheists are taking notes.

Who exactly is arguing in favor of atheism? One is either an atheist or nor. It's that simple. You seem to be having trouble understanding the concept of atheism.

 

[Gordy327]

You're funny. Its nonsense because everyone knows a raccoon couldn't cause (or fart) a universe into existence with the exacting conditions for life to occur...but you replace a raccoon with mindless natural forces farting a universe into existence and blindly causing all the conditions for life to occur and somehow you think you've improved the case you're making. We do know intelligent agents can cause exacting conditions for a specific outcome.

Replace racoon with creator. Same difference.