How to Argue for Atheism Effectively

[DrewPaul]

What is the "why and how" the universe "came to be" that scientists have discovered?

They're working on it. Proposing theories such as cosmic inflation. However no one can prove any theory.

 

[DrewPaul]

That is not the job of science or scientists. Science does not look behind tautologies. It examines physical reality and attempts to describe it and how it works. Science is not philosophy. And philosophy can only ask the question why, but it can’t come up with any final answers.

Its hard to debate someone who lights upon beliefs that morphs into evidence and argument proof claims. You have a world view that is impervious to any facts or data that go contrary to it.

Science is built on the bedrock of philosophy. Science can't operate without philosophical presuppositions. I know I've produced a list for you.

On a personal note, have you ever discovered something you believe is true was wrong?

 

[DrewPaul]

They tell us how, not so much why. Unless all you mean by why is cause and effect.

Why did our sun Come to be?

I think science addresses how, not so much why

They have explained why the sun and other stars came to be. You're assuming that why answers mean its a personal cause.

 

[devildavid]

Don't worry, I didn't actually expect you to answer these critiques of materialism. I reorganized each one into a formal structure with premises and conclusions just so other posters can see that you're not sincerely interested in formal debate:

The problem of induction
Premise 1: The problem of induction highlights the impossibility of verifying concepts like the past and future through empirical methods.
Premise 2: Empirical methods, by their nature, rely on observations and data from the past to make predictions about the future.
Premise 3: The assumption that the past and future will resemble the past is necessary for the application of induction in scientific reasoning.
Conclusion: Therefore, the atheist empiricist worldview, which relies on empirical methods and scientific reasoning, implicitly assumes the existence of the past and future without empirical evidence

The status of immaterial objects.
Premise 1: Induction requires that a past and a future exist, yet they cannot be located in the material universe.
Premise 2: Materialism posits that only material objects and processes exist, and immaterial entities are reducible to material components.
Premise 3: Immaterial objects, such as the past and future, cannot be reduced to material components.
Conclusion: Therefore, materialism is inadequate in explaining the existence of immaterial objects like the past and future.

No properly basic beliefs
Premise 1: Empiricism requires properly basic beliefs.
Premise 2: Empiricism does not allow for circular argumentation.
Premise 3: Properly basic beliefs, such as numbers and words, cannot be proven without engaging in circularity (e.g. numbers prove the existence of numbers, words prove the existence of words).
Conclusion: Empiricism alone as an explanation of reality is incoherent because it cannot prove properly basic beliefs without circularity.

The problem of the external world.
Premise 1: The problem of the external world raises concerns about the reliability of sensory perception in accurately representing reality.
Premise 2: Materialism relies on empirical evidence and sensory experiences as the basis for knowledge about the external world.
Premise 3: Sensory experiences are inherently limited and subject to error, as they are mediated by biological senses and can be influenced by various factors such as environmental conditions, cognitive biases, and perception.
Conclusion: Therefore, the atheist conception of the external world, which relies solely on sense data, is inadequate as a basis for knowledge about reality due to the inherent limitations and potential errors of sensory perception.



Now you're moving the goalposts. The scientific method holistically requires inductive reasoning. The scientific method cannot be practiced holistically without using inductive reasoning.

The past and the future aren’t objects.

 

[devildavid]

Its hard to debate someone who lights upon beliefs that morphs into evidence and argument proof claims. You have a world view that is impervious to any facts or data that go contrary to it.

Science is built on the bedrock of philosophy. Science can't operate without philosophical presuppositions. I know I've produced a list for you.

On a personal note, have you ever discovered something you believe is true was wrong?

None of this changes what science and scientists can do. It operates fine without needing philosophical support. It’s actions take place every day, philosophy be damned.

 

[NolanVoyd]

They have explained why the sun and other stars came to be. You're assuming that why answers mean its a personal cause.

I think they have addressed how they came to be not why.

 

[watsup]

I'm asking specifically for your philosophical tradition. Are you a materialist? A naturalist? Etc.

This is quite the double-standard. You are demanding the “philosophic tradition” of the atheists but not asking the same of the religionists/theists, most of whom happen to be Christian in this forum. First of all, 99.9999999999% of the people on this planet go about their existence without acknowledgment of a “philosophical tradition”. If you feel it is important to you, so be it, but the manner in which most developed their atheism was through reasoned analysis, namely “where is the (objective, reality-based) evidence for said God or gods. This is a perfectly reasonable way to do so.
Most religionists don’t base their God claims on a particular philosophy, but rather on a foundation of BELIEF and FAITH. Atheists simply reject that belief based in aforesaid lack of evidence, and prefer evidence to “faith”, just like scientists do. You even admit that you base your God in the realm of philosophy rather than in there realm of reality when you reject the request for objective, reality-based evidence in favor of your juxtaposition of words as “evidence”. Evidently, never the twain shall meet, but that does not that the underpinnings of atheism are without merit.

 

[watsup]

I got started like I assume most Atheists do - lectures or YouTube videos watching Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and so on. I was a Naturalist foundationalist and evidentialist in philosophical terms - I believed that there was no need to posit the existence of Gods to explain the world, as naturalistic explanations are sufficient. As time went on and I continued exploring philosophy (initially to strengthen my Atheistic beliefs), I found that Atheist metaphysics and epistemology was shockingly poor and underdeveloped -

I think that what really happened was that you were a surface atheist at best and that you actually had a predisposition to belief, perhaps as a result of your upbringing, and so you latched on to the philosophical “evidence for God” as a result of a latent “confirmation bias”. The reason that you see atheism as an act of rebellion against authority, as you have previously stated, is probably more of a confession than anything else.

 

[watsup]

They have explained why the sun and other stars came to be. You're assuming that why answers mean its a personal cause.

Why does there even need to be a “why”? You are once again attempting to anthropomorphize the universe. We could just as easily ask why is there a God? In some causes, the question (why?) is just barking at the wrong tree.

 

[watsup]

Its hard to debate someone who lights upon beliefs that morphs into evidence and argument proof claims. You have a world view that is impervious to any facts or data that go contrary to it.

Wow, you have become the Absolute King of Projection!

 

[Deuce]

The laws of logic exist within the Logos - the Divine intellect. Your correct when you understand that the laws of logic can only exist in an intelligible source, yet the laws of logic exist even when human beings are not around. This is a piece of evidence for a Divine intellect

You are making multiple unsupported leaps here.

 

[Deuce]

Okay big guy. You've refused to give an Atheists explanation for the problem of induction, or any of my other bolded problems, so I'm going to go ahead and not take you seriously every time you say I'm not making arguments.

I mean I'm literally bolding them in black. Is there any way I could make reading them easier for you pal?

Why does the problem of induction require an "atheist's explanation?" Is the problem different to a theist? Does failing to provide an "atheist's answer" to this problem somehow make atheism less likely to be true? What is a theist's answer to this problem, and how does it differ from an atheist's potential answer?

If I drop an apple, it will fall. I can repeat this experiment as many times as I want, it will keep happening. I am using these observations to predict that next time I drop an apple, it will fall. But because I have not yet observed that, I don't know for sure? Is a theist's estimation of this any different? The theist knows for sure?

You have to differentiate an idea from the null hypothesis in order for it to be a useful discussion item, let alone an explanation for the fundamental nature of reality. For all the fancy rhetoric you try and throw about, all you are really saying is "atheists don't know literally everything that ever can or will happen," which, no shit sherlock? Atheism doesn't adequately explain every aspect of the universe because humans do not possess this capability, and nobody is arguing that they do.

In summation: so what? "The problem of induction" is only a problem if you believe it is a problem.

 

[Deuce]

How do you know if material reality ceased to exist that there would be a lack of existence if logic only exists within human brains? What material category would you appeal to so that you can make that claim?

If the material reality were disappeared by a wizard, what would happen? You are invoking magic, and the answer to that question is always "depends on the wizard."

 

[DrewPaul]

None of this changes what science and scientists can do. It operates fine without needing philosophical support. It’s actions take place every day, philosophy be damned.

I got it. Your beliefs are etched in stone. This isn't for you David just for other people in this forum who have an open mind. Yours is irreversibly closed.

There are additional philosophical presuppositions that must be held for science to be done. J. P. Moreland gives a decent list of these presuppositions of science in a number of his works.(2-4) He lists (2) at least ten:

1. The existence of a theory-independent, external world
2. The orderly nature of the external world
3. the knowability of the external world
4. The existence of truth
5. The laws of logic
6. The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment
7. The adequacy of language to describe the world
8. The existence of values used in science
9. The uniformity of nature and induction
10. The existence of numbers

 

[Deuce]

I got it. Your beliefs are etched in stone. This isn't for you David just for other people in this forum who have an open mind. Yours is irreversibly closed.

There are additional philosophical presuppositions that must be held for science to be done. J. P. Moreland gives a decent list of these presuppositions of science in a number of his works.(2-4) He lists (2) at least ten:

1. The existence of a theory-independent, external world
2. The orderly nature of the external world
3. the knowability of the external world
4. The existence of truth
5. The laws of logic
6. The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment
7. The adequacy of language to describe the world
8. The existence of values used in science
9. The uniformity of nature and induction
10. The existence of numbers

Ok, and?

 

[DrewPaul]

I think they have addressed how they came to be not why.

If you say so.

 

[watsup]

I got it. Your beliefs are etched in stone. This isn't for you David just for other people in this forum who have an open mind. Yours is irreversibly closed.

There are additional philosophical presuppositions that must be held for science to be done. J. P. Moreland gives a decent list of these presuppositions of science in a number of his works.(2-4) He lists (2) at least ten:

1. The existence of a theory-independent, external world
2. The orderly nature of the external world
3. the knowability of the external world
4. The existence of truth
5. The laws of logic
6. The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment
7. The adequacy of language to describe the world
8. The existence of values used in science
9. The uniformity of nature and induction
10. The existence of numbers

Source?

 

[Gozaburo]

Oh boy, syllogisms!

And?

I have shown this to be wrong through inclusion of the definition of the term. Given that you are refusing to acknowledge the true meaning of the word empiricism, your repetitive narrative is nothing more than that.

This is gibberish. You don't understand what empirical evidence is.

Again, I have shown a definition of materialism that includes those thoughts that emanate from the material brain as shown through EEGs. As I have previously said, your syllogisms and their conclusions convince exactly ONE person of their “trueness”.

More gibberish. You're going to have to show me what matter "thoughts" are composed of.

I have shown how words and numbers are not circular, but rather simply the result of long-term human communications. Words have definitions and numbers have basic concepts for math, and both are thus as close as one can get to being “OBJECTIVE” in human terms.

Gibberish. Please prove to me what the number 7 is without invoking other numbers. Define to me what the word "prove" means without using words.

There is only sensory perception. Everything that we learn about the world is through sensory perception. Scientists, of course, try their best to work towards objectivity in order to develop their theories and facts, and do a quite good job in that respect. What are you saying is available to humans for “knowledge” other than sensory perception?

A past and future cannot be derived using sensory perception. Can you feel, taste, touch, see, or hear a past and a future?

Conclusion: four failed syllogisms from you.
The bottom line that this “God” that you have constructed through purely “philosophical” means resides ONLY in that area, namely the ethereal domain of philosophy, and not in the actual world of reality. Play around with the concept all that you want, but your arguments have no more merit than any of the many “arguments for “God” from past philosophers, all of which have been effectively refuted and rebutted well in the past.

You haven't dismantled a single argument.

This is quite the double-standard. You are demanding the “philosophic tradition” of the atheists but not asking the same of the religionists/theists, most of whom happen to be Christian in this forum. First of all, 99.9999999999% of the people on this planet go about their existence without acknowledgment of a “philosophical tradition”. If you feel it is important to you, so be it, but the manner in which most developed their atheism was through reasoned analysis, namely “where is the (objective, reality-based) evidence for said God or gods. This is a perfectly reasonable way to do so.
Most religionists don’t base their God claims on a particular philosophy, but rather on a foundation of BELIEF and FAITH. Atheists simply reject that belief based in aforesaid lack of evidence, and prefer evidence to “faith”, just like scientists do. You even admit that you base your God in the realm of philosophy rather than in there realm of reality when you reject the request for objective, reality-based evidence in favor of your juxtaposition of words as “evidence”. Evidently, never the twain shall meet, but that does not that the underpinnings of atheism are without merit.

All people presuppose a philosophical tradition when they make arguments or state their beliefs. It's true that some people are like you and have absolutely no idea where the literature and ideas of their beliefs come from, but my expectation when I'm debating someone is that they're not ignorant and that they will be able to state their beliefs clearly. It seems you cannot.

I think that what really happened was that you were a surface atheist at best and that you actually had a predisposition to belief, perhaps as a result of your upbringing, and so you latched on to the philosophical “evidence for God” as a result of a latent “confirmation bias”. The reason that you see atheism as an act of rebellion against authority, as you have previously stated, is probably more of a confession than anything else.

Alright. You're the one who asked for my journey and I was kind enough to provide it in detail lmao.

 

[Gozaburo]

The past and the future aren’t objects.

Yet they are necessary for induction and the empirical method. How do you explain things in your worldview that are not composed of matter?

 

[watsup]

And?



This is gibberish. You don't understand what empirical evidence is.



More gibberish. You're going to have to show me what matter "thoughts" are composed of.



Gibberish. Please prove to me what the number 7 is without invoking other numbers. Define to me what the word "prove" means without using words.



A past and future cannot be derived using sensory perception. Can you feel, taste, touch, see, or hear a past and future?



You haven't dismantled a single argument.



All people presuppose a philosophical tradition when they make arguments or state their beliefs. It's true that some people are like you and have absolutely no idea where the literature and ideas of their beliefs come from, but my expectation when I'm debating someone is that they're not ignorant and that they will be able to state their beliefs clearly. It seems you cannot.



Alright. You're the one who asked for my journey and I was kind enough to provide it in detail lmao.

I get it. You refuse to debate based on valid information such as definitions and prefer instead to simply use repetition as “debate”, just like DrewPaul. In both cases, that is imply an admission of “fail”. Plus you are perfectly fine with your double-standard towards atheists and your fellow religionists. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Gozaburo]

You are making multiple unsupported leaps here.

You're taking my comment within the context of a previous argument I had made. Happy to rearrange it into a syllogism that logically follows if you're actually interested in engaging.

If I drop an apple, it will fall. I can repeat this experiment as many times as I want, it will keep happening. I am using these observations to predict that next time I drop an apple, it will fall. But because I have not yet observed that, I don't know for sure? Is a theist's estimation of this any different? The theist knows for sure?

You have to differentiate an idea from the null hypothesis in order for it to be a useful discussion item, let alone an explanation for the fundamental nature of reality. For all the fancy rhetoric you try and throw about, all you are really saying is "atheists don't know literally everything that ever can or will happen," which, no shit sherlock? Atheism doesn't adequately explain every aspect of the universe because humans do not possess this capability, and nobody is arguing that they do.

In summation: so what? "The problem of induction" is only a problem if you believe it is a problem.

You don't seem to understand what the argument is. The argument is not "without God, we cannot be 100% certain of all things". I would contend (as I'm sure most Atheists would agree) that omniscient knowledge of the universe is not possible.

The argument is that if we're going to argue from a materialist framework (e.g. all things are matter or all things can be broken down into material components), then it is on the Atheist to provide evidence for how they utilize transcendental categories like the laws of logic or how they can refer to a past/future when utilizing induction for the scientific method. The laws of logic and the past/future are not material objects, yet they are assumed to be true to do literally anything.
Now we could agree with you and say "we don't know for sure" that the laws of logic and a past/future is true, but your entire worldview would descend into incoherence. Not only that, but the statement of "we don't know for sure" itself is a truth claim that presupposes a universal truth about the laws of logic. It's unavoidable in an argument or discussion.

The point being that you cannot claim to have a worldview based on empirical evidence and then just assume a bunch of things which cannot be empirically proven in order to demonstrate "empirical" evidence. You're committing logical fallacies of being ad hoc and arbitrary, and if you're being ad hoc and arbitrary than so can I. You lose the debate.

If the material reality were disappeared by a wizard, what would happen? You are invoking magic, and the answer to that question is always "depends on the wizard."

No need to obfuscate and make this some super esoteric line of argumentation. It's just a simple thought exercise.

 

[DrewPaul]

I suggested some ideas of how to argue atheism effectively by stating facts that make the claim we owe our existence to natural forces that, without plan or intent, caused the universe and subsequently life to exist. Even though I'm a theist I don't reject the claim there is evidence that favors the belief natural forces alone caused the universe and life. I wrote the following...

1. The universe exists

Wait didn't someone use that fact in favor of theism? It also makes the claim it was caused by natural forces more probable than if it didn't exist.

2. We've only observed natural forces.

One can argue from this fact its natural forces all the way down.

3. Complexity in biology is the result of a natural unguided process evolution

It can be argued from this fact that truly complex things (probably nothing more complex than the human brain) can be caused by time and chance by random forces. No creator necessary.

4. The universe is 13.8 billion years old and most of it uninhabitable.

If it was intentionally created it would have been done better and more space would be habitable.

Drop the rancor, the animosity, the hatred and disgust because people have the gall to believe something don't. Admit atheism is a belief not an obvious irrefutable fact. Make your case without passion or prejudice. Call it an honest opinion.

Are the atheists on board going to claim these facts are just assumptions and not evidence in favor of naturalism? Is there some reason atheists feel they can't compete if both sides offer facts so they just stick to the false claim there is no evidence in favor of theism therefore nature did it?

 

[watsup]

You're taking my comment within the context of a previous argument I had made. Happy to rearrange it into a syllogism that logically follows if you're actually interested in engaging.



You don't seem to understand what the argument is. The argument is not "without God, we cannot be 100% certain of all things". I would contend (as I'm sure most Atheists would agree) that omniscient knowledge of the universe is not possible.

The argument is that if we're going to argue from a materialist framework (e.g. all things are matter or all things can be broken down into material components), then it is on the Atheist to provide evidence for how they utilize transcendental categories like the laws of logic or how they can refer to a past/future when utilizing induction for the scientific method. The laws of logic and the past/future are not material objects, yet they are assumed to be true to do literally anything.
Now we could agree with you and say "we don't know for sure" that the laws of logic and a past/future is true, but your entire worldview would descend into incoherence. Not only that, but the statement of "we don't know for sure" itself is a truth claim that presupposes a universal truth about the laws of logic. It's unavoidable in an argument or discussion.

The point being that you cannot claim to have a worldview based on empirical evidence and then just assume a bunch of things which cannot be empirically proven in order to demonstrate "empirical" evidence. You're committing logical fallacies of being ad hoc and arbitrary, and if you're being ad hoc and arbitrary than so can I. You lose the debate.



No need to obfuscate and make this some super esoteric line of argumentation. It's just a simple thought exercise.

Repetition #246. Plenty of people have undermined your claims, including me. Scoffing seems to be your primary debate tactic rather than addressing specifics that have been presented to you.

 

[watsup]

I suggested some ideas of how to argue atheism effectively by stating facts that make the claim we owe our existence to natural forces that, without plan or intent, caused the universe and subsequently life to exist. Even though I'm a theist I don't reject the claim there is evidence that favors the belief natural forces alone caused the universe and life. I wrote the following...

1. The universe exists

Wait didn't someone use that fact in favor of theism? It also makes the claim it was caused by natural forces more probable than if it didn't exist.

2. We've only observed natural forces.

One can argue from this fact its natural forces all the way down.

3. Complexity in biology is the result of a natural unguided process evolution

It can be argued from this fact that truly complex things (probably nothing more complex than the human brain) can be caused by time and chance by random forces. No creator necessary.

4. The universe is 13.8 billion years old and most of it uninhabitable.

If it was intentionally created it would have been done better and more space would be habitable.

Drop the rancor, the animosity, the hatred and disgust because people have the gall to believe something don't. Admit atheism is a belief not an obvious irrefutable fact. Make your case without passion or prejudice. Call it an honest opinion.

Are the atheists on board going to claim these facts are just assumptions and not evidence in favor of naturalism? Is there some reason atheists feel they can't compete if both sides offer facts so they just stick to the false claim there is no evidence in favor of theism therefore nature did it?

Repetition #1866.

 

[Gozaburo]

Plenty of people have undermined your claims, including me. Scoffing seems to be your primary debate tactic rather than addressing specifics that have been presented to you.

If you unironically believe "it works" is a sufficient justification for your metaphysics, then all of this arguing in circles makes a lot more sense.

I get it. You refuse to debate based on valid information such as definitions and prefer instead to simply use repetition as “debate”, just like DrewPaul. In both cases, that is imply an admission of “fail”. Plus you are perfectly fine with your double-standard towards atheists and your fellow religionists. Thanks for proving my point.

I'm not really sure what this means but you're no longer providing counter arguments, so I'll take that as a concession.