My problem with Evangelical Atheism

[Gravekeeper]

You say that God's logic *must* fit within your own: that is, it must be smaller, not larger.

No, I'm saying "God's" logic must be part of the universe and thus the universe must be an observable component of God's logic. Therefore we must be able to partially understand it by observing how it functions around us. My entire point is that God's logic is knowable on some level to us and you cannot wave that away by claiming God is mysterious and unknowable because he is so awesome. If he exists we are surrounded by his work on every level of existence. To declare we cannot possibly understand anything about the artist despite living in his art gallery our entire lives is silly.

You make up rules such as that anything designed for touching must necessarily be flawed, and then act as if it were the most horrible offense even to ASK why, much less not accept that limitation without grounds.

I'm not "making up rules" I'm applying reason and logic. I am pointing out a contradiction in the general idea of God. You're trying to wave it off by basically saying it doesn't count because he's God.

You now seem to be claiming that the possible is limited to what has already happened, which is a whole new kind of nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

The possible is limited to what has already happened or what we can foresee happening according to what we know. That is the very definition of "possible". That is why it's called "Faith" to begin with. Because there is no indication, no evidence, no sign, no pattern, no nothing to indicate that it is possible. You must simply have faith that it is true.

You dismiss any suggestion that someone who knows everything might possibly have perfectly well organized and logical plans that would seem not to be so from our more limited (however logical within those limits) understanding as hand waving.

I do this because you are dimissing the entirety of science in favour of "God works in mysterious ways". Just because we, as humans, do not understand the reason behind something does not mean we can't observe and try to reason out the rationale of the results. Just because we do not percieve or grasp the scale of something doesn't mean we can't understand the scale exists.

The very act of imagining a God to begin with is this exact principle. We have never seen, met, nor found a shred of evidence for God's existence nor ever seen any evidence for anything that exists on his scale. But we can still understand and imagine the scale of him. Do you see what I'm getting at here?

If God makes thousands of galaxies, you may not understand exactly how he did it. But you can grasp the scale and concept of a being making a thousand galaxies. Even if you cannot grasp the individual logistics.

[HYHYBT]

...I'm saying "God's" logic must be part of the universe...

See, I don't accept that in the first place. By definition, a God who made the universe would exist apart from it. And even among humans, even the most logical plans often look otherwise to those who only see part of them.

[Gravekeeper]

By definition, a God who made the universe would exist apart from it.

No, he would not. There is no definition that states that. By all accounts, God exists as part of it as he allegedly interferes with it or has interfered with it on a fairly regular basis and/or is watching over it constantly. He must be part of it on some level.

And even among humans, even the most logical plans often look otherwise to those who only see part of them.

Please stop using the "mystery ways" argument. It does not work. If we view a part of another human's plans and they do not appear to make sense on the surface, there are a variety of reasons why that could be and many methods by which we can reason out or discover the rest. Many of which you have already rejected when I put them forth in regards to God. You can't have it both ways.

Even if part of the plan appears illogical from our perspective, that part is still part of this universe as it is observable and thus God's logic is still part of this universe. We can reason from it and work out from it. Reason is the tool we have to figure out our universe and if God exists, he gave us reason to begin with. Frankly, I think you're underestimating current human knowledge.

Still, you have not countered the issues I have put forth to you. You've sort of spun us in a circle of semantics and personal beliefs. Your beliefs are fine and dandy. I won't begrudge anyone their beliefs. But again, do not interject belief into reason please. Just say "I believe this because I do" and leave it at that. That would be perfectly fine.

Its when you bring that against reason that things get aggravating. Because belief is basically used as a Get Out Jail Free card in a rational discussion. No matter what point I make, you can whip out the belief card. Which is essentially an unassailable position because it has no real goal posts to speak of. It can selectively accept or deny anything put to it based on which ones you choose to believe.

So just say that's what you believe, because it is, and leave it at that. Don't step in reason's flowerbed and I won't relieve myself in belief's gas tank. -.-

[HYHYBT]

But again, do not interject belief into reason please. Just say "I believe this because I do" and leave it at that. That would be perfectly fine.

That I will not do. There is nothing inherent to belief that means you cannot use reason with it, and your insisting that there is doesn't make it true.

No matter what point I make, you can whip out the belief card. Which is essentially an unassailable position because it has no real goal posts to speak of. It can selectively accept or deny anything put to it based on which ones you choose to believe.

This is precisely what do do when you make up rules designed so that God would not fit within them and then claim that since he doesn't then he must not exist (or must be flawed, irrational, whatever.)

[Gravekeeper]

That I will not do. There is nothing inherent to belief that means you cannot use reason with it, and your insisting that there is doesn't make it true.

No there is not, but seeing as you've been eluding reason and backing yourself up with belief I'd prefer you'd just say "I believe" and be done with it. I'm not insisting that you can't reason with belief, seeing as that is my entire personal philosophy and the whole point of said philosophy. I'm pointing out that you keep falling back on what you believe rather than what reason dictates.

Reason and belief can co-exist. But you can't override reason with belief, because the moment you do you become unreasonable. -.-

This is precisely what do do when you make up rules designed so that God would not fit within them and then claim that since he doesn't then he must not exist (or must be flawed, irrational, whatever.)

I never claimed he did not exist. I'm primarily a Deist. The argument you have been facing is Deism. I am also not making up rules, I'm simply using logic and a modern understanding of the universe. I've been pointing out the flaws with trying to insert the classic interpretation of the Abrahamic God into our modern understanding. You're waving away said flaws with a "mysterious ways" argument.

[HYHYBT]

Your declaration that it is "waving away" to say that a logical plan which we cannot see but a small portion of might well look illogical is an example of making up arbitrary rules, not an example of logic.

Your declaration that anything which is designed with future modification in mind is inherently flawed, that a perfect being would never want to make something with the intent of interacting with it now and then, is an example of making up arbitrary rules, not an example of logic. Now, if you could provide some reason why it is impossible, that would be different. But you never even tried; you just repeated it in different words, perhaps with a "because" stuck on in front.

Etc.

[Gravekeeper]

Your declaration that it is "waving away" to say that a logical plan which we cannot see but a small portion of might well look illogical is an example of making up arbitrary rules, not an example of logic.

As I have said, repeatedly now, we must be able to understand some part of the logic through reason and observation. Otherwise what we are observing is intentionally created to be illogical and thus intentionally deceptive. I am not making up arbitrary rules. You're either underestimating humanity, or you're overestimating "God.". You're using a "mysterious ways" argument to deflect my points by pushing the goal posts further and further out. It is neither reasonable nor fair of you. As it is an unassaible position and you can just keep adjusting it as needed.

Your declaration that anything which is designed with future modification in mind is inherently flawed, that a perfect being would never want to make something with the intent of interacting with it now and then, is an example of making up arbitrary rules, not an example of logic.

It is an example of logic because there is no evidence whatsoever of said being interacting with the universe. This is the problem with your argument. There. Is. No. Evidence. Period. Therefore the logical deduction is that "God" is not or does not need to interact with the universe. ( Aka the Clockwork Universe theory ). Your assertion that he would create the universe in such a way so that he could interfere with it is illogical. Because you have no proof of his interference. Conversely, we have billions of years worth of evidence all around us to the contrary. Thus the logical deduction is that he does not interfere.

Now, if you could provide some reason why it is impossible, that would be different. But you never even tried; you just repeated it in different words, perhaps with a "because" stuck on in front.

Speak for yourself, I'm arguing with the bulk of scientific history behind me. You're arguing with "Because it could happen".

[HYHYBT]

You know very well I have not argued that there IS evidence. Therefore, trotting out that there isn't, as if that shows anything at all about what *might* be, is a deliberate false trail.

I am not arguing that he WOULD create such a universe. I am saying that it is within possibility. You are creating from thin air (you still haven't even tried to provide reasons) rules such as: interference must be of a sort that we can detect after the fact, even without knowing what the difference would be or having any other example of a universe to compare it to, and regardless of whether the universe was designed from the beginning to accommodate such seamlessly; that anything designed to be handled is flawed by definition, and so on. And claims that I have moved any goal posts are, quite frankly, lies. Pure and simple. If you misunderstood where they were in the first place, that would be one thing, but by now you know I'm speaking of theoretical possibility, not what is likely or what can be proven or anything along those lines, so if you still cannot grasp that it's your own fault and not mine.

[Gravekeeper]

You know very well I have not argued that there IS evidence. Therefore, trotting out that there isn't, as if that shows anything at all about what *might* be, is a deliberate false trail.

You missed that point completely. I didn't say you said there was evidence, I said with no evidence, the logical deduction should be that there is no interference.

I am not arguing that he WOULD create such a universe. I am saying that it is within possibility.

Except it isn't, because there is no evidence to suggest the possibility and said interference creates such a wealth of problems and questions as to the motivations of such interference.

You are creating from thin air (you still haven't even tried to provide reasons) rules such as: interference must be of a sort that we can detect after the fact, even without knowing what the difference would be or having any other example of a universe to compare it to, and regardless of whether the universe was designed from the beginning to accommodate such seamlessly; that anything designed to be handled is flawed by definition, and so on.

The very nature of the universe is such that ANY action in the universe leaves a paper trail which is why we can trace back billions of years. Interference would be detectable at some point on some level ( Especially the sort of interference commonly attributed to God ), as would the absence of evidence of interference if said interference had been covered up. You are, again, still vastly underestimating our scientific knowledge of the universe.

Designing the universe to be interfered with would require designing the points of interference as to not appear to be interference. In doing so, interference would no longer be necessarily as the conditions used to cover the point of interference would in effect be automatic. Direct interference, as is often attributed to God, violates natural laws and as such would create evidence of the interference. It also violates freewill as such direct interference would inevitably sway those that witnessed it. As even stories of said interference obviously have done.

And claims that I have moved any goal posts are, quite frankly, lies. Pure and simple.

You have continually used the supposed possibility of "mysterious ways" as your central argument. It is an angle of argument that cannot essentially be defeated as long as you believe it.

I'm speaking of theoretical possibility, not what is likely or what can be proven or anything along those lines, so if you still cannot grasp that it's your own fault and not mine.

As am I. However, no offence, but weighing your grasp of theoretical possibility vs Stephen Hawkin's, I'm going to stick with Hawkin.

[HYHYBT]

You have continually used the supposed possibility of "mysterious ways" as your central argument. It is an angle of argument that cannot essentially be defeated as long as you believe it.

That makes it unprovable. It does not necessarily make it false, which is all I've been saying all along.

It seems we have different meanings of "possible." Yes, you know what I mean by that, and no, there is no reason to bother explaining.

[Gravekeeper]

I sense we will get no further with this without degrading to the point of circling each other and hissing like alley cats. -.-

[Hyena Dandy]

Aww, man, I was really looking forward to that part.

[HYHYBT]

Perhaps... but there is one thing I'd like to try again first. You've said, many times, that we know God (if there is one) *never* interferes with the universe in any way, because if he did, there would be evidence. Or various things that mean essentially the same thing.

All right. So far, so good. But contained within that statement is the idea that we know, at least to a degree, how something would be noticeably different if interference had occurred. That's logic. (Notice that I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything evidence-wise. I'm sticking to reason here.)

So I gave a hypothetical example. Suppose that God steps in just long enough to turn some water into wine. Further, suppose this occurred a couple thousand years ago, and at a party where wine made the usual way had been consumed. Now, you have said that we would know if there had been any interference at all. So I ask: what would we find different today than we do? (That I cannot prove it happened is irrelevant. It's you who claims we can tell either way.)

For that matter, suppose it happened *now* (but not in laboratory conditions, because events not under your control cannot reasonably be expected to happen then.) What would be noticeably different? Particularly, what noticeable effects would its existence (or, more precisely, its *creation*) leave for you to discover?

It's something you should have at least tried to answer pages ago when I asked the first time, but instead you ducked the question. Sorry, but it's the plain and simple truth.

[Gravekeeper]

Perhaps... but there is one thing I'd like to try again first. You've said, many times, that we know God (if there is one) *never* interferes with the universe in any way, because if he did, there would be evidence. Or various things that mean essentially the same thing.

I said the logical conclusion is that "God" does not interfere. Especially on the scale that is attributed to him by the average Christian. As such a level of interference would leave traces, raise a host of dubious questions as to his motivations and negate free will.

So I gave a hypothetical example. Suppose that God steps in just long enough to turn some water into wine.

Do not shift the burden of this claim on to me. The burden is squarely on you and the 20 page thesis of questions your scenario raises. We have no evidence of such a thing ever happening. We have no evidence such a thing could happen. There is no mechanism by which such a thing could happen. If such a thing had happened, it would negate free will and raise a serious burden of questions about the point and motivations of such a thing opening up "God" to direct blame for all of the stupid shit subsequently done in his name whilst likewise identifying him as a callous and unfair being favouring only his chosen. Any direct interference of this nature immediately makes God culpable for all of this bullshit. Not exactly the resume of a perfect higher being.

If you want to raise this possibility, it is up to you to make the case for how it could come about. Not me.

For that matter, suppose it happened *now* (but not in laboratory conditions, because events not under your control cannot reasonably be expected to happen then.) What would be noticeably different? Particularly, what noticeable effects would its existence (or, more precisely, its *creation*) leave for you to discover?

If it happened now, obviously it would be deliberate and thus the time and place of the occurrence could be completely controlled. Thus if it did not occur in a time and place where it could be directly witnessed and reasonably concluded to be a miracle then "God" would be intentionally dicking with us. Again, your scenario raises many unpleasant questions.

It's something you should have at least tried to answer pages ago when I asked the first time, but instead you ducked the question. Sorry, but it's the plain and simple truth.

The plain and simple truth is that you are still using "mysterious ways" as the core of your argument. The burden of evidence here is yours. All your doing is a a variation on the classic God of Gaps type reversal that for some reason you, and many others, actually thinks is scientifically plausible.

I am saying "Prove he exists". You are saying "Prove he doesn't". The difference is the entirety of scientific history is on my side as evidence. All that is on your side is faith. Which is why I said before: Just admit "This is what I believe" and that would be perfectly fine. I would leave it alone then. But until you do that, frankly we have nothing left to talk about. As we are obviously operating on different ideas of what logic and reason are.

[Hyena Dandy]

Wait, do we get to see the growly cats now?