My problem with Evangelical Atheism

[Gravekeeper]

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

I'm really trying to avoid growly cat. He's not very nice. -.-

[Peppergirl]

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

I was thinking of setting up a private room for the two of them to continue their party-of-two debate, but I'm kinda liking the cats suggestion now.

[Peppergirl]

I'm really trying to avoid growly cat. He's not very nice. -.-

Aw. Damn!

[Hyena Dandy]

I was thinking of setting up a private room for the two of them to continue their party-of-two debate, but I'm kinda liking the cats suggestion now.

We can set up a private room and put cats in it?

[HYHYBT]

I just don't appreciate it when people insist, for example, of claiming I need to prove something I already said I'm not trying to prove, that I'm shifting the burden of proof (which there is none because it's not a conversation about proof) by asking that a logical statement be logical, claiming that I need to prove a hypothetical in order to discuss it, etc.

If you claim (as has been done) that something has been proven impossible, that's not *me* saying you need to prove it's impossible. That's you volunteering that it's been done already. If you claim that evidence shows X, then you logically MUST have some idea of how the evidence would be different if Y were true. Is it really so unreasonable to ask, then, *how* it would be different?

I'm specifically asking the bystanders, if any are left.

To instead ignore the question and hide behind a demand that I prove a hypothetical is simply absurd.

[siead_lietrathua]

i think you are both arguing the same conclusion ("there is no proof") from diffrent starting points. HYHYBT is coming across as saying "there is no proof", so it is possible. Gravekeeper is coming across as saying "there is no proof", so it is impossible.
you both seem to be telling eachother to prove that there isnt any proof.
which, really, is kinda impossible because if either of you could prove there was or wasn't any proof then there WOULD be proof or a presence or lack of proof so it nulls needing to prove anything....
that's a braintickler.

[Gravekeeper]

I just don't appreciate it when people insist, for example, of claiming I need to prove something I already said I'm not trying to prove, that I'm shifting the burden of proof (which there is none because it's not a conversation about proof) by asking that a logical statement be logical, claiming that I need to prove a hypothetical in order to discuss it, etc.

A hypothesis still carries a burden of evidence. The problem we are trying to solve is "Does God intervene". We are both putting forth a hypothesis towards this. Mine has evidence. Yours does not. This is the issue at hand in a nutshell.

If you claim (as has been done) that something has been proven impossible, that's not *me* saying you need to prove it's impossible. That's you volunteering that it's been done already. If you claim that evidence shows X, then you logically MUST have some idea of how the evidence would be different if Y were true. Is it really so unreasonable to ask, then, *how* it would be different?

Ok, seriously, look: 100% of the evidence says no. You're saying "It's possible its a yes". If all the evidence says its impossible, its up to you to find some way for it to be possible, otherwise by definition it is still impossible. You can't say its possible if you have no reason why. Otherwise you are, as I said, operating on faith. This is the problem at the heart of this discussion.

To instead ignore the question and hide behind a demand that I prove a hypothetical is simply absurd.

You may wish to look up the definition of a hypothesis.

[HYHYBT]

i think you are both arguing the same conclusion ("there is no proof") from diffrent starting points. HYHYBT is coming across as saying "there is no proof", so it is possible. Gravekeeper is coming across as saying "there is no proof", so it is impossible.

Not quite. Gravekeeper has repeatedly stated that there *is* evidence that no interference has ever happened. Including just now.

I said "hypothetical," not "hypothesis." Although one meaning of the word (and presumably its origin) relates, that is very obviously not the intended one. I am not trying to prove anything. I am simply trying to examine a point of logic in the argument that you made. "If x were true, what would be different?" is not sensibly answered by "prove x."

Ok, seriously, look: 100% of the evidence says no.

Again, by even making this statement you are claiming to have some idea how the evidence would be different if the answer were yes. All I'm asking is that you explain what that difference would be. In a specific instance, to keep things, well, specific, because the generalities were too vague to be useful. Or perhaps, from your side, vague *enough* to be useful.

Really, now, that's hardly unreasonable.

[Gravekeeper]

You seriously don't understand the problem here, do you? Lets go over this point by point.


God Does Not Interfere:

The universe operates according to the rules it began with and does not require interference.

Issues: None. This is fully in line with scientific understanding and, if you wish a Theist perspective, the clockwork universe theory that everything is going according to plan and God need only sit back as everything was right the first time.



God Interferes With The Universe:

God interferes where he/she/it sees fit.

Issues: Natural law is violated. Causality is violated. Free will is violated. God becomes liable for everything. Chaos is introduced into the system. Gods motives become a point of question. This cannot be defended with a mysterious ways argument of "We just don't understand God".

The universe is a massively complex system of cause and effect. Everything leaves a paper trail as a result. Interference would break the paper trail and covering up interference would leave a hole in the paper trail. Yet we are not surrounded by illogical gaps or curiously absent gaps in the world.

Moving the goal posts to make the level of interference more and more insignificant just to prove a point does not wave away these problems either. Chaos is still being introduced as the universe is being put out of balance regardless of how minor the intial imbalance may seem. God is still liable. Free will is still violated. Multiple cases of "insignificant" intereference would also add up, introducing more chaos.


The Universe is Designed To Be Interfered With:

The universe is specifically designed to allow God to interfere at key points of his choosing.

Issue: Same as above. Natural law violated. Casuality violated. Free will violated. God is liable. Gods motives are in question. This only removes the introduction of imbalances and chaos into the system. But only if the imbalances already exist so that they can be removed via said interference. In which case said chaos is planned so that it can be removed for the benefit of demonstrating interference. Of which, again, there is no evidence of illogical chaos around that is being mysterious fixed. But even if that were the case it brings us back to God being liable. If God interferes, he is interfering in favour of someone or thing and thus showing favourtism and making him directly liable. In which case he can no longer be perfect or omnisentient and is, honestly, acting like kind of a dick.

And this is all ignoring the scale of the universe as well. We are not the only planet and the only life. The universe is effectively infinite. So "insigificant" intereference is impossible unless you're suggesting God only ever interfered once. On our planet. For one particular species of being. For one particular race. For one particular group of people he likes. Just to give them booze for a party.

So which is it? Does God not interfere or is God imperfect and apparently kind of a dick? Again, you cannot wave this away with "We can't understand God". That's a bullshit "mysterious ways" argument.

[siead_lietrathua]

i dont get the idea that natural law is wrecked if god intervines. i mean, even if god only intervined by picking which genes dominate in each conception. to us it would be seen as just evolution but it could still be guided.
even clockwork machines need an occasional adjustment to make sure the timing is still correct and that all the gears and belts are in working order.

[Gravekeeper]

i dont get the idea that natural law is wrecked if god intervines.

The very definition of said interference is breaking or suspending the natural laws of the universe.

i mean, even if god only intervined by picking which genes dominate in each conception. to us it would be seen as just evolution but it could still be guided.

Incorrect. We know the mechanisms of genetics and such tampering would be obvious. It would also, again, violate free will and make God liable.

even clockwork machines need an occasional adjustment to make sure the timing is still correct and that all the gears and belts are in working order.

Clockwork machines we build sure. If the clockwork machine God built breaks down, then God is not perfect afterall. if the adjustments required directly interfering with the operation of the clock, then God is kind of a twit. If God was adjusting the clock, we would notice the time on the clock changing and creating illogical gaps in the flow of the clock's operation. If parts of the machine break down, we would notice them being swapped out for new parts.

But we don't, because they don't have to be. Because the universe takes care of replacing the parts by itself through the natural rules already established.

[siead_lietrathua]

but that's jsut it. it could be the laws of nature are a form of god in itself, and they are so intermixed that it's impossible to see where one ends and one begins.
insisting on seeing evidence of a diety is just a form of human arrogance. when really it has better things to do than prove itself to us. to it, we are probably just another animal in the world.

[Gravekeeper]

but that's jsut it. it could be the laws of nature are a form of god in itself, and they are so intermixed that it's impossible to see where one ends and one begins.

This philosophy is called pantheism, and parts of it are what I've actually been already been talking about so far. So you've ironically reversed engineered what was effectively part of my starting point to begin with. -.-

insisting on seeing evidence of a diety is just a form of human arrogance.

No, its not. It is a expression of human curiousity and our ability to observe and reason. Declaring it arrogance requires that the deity exists to begin with. But that has not yet been established. If you can establish God's existence and his personality, then you can accused us of being arrogant or pestering him. Until then, this the cart before the horse and can not be used as a counter argument. As it relies on a definitive answer for the central argument first. ;p

Besides, only in certain religions would it be considered arrogance. In other religions, such as Buddhism, it is considered a nessacity.

[Duelist925]

GK, if I can give you a hypothetical scenario in which god would have interfered, and yet we wouldn't detect it, would you be willing to concede that there is a possibility of interference?

[Gravekeeper]

GK, if I can give you a hypothetical scenario in which god would have interfered, and yet we wouldn't detect it, would you be willing to concede that there is a possibility of interference?

If you ignored the other 98% of the problems with that outlined in my post to focus on one issue which if possible also raises the possibility that God is a dick? >.>

The conditions of your statement are not difficult. It is merely a matter of finding an event insignificant enough as to be beneath us then affixing the scenario too it. Also, if you say "A banana", I swear I will hunt you down =p