Andrew_theist

Hello Jack,

Not that it will make any difference lets start at the top.

If there was no evidence for the Holocaust, then Holocaust-denial would be an entirely reasonable position. If I publish an article denying that the Americans butchered millions of British civilians during WW2, I do not carry the burden of proof. This is a negative claim that does not have to be defended. Hence the importance of EVIDENCE for the positive claim: that the Americans did indeed kill millions of British civilians.

If 80% of the population believed that Americans butchered British civilians just as the majority believe the holocaust occurred your contrary opinion would bear the burden of proof. If you offer such a statement without any evidence to its merit why should anyone care? There are people who babble incoherently all the time. They are best to be ignored. If 80% of the population believed in the existence of Santa Clause and I had reason to disagree why wouldn’t I argue my reasons for disagreeing? Unless my reasons are so weak that the best I can do is launch an attack on what others claim there is evidence for Santa. Often atheists say belief in God is no different than Santa. I don’t believe Santa exists. No, not a limp wrist weak-kneed belief that Santa might exist there just isn’t enough evidence for him. And I would be happy to debate that issue with anyone. The same thing is true for God. If I thought God didn’t exist I would have the intellectual courage to argue that God doesn’t exist based on logic and reasoning. I wouldn’t have to beg theists for their evidence so I could dispute it. Then justify my non-belief on that basis. This website is chalk full of reasons why one should suspect God doesn’t exist. What’s wrong with arguing that?

Provide evidence for supernature.
All else is irrelevant.

As I have already mentioned if anyone wants to debate here is my topic. Cause of the universe natural or designed? I will argue design. Does anyone disagree that if the universe is designed that would be evidence of the supernatural?

<a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/bgwnn" target="_blank">Challenging Atheism</a>

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Andrew_theist ]</p>

agapeo

[Please explain how we can possibly provide "evidence that no evidence of God exists", other than doing exactly what we HAVE been doing: asking for the evidence. Just how much longer will you continue to ignore Koyaanisqatsi's request?]

Gee, are you brain dead? Andrew already provided the evidence. Hypothetical though it may be. Even so, Medical Journals cite many examples of similar events occuring without a reasonable explanation.

The question is with Andrew's (hypothetical)example is would this be "sufficient" evidence to consider the possibility of a supernatural "agent."

Until you can proffer a naturalistic explanation for such an event one will either simply deny that such an event is possibly attributed to the supernatural or at least be intellectual honest and simply say "I don't know" how such an event happen. It may be a result of something we don't know as of yet. But with that view it is also reasonable to say "It may be a supernatural event." I just don't know.

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: agapeo ]</p>

Vorkosigan

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

Godless Sodomite

Why do admittedly fictional accounts need any other explanation beyond pointing out that the example cited is made up?

<strong> If this is the case then provide the examples. There's no use in providing counter-arguments showing alternate explanations based on examples that have already been admitted to being false.

<strong> The naturalistic explanation is that the example cited is made up. Since this has been admitted from the outset, what's the point in offering alternative explanations?

-Jerry

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Godless Sodomite ]

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Godless Sodomite ]</p>

HelenM

Vorkosigan

Gee, are you brain dead? Andrew already provided the evidence. Hypothetical though it may be.

Gazoom! This one is classic. Can I put it in my .sig?

SUPERVISOR: So, you've solved the case.
DETECTIVE: Yessir. Here is the evidence. It's hypothetical, but air-tight.
SUPERVISOR: Here is your raise, then. It's hypothetical, but it will easily enable you to retire five years early.

In any case, a hypothetical naturalistic explanation was proposed in my first response to Andrews hypothetical miracle: it is the result of advanced alien technology. As I pointed out, there are a number of ways to interpret a possible miracle (an apparent violation of natural law), and some of them aren't even theistic.

Here's the list again:
a) an actual miracle by Jesus

b) an actual miracle by some other deity, like Odin, Ngai or Shiva, intervening for the Eff of It.

c) a random miracle caused by non-theistic supernatural intervention, like by Buddhist chants channeled through a Buddhist in the crowd

d) the outcome of the psychic power of the crowd, focused through the talisman of Jesus' name, and thus not even remotely theistic at all.

e) aliens intervening with superior technology, and thus not even a violation of naturalism.

Note that in order to demonstrate your particular superstition, you would require a methodology that confirmed Jesus was responsible, while denying all naturalistic explanations as well as b-e above. Good luck!

BTW, in my official capacity, I would ask that discussants please refrain from calling eath other "brain-dead" and so forth. It lowers the whole tone of the discussion.

Michael

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]

agapeo

[BTW, in my official capacity, I would ask that discussants please refrain from calling eath other "brain-dead" and so forth. It lowers the whole tone of the discussion.]

I agree, and my apologies are hereby offered. But, not to be a stickler for protocol, can you at least tell me what the difference is between my "hypothetical" question and this posted by another participant on the board.

[Your cowardice is repulsive.]

I fail to see how such a comment furthers the discussion at hand and yet you allowed this one to go unchecked. I can readily and willing abide by the rules of the Board. But be sure they are equally enforced or its appearance "smacks" of discrimination.

agapeo

[Here's the list again:
a) an actual miracle by Jesus]

Possibility, since there exists "some" evidence of his existence.


[b) an actual miracle by some other deity, like Odin, Ngai or Shiva, intervening for the Eff of It.]

Where is your evidence to support the existence of the above?

[c) a random miracle caused by non-theistic supernatural intervention, like by Buddhist chants channeled through a Buddhist in the crowd]

Umm, possible. But then you accept the possibility of "a random miracle" and yet haven't explained how it's caused.

[d) the outcome of the psychic power of the crowd, focused through the talisman of Jesus' name, and thus not even remotely theistic at all.]

Give me a break on this one. Sounds like gobbly-gook. Far from reasonable.

[e) aliens intervening with superior technology, and thus not even a violation of naturalism.]

Gee, those aliens sure are sly ones. We get so much "fuzzy" images of a UFO and then assume they have some extremely valid intelligent reason for not revealing themselves in totality. Naw, I'll pass on this one too.

[Note that in order to demonstrate your particular superstition, you would require a methodology that confirmed Jesus was responsible, while denying all naturalistic explanations as well as b-e above. Good luck!]

Gee, again, you don't even know what my particular "superstition" is. For that matter you don't even know if I'm a theist, atheist, or an agnostic. I don't recall coming out of the "closet." What has happened is that everyone assumes I'm a theist because I appear to be defending Andrew. I guess my first post went way past anybody's observation.

madmax2976

<strong> This doesn't seem to make sense on many fronts. If you were to argue that the "cause" of the universe is natural or designed, then you are debating the nature of the cause itself. (This assumes there was a cause, an assumption thats not guaranteed by any means). As a theist this would mean your topic would be whether "God" - the presumed cause of the universe - is a natural phenomenon or a designed phenomenon. Somehow I don't think this is what you meant.

I suspect this would be closer to what you meant your topic to be: The universe - did it come about through natural processes or was it designed?

However this is also lacking. We know there are a great many things that are "designed" naturally. From geological formations, snowflake patterns, galaxy formation, rainbows, growth of life forms - we observe all of these things occuring without any apparent intervention by "supernatural" forces (whatever those are).

So we have to modify your topic again. Perhaps this will suffice: The universe - did it come about through natural processes or what is designed by an external, intelligent being(s)?

Unfortunately this doesn't quite cover it either. It is possible this universe was created by a highly sophisticated race of aliens in another universe or perhaps from a different dimension. This would be a completely natural "design". Or it may be the TOE(Theory of Everything) may explain any "design" we observe.

In truth, the very terms "natural" and "supernatural" are very hard to define at their core. It would be my position that if a deity existed, it would be completely natural for it to exist and do whatever it did. Therefore resting on labels such as natural or supernatural is dubious at best. You'll see this for yourself if just attempt to define "supernatural".

In any case, your topic must be modified again to more accurately reflect the real question at hand.
We've seen that design by itself is not sufficient and even intelligent design leaves the door open to other possibilities. Perhaps this will make it: The universe - brought about by natural causes or created out of nothing by a very powerful, magical, being.

Now I suspect you'll object to such a topic as it would compel you to provide a lot of evidence you don't have, but oh well.

As I wrote before, I have what I believe to be a far more equitable challenge for you. One that requires us both to present evidence and is not biased towards towards the other position and is less ambiguous. I am prepared to defend my view of naturalism against your view of theism - whatever kind that may be. My argument will be that my naturalism is a more reasonable conclusion than is your theism based on the evidence available to us.

Andrew_theist

Greetings all,

Since some are taking issue with my hypothetical miracle lets try some other examples. I attribute the sudden appearance of the universe and biogenesis to intelligent design by a personal creator. In brief I offer the following as evidence for this conclusion.

The creation of the universe cannot be the result of any known physical or natural process since the only physical or natural processes we are aware of are ones that were created at the time of the creation of the universe.

The current scientific roadblock in a viable theory of biogenesis is due to refusal to look at intelligent design as a rational alternative to chance and the laws of nature. Biogenesis is an example of specified complexity and the only examples we have of such being produced are by intelligent beings such as humans.

In any case, a hypothetical naturalistic explanation was proposed in my first response to Andrews hypothetical miracle: it is the result of advanced alien technology. As I pointed out, there are a number of ways to interpret a possible miracle (an apparent violation of natural law), and some of them aren't even theistic.

I agree wholeheartedly there can be a number of explanations for any phenomena. If I disagree with your alien hypothesis (read that not alien) I attack on a two-prong approach. I attack the evidence you provide for your hypothesis and I offer a competing hypothesis that fits the known facts as well or better. If I say your explanation is possible but I am skeptical then I am not disagreeing with your explanation I am merely uncertain of it. This is where we go back to the definition of atheism. It has been re-defined to include the mere skeptic. This watering down of atheism results in it meaning nothing. A weak theist for instance is someone who can be described as having a lack of belief. So why not call yourselves weak theists instead? Explain the difference?