God as Designer: Does God's Mind Evince Signs of Design? (Book Notes: The Atheists Debater's Handbook)
In The Atheists Debater’s Handbook, B.C. Johnson writes:
In general, the design argument relies on the assumption that everything which serves a useful purpose must be designed by a mind. But this assumption contains the requirement that minds must be designed for the purpose of designing. For if minds were not constructed in such a way that they are able to make plans, they could not develop, create, and design useful things.
Therefore, if all mental processes must be the result of the way minds are constituted, then it must be untrue that all things which serve a useful purpose have been designed by minds. Otherwise, God’s mind (or any mind) would have had to have been designed before it could possess its own capacity for planning.
The contradiction here is, at its heart, one that is repeated often in arguments for the existence of a god: claims are made about the universe or life which point to the existence of design, but those claims are equally true of the alleged god as they are of the universe or life (complexity, for example). Sometimes believers try to get out of this by adding qualifications, but those qualifications aren’t always credible. In this case, though, the ability to add qualifications doesn’t even seem possible.
Of course, the presence of such logical and rational problems doesn’t typically interfere with the arguments because those offering the arguments aren’t relying on logic and reason. The arguments, in the end, are basically just rationalizations — believers didn’t start believing because of such arguments and won’t stop believing when the arguments fail. The arguments are offered to justify these beliefs to critics, not to arrive at reasonable beliefs for oneself.
Because people have such a strong need to appear reasonable, rational, and logical, though, the arguments aren’t abandoned once they are undermined. Believers make adjustments, add qualifications, or simply ignore the problems entirely. They don’t seem to realize that this actually contradicts the goal of appearing reasonable in the eyes of others. All they manage to do is remain reasonable in their own eyes. Perhaps that’s all they ever intended and all they think they need.
Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.
The arguments, in the end, are basically just rationalizations — believers didn’t start believing because of such arguments
Presumably any attempted education of atheists on arguments to use in debate follows the same premise, otherwise they wouldn’t need said education
False dilemma fallacy.
Um, no I haven’t, but I try
What’s the problem with my logic (spell it out, rather than naming it, cos I might not understand)?
The False Dilemma fallacy occurs when you assume the existence of only two possible options — in this case, that atheists either use rationalization as the basis for their positions because they need to be educated in arguments, or they don’t use rationalization and don’t need to be educated in the arguments.
There are, however, other options: they are familiar with some arguments but not all, or they are familiar with most arguments but this book explains different variations, or they are familiar with the arguments but this book explains how to best structure and present them to others. Those are just three off the top of my head.
None of this, however, is germane to the subject of the post: theists for whom the soundness or unsoundness of their arguments is irrelevant because they never accepted the beliefs in question because of those arguments — instead, they accepted the beliefs in question for entirely different reasons and only later stumbled across these arguments and convenient rationalizations for what they wanted to believe all along.
This is why, when someone wants to offer me some argument for believing in some god, I insist on only listening to arguments which, if proven unsound or wrong, would cause them to rethink, reconsider, revise, and/or reject their belief. If the failure of their argument is irrelevant to their belief, then it’s not an argument that ultimately matters to them and, therefore, it’s inappropriate for them to assume that I should consider it relevant as well. Even worse, a prior commitment to a belief regardless of what the arguments show suggests someone who may not be interested in logical discussion and rational belief — which means it would be a waste of my time to spend time arguing with them.
You don’t believe that this can also be applied to atheists? Surely any religious person can refuse to argue with any atheist on any point that would not cause them to change his/her beliefs?
You seem to be saying that atheists are allowed to be so without knowing all the arguments, yet you offer this criticism in your article:
The arguments, in the end, are basically just rationalizations — believers didn’t start believing because of such arguments and won’t stop believing when the arguments fail.
And then again in your comment:
instead, they accepted the beliefs in question for entirely different reasons and only later stumbled across these arguments and convenient rationalizations for what they wanted to believe all along.
All I was saying that the mere presence of a handbook on How To Debate With People Who Believe In Things must imply that that works both ways
I didn’t say that the reverse couldn’t be said. If a theist says that they are uninterested in hearing any arguments for atheism which, if proved wrong, wouldn’t matter to the atheist, then that’s appropriate. The atheist shouldn’t be offering arguments if they consider the soundness of those arguments to be irrelevant.
Of course. If there are three good reasons to not think that theism is rational, and a person is aware of one, then their rejection of theism is not a rationalization. Yet, at the same time, they have something to learn from a book that explains the second two — and perhaps tells them things about the first which they didn’t know, like maybe showing how it’s stronger than they realized.
I have furthermore not said that a theist could not “be so” without knowing all the arguments. This isn’t a question of “knowing all the arguments,” and why you would imagine that it might be baffles me. It’s a question of not caring whether an argument is valid or sound or not. First, it’s wrong to offer such arguments to others.
Second, if the validity and soundness of the arguments are irrelevant to you, the necessarily you don’t believe because of those arguments. Instead, you believe for different reasons and merely use those arguments as rationalizations. How many arguments there might possibly be, and how many of them you know, are not relevant factors here. Indeed, we can even stipulate that there might be some argument out there which is sound, which is valid, which is a good reason to believe, but which you don’t know yet. What I just said is still true, though: you don’t believe because of the arguments you are offering and using because you don’t care whether those arguments are any good or not.
No, you said that atheists must also use rationalizations and didn’t start not believing on the basis of arguments if they need to be educated about any atheist arguments. I showed how this commits the false dilemma fallacy because an atheist might “be so” on the basis of a very good argument even though this same atheist isn’t aware of all possible arguments that might be used. The first means that they are not using rationalizations; the second means that they are still able to be educated on various arguments. Ergo, what you wrote was wrong.
Furthermore, “how to debate” is a skill — a book on debating is quite different from a book that simply explains what the arguments are. A person can know all the arguments without also really understanding how to debate them.
Ok, but consider the tone of your article: very hostile and dismissive of arguments provided by believers. E.g:
The arguments, in the end, are basically just rationalizations — believers didn’t start believing because of such arguments and won’t stop believing when the arguments fail. The arguments are offered to justify these beliefs to critics, not to arrive at reasonable beliefs for oneself.
This is a massive generalisation and simplification, and – what I am trying to point out – can be equally applied to atheists.
When you talk about believers you say that they are not arriving at reasonable beliefs because they learned some arguments after believing, whereas when you talk about atheists you say they simply need “to be educated on various arguments“. Can’t you see the massively biased and partial slant of how you are arguing?
I’d be the last person to be surprised at an atheistic site being highly aggressive to believers, so I’m not worried about it, or even saying you should stop being like that (it’s none of my business).
However, when I accuse atheists of exactly what you accuse believers (and I’m sure all – including you and I – are guilty of what you’re talking about to some extent, although I don’t believe that it’s a bad thing necessarily), you come up with some nice ways of defending against the accusations, which can just as appropriately be used to defend believers against the accusations you level at them in your article. Step one of writing your article rationally would surely be to include this counter-argument yourself, to guard against accusations of ranting, irrationality and only writing arguments for people who already believe what you believe. However if this is irrelevent then my previous paragraph still stands.
Finally, while I may make mistakes in typing, I try not to, and I read through what I’ve written to check it quickly. It makes it hard when you’re obviously furiously typing away at your argument and clicking say it, and I have to try and work out what you’re saying sometimes. E.g.
Thanks.
Second, if the validity and soundness of the arguments are irrelevant to you, the necessarily you don’t believe because of those arguments.
Please take some time over it, and don’t let any anger you have while you write spill over into your wording as well as your tone and meaning. I’m not trying to be picky (well perhaps I am) but it would make reading what you say much less work
When those arguments are offered to nonbelievers, despite the fact that the believers don’t believe because of them… yes, I am dismissive and hostile towards that. I’ve explained why, too. It’s dishonest, irrational, or both.
No. For the last time: I’m talking about believers who don’t believe because of the arguments they are offering. I’m not talking about believers who believe because of certain arguments and who learn other arguments later which they may or may not also end up believing because of. I’m not talking about believers who may not believe because of any arguments, but then later learn some arguments and then do believe because of those. I’m not talking about any believers who offer arguments which constitute the basis of their beliefs, such that learning of the unsoundness or invalidity of those arguments would cause them to rethink their beliefs.
You really shouldn’t keep putting words in other people’s mouths like this. For example:
First, the phrase “educated on various arguments” is ultimately yours, derived from “attempted education of atheists on arguments.”
Second, it wasn’t need “to be educated on various arguments,” but able to be “educated on various arguments.” The context is atheists who believe because of sound arguments (i.e., the arguments aren’t rationalizations, as in the aforementioned critiques of what theists sometimes do), but who don’t necessarily know everything (i.e., there are still arguments and explanations they can learn).
Once again, because you still just don’t get it: the issue is not whether a person knows all possible arguments or could benefit from learning new arguments; the issue is whether a person is offering arguments to others when that person doesn’t care whether the arguments are valid or sound. Full stop. Quit. Do Not Insert New Words. Do Not Make Stuff Up.
No, really. Don’t make up things and insert them in order to pretend that I said them, too.
No, you don’t accuse atheists of “exactly what I accuse believers” of. You just make up new things and pretend that I was talking about them all along. Even worse, after being corrected, you continue as if I hadn’t said anything.
I apologize for typing “the” instead of “then,” but this was the only mistake in that sentence I expect that you understood it just fine anyway. Such a minor mistake is not a sign of being “angry.” Assuming otherwise is simply a dismissive way to imagine that what I am writing is simply a product of emotions and, therefore, don’t have to be addressed in a substantive manner.
Well, I wasn’t angry before. I am a bit annoyed now because your writing indicates that you aren’t mentally incompetent — but this suggests that your insistence on putting words in my mouth, even after I have specifically explained why the inventions of yours aren’t the issue, is deliberate rather than an error. In other words, that you are deliberately misrepresenting my words for some purpose of your own.
So I wonder what’s going on. I’ve patiently explained multiple times that the issue is offering arguments when one doesn’t care if the arguments are sound/valid or not; you’ve repeatedly ignored this in favor of pretending that the issue is whether there are arguments that one could still be educated about. Is this because you really can’t comprehend the difference between the two, or are you just feigning obtuseness — perhaps for the purpose of being deliberately annoying?
Ok, some fair points.
Assuming otherwise is simply a dismissive way to imagine that what I am writing is simply a product of emotions and, therefore, don’t have to be addressed in a substantive manner.
If I was not addressing you in a substantive manner then this quoted statement is accurate, and I apologise for not doing so.
I’m not talking about believers who believe because of certain arguments and who learn other arguments later which they may or may not also end up believing because of.
Ok, this seems a more precise statement than is in your article. You are ok with people who believe, then learn arguments, but only under certain conditions. I don’t know that I entirely understand the mechanism behind this. If someone has some things which make them believe, and then they are added to by another argument; if that argument is countered then those other things still exist.
What you seem to be proposing is that someone has some things which make them believe, but then learning any new argument must include not incorporating that argument into their faith but rather they must underpin their faith
with that argument, so that if that one argument falls, so does their faith. This seems a catch-22 situation you are setting up, whereby believers must either entrust all of their belief to one argument or not use it at all.
What I accused atheists of (simply from the evidence that the article exists at all) is that they may learn arguments against believers which they didn’t know when they decided to call themselves atheists.
You are accusing believers of a similar thing, except that in this case your attitude is that these arguments are simply being learned by rote for the purpose of debate, rather than from any understanding or rational thinking on the part of the believer. Your article goes a long way towards saying that this is the rule rather than the exception, “Of course, the presence of such logical and rational problems doesn’t typically interfere with the arguments because those offering the arguments aren’t relying on logic and reason.”
The truth will vary wildly from person to person (contrary to your article’s rather unsubtle broad brushstrokes) and the norm is probably somewhere in the middle, between simply learning an argument to use in a debate, and the catch-22 outlined above.
This is what my initial, light-hearted post was getting at: you don’t mention that the opposite may well be true, and the danger of such an article is that atheists may well simply learn the argument by rote without really caring whether it’s true or not; it will just be another one to say.
A final question: how do you define the difference between a rationalisation and an argument? Is it just that what you agree with is an argument, and what you disagree with a rationalisation?
I don’t know how you do, and ultimately can’t tell. Just thought it would be worth mentioning.
Conditions? You just can’t help but put words in others’ mouths. This is dishonest.
True, but since the validity/soundness of the argument is irrelevant to whether one holds the belief, then first the argument is ultimately a rationalization and, second, it’s wrong to offer the argument to others as a reason to believe.
It only seems that way to someone who doesn’t pay attention to what I write and, instead, replaces my words with their own ideas.
No. First, it doesn’t matter how many arguments a person bases their belief on – one or a hundred. What matters is that the validity/soundness of the arguments matters. Second, I never said that if an argument fails then their faith must fail as well – you are ignoring the fact that I said “rethink, reconsider, revise, and/or reject.” What matters, once again, is that the validity/soundness of the argument(s) matters. If learning that an argument is invalid or unsound has no negative effect on a person’s belief, then that argument has no relevancy for the belief and was a rationalization rather than a reason for it.
I don’t “accuse” theists of doing this. I don’t have problem with theists learning new arguments on behalf of theism after they become theists. Indeed, I think that exploring and evaluating new arguments is a positive good. I have a problem with, first, using arguments as rationalizations rather than reasons and, second, with offering rationalizations to as if they constituted reasons. I’ve repeated this probably a half dozen times now.
When such logical and rational problems exist they don’t typically interfere with the arguments. I have never heard any theist say “Oh, that argument is invalid or unsound? Wow, I’d better rethink this then.” Do you have evidence to the contrary — that, when such logical and rational problems are pointed out, they do interfere with one’s belief?
I also don’t mention that it can be true with people defending liberalism. I also don’t mention that it can be true with people defending conservatism. I also don’t mention that it can be true with people defending choice in abortion. I also don’t mention that it can be true with people defending criminalization of abortion. I also don’t mention that it can be true with people defending empiricism. I also don’t mention that it can be true with people defending rationalism. I also don’t mention that it can be true with people defending particular interpretations of Wuthering Heights.
None of this is relevant, though. I don’t need to mention any of the infinite number of other cases where this can happen because I am commenting specifically on a book that doesn’t deal with all of them — it deals with just one example of where and how it occurs.
I define rationalization as it is normally defined in such contexts — a definition should be obvious from the text:
Notice, first, that the contrast isn’t between “rationalization” and “argument.” Yes, that’s another example of you making things up. Second, notice that a “rationalization” is something offered to justify a belief in order to appear outwardly rational and reasonable. This can be contrasted with a reason, which is an argument upon which a belief is based and which is used because one sincerely wants to in order to have reasonable beliefs, no matter what they might turn out to be.
A reason for picking up a hat before going out is thinking that it will be cold; if you learn that it will actually be very warm, then you should leave the hat because the basis for believing that you should wear it has disappeared. A rationalization, however, is a pseudo-reason you offer in order to appear reasonable. For example, if you pick up the hat because you are self-conscious about being bald but say it’s because of the weather, you’re offering a rationalization. If you then learn that the weather will really be warm, you may offer further rationalizations, like that the weather report may be wrong.
Hi, well I see your arguments are obsolete, how about coming to this website to discuss: http://www.godandscience.org
I’d prefer if you tried to support your claims here, rather than misusing the comments to advertise your site. Further such attempts will be deleted.
No offense, but this website is rather one sided with your presence. There are two parts: Arguments for Atheism, and for Theism, but the Arguments of the first are in support, and the arguments of the second attack instead of support, like with the first topic. So, this website is falsely advertising “Arguments for Theism” since the sense is in no ways identical with “Arguments of Atheism”. Just thought I’d point that out.
The “arguments for atheism” section explains what the arguments are and why they work. The “arguments for theism” section explains what the arguments are and why they don’t work. Do you sincerely expect an agnosticism / atheism site to try to convince people that there are good arguments for theism? If not, then why would you object to the current state of affairs?
Until Darwin published his work, “Origin of Species” ahteists really didn’t have a rational framework in which to couch their atheism.
The fact is that when it comes to origins, the atheist and the religious must exercise faith. Of course both engage in forms of ‘double speak’ just as you do here. For example:
I note that you said, “Of course, the presence of such logical and rational problems doesn’t typically interfere with the arguments (of the religious) because those offering the arguments aren’t relying on logic and reason. The arguments, in the end, are basically just rationalizations” —
Do you see it? You say that those “offering the arguments aren’t relying on logic and reason” and then you say that they are just rationalizations(logic and reason). So, if they are not relying on logic and reason, how do you say they rely on rationalization? Isn’t rationalization a product of logic and reason?
Please explain.
Please support that claim.
Please support that claim, too.
No, I said that the arguments are just rationalizations.
Sorry, I can’t explain why you didn’t understand the simple grammatical construction of my sentence: “The arguments…are…just rationalizations.”
Is this the right room for an argument?
“Make them all the Same” is an old propaganda technique. Supposedly Darwin and the Bible must be accepted on faith so they are the same. Supposedly Democrats and Republicans are controlled by crooks, so they are the same. (Lazy Thinking)
#15, R. Hoeppner: “Until Darwin published his work, ‘Origin of Species’ ahteists really didn’t have a rational framework in which to couch their atheism.”
Wrong. My atheism, at least, is about there being no evidence for the existence of any god. It’s really that simple.
R. Hoeppner, a rationalization is not necessarily logical. The word has several meanings. In the context of this article, it means “an excuse.”
Surely the point is that the word “rationalisation” came into use precisely to emphasise that it was referring to an illegitimate or dishonest argument or position that attempted to make it appear that it was rational. The “rational” part of “rationalisation” is thus in a sense being used ironically or with a negative connotation.
My problem with the argument from design is that it fall over when the data are considered.
The eye is proffered as an example of perfect design – so what is myopia? Why do perfectly designed huma beings have an appendix?
Why only one heart?
Why do perfectly designed beings get cancer? Arthritis, auto-immune diseases, allergies?
The only 2 options I can see (false dilemma?) no designer or unintelligent designer.
So perhaps Xtians ought to ascribe to the stupid designer theory. It fits the evidence better.
The eye is proffered as an example of perfect design – so what is myopia? Why do perfectly designed huma beings have an appendix?
Why only one heart? Comment by Percy Ferry — April 29, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
Some flavors of Christian will tell you that it’s because of Adam’s fall.
‘Hi, well I see your arguments are obsolete, how about coming to this website to discuss’
Those Pesky Evolutionists,
You offer discussion on this site, but I looked at it and it expressly says that its creaters/maintainers do not wish those who are certain that they do not believe in god posting on it, so it would seem either you know nothing about the very site you adverstise or you lied when you offered discussion, which one is it?
How I see it is that we can not be able to
prove God’s existence but we can see around us for the proof of the Bible Genesis 1:1
Anyway who first put rationalization in man’s mind, is something to think about, otherwise we denied our history.
Sorry, I don’t see it. Do you have anything better?
Why do you assume that some “one” had to “put” a rationalization in our minds?
I see it because I live close to nature and that is beside a forest and sea so there is no proof but there is a pointer to a God which the Bible explain Him more clearly otherwise you can give a better explaination than evolution theory.
Why do you assume that some “one” had to “put” a rationalization in our minds?
- I am refering to the origin of man, do you think we are the same with animals or we are a little better, but some of our actions, like killing that our mentality is not better than the instinct of mammals. I am thinking of the craving in man’s heart or mind that nothing can provide for that but a loving and forgiving God, who is more like a father figure and nothing can fill that void, hunger, emptiness, which I believe a creator God created for Himself but we fill it up with things which will not satisfy it.
The Bible explain it more clearly to me pesonaly and hope you see it as I saw it.
Since evolution is a proven fact, that’s a whole lot more reliable than “pointers” which you can’t explain and others can’t see.
We are a species of animal, yes.
I have no such craving.
I’ve read it several times and found no such explanation.
Can you explain the missing link between
stages of evolution and what is our next stage that we will change into? Cause I never see any mutation to the next stage yet
Can you give the fact on evolution I am really late on that.
When we see the 7 days in a week we get it from the bible. Why do we follow something that is not in reality something that connected to something in this world, Lucky God is not selfish to hold back what is good for man to rest on the seventh day which the Sabbath which no explanation why we adopt 7 days, this is a commandment in Deuteronomy 20:8 and not from any seen things but from an unseen God confirm by His people that He is the worthy Creator who rest on the 7th day of the week. Day comes from the cycle and month from moon around the earth, but seven days is nothing that comes from but the commandment of God that is from His word, originally He spoke it.
The most intelligent scientist in history was a Theist and Arian. Sir Isaac Newton contributed more to science than any other man. Newton came up with three laws of motion plus the principles of optics, gravitation, calculus, and the reflecting telescope. I challenge any atheist to meet or exceed his contributions to science. If anything, Newton’s beliefs in Theism and Arianism should be adopted as the first steps to scientific genius. There’s no evidence that Dawkins or Pinker will ever rise above the mundane level of skeptic. The foundation for Newton’s genius was his belief in more intelligent beings (God and angels) than himself. The foundation for skeptics is that they think they’re the most intelligent apes in the universe, a losing proposition.
How stupid can you be. I have a mind of my own. Prove to me there is a god by getting rid of poverty, abuse. As an atheist I am proud. When the Vatican opens its doors to the homeless and hungry, multi millionaires live in just one modest house, live as others live side by side, then perhaps there would be some reason to believe in a higher power.
Rekigion is hate in the most part, hate of anyone who believes differently from their beliefs. I as an atheist would never ever contemplate saying or doing anything evil to those who have different beliefs.
Show me god or jesus, and who created a god in the first place, then i am prepared to say I was wrong. This is a challenge, can anyone please oblige.
Researcher:
First of all, claiming one scientist was smarter than all others is the kind of nonsensical, unprovable, and ridiculous absolutist thinking that causes theists to be ridiculed.
Secondly, Newton lived in an society where people were persecuted openly for not practicing the same religion as their neighbours. The reason people didn’t dissent then was the same reason that nobody in Muslim countries today says “look at me, I’m an atheist!” In fact, if you do that in many parts of the US today, your car will be torched, you house egged, your children bullied, your job terminated, etc, etc.
The religion Newton was forced to adhere to did nothing to help his scientific exploits; indeed, all religion opposes and and continues to oppose scientific method and practices. You may as well credit his hair colour for his scientific discoveries as his religion. Perhaps you should investigate the difference between causality, corelation, and coincidence.
An atheist called Einstein, and another athiest named Hawkings have greatly expanded what Newton did, and of course replaced part of what he did incorrectly. That is how knowledge works; you build upon the work of people before you. Kind of like how my ancestors were forced at sword point to become Christians, but my parents figured out it was all nonsense, and relaced the previous mythology-based world view with a reality-based world view.
It is true that you must point to the 16th century to find the last time in which Christians have set the intellectual agenda in the West. The Enlightenment was primarily conducted by atheists and deists, with nary a Christian in sight. 19th Century science was dominated by “agnostics”, the polite term for agnostic atheists, while the 20th Century has been dominated by scientists who are atheist without caring who knows about it. The 21st Century will be more of the same. Religion in educated societies is dying, and Christianity is already a minority belief in Europe. North America is following. Before I die, the centre of Christian belief will be in Africa, where people are still poor enough and ignorant enough to belief such nonsense en masse.
Newton was a great man, and advanced our knowledge of the world greatly. But he also thought that alchemy was real. Credit where credit is due, but the religion of his society had nothing to do with his genius.
The most intelligent scientist in history was a Theist and Arian. — Researcher on October 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm
“Theist” is a common noun and should not be capitalized in mid-sentence. You’re alright on “Arian.”
Newton was certainly a theist, but if you have dispositive evidence that he was an Arian, please present it.
Newton’s religious views were unorthodox, and he kept them so private during his lifetime that scholars are still trying to figure out what his beliefs were.
Sir Isaac Newton contributed more to science than any other man. — Researcher on October 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm
And way, way more than any angel or god.
Newton came up with three laws of motion plus the principles of optics, gravitation, calculus, and the reflecting telescope.– Researcher on October 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Yes. He was a heck of a smart guy. I don’t think anyone here has claimed otherwise.
I challenge any atheist to meet or exceed his contributions to science. — Researcher on October 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Or any theists, either. Or, for that matter, any angels or gods.
If anything, Newton’s beliefs in Theism and Arianism should be adopted as the first steps to scientific genius. — Researcher on October 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Arianism is a variety of religious skepticism, so you are advocating skepticism. Did you realize that?
(Psst — “theism” is a common noun, too.)
There’s no evidence that Dawkins or Pinker will ever rise above the mundane level of skeptic. — Researcher on October 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Assuming for the sake of argument that you are right about this, so what?
The foundation for Newton’s genius was his belief in more intelligent beings (God and angels) than himself. — Researcher on October 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm
You are offering your opinion about what made Netwon a genius. That’s fine, but you have not supported it.
You haven’t shown, for example,that his theism was essential to his genius but his skepicism was not.
The foundation for skeptics is that they think they’re the most intelligent apes in the universe, a losing proposition. — Researcher on October 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Since Newton was himself a skeptic, does it follow that he thought he was the most intelligent ape in the universe? Was his a losing proposition?
When we see the 7 days in a week we get it from the bible. — Matiu on October 23, 2008 at 2:29 pm
No, we get it from Roman astrologers. There are seven days because the Romans knew of five planets, plus Earth’s Moon and the sun.
This is also why the names of the days are derived from celestial bodies and pagan gods — Saturn’s day, Sun day, Moon day, Thor’s day, and so on.
Some cultures have gotten by just fine with weeks of three, eight, or ten days.
No, we get it from Roman astrologers. There are seven days because the Romans knew of five planets, plus Earth’s Moon and the sun.
There are more planets now. Why we didn’t add more days as we know more planets now, the reasons is a moral one, atheist don’t want to acknowledge God, however this is because God’s character was distorted to them heretical philosophy or religion is different from what God wants from us, for God appeal to us in very simple and down to human level.
This is also why the names of the days are derived from celestial bodies and pagan gods — Saturn’s day, Sun day, Moon day, Thor’s day, and so on.
Atheists follow the stars (or may rock) just same with other cults who bow down to stones or piece of iron without any reason for Athiest Zack have say it properly. But Theist who have the side of the God of the Bible, to us we follow what we believe. So Atheist is a belief, but different direction, the direction of fools a losing proposition as Researcher mentioned.
Some cultures have gotten by just fine with weeks of three, eight, or ten days.
Atheist is a culture if they follow with no reasons at all to these cultures.
How stupid can you be
Elaine and Drew as all Atheists are all fools as Psalm 14:1 says “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”
The true opposition to the real God is mention in the Bible as “Satan the devil” but funny enough the Bible says that Satan “believe God” but not obey Him, and that’s why the Bible called Atheists “fools” because they are like people sitting on the fence with ease.
As James 2:19 says “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”
So to be a true believer or Theists in God is not just believe as some Atheists have assume to be but an act of Obedience to Him and that’s why Theist like myself saw the 7 days in a week as an acts of obedience to God’s word in Exodus 20:8. There is no reason for anyone on earth to keep this 7 days for there is no need except Theists like me who have a reason and even if the world change it, I still have a reason to keep this command for this reason only “God say so” and difference, why Theists don’t bow down to rocks or idols, the God of the Bible says so, for He is not a man to response as we did, but for sure He avenge against all those who are against Him by His own time. So it is better to crush by a belief that is beyond our understanding than to annihilates later by Him as also warn by His Laws in the Bible.
The existence of God shows in us “Human Beings.” Are we existence is necessary or it is unnecessary? Why we are exist as a human being? Even science don’t answer for that. If we don’t live for a purpose we might live unnecessary. I live for a purpose because I am under God’s creation.
Where?
The questions don’t make any sense.
You don’t need gods to have a purpose. On the contrary, if all you’re doing is accepting some purpose imposed on you from the outside, you’re doing little more than following orders. A purpose that grows out of your own values and choices is both preferable and indicative of greater personal development.
There are more planets now. Why we didn’t add more days as we know more planets now, the reasons is a moral one, atheist don’t want to acknowledge God…. — Matiu on November 10, 2008 at 12:19 am
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that English is not your first language.
We didn’t add more days to the week for the same reason that we build our highways on routes that first were traveled on foot. Culture is conservative, and historically contingent.
I think this-Austin must just have been a lonely depressed child. He most likely still feels a hole inside of him that something is missing, unless he has truly filled it with all of insecurities and accusations he thinks are right.
Can you offer any particular basis or reason for thinking all this, or did you simply find yourself without any means for refuting the arguments above and so resorted to making snide personal comments instead?
Austin, you probably do not have a good understanding of the theist argument in the first place. God is the source of complexity, and if he is the source of it, then the question of where he got complexity from is nonsensical. It’s like asking, “If water makes everything wet, then what makes water wet?”. It’s a stupid question, because water IS wetness. In the same way, God is the source of creation, thus a source can’t have a source, otherwise it is not the source!!!!!
Well, then, we can simply say that the source of complexity is the universe. Ergo, we don’t need any gods to explain why the universe is complex.
Right?
Maybe you don’t have a good understanding of the theist argument: namely, that the argument depends on the assumption that the presence of something like “complexity” has to be explained by some outside source. If that standard is going to be applied to the universe, it’s simply a case of special pleading to insist that it must not then be applied to God.
Pwned in the face!
Well done.
“If water makes everything wet, what makes water wet?”
That’s not a stupid question. Water is wet because it’s in liquid form. Any substance that can exhibit a liquid state is wet. Thus mercury and gold in their respective fluid states are wet.
(40) just a person says:
“I think this Austin must just have been a lonely depressed child. He most likely still feels a hole inside of him that something is missing, unless he has truly filled it with all of insecurities and accusations he thinks are right.”
I have brothers and sisters, family and friends, what makes you think there’s a hole in atheist peoples lives?? Is your life truly incomplete without god?????
Are you secure with believing in your “ALL MIGHTY” god???
Austin, you probably do not have a good understanding of the theist argument in the first place. God is the source of complexity, and if he is the source of it, then the question of where he got complexity from is nonsensical. It’s like asking, “If water makes everything wet, then what makes water wet?”. It’s a stupid question, because water IS wetness. In the same way, God is the source of creation, thus a source can’t have a source, otherwise it is not the source!!!!!
Seriously looking at your questions about not believing and I just gotta say WTF, are you fu(king mental???
It’s a stupid question, because water IS wetness. — thejinxer on February 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm
No. Water is not wetness, although I suppose that water is by definition wet.
“Water” is a noun — in this case, a thing.
“Wet,” in the sense you are using it, is an adjective, which is to say it is a word that describes a noun.
“If water makes everything wet, then what makes water wet?”. — thejinxer on February 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm
The hydrogen bond.
I’m beginning to think that water isn’t the only wet thing here.
I’m beginning to think that water isn’t the only wet thing here. — Tom Edgar on March 3, 2009 at 5:43 pm
You can’t tell which way the train went by looking at the tracks.
you know what? i think you are gay and you know that God does not like that forthat reason you are finding excuses…but God Jesus loves you anyway but also He is right and his justice will take you, soonn
And why do you think that?
Excuses for what, exactly?
Well, obviously only a person of group X would voice a desire for the rights of that group. If the jocks call some kid a queer and you come to his defense, it’s because you’re his boyfriend! QED.
“Before I die, the centre of Christian belief will be in Africa, where people are still poor enough and ignorant enough to believe such nonsense” – Drew
…And the Caribbean. I think.
The Babylonian skygod has always been an abusive parent. The result is paranoia and megalomania.
Matiu has said to me:
“Elaine and Drew as all Atheists are all fools as Psalm 14:1 says “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”
Matiu, nobody can say anything with his heart. The heart is a muscle. Humans say things with their mouths, thoughts which are formed with their brains. Your god, Yahweh, was so stupid that he did not even know this; and therefore through the Old Testamant, Yahweh continually states that he, and humans made in his image, think with their hearts.
You’d think that, if a god were real, it would actually know how human physiology works, or would teach humans how their own bodies work. Thank you for illustrating one of the countless ways in which we know the Bible to be the work of primitive humans who knew less about the world than my 5 year old child does today.
Veritas responds Posted 04/26/2009
God as Designer: Does God’s Mind Evince Signs of Design? (Book Notes: The Atheists Debater’s Handbook)
A Cline responds;
On the contrary, if all you’re doing is accepting some purpose imposed on you from the outside, you’re doing little more than following orders. A purpose that grows out of your own values and choices is both preferable and indicative of greater personal development.
Response = this is a foundational tenet of Naturalism. If naturalism is true then A. Cline is simply a material entity receiving his purpose imposed upon him from the natural antecedent state of the natural universe, ergo -why should we believe anything he says? Mr. Cline will need to show evidence how any other kind of determinism is thus valid.
A Cline Responds;
The fact is that when it comes to origins, the atheist and the religious must exercise faith.
Please support that claim, too.
Response = I agree. We must simply disregard all the ancient texts and appeal to modern science. Please provide evidence to show that modern science has answered the question of origins.
God Isn’t says:
Wrong. My atheism, at least, is about there being no evidence for the existence of any god. It’s really that simple.
Response = Please define evidence, and differentiate how you distinguish the difference between evidence and proof – objectively speaking.
A Cline responds;
How I see it is that we can not be able to prove God’s existence but we can see around us for the proof of the Bible Genesis 1:1
Sorry, I don’t see it. Do you have anything better?
Response = this is a subjective response. It smells a bit like Hume’s dismissal of miracles in the subjective mode. You will have to show how in the event that you do not ’see it’ corresponds to anyone else who can not ’see it.’ You will also need to prove that revelations do not exist, nationalistically speaking.
A Cline said;
Since evolution is a proven fact, that’s a whole lot more reliable than “pointers” which you can’t explain and others can’t see.
Response = A proven fact? You will need to objectively show the evidence that has convinced the world that this is true. Finally, all this silly argument can come to an end? Richard Dawkins himself stated that evolution happens on a scale we can not observe. You will need to show how this privileged position is exempt to that, “which you can’t explain and others can’t see.”
A Cline responded”
The Bible explain it more clearly to me personally and hope you see it as I saw it.
I’ve read it several times and found no such explanation.
Response = Read it again. This time, objectively show that it is not true and provide evidence that an alternative view is superior in explanative power.
A Cline said;
Well, then, we can simply say that the source of complexity is the universe. Ergo, we don’t need any gods to explain why the universe is complex.
Response = feel free to provide a scientifically legitimate explanation to support your conclusions. You will have to show how the universe explains its existence.
You have made several comments like this recently, asking for answers but without ever returning to address those answers. Unless you do, future posts of yours will simply be deleted without even being read.
You can’t make an athiest or anyone else believe that God exists and sent his only son,Jesus Christ,to die for our sins (John 3:16). Believing has to come from your heart. Where your heart is, your mind will follow (faith). No deductive reasoning in the world can make a person believe.
There are many assumptions and generalizations made here by the atheist author: That God’s “mind” is structured in the same way that a human’s mind is structured, and that the thoughts of God follow patterns of human thought. The Christian Bible addresses this. One example, (that comes to “mind” immediately) is that “God’s ways are above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts” God’s “mind” is not limited as human’s minds are, and using this argument does not consider this. Its just another waste of space for atheists to type such nonsense, and once again shows their ignorance and lack of logical thinking skills.
Feel free to show where and how these assumptions are being used.
This sounds like little more than “God is different from us,” but it doesn’t actually say what God “is,” much less that God’s mind is different in some substantive, specific way.
Please define “mind” in a way that encompasses both human minds and God’s mind.