Ignorance arguments

[Adenosis]

I have been running a 'debate' with this theist on Youtube. It's really pathetic how they all seem to argue in circles and most arguments stem from ignorance. Why in the hell are some people SO ignorant! Like seriously, I would rather be dead then believe something blindly like that. If anyone wants to check out the comments, here is the link.

There are a lot of comments, probably around 15? I don't know for sure, I lost track.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQpTrszf...tZBJ4pxXtU

If not, I just ask, what ridiculous arguments have you come across before from theists?
and what is something you would say to a theist to open his mind to the possibilities?

P.s. any extra comments on that video would be appreciated
Not that I want to give him more views (he only has like 200) but some more criticism can't hurt.

[Vosur]

(30-12-2012 07:21 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  If not, I just ask, what ridiculous arguments have you come across before from theists?

I'm inclined call every philosophical argument for the existence of god ridiculous.

(30-12-2012 07:21 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  and what is something you would say to a theist to open his mind to the possibilities?

They either already have an open-mind, or they don't. If they don't, there is hardly anything you can say to change that. With that said, I don't waste my time on intellectually dishonest apologists and gnostic theists who have already made up their mind on the issue and can't be swayed by evidence or rational thought (ex. WLC and his fanatical followers).

That aside, there isn't really anything the rabbi says in his video that could be commented on. He doesn't give an in-depth critique of Richard Dawkin's book, instead he makes the assertion that there are no theological challenges to be found in it and tries to discredit the entire work based on one quote from the book which he, so it seems, didn't even understand. That's pretty much all there is to it.

[Adenosis]

But in the comments he claims there is proof of the existence of god. Every time I ask people what that proof is, they either tell me I won't understand it because I don't believe, or they give nonsensical arguments. Like the arguments he gives are ridiculous. Anyone that is willing to look over the comments and give me a reply will be appreciated


TheCollegeRabbi says...

Quote:#2. Teological: the concept that the universe is finely tuned to support
life in ways that statistics have deemed impossible. The scientific
application of this idea is the Strong Anthropic Principle, explained by
Barrow and Tipler, which has actually been used scientifically to
predict things. There's another version of AP used by Susskind which is
called the Weak AP, which is Darwin applied to the multiverse.

He is so ignorant, basically he says just because the laws appear fine tuned, he assumes they were fine tuned by a god. So tired of people... If there is a multiverse the Anthropic Principal applies to this. I don't see how he can quote it and still believe it must be a god.

I would post more of his stuff, but there is just so much stupid..

[Vosur]

I've discussed the same old, same old apologetics ad nauseam in the past year. I'm not going to spend anymore time doing the research that those who still use these arguments apparently haven't done.

Having said that, I highly doubt that you're going to change his mind by discussing these arguments with him, because I've never seen a theist whose beliefs relied solely on philosophical arguments. Even the world's most famous Christian apologist William Lane Craig has stated several times that even if evidence against the resurrection was brought forth and even if he admitted that the philosophical arguments for the existence of god have no merit, he will still hold on to beliefs because he has, what he calls, "the (inner) witness of the Holy Spirit" (i.e. personal experience).

If you want to discuss with this guy nonetheless, ask him the following four questions regarding his presentation of the teological argument.

1. Which statistics are you referring to?
2. How would you tell a finely-tuned Universe from a non-finely-tuned Universe?
3. If the Universe is fine-tuned for life, why is it that
a.) there hasn't been life in it for the overwhelming majority of its existence and
b.) there is only going to be life for a short time because our sun is going to wipe us off the face of the earth in about 5 billion years?
4. Are you aware of the fact that you are here to debate with me today despite the fact that your existence is a statistical impossibility (about 1 in 400 trillion)?

[Reltzik]

(30-12-2012 08:58 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  But in the comments he claims there is proof of the existence of god. Every time I ask people what that proof is, they either tell me I won't understand it because I don't believe, or they give nonsensical arguments. Like the arguments he gives are ridiculous. Anyone that is willing to look over the comments and give me a reply will be appreciated


TheCollegeRabbi says...

Quote:#2. Teological: the concept that the universe is finely tuned to support
life in ways that statistics have deemed impossible. The scientific
application of this idea is the Strong Anthropic Principle, explained by
Barrow and Tipler, which has actually been used scientifically to
predict things. There's another version of AP used by Susskind which is
called the Weak AP, which is Darwin applied to the multiverse.

He is so ignorant, basically he says just because the laws appear fine tuned, he assumes they were fine tuned by a god. So tired of people... If there is a multiverse the Anthropic Principal applies to this. I don't see how he can quote it and still believe it must be a god.

I would post more of his stuff, but there is just so much stupid..

Meh. It's not HIS idiocy, he's just regurgitating it. Pounce on the stuff about statistics. (Remember, there are THREE types of lies!) Usually, that sort of "statistical" analysis is predicated on subtly incorrect assumptions. The most typical errors here (giving the benefit of the doubt that it is a genuine mistake) are the following:

1. Bass-ackwards, aka the banana argument. See how perfectly the environment is designed for us? That could NEVER happen by chance! (Ignoring, completely, that we have adapted to the environment instead.)
2. Assuming current conditions. Asking what the odds are that such and such protein could have assembled itself at random, assuming modern conditions, and ignoring the weird chemistry and high energy states hypothesized for biogenesis in a primordial soup.
3. Ignoring how evolution works, aka, half an eye. It's one thing to disagree with it, it's another to completely ignore what the opponent actually says as you attempt to disprove it. A common example is the argument that an entire eye could not have evolved at once (as its too complex), and could not have evolved gradually, because half of an eye would be useless. This utterly ignores the possibility of the various components of the eye evolving stage by stage -- say, first light-sensative cells in the skin evolving (which could provide a survival advantage), followed by nerves tying them to the brain, followed by...
4. Ignoring multiple modes of mutation. This is common with discussion of the mutation rate. They like to focus on spontaneous mutation -- a critical stretch of DNA changing from one code to another (usually because of radiation), which is actually pretty rare. FAR more common is genetic crossover within the chromosomes, or between chromosomes and mitochondria. They like to leave this type of mutation out of their calculations entirely.
5. Insisting on uniform randomness, rather than randomness with a weighted probability distribution. And then saying that something like a human could never evolve by chance. Completely ignoring that the whole point of evolution is that the process rigs the game so that the randomness ISN'T uniform any more.
6. Ignoring the law of large numbers. (Or is it law of averages? Always get the two mixed up.) Abiogenesis would have occurred sometime over 500 million years? A billion? Spread across the entire surface of the earth? Sure, okay, the odds of it happening on any given day in any given puddle of goop would, yes, be microscopic. But over such a huge area and so many gazillion days, is the same true?
7. Insisting on too narrow a probabilistic range. Yes, the odds of humans evolving exactly as we are are extremely slim. But for something LIKE us evolving? THAT's a horse (er, hominid?) of a different color!
8. Ignoring conditional probability. The fact that we're here discussing it says something about the odds of evolution working, doesn't it? The question isn't, what are the odds of this happening from chance GIVEN a starting state. The question is, given the CURRENT state, what are the odds that it HAS happened? It's the difference between the odds of winning the lottery in the future given that you've bought a ticket, and the odds of HAVING won the lottery given that you are now a millionaire.
   

But without seeing the "statistics" in question, I can't tell which (if any) of these errors were made.

So, better to attack the entire "finely tuned" argument as utterly ridiculous instead. I like Darkmatter2525. Have a funny video.



And also two serious ones.

[Adenosis]

Thanks Vosur and Reltzik. Great videos too.

I know I shouldn't 'waste' time on these arguments, I guess I just really want people to wake up. That most of the Earth’s population believes in a god is disheartening to me.

[Reltzik]

Oh, and let's not forget the biggest probability-analysis error of all here (and pretty much every last apologist makes it in this type of argument): Not having it cut both ways. Suppose they're allowed to dissect the probability of evolution having led to the current state of things, and then conclude that their calculation of a low probability means that evolution (and abiogenesis, don't expect them to distinguish between the two) never happened and that instead an impossibly spaceless omnipresent timeless omniscient omnipotent etc being did it. Oddly enough, this means you're NOT allowed to dissect the probability of said impossible being existing, and conclude that evolution is more likely.

[Adenosis]

Oh my god, I know right? (O look I used the word God, I must be a believer!!)
I have come across people pulling that probability argument. Well you know what...

If we had evolved a different way, and say we had four identical limbs, like arms, instead of legs, and three eyes. The theists would still say "what are the odds". The probability is over analysed by them, the leaf had to fall somewhere! Just because it fell where it did does not mean an omniscient omnipresent (ect) being created it.

[Starcrash]

(30-12-2012 07:21 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  and what is something you would say to a theist to open his mind to the possibilities?

This might fit better in the topic about "Debates with Theists". Anyway, I always try to empathize. If a theist gives you an argument for their god, try to get them to think about how it would sound if it came from another religion arguing for their god. It's often easy to do this with deist arguments such as "something had to create the universe", because obviously anyone's god could fit the bill even if that were true. Would a Christian accept that Allah existed because "something had to create the universe"? Muslims claim their god lives outside of space and time, too. Or if they argue that their scripture says god is real therefore you should believe it, argue for other scriptures. Would a Muslim accept Jesus Christ just because the bible says he's the son of God? Once they start showing off their double-standards, they no longer have any reason to reject your lack of belief, even if your own atheism is a double-standard (and especially if it isn't).

[Adenosis]

Thank you for the reply. I am new to the forum, so did not know where to post this. If it is meant to be somewhere else, then I am sure a moderator or something can move it for us? If I have to do it, how would I go about doing that?

Yes, showing their double standard is a great tactic. Thanks for the idea.