Why the Atheists Always Lose to Good Theist Debaters

[scientist]

Coin In a Box

In most major debates with atheists, the "coin in a box" argument is something that always wins. It has never been refuted.

It defeats the atheist principle "The scientific method is the absolute rule on determining reality." Which simply means, someone or something must be detected by scientific instruments, or the five senses, or both to be considered reality. The atheists believe only physical evidence of someone/something is what they consider reality.

There are three levels of reality that make this atheist principle an utter failure:


1) Physical reality

The coin in a box. I hide it deep within the earth (beyond detection), and according to the atheists, if scientific instruments or their five senses cannot detect someone/something, it does not exist.

Well, I hold the coin in my hand and it is real.

"To see is to believe" never worked anyway.


2) Mental reality (this always wins against atheists in major debates)

Let's assume:

If every person in the world thought of an ice cream at exactly 1pm on the very same day, that is mental reality. It is just as real as physical reality. It occurred in a point in time, and would be part of historical reality.

Whether science detected their thoughts at that time or not can never make that mental reality disappear. So if you ask every person who thought of the ice cream if he/she really thought of an ice cream, you would of course get a positive answer.

But wait, by their definition of reality, the atheists MUST say this event did not occur. It cannot be verified because it it is impossible to detect their thoughts by a scientific instrument nor by the five senses.

So how can atheists even argue that only physical reality is reality? There is such a thing as mental, non-physical reality just as real. If it happened, then it's real. This truth is logically impossible to refute by any atheist.

It only shows the atheist view of what reality/truth is about is fundamentally flawed. "To see is to believe" cannot stand when attacked well.

Some atheist argue that thoughts are from the brain only. But this is easily defeated.
You can measure the size of the brain, brain cells, etc. but why can't you measure the size of the ice cream (see above example) I thought about? If it's from the brain alone, then it should be physically measurable.

It is self-evident that thoughts come from the mind. To say that thoughts come from the brain alone is a fallacy. We can also observe that the mind can exist independent of the brain.


3) Spiritual reality

The public miracles at Fatima were witnessed by a large number of people in real-time, a first of its kind. That and all miracles take a very long time to be confirmed as truth by the Catholic Church.

Why? Because the Church invites scientists (theist and atheist, agnostic, etc.) to do an independent study on the miracles. If you research online well, the names of some of these experts are given to the public. There is no conspiracy here, just truth.

These are supernatural events with physical evidence, credible observers and an independent scientific study encouraged by the Catholic Church.

[Unbeliever]

(26-05-2010 07:39 AM)scientist Wrote:  Coin In a Box

In most major debates with atheists, the "coin in a box" argument is something that always wins. It has never been refuted.

Bet you a dollar?

Quote:It defeats the atheist principle "The scientific method is the absolute rule on determining reality." Which simply means, someone or something must be detected by scientific instruments, or the five senses, or both to be considered reality. The atheists believe only physical evidence of someone/something is what they consider reality.

Straw man already, huh? You're confusing "atheism" with "scientific skepticism".

Quote:1) Physical reality

The coin in a box. I hide it deep within the earth (beyond detection)

Not beyond detection.

Quote:and according to the atheists, if scientific instruments or their five senses cannot detect someone/something, it does not exist.

The failure here is that we can detect it. If it is hidden in the Earth, all we have to do is use ground-penetrating sonar or similar. Failing that, we dig to it, which is obviously possible since you buried it in the first place.

Quote:Well, I hold the coin in my hand and it is real.

Exactly. Having the coin in your hand is evidence that it exists.

Quote:2) Mental reality (this always wins against atheists in major debates)

Let's assume:

If every person in the world thought of an ice cream at exactly 1pm on the very same day, that is mental reality. It is just as real as physical reality. It occurred in a point in time, and would be part of historical reality.

Whether science detected their thoughts at that time or not can never make that mental reality disappear. So if you ask every person who thought of the ice cream if he/she really thought of an ice cream, you would of course get a positive answer.

So? Asking people whether or not they thought of ice cream and getting a positive answer is scientifically acceptable evidence that people thought of ice cream at that time. You don't appear to understand what science is.

Quote:But wait, by their definition of reality, the atheists MUST say this event did not occur. It cannot be verified because it it is impossible to detect their thoughts by a scientific instrument nor by the five senses.

Except that it is. Asking people if they thought of ice cream is scientifically acceptable evidence.

Quote:So how can atheists even argue that only physical reality is reality? There is such a thing as mental, non-physical reality just as real.

Again you confuse atheism with an entirely different position. You are conflating atheism with materialism. While it is true that many atheists are materialists, this does not mean that all are, and even materialists do not deny the existence of a mind. We simply state that it is physical: the mind is nothing more than the chemical reactions in the brain.

Quote:It only shows the atheist view of what reality/truth is about is fundamentally flawed. "To see is to believe" cannot stand when attacked well.

Firstly, "seeing is believing" is a gross oversimplification of the scientifically skeptical position. Secondly, I would hardly call these fallacies a good attack on even that position.

Quote:Some atheist argue that thoughts are from the brain only. But this is easily defeated.
You can measure the size of the brain, brain cells, etc. but why can't you measure the size of the ice cream (see above example) I thought about? If it's from the brain alone, then it should be physically measurable.

It is. Thoughts are electrochemical reactions in the brain. That we can't (yet) look at a specific neuron firing in a specific way and say "Oh, this is one part of his thought about puppies" in no way damages this.

Quote:It is self-evident that thoughts come from the mind. To say that thoughts come from the brain alone is a fallacy.

No, it isn't. Firstly, that isn't the definition of "fallacy". Secondly, you are strawmanning, both in conflating atheism with materialism and in assuming that the materialistic position denies the existence of a mind. From the materialistic viewpoint, brain and mind are one and the same.

Quote:We can also observe that the mind can exist independent of the brain.

Bare assertion fallacy.

Quote:3) Spiritual reality

The public miracles at Fatima were witnessed by a large number of people in real-time, a first of its kind.

And has been adequately explained. For more information, please read some articles on crowd delusion, the malleability of memory, the power of suggestion and the influence of belief and desire on perception.

Quote:That and all miracles take a very long time to be confirmed as truth by the Catholic Church.

Yay! A religious organization says a religious event is real! I'm so impressed!

Quote:Why? Because the Church invites scientists (theist and atheist, agnostic, etc.) to do an independent study on the miracles. If you research online well, the names of some of these experts are given to the public. There is no conspiracy here, just truth.

Then you won't mind sourcing your claims.

Quote:These are supernatural events with physical evidence, credible observers and an independent scientific study encouraged by the Catholic Church.

Again, pics or it didn't happen.

Before you post again, I suggest that you read up on logic and a few basic philosophical positions. You have completely and utterly failed to understand the difference between atheism, materialism, and skepticism. Learn that difference before you try again.

[Stark Raving]

Welcome to the forum scientist. Meet Unbeliever (The guy who just completely destroyed every idea you had in your post). If you are going to argue against atheism here, I welcome you with open arms. But a word of warning; you will need a far better understanding of pretty much everything in your post to even be taken seriously here. Learn what a fallacy is. Learn what atheism is (It amuses me that you think atheists all fall into a neat little definition. "Atheist principles" are non-existent. There is only one thing atheists MUST have in common. They are NOT THEISTS!). And one more thing...if you are going to give examples like the ice cream one, we will need to know what flavor. Otherwise, it just doesn't make sense.

Keep trying though.

[Unbeliever]

(26-05-2010 08:43 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Welcome to the forum scientist. Meet Unbeliever (The guy who just completely destroyed every idea you had in your post).

Oh, yeah, sorry. Forgot to introduce myself. Hi.

I really have no problems with you being here. I just have a tendency towards instant debate. I don't mind you posting arguments here, but don't expect to get off lightly if you continue making mistakes like the ones above. I'm merciless in debate.

[Dregs]

Oh and I'll just add if your arguments did hold any water (we now know they don't) all they could possibly explain is that we can't explain those things. Not having an explanation is not a straight line to the Christian God. That is actually my biggest issue with Christians. If you want to believe in the Christian God then believe I don't care, but don't try and tell me "if this then the only solution is God" it's your solution and that's cool, but it doesn't even approach being the only solution!

[Sekhmet]

scientist got owned....
keep trying, please

[scientist]

(26-05-2010 08:06 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  

(26-05-2010 07:39 AM)scientist Wrote:  Coin In a Box

In most major debates with atheists, the "coin in a box" argument is something that always wins. It has never been refuted.

Bet you a dollar?

Quote:It defeats the atheist principle "The scientific method is the absolute rule on determining reality." Which simply means, someone or something must be detected by scientific instruments, or the five senses, or both to be considered reality. The atheists believe only physical evidence of someone/something is what they consider reality.

Straw man already, huh? You're confusing "atheism" with "scientific skepticism".

No confusion here. It's for simplification. It'd be too impractical to try to argue against atheism, then skepticism, then materialism, then whoever. Don't you agree old boy?

Quote:1) Physical reality

The coin in a box. I hide it deep within the earth (beyond detection)

Not beyond detection.

I'm arguing from a standpoint that I hid the coin in a place so deep no one knows about. I'm simply demonstrating the limits of science and technology. Just because something has not been found to have physical evidence, doesn't mean it does not exist (same with God's existence).

Unbeliever, you are making too many mistakes already. Don't assume too much. You are misunderstanding a lot of your opponent's statements. Not good so early on.

Quote:and according to the atheists, if scientific instruments or their five senses cannot detect someone/something, it does not exist.

The failure here is that we can detect it. If it is hidden in the Earth, all we have to do is use ground-penetrating sonar or similar. Failing that, we dig to it, which is obviously possible since you buried it in the first place.

The failure here is you misunderstood my statement (pls. see above)

Quote:Well, I hold the coin in my hand and it is real.

Exactly. Having the coin in your hand is evidence that it exists.

Quote:2) Mental reality (this always wins against atheists in major debates)

Let's assume:

If every person in the world thought of an ice cream at exactly 1pm on the very same day, that is mental reality. It is just as real as physical reality. It occurred in a point in time, and would be part of historical reality.

Whether science detected their thoughts at that time or not can never make that mental reality disappear. So if you ask every person who thought of the ice cream if he/she really thought of an ice cream, you would of course get a positive answer.

So? Asking people whether or not they thought of ice cream and getting a positive answer is scientifically acceptable evidence that people thought of ice cream at that time. You don't appear to understand what science is.

Quote:But wait, by their definition of reality, the atheists MUST say this event did not occur. It cannot be verified because it it is impossible to detect their thoughts by a scientific instrument nor by the five senses.

Except that it is. Asking people if they thought of ice cream is scientifically acceptable evidence.

Quote:So how can atheists even argue that only physical reality is reality? There is such a thing as mental, non-physical reality just as real.

Again you confuse atheism with an entirely different position. You are conflating atheism with materialism. While it is true that many atheists are materialists, this does not mean that all are, and even materialists do not deny the existence of a mind. We simply state that it is physical: the mind is nothing more than the chemical reactions in the brain.

So are you a materialist?

Again for simplicity, I'm attacking materialism types here. These are the ones who mistakenly believe in someone/something exists only if there's physical evidence.

See this (my attack from another forum):

Hi Demojen,

On your reply on mental reality, you have completely missed the issue.

If you read my example, I said all people in the world thinks of an ice cream at 1pm on the same day.

This mental reality is just as reality as any physical reality. It happened, it's reality we can all agree upon (no subjective arguments needed) even without any physical evidence whatsoever.

It is not a matter of opinion like you argued about.

Reality is not just physical, it can also be non-physical (like God's existence)

---end-----

Unbeliever, if you can measure brain size physically, then if thoughts are just from the brain, why can't you measure the size of the ice cream in my thoughts? The mind can be independent of the brain.

Quote:It only shows the atheist view of what reality/truth is about is fundamentally flawed. "To see is to believe" cannot stand when attacked well.

Firstly, "seeing is believing" is a gross oversimplification of the scientifically skeptical position. Secondly, I would hardly call these fallacies a good attack on even that position.

Quote:Some atheist argue that thoughts are from the brain only. But this is easily defeated.
You can measure the size of the brain, brain cells, etc. but why can't you measure the size of the ice cream (see above example) I thought about? If it's from the brain alone, then it should be physically measurable.

It is. Thoughts are electrochemical reactions in the brain. That we can't (yet) look at a specific neuron firing in a specific way and say "Oh, this is one part of his thought about puppies" in no way damages this.

It seems that way physically, but it doesn't mean this is the only explanation on the origin of thoughts. A lot of mysteries exist. Seeing our thoughts in the future is Star Trek. Until then, your argument cannot be used.

Quote:It is self-evident that thoughts come from the mind. To say that thoughts come from the brain alone is a fallacy.

No, it isn't. Firstly, that isn't the definition of "fallacy". Secondly, you are strawmanning, both in conflating atheism with materialism and in assuming that the materialistic position denies the existence of a mind. From the materialistic viewpoint, brain and mind are one and the same.

For simplification, as I've repeatedly explained I have to direct attack on materialsm types of atheism (as this is usually the common one). No mistake here at all.

You are actually the one who committed a strawman by assuming too much about your opponent. Ironic really....

Quote:We can also observe that the mind can exist independent of the brain.

Bare assertion fallacy.

Quote:3) Spiritual reality

The public miracles at Fatima were witnessed by a large number of people in real-time, a first of its kind.

And has been adequately explained. For more information, please read some articles on crowd delusion, the malleability of memory, the power of suggestion and the influence of belief and desire on perception.

Quote:That and all miracles take a very long time to be confirmed as truth by the Catholic Church.

Yay! A religious organization says a religious event is real! I'm so impressed!

Quote:Why? Because the Church invites scientists (theist and atheist, agnostic, etc.) to do an independent study on the miracles. If you research online well, the names of some of these experts are given to the public. There is no conspiracy here, just truth.

Then you won't mind sourcing your claims.

Quote:These are supernatural events with physical evidence, credible observers and an independent scientific study encouraged by the Catholic Church.

Again, pics or it didn't happen.

Before you post again, I suggest that you read up on logic and a few basic philosophical positions. You have completely and utterly failed to understand the difference between atheism, materialism, and skepticism. Learn that difference before you try again.

Ut seems you have some experience with debates, but not major debates in my assessment. Your weakness is assuming too much that you misunderstand your opponent's statements. Now you know.

Your counter arguments have nothing new, same recycled ones we have defeated in major debates.

Peace bro...

[brendanIsBrendan]

scientist, you're ma

[Stark Raving]

(26-05-2010 09:54 PM)brendanIsBrendan Wrote:  Unbeliever, I'm glad you tackled that piece by piece, my two cents is that if everyone thought that some guy in the sky build the universe and all that jazz for several centuries, but then STOPPED thinking that, would it take it's place in history as a reality, but no more after? Kind of like how George Washington's life is no longer a reality?

....um....what?

I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're saying. Would you mind explaining?

[brendanIsBrendan]

He made the argum