Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'm not the one insisting on a literal interpretation. What I was pointing out was that there are people like yourself who say Parts A, B, and C of the bible are not to be taken literally as they are written, (mainly because they don't make sense or there's no evidence supporting them, such as Noah's flood or the genesis account)...but when it comes to Part D, the story of Jesus, that's literally true as written. He did conjure loaves and fish out of thin air, he did walk on water, he did rise from the dead three days after dying, none of that is symbolic or metaphorical; that's what I'm hearing from the christian camp. For them, they somehow have no problem reading text that says "Jesus rose from the dead" and saying "Yes, that's true, that's what's written there", but when they read "Noah guided two of every animal on to the ark", they say "Pshaaw, that's not true, that's impossible! It's just a story, mythology, exaggerated!"
They're not being consistent. They're telling me of two stories involving what is essentially magic, saying one is to be taken literally, the other isn't, and not telling me their methodology to figure out how they know which is which.
When I said that bit about Jesus having to be taken literally, I expected a christian to chime in and say "Yes, the Jesus story as told in the gospels is true as written" or words to that effect, and thus expose the double-thinking.

As to you proving your god...well? Are you going to do that? At best, you can prove the existence of some un-named entity - given that to date there has never been presented hard evidence in favour of one religion's deity over another, I highly doubt you can prove that that un-named entity is the god talked about in the bible.

If so, which ones? The problem is that magic is involved all throughout the bible. Is the story of Jesus meant to be taken as an actual event? What's your methodology to distinguish between actual events and those that are just stories?

Good response, however you are insisting it be taken literally, that or dismissed as myth. The fact is some is myth, some is history, some poetry and some just ranting. How do you tell which is which? The same way you tell with any book, it's obvious that life of pi is fiction even though it's written as first person testimony. Same with the books ( plural) of the bible.
As to the gospels, well they are the testimonies of four people who believe the stories of others and wrote it down. Their are other gospels which are not canonical. Is it factual? Did Jesus walk on water? Did He turn water into wine? Dose it matter? Is the gospel a tale of a magician? Christians don't read the gospels to reassure themselves their God can beat up your God! Or at least they shouldn't. I will admit some do, unfortunately the loudest and most obnoxious ones, you know them, mostly T.V. evangelists!

Of course their are as many shades of believe and interpretation of the bible as their are Christians, same for Islam and for all I know every other faith.It's not an instruction manual to follow. If that's what your looking for, look elsewhere. If your looking for a perspective on life, it's purpose, your place in it and your relationship with God then the bible is as good as it comes. Probably better than Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. Though I'd be in favor of including that in the cannon!

The point is arguing about the bible didn't contribute anything to the debate on the existence or non existence of God. If God exists, the bible didn't prove it, all it dose is give testimony to the belfe of generations.
That initial belief comes first, you don't believe in the God of the bible, you believe in God and that the bible is the best description of Him. Accepting that it's an incomplete description, one seen through a glass darkly.

you believe in God

That G word is a loaded word. There's whole heaps of meanings in that word. I don't see how it's possible for a human to have a belief in God (capital G), as in the named entity talked about in the bible...before reading the bible. I can understand and accept someone having a belief in the supernatural prior to reading it, believing there is/are entities that watch over them, but not know anything specific.

When you say that last line of yours, do you mean "People tend to have a belief in the supernatural, and then get into specifics upon reading this holy book"? Or do you equate the supernatural with the christian deity, and say that people who haven't read/heard of the bible who have a belief in the supernatural automatically have a belief in the christian god, even though they don't know anything about him?

It's not an instruction manual to follow

Then why the decalogue? Why all the teachings? Why the sermon on the mount? All those can be classified as instructions.

Did Jesus walk on water? Did He turn water into wine? Dose it matter?

I would say yes, since these are what are trotted out by christians as "evidence" that he was god in the flesh, that he was capable of all these things.

indioblack

That initial belief comes first, you don't believe in the God of the bible, you believe in God and that the bible is the best description of Him. Accepting that it's an incomplete description, one seen through a glass darkly.

My argument is that if God is not clearly seen, an incomplete description, then it is because he wishes it to be so. If the lack of perception is ours, the same logic applies - since God, by virtue of his unlimited abilities, has the capability to allow us a clearer view.
The existence of this thread demonstrates that this hasn't happened.
There is, I think, a standard image of God - usually with all the positive attributes and unlimited powers.
It follows from this that our shortcomings in this business cannot be wholly attributable to us.

MrPudding

indioblack wrote: »

My argument is that if God is not clearly seen, an incomplete description, then it is because he wishes it to be so.

Of course that is your argument, what else could it be? It needs to be this argument, basically a variation of the classic 'the lord moves in mysterious ways' or 'our minds are too puny to comprehend' chestnuts, otherwise you see the whole thing for what it is, completely made up by man.

If you have to believe, or simply want to believe, then of course you will try to rationalise away all the bits that don't make sense. This is just another attempt at that.

MrP

RikuoAmero wrote: »

That G word is a loaded word. There's whole heaps of meanings in that word. I don't see how it's possible for a human to have a belief in God (capital G), as in the named entity talked about in the bible...before reading the bible. I can understand and accept someone having a belief in the supernatural prior to reading it, believing there is/are entities that watch over them, but not know anything specific.

When you say that last line of yours, do you mean "People tend to have a belief in the supernatural, and then get into specifics upon reading this holy book"? Or do you equate the supernatural with the christian deity, and say that people who haven't read/heard of the bible who have a belief in the supernatural automatically have a belief in the christian god, even though they don't know anything about him?

Then why the decalogue? Why all the teachings? Why the sermon on the mount? All those can be classified as instructions.

I would say yes, since these are what are trotted out by christians as "evidence" that he was god in the flesh, that he was capable of all these things.

Yeah, God is a loaded term, someone, can't recall who said when asked if he believed in God, replied ' first let's define those terms'.
I would claim that any belief in the supernatural is an expression of belief in God, how refined or sophisticated that be life is depends on the culture the person lives in and how much thought they apply to it. I as a Christian believe that my tradition holds the most complete revelation of God so obviously I would believe that any God is the same e deity as the God of the bible. I would differ as to how accurate their description is.
Again you assume the bible is one volume, Instructions and laws in the individual books apply to when the books were written, they are instruction for specific situations, situations we can learn from.
I hope Christians would have a better understanding than to depend on the superman school of evidence, but I know they do tend to fall into the trap of proclaiming God as a champion who can empower them, the how can we fail with God on our side thinking!
Evidence would not support this, evidence shows a different God. Like you, I dont believe in God as superman, Apollo in Jewish cloth.

I as a Christian believe that my tradition holds the most complete revelation of God so obviously I would believe that any God is the same e deity as the God of the bible.

And if I talked to a muslim or a hindu, they would say the exact same thing, just replacing the words God with Allah/Brahma and bible with koran/bhagavad gita.
How am I, the skeptic, supposed to differentiate between what is true and what is false, given this?

Again you assume the bible is one volume

...which it is. I've got two copies, Good News and King James. I hold them in my hand, they proclaim themselves to be the complete bible, it's one volume divided into many books and chapters. If I were to hold a 3-in-1 copy of Lord of the Rings, I would describe it as "one volume", because that is what it is.

they are instruction for specific situations, situations we can learn from.

So the supposed universal/objective/whatever-term-you-want-to-use morality is actually subjective? Okay, cool. So according to the bible, if I hear a voice in my head and I'm convinced that that voice is the creator deity of the universe, then it makes it automatically all right for me to go out and slaughter heathens? To preach to a group of people and recruit them into an army, to attack towns and kill everyone in it because there's one unbeliever?
Because that's what's in the old testament. Whenever I read that text, this is what I'm being told god endorses, considers all right.

but I know they do tend to fall into the trap of proclaiming God as a champion who can empower them, the how can we fail with God on our side thinking!

Except that that very concept is found all throughout the bible. The stories in the OT talk about the Hebrews being this great, successful nation when they had god on their side, when he empowered them. I remember one story of Moses holding a stick up, and as long as he held it up, his armies won against their enemies.
What did Jesus supposedly promise? That if you pray to him, no matter what you pray for will most definitely be granted?

It's almost like in order to try and sell the christian god to me, you're deliberately excising from the conversation practically everything that's in the bible.

MrPudding

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Except that that very concept is found all throughout the bible. The stories in the OT talk about the Hebrews being this great, successful nation when they had god on their side, when he empowered them. I remember one story of Moses holding a stick up, and as long as he held it up, his armies won against their enemies.
What did Jesus supposedly promise? That if you pray to him, no matter what you pray for will most definitely be granted?

It's almost like in order to try and sell the christian god to me, you're deliberately excising from the conversation practically everything that's in the bible.

Isn't this idea this idea that god is a champion that can empower you the very basis of the Alcoholics Anonymous programme? Is this not what what we hear from committed christians that claim they would not be here, were it not for god empowering them to change...?

The more this debate continues the more I find myself asking what exactly god, religion and the bible is actually for.

MrP

MrPudding wrote: »

Isn't this idea this idea that god is a champion that can empower you the very basis of the Alcoholics Anonymous programme? Is this not what what we hear from committed christians that claim they would not be here, were it not for god empowering them to change...?

The more this debate continues the more I find myself asking what exactly god, religion and the bible is actually for.

MrP

Or the idea that humans cannot accomplish anything unless it is done through/for/via/whatever-term-you-want-to-use Jesus. Notions like that are found in the bible, the source of the christian belief.

indioblack

MrPudding wrote: »

Of course that is your argument, what else could it be? It needs to be this argument, basically a variation of the classic 'the lord moves in mysterious ways' or 'our minds are too puny to comprehend' chestnuts, otherwise you see the whole thing for what it is, completely made up by man.

If you have to believe, or simply want to believe, then of course you will try to rationalise away all the bits that don't make sense. This is just another attempt at that.

MrP

You've got it the wrong way round.
In this and my previous posts I've been stating the illogicality of our standard, classic view of God.
The agency that brought us into being, if such exists, surely cannot be the classic Christian God - and, perhaps, nowhere near a conscious being at all.
To view the mire that has often been the abode of life on this planet - and the often savage behaviour of it's inhabitants - to see all this and then talk of a loving God - is beyond my ability to comprehend.

MrPudding wrote: »

Isn't this idea this idea that god is a champion that can empower you the very basis of the Alcoholics Anonymous programme? Is this not what what we hear from committed christians that claim they would not be here, were it not for god empowering them to change...?

The more this debate continues the more I find myself asking what exactly god, religion and the bible is actually for.

MrP

That's the real question Mr P. What is God for? I suspect it's this notion that God has some purpose of benefit to us humans and the attempts to fit Him into this moulding that creates all the problems. I'm inclined to take God at his word on this and don't bother with a purpose for God. "I am who I am."

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Wrong. Whatever I happen to believe about the formation of the universe is not of necessity tied to my being an atheist. There is no logical contradiction for a person lacking a belief in a god and believing that the universe is a computer simulation

Lets try to bring this argument toward science and logic which you appear to follow, for this allow me to ask you the following..

Do you agree that the scientific method which is based on imperialism[the notion that we can come to truth by our senses]induction[Going from a limited set of data to a more general conclusion]and observation[self explanatory], is limited by its very nature?

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Lets try to bring this argument toward science and logic which you appear to follow, for this allow me to ask you the following..

Do you agree that the scientific method which is based on imperialism[the notion that we can come to truth by our senses]induction[Going from a limited set of data to a more general conclusion]and observation[self explanatory], is limited by its very nature?

Yes, it is limited. All of them revolve around and require axioms (such as that our senses are not lying to us or being used to lie to us) but I consider those axioms to be necessary to even start moving. Down that road lies solipsism. If one accepts solipsism, then everything stops. They stop learning, they stop trying to understand the world (after all, what's the point about trying to understand a reality one is convinced isn't real?).
At the same time, the scientific method is the best and most reliable tool we have to understand the world. It's findings can be tested and verified, or rejected if found to be false.
I counter the premise of an "un"-scientific method, of one kind or another. Well, if you use such a method, how do you verify it if you don't use the scientific? If someone comes up to me and says X is true and above logic, rationality or science...how am I supposed to verify his claim without using them? What use is his claim to me?

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Yes, it is limited. All of them revolve around and require axioms (such as that our senses are not lying to us or being used to lie to us) but I consider those axioms to be necessary to even start moving. Down that road lies solipsism. If one accepts solipsism, then everything stops. They stop learning, they stop trying to understand the world (after all, what's the point about trying to understand a reality one is convinced isn't real?).
At the same time, the scientific method is the best and most reliable tool we have to understand the world. It's findings can be tested and verified, or rejected if found to be false.

Yes I totally agree agree that the scientific method is evidently the most reliable tool we have to understand the world, no disagreement on that.

Yet the scientific method is limited and also fallible with a room of error during observation,induction and imperialism all of which the scientific method strongly depends on. At the same time there are certain realities that science employs which science cannot validate such as Logic & before I continue further allow me to ask whether you believe the laws of Logic to be universal such as the "Law of non-contradiction" or not[eg;it's changing] to allow me to address you accordingly without assuming your position.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Yes I totally agree agree that the scientific method is evidently the most reliable tool we have to understand the world, no disagreement on that.

Yet the scientific method is limited and also fallible with a room of error during observation,induction and imperialism all of which the scientific method strongly depends on. At the same time there are certain realities that science employs which science cannot validate such as Logic & before I continue further allow me to ask whether you believe the laws of Logic to be universal such as the "Law of non-contradiction" or not[eg;it's changing] to allow me to address you accordingly without assuming your position.

Thank you for asking my position. I tip my hat (which I'm not wearing as I type this, but imagine I am) in respect to you.
Laws of Logic, universal or not? I would have to imagine that they are. Everything we have discovered about reality so far points to the conclusion that they are universal, nothing we have discovered says otherwise. To take the law of non-contradiction: A is equal to A, A is not equal to Not A. Or a thing is what it is, and not what it is not. For me to believe that that particular law is non-universal, you would have to present to me something that is not equal to itself, that is what it is not e.g. a circle that is perfectly round...but with four corners, for one example. Or you could present to me a claim that contains parts that cannot all be true simultaneously and yet, somehow prove that they are all true e.g. Smith did shoot Brown to death with a revolver at close range and killed him with a sniper rifle at a distance.

Now about the scientific method being fallible with room for error - yes, so what? What you do then is conduct more experiments, refine your findings, try to narrow down that margin for error. What we should not do is take some claim from a person, who claims that he's passing on a message from an ultimate authority, agree that his claim is true and never investigate the claim, and say that even questioning the claim is somehow morally wrong. We should not lift up people to a pedestal such that their claims or teachings are never questioned. What we get then is people being willing to commit social harms to others (such as by not allowing LGBT to marry) simply because "X said no", X = their god of choice.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Laws of Logic, universal or not? I would have to imagine that they are. Everything we have discovered about reality so far points to the conclusion that they are universal, nothing we have discovered says otherwise. To take the law of non-contradiction: A is equal to A, A is not equal to Not A. Or a thing is what it is, and not what it is not. For me to believe that that particular law is non-universal, you would have to present to me something that is not equal to itself, that is what it is not e.g. a circle that is perfectly round...but with four corners, for one example.

It's good I asked then, as I going to assume the replay some people give by taking the position that the laws of logic are changing and are not universal, similarly the laws of mathematics

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Now about the scientific method being fallible with room for error - yes, so what? What you do then is conduct more experiments, refine your findings, try to narrow down that margin for error.

It's good I asked then, as I going to assume the replay some people give by taking the position that the laws of logic are changing and are not universal, similarly the laws of mathematics & physics 2+2 is known to = 4 this answer will not change because the laws of mathematics are not changing.

Allow me then to ask some final few questions before I begin my answer, since all people who believe in God argue from the same position however atheists differ in what they believe. My question is are you a Naturalist[ that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted, that all that exist is the physical natural world with nothing beyond it]? secondly what is your position on evolution,Natural selection and the concept of the first cause?

I appreciate you taking the time to answer these questions so we can at least make this discussion as fruitful as possible to avoid saying stuff like "Well I don't believe in X so dont assume I do"

My question is are you a Naturalist

Yes. I don't believe there is such a thing as supernatural. Typically, when someone says they have encountered something that they deem to be supernatural, it's something that they cannot explain. However, later on, we discover how it works, we discover its laws and it is then deemed to be of the natural world. For example, thunder and lightning were once deemed to be supernatural because people couldn't figure them out. Nowadays, we know how they work, and they're deemed natural occurrences.
So if I encounter something I have no explanation for, my response isn't to say "It's supernatural". My response is to say "I don't have an explanation for this, right now, but let's find out".
I know you're not christian, but let's take the christian position for a moment. One claim about Jesus is that he turned water into wine. This is said to be true, this is an event that happened, and that the reason Jesus was able to do is because he was supernatural. Now, let's hypothesize that sometime in the future, we get Star Trek-style replicator technology and we can turn water into wine, or indeed any substance X into substance Y. Should we continue to label things as supernatural, or should we do as I and others say is the more correct approach, label them as "unexplained for now" and then try to figure them out?

secondly what is your position on evolution,Natural selection

Those are really one and the same. The Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection, as posited by Charles Darwin. All the data I have examined points to that theory being true, and no data that I have examined says otherwise. Therefore, it is rational for me to accept it as true.

the concept of the first cause?

Or uncaused cause, you mean? Fallacious, in my opinion. It is a belief system that states first off that "all things have a cause" and then immediately contradicts itself in the next sentence by positing a thing that doesn't have a cause. Violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction right there.

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your position, now lets get straight to the point.

If Naturalism[as you asserted] is true, then I would argue that we have no reason to trust our cognitive faculties/reasoning abilities, why is this you might say..

From a theistic/Islamic perspective if I am grounding my foundations in my religion, then I have all the reason to believe that our cognitive faculty is valid and trustworthy as throughout the Qur'an God/Allaah tells us to think and reflect, "Do they not ponder/reflect?" this is assuming that we are blessed with the capacity and cognitive ability that if we don't use we are sell ourself short which is our intellect and mind.

But based on Naturalism this doesn't work, due to the belief that we are a by-product of a lengthy evolutionary process by natural selection, and natural selection is concerned with adaptation and surviving; it's not concerned with the truth value of particular things.

Now we know that both true & false believe are both adequate in resulting in survival if this is the case, for example if I take two people and blindfold them both & take them to a busy highway then I would tell both men to run across the road blind folded.

One of the men has a fully functional cognitive faculty meaning that when giving the scenario to "Run across the road blindfolded" he would think and say "This is not safe,I can be run over and die" and due to his true belief he does not run across the road & survive.

The other man cognitive faculty are disturbed due to a mental problem/other factors and he say "Okay I will run across the road blindfolded" however he also believe that as soon as he try and run across the road his feet will get stuck on the pavement & because of this false belief he choose not to run across the road & survived.

From this example we can see that both men survived; one based on true belief and one based on false believe, hence both true belief and false belief can both lead to survival & if this is the case, if we look at this from a natural selection perspective there is no reason for the cognitive faculty to develop to lead to a sound and valid reasoning in other words true belief.

Therefore if you say that your reasoning abilities/cognitive abilities are a by product of evolution which help us survive, I just shown that it doesn't make sense from such perspective.

However if you argue that this actually works because it works in the past, I would say that of course it does work! our reasoning abilities and cognitive faculty, as most people in the world are sound. However the only way to you can accept and validate these is by an existence of a Creator.

In the absence of a Creator you have no reason to believe that your cognitive faculty are reliable, natural selection and evolution don't make up for that gap, even if we grant that simple true belief can lead to survival it doesn't follow that we can understand mathematics,philosophy and do science. Just to clarify I am not challenging and saying I am disagreeing with Natural selection or Darwinian evolution because even if I accept them all to be true you will still run into the same dilemma.

Secondly if our reasoning capacity was just for survival then unlike animals who have very low capacity of reasoning, just enough to survive and reproduce, we have reasoning capacity different to animal that allows us to understand how the galaxy work, how the ocean waves work & how all these complex thing in the universe work which a Cat cannot do.

Again it doesn't make sense for such cognitive faculty to develop which lead us to such advanced thinking and reasoning since it doesn't not even make sense for simple truth bearing faculties to develop via this process & the very fact that they do work in my mind at least prove or show that a Creative mind exist, that allowed for these things to work and for us to have these faculties as trust worthy and reliant.

Now assuming a Creator to be true, it necessarily follows that our reasoning is valid. However assuming Naturalism to be true all your left with is a vicious cycle "My reasoning is valid because it works I tried it" or "I am using my reasoning right now to validate my reasoning" which is basically classic circular reasoning, and then you keep using your reasoning to validate your reasoning getting stuck on this loop.

Until you can prove to me based on your current beliefs of Natural selection,evolution and naturalism, that in the absence of God you can still account for & trust your cognitive faculty & reasoning we cant really go further.

To remind you that in case you say "why should we accept this explanation since we don’t have an explanation for God?", however this will be overlooking the fact that the best explanation does not require an explanation.

In other words you cannot or should not reject God as an inference to the best explanation for consciousness on the basis that you may not have an explanation for God. The first thing that needs to be addressed is does God explain our advanced reasoning and cognitive faculty adequately? I believe he does, once you accept this then we can ask further questions.

Here’s an analogy to put things into perspective, imagine if there is a group of archaeologists digging on the moon; they find pieces of pottery, arrow heads, pieces of parchment and so on. Looking at these findings they conclude or infer that there must have been a civilization here. Now along comes Dr. Daniel Dennett and says “How dare you infer such a thing?! Who put this civilization here?! Unless we know who put this civilization here we cannot conclude that there was a civilization!”

This illustrates the point, you cannot reject the best explanation based on the fact that you may not have an explanation for that explanation because otherwise you may never have an explanation.

I would argue that evolution is only concerned about adaptation and not thinking or reasoning. Surviving does not require intelligence necessarily, that's why we say survival of the fittest not smartest. Even if your cognitive functions have evolved to be strong how do you still know reality is how you truly think it is? sure it might be strong but not perfect.
If you argue that it was a part of adaptation to survive that we developed our reasoning, I would say that we need to look at the definition of adaptation first:

Looking at the definition of survival of the fittest in the dictionary of Biology.
survival of the fittest
phrase of survival
1.
Biology
the continued existence of organisms that are best adapted to their environment, with the extinction of others, as a concept in the Darwinian theory of evolution.

Adaptation hence has nothing to do with intelligence.

Even if we agree that evolution is true again I would say that you can't test that you got your logic from evolution unless you want to use the half truth fallacy, consolidated by the fact that due to our limited senses and the fallibility of the scientific method we can never claim any certainty and even if evidence is given, it will still unreliable to relay on your reasoning, since they weren't over watched by a perfect designer.

If you make the argument that "we don't understand evolution, therefore god gave us these functions." I would say that it is a strawman, its not that we dont know how we got our cognitive senses therefore god, its if we got it from evolution then since it was not over watched by a perfect being it could end up being unreliable, its like me making a car engine when im not a engineer in anything, you cant know if its reliable.

From a theistic/Islamic perspective if I am grounding my foundations in my religion, then I have all the reason to believe that our cognitive faculty is valid and trustworthy

Defender, you've now started moving into islamic territory with this post. I wouldn't be surprised if the mods moved this reply. However, this doesn't bother me, since your post is exactly the same as responses I've got from christians: literally the only thing different between you two is the name of the religion in the response, they say christian, you say islam. This should only highlight how weak your arguments are, since you by default as a member of your respective religions believe your religion to be true and the other person's, false.

What I'll do is I'll wait until tomorrow evening before answering you further, as long as the mods haven't moved this. If they have, I won't.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

This should only highlight how weak your arguments are, since you by default as a member of your respective religions believe your religion to be true and the other person's, false.

What you did right now is similar to an ad hominem, instead of actually focusing and responding to the content of my argument; you immediately deduce its weakness based on what I believe.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

What you did right now is similar to an ad hominem, instead of actually focusing and responding to the content of my argument; you immediately deduce its weakness based on what I believe.

Its not real. Its all made up. It has been used as a method of controlling society since the dawn of myth and legend. There is a vast amount of comprehensive proof of this (or do the rules really change despite any divine intervention). There is ZERO proof and ZERO evidence for your belief other than tradition. Let it go. You have nothing on your side but 'faith'. That is nothing, that is just convincing yourself of something because you want to feel good, nothing more so stop making out otherwise.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

What you did right now is similar to an ad hominem, instead of actually focusing and responding to the content of my argument; you immediately deduce its weakness based on what I believe.

It's logic. You're a muslim, you believe the muslim religion to be correct over that of all other religions (otherwise why call yourself a muslim?), you believe christianity has it wrong (mainly to do with worshipping Jesus as god, am I right?).
The christian is the same, but reverse - he believes his religion to be true over that of all others, he believes islam to be wrong (since islam denies that Jesus is god, and has a false prophet).
However, both you and the christian are presenting (and have presented, past tense) to me the exact same arguments, which both of you will inevitably use to try to convince me of your particular religions, all the while believing and insisting that the other guy's religion has it false.
In other words, this is what it will be like (although I doubt you in particular will be this loud or rude)

RikuoAmero wrote: »

It's logic. You're a muslim, you believe the muslim religion to be correct over that of all other religions (otherwise why call yourself a muslim?), you believe christianity has it wrong (mainly to do with worshipping Jesus as god, am I right?).
The christian is the same, but reverse - he believes his religion to be true over that of all others, he believes islam to be wrong (since islam denies that Jesus is god, and has a false prophet).
However, both you and the christian are presenting (and have presented, past tense) to me the exact same arguments, which both of you will inevitably use to try to convince me of your particular religions, all the while believing and insisting that the other guy's religion has it false.
In other words, this is what it will be like (although I doubt you in particular will be this loud or rude)

Again your going around in circles and coming back to my faith instead of addressing my argument similar to what I stated before an ad hominem. I am not aware of the argument I presented being presented before, if so then it should not be difficult for you secondly I do not wish to convince you of my religion my own holy book states that "Let their be no compulsion in religion"2:184.

I am trying to point out the flaws and holes in your logic as naturalistic atheist.

Whether Islam or Christianity is the truth, is truly non of your concern since you subscribe to neither, nor do I understand what relevance the clip posted has to due with the argument I presented, if anything it proves the atheists extremely shallow understanding of comparative religion.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Again your going around in circles and coming back to my faith instead of addressing my argument an ad hominem. I am not aware of the argument I presented being presented before, if so then it should not be difficult for you secondly I do not wish to convince you of my religion my own holy book states that "Let their be no compulsion in religion"2:184.

I am trying to point out the flaws and holes in your logic as naturalistic atheist.

Yes, that "find flaws and holes in naturalistic atheist" tactic has been used on me before by christians. Almost the exact same wording too. Once they did that, they then proceeded to proclaim their religion to be the one true religion and to argue against all others.
Also, I never said I wouldn't address your argument. I said I would do it tomorrow.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your position, now lets get straight to the point.

If Naturalism[as you asserted] is true, then I would argue that we have no reason to trust our cognitive faculties/reasoning abilities, why is this you might say..

From a theistic/Islamic perspective if I am grounding my foundations in my religion, then I have all the reason to believe that our cognitive faculty is valid and trustworthy as throughout the Qur'an God/Allaah tells us to think and reflect, "Do they not ponder/reflect?" this is assuming that we are blessed with the capacity and cognitive ability that if we don't use we are sell ourself short which is our intellect and mind.

But based on Naturalism this doesn't work, due to the belief that we are a by-product of a lengthy evolutionary process by natural selection, and natural selection is concerned with adaptation and surviving; it's not concerned with the truth value of particular things.

Now we know that both true & false believe are both adequate in resulting in survival if this is the case, for example if I take two people and blindfold them both & take them to a busy highway then I would tell both men to run across the road blind folded.

One of the men has a fully functional cognitive faculty meaning that when giving the scenario to "Run across the road blindfolded" he would think and say "This is not safe,I can be run over and die" and due to his true belief he does not run across the road & survive.

The other man cognitive faculty are disturbed due to a mental problem/other factors and he say "Okay I will run across the road blindfolded" however he also believe that as soon as he try and run across the road his feet will get stuck on the pavement & because of this false belief he choose not to run across the road & survived.

From this example we can see that both men survived; one based on true belief and one based on false believe, hence both true belief and false belief can both lead to survival & if this is the case, if we look at this from a natural selection perspective there is no reason for the cognitive faculty to develop to lead to a sound and valid reasoning in other words true belief.

Therefore if you say that your reasoning abilities/cognitive abilities are a by product of evolution which help us survive, I just shown that it doesn't make sense from such perspective.

However if you argue that this actually works because it works in the past, I would say that of course it does work! our reasoning abilities and cognitive faculty, as most people in the world are sound. However the only way to you can accept and validate these is by an existence of a Creator.

In the absence of a Creator you have no reason to believe that your cognitive faculty are reliable, natural selection and evolution don't make up for that gap, even if we grant that simple true belief can lead to survival it doesn't follow that we can understand mathematics,philosophy and do science. Just to clarify I am not challenging and saying I am disagreeing with Natural selection or Darwinian evolution because even if I accept them all to be true you will still run into the same dilemma.

Secondly if our reasoning capacity was just for survival then unlike animals who have very low capacity of reasoning, just enough to survive and reproduce, we have reasoning capacity different to animal that allows us to understand how the galaxy work, how the ocean waves work & how all these complex thing in the universe work which a Cat cannot do.

Again it doesn't make sense for such cognitive faculty to develop which lead us to such advanced thinking and reasoning since it doesn't not even make sense for simple truth bearing faculties to develop via this process & the very fact that they do work in my mind at least prove or show that a Creative mind exist, that allowed for these things to work and for us to have these faculties as trust worthy and reliant.

Now assuming a Creator to be true, it necessarily follows that our reasoning is valid. However assuming Naturalism to be true all your left with is a vicious cycle "My reasoning is valid because it works I tried it" or "I am using my reasoning right now to validate my reasoning" which is basically classic circular reasoning, and then you keep using your reasoning to validate your reasoning getting stuck on this loop.

Until you can prove to me based on your current beliefs of Natural selection,evolution and naturalism, that in the absence of God you can still account for & trust your cognitive faculty & reasoning we cant really go further.

To remind you that in case you say "why should we accept this explanation since we don’t have an explanation for God?", however this will be overlooking the fact that the best explanation does not require an explanation.

In other words you cannot or should not reject God as an inference to the best explanation for consciousness on the basis that you may not have an explanation for God. The first thing that needs to be addressed is does God explain our advanced reasoning and cognitive faculty adequately? I believe he does, once you accept this then we can ask further questions.

Here’s an analogy to put things into perspective, imagine if there is a group of archaeologists digging on the moon; they find pieces of pottery, arrow heads, pieces of parchment and so on. Looking at these findings they conclude or infer that there must have been a civilization here. Now along comes Dr. Daniel Dennett and says “How dare you infer such a thing?! Who put this civilization here?! Unless we know who put this civilization here we cannot conclude that there was a civilization!”

This illustrates the point, you cannot reject the best explanation based on the fact that you may not have an explanation for that explanation because otherwise you may never have an explanation.

I would argue that evolution is only concerned about adaptation and not thinking or reasoning. Surviving does not require intelligence necessarily, that's why we say survival of the fittest not smartest. Even if your cognitive functions have evolved to be strong how do you still know reality is how you truly think it is? sure it might be strong but not perfect.
If you argue that it was a part of adaptation to survive that we developed our reasoning, I would say that we need to look at the definition of adaptation first:

Looking at the definition of survival of the fittest in the dictionary of Biology.
survival of the fittest
phrase of survival
1.
Biology
the continued existence of organisms that are best adapted to their environment, with the extinction of others, as a concept in the Darwinian theory of evolution.

Adaptation hence has nothing to do with intelligence.

Even if we agree that evolution is true again I would say that you can't test that you got your logic from evolution unless you want to use the half truth fallacy, consolidated by the fact that due to our limited senses and the fallibility of the scientific method we can never claim any certainty and even if evidence is given, it will still unreliable to relay on your reasoning, since they weren't over watched by a perfect designer.

If you make the argument that "we don't understand evolution, therefore god gave us these functions." I would say that it is a strawman, its not that we dont know how we got our cognitive senses therefore god, its if we got it from evolution then since it was not over watched by a perfect being it could end up being unreliable, its like me making a car engine when im not a engineer in anything, you cant know if its reliable.

But we know our reason is unreliable! It's subject to all sorts of traps and misdirection, the thing is it's evolved to cope with circumstances and is still evolving. This is not a finished project. We however have evolved enough to be aware of our failings, we don't always recognise them but we are aware that they exist.
Inserting God as a reason why we can rely on reason is a straw man but claiming reasons reliability proves God is just as anthropomorphic a dried grass based structure!

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Again your going around in circles and coming back to my faith instead of addressing my argument similar to what I stated before an ad hominem. I am not aware of the argument I presented being presented before, if so then it should not be difficult for you secondly I do not wish to convince you of my religion my own holy book states that "Let their be no compulsion in religion"2:184.

I am trying to point out the flaws and holes in your logic as naturalistic atheist.

Whether Islam or Christianity is the truth, is truly non of your concern since you subscribe to neither.

no mate. All you are doing is the same mental gymnastics over and over. You ignore resoundingly obvious facts and logic in favour of your own view, nothing else. Isn't it amazing how people of all faiths do this? Same mentality, same problem.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Yes, that "find flaws and holes in naturalistic atheist" tactic has been used on me before by christians. Almost the exact same wording too. Once they did that, they then proceeded to proclaim their religion to be the one true religion and to argue against all others.
Also, I never said I wouldn't address your argument. I said I would do it tomorrow.

What is this rubbish? what does this have to do with me or my argument? you made an assumption that am trying to convince you of my "Faith" based purely on your sentiment and what you experienced, if your going to continue arguing based on your experience alone I don't think we will go to far...

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

What is this rubbish? what does this have to do with me or my argument? you made an assumption that am trying to convince you of my "Faith" based purely on your sentiment and what you experienced, if your going to continue arguing based on your experience alone I don't think we will go to far...

Why else would you be here, if not to try and convince me of your faith?

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

What is this rubbish? what does this have to do with me or my argument? you made an assumption that am trying to convince you of my "Faith" based purely on your sentiment and what you experienced, if your going to continue arguing based on your experience alone I don't think we will go to far...

okay. let not base Gods existence on anyones faith. Lets base it on evidence.

You go first

also, who are you actually convincing? Us or yourself? Have a good think about that

tommy2bad wrote: »

But we know our reason is unreliable! It's subject to all sorts of traps and misdirection...

You just claimed that you cannot do science, if your reason is unreliable for all you know 1+1 might = 5 and the whole laws of mathematics,physics and logic are unreliable as well, being the product of our unreliable reasoning..