Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Misconceptions surrounding atheism

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 8:35:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've posted this in the religion forum but since it's also a subject of philosophy I think it's reasonable to post it here too:

First I'll define atheism as the position that God (a transcendent being responsible for creating the universe and existence) doesn't exist. I'm not attacking atheism defined as "lack of belief in God" because under that definition it is ontologically synonymous with agnosticism.

The first problem lies with justification. Why is it warranted to believe that God doesn't exist? Many atheists say that 'lack of evidence' is justifiable grounds to believe that God doesn't exist. But is lack of evidence a reason to believe that God - let alone anything - doesn't exist? Here are some examples:

I have no evidence that alien life exists. If I said that alien life exists, and had no evidence backing the claim, would you conclude that 'alien life does not exist'? Or if I said "a man named Shungsoni lives in China" and had no evidence to back my claim would you conclude that a man named Shungsoni *does not* live in China? If I said that there was a dead body on the summit of Mt. Everest deep under the snow but had no evidence backing my claim would you conclude that there is *not* a dead body there? As you can see, I can make you believe that many things aren't true or don't exist just from lack of evidence.

If someone asserts that 'X' exists and has no evidence, the claim is negated. The negation of a belief is agnosticism or "lack of belief and disbelief". If someone says that not accepting (but not rejecting) the claim "God exists" makes you an atheist, then that definition of atheist means lack of belief AND lack of disbelief. More information is needed to reject the claim as untrue or to accept the claim as true.

So unless one has evidence that God doesn't exist, assuming a position that God doesn't exist based on lack of evidence isn't justified.

The second problem that many atheists have is the belief that God no longer has any explanatory power because natural processes already explain everything. For example people may have believed that lightning strikes were zapped into existence by the finger of Zeus. Once scientific explanations of lightning were available there was no reason to believe that Zeus was responsible. In the same way many atheists believe that God is a means to explain natural phenomena and since everything or nearly everything is explained by natural processes themselves, God has no explanatory power.

If God was defined as "that which explains the unexplained" then this line of reasoning from atheists would have merit. Many who believe in God DO implicitly believe that God is defined this way - but their reasoning is fallacious. Under no definition of God will you find the word defined in this way. It's an error in reasoning on the part of anyone who believes God is defined in the way.

The first half of the problem is believing that God is the explanatory power for whatever explains the unexplained and the second half of the problem is believing that natural phenomena provides us with explanations for why something occurs. I'll focus on the second half of the problem now.

I'll illustrate my point with an example of a laptop. We can observe that the various parts of a laptop have certain functions. The screen, battery, motherboard, keyboard, graphics chip, etc. We can study how all of these various functions work. If we learn how all of these various functions work does this mean that the laptop wasn't a product of intelligent design? Of course not. If knowing *how* something worked removed the need for a designer, then we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, learn how it worked, and conclude that no designer for that object exists.

In the same way, many atheists make the mistake of believing that natural processes act as a sufficient explanation for why they exist. To believe that knowing how something works removes the need for explaining why it's there is fallacious. Another point is that anything that has a certain function or anything that is a means towards an end must be the product of intelligent design. For in order to be a means towards an end it must result from a source of intentionality and knowledge. Obviously, something that requires knowledge and intentionality also requires that the source was conscious.

If atheism is true, everything that exists is inherently not a means towards any end because there isn't a source of consciousness necessarily required for anything to be a means towards an end. This means that anything, your brain, heart, stomach, the water cycle, ozone layer, etc. etc. is inherently not a means towards any end. There is absolutely no reason as to why it exists and there isn't any specific function that it carries out. Your heart and the ozone layer are equal in the purpose that they serve. Any product of a mindless process doesn't exist as a means towards an end because it's impossible for it to do so.

So in summary, anyone who believes God doesn't exist due to lack of evidence is unjustified in holding that position. Anyone who defines atheism as a lack of belief in God must simultaneously lack disbelief in God - AKA the ontology of agnosticism.

Nowhere is God defined as "the explanatory power to explain the unexplained". Anyone who uses this line of reasoning is fallacious. Scientific discoveries of phenomena that had previously been unexplained has 0 impact on the explanatory power for God's existence.

Understanding how something works doesn't remove the need for an intelligent designer in the same way understanding how any designed object works removes the need for the designer of that object.

If something is a means towards an end, it must have an intelligent designer because anything that is means towards any end requires input of intent and knowledge. If the heart exists for circulating oxygenated blood throughout the body it is a means towards an end. If atheism is true everything is inherently not a means towards any end. This means that the water cycle is equally there for circulating oxygenated blood throughout our body as our heart is. In other words, there is no means towards any end for any natural process or for the products resulting from any natural process if atheism is true.

Thanks for reading.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 9:33:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
1. Hitchens's Razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

2. The watchmaker argument is refuted here: https://www.youtube.com...

It's a two-minute video, so I won't bother summarizing.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 9:49:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 9:33:14 PM, SM2 wrote:
1. Hitchens's Razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

2. The watchmaker argument is refuted here: https://www.youtube.com...

It's a two-minute video, so I won't bother summarizing.

Hitchen's razor is asserted without evidence and can be dismissed without evidence.

I didn't make a watchmaker argument.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 9:52:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 8:30:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
So in summary, anyone who believes God doesn't exist due to lack of evidence is unjustified in holding that position. Anyone who defines atheism as a lack of belief in God must simultaneously lack disbelief in God - AKA the ontology of agnosticism.

Lacking belief in the existence of God does not preclude one's position on the non-existence of God. A person who believes God does not exist does in fact have a lack a belief in the existence of a God.

But yes, believing in the non-existence of a God based on the lack of evidence for a God is not rationally justified. Then again I know of no one who holds this position so I am not sure who you are talking about.

Nowhere is God defined as "the explanatory power to explain the unexplained". Anyone who uses this line of reasoning is fallacious.

Explicitly... No. But you would have to be incredibly naive to think that this is not a quality which the vast majority of religious folks apply to their concept of a God.

If something is a means towards an end, it must have an intelligent designer because anything that is means towards any end requires input of intent and knowledge. If the heart exists for circulating oxygenated blood throughout the body it is a means towards an end. If atheism is true everything is inherently not a means towards any end. This means that the water cycle is equally there for circulating oxygenated blood throughout our body as our heart is. In other words, there is no means towards any end for any natural process or for the products resulting from any natural process if atheism is true.

Agreed. So what? Where does this point get us?
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 10:53:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 9:49:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Hitchen's razor is asserted without evidence and can be dismissed without evidence.

No, because it's a razor. Please familiarize yourself with what a razor is and how it works.

I didn't make a watchmaker argument.

If I misunderstood, it's because your post was tl;dr.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:02:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 9:52:29 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2015 8:30:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
So in summary, anyone who believes God doesn't exist due to lack of evidence is unjustified in holding that position. Anyone who defines atheism as a lack of belief in God must simultaneously lack disbelief in God - AKA the ontology of agnosticism.

Lacking belief in the existence of God does not preclude one's position on the non-existence of God. A person who believes God does not exist does in fact have a lack a belief in the existence of a God.

I agree and that is why I made a distinction between atheists who merely lack belief in God and ones that lack belief but hold the position that God doesn't exist. If you lack belief in God and *do* hold the position that God doesn't exist then there's no distinction between "lacking belief" in God and disbelieving that God exists. If you lack belief in God and *don't* assume the position that God doesn't exist then you aren't making an ontological claim. Lack of belief to mean disbelief in God is an ontological claim while lack of belief to mean withholding judgement one way or the other is not an ontological claim.

But yes, believing in the non-existence of a God based on the lack of evidence for a God is not rationally justified. Then again I know of no one who holds this position so I am not sure who you are talking about.

Maybe not that you know of, but there are many atheists who hold this position. I'm sure I can find at least 6 threads about it if you want me to paste them here.

Nowhere is God defined as "the explanatory power to explain the unexplained". Anyone who uses this line of reasoning is fallacious.

Explicitly... No. But you would have to be incredibly naive to think that this is not a quality which the vast majority of religious folks apply to their concept of a God.

Nor implicitly... What about a "transcendent intelligent designer" would imply "the explanatory power for the unexplained"? Many religious people have used the God of the gaps fallacy and I'm not denying that. Anyone who believes God is defined as something that explains the unexplained is wrong.

If something is a means towards an end, it must have an intelligent designer because anything that is means towards any end requires input of intent and knowledge. If the heart exists for circulating oxygenated blood throughout the body it is a means towards an end. If atheism is true everything is inherently not a means towards any end. This means that the water cycle is equally there for circulating oxygenated blood throughout our body as our heart is. In other words, there is no means towards any end for any natural process or for the products resulting from any natural process if atheism is true.

Agreed. So what? Where does this point get us?

The implications are enormous. Does the heart, lungs, brain, ozone layer, etc. really not exist for any specific function or purpose? I honestly think you and Chaosism are the only atheists that have ever actually understood this argument. Try explaining this concept in an intellectually honest fashion to any of your atheist friends and watch their response. It's intellectually demanding to convince someone that their heart, brain, the ozone layer, etc., doesn't inherently exist as a means towards any end. As an example Fkzzie apparently thought I "completely misunderstand evolution" because I said that biological structures aren't inherently means towards ends if atheism is true.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:16:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 10:53:36 PM, SM2 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 9:49:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Hitchen's razor is asserted without evidence and can be dismissed without evidence.

No, because it's a razor. Please familiarize yourself with what a razor is and how it works.

I shave with one everyday, I know how they work.

I didn't make a watchmaker argument.

If I misunderstood, it's because your post was tl;dr.

In other words too lazy to my post in its entirety?
Devilry
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:22:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's a curious thing to try to prove God's existence to another. I mean, there's something arrogant about it, isn't there? I would say it's not your place and not to worry about it.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:24:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 11:22:21 PM, Devilry wrote:
It's a curious thing to try to prove God's existence to another. I mean, there's something arrogant about it, isn't there? I would say it's not your place and not to worry about it.

Where is anyone trying to prove God's existence to another? I don't see how that's relevant to the topic.
Devilry
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:27:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 11:24:07 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:22:21 PM, Devilry wrote:
It's a curious thing to try to prove God's existence to another. I mean, there's something arrogant about it, isn't there? I would say it's not your place and not to worry about it.

Where is anyone trying to prove God's existence to another? I don't see how that's relevant to the topic.

Yes, I didn't read so far in. Those were just my own musings. In fact, I've formulated a wager too. Do you like it?

Devilry's Wager:

If God exists, he doesn't need you to affirm his existence.
If God doesn't exist, the atheists have it right.

As to your point, sure, atheists take a lot on faith. What ya gonna do?
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 12:07:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 11:02:09 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/29/2015 9:52:29 PM, Double_R wrote:
But yes, believing in the non-existence of a God based on the lack of evidence for a God is not rationally justified. Then again I know of no one who holds this position so I am not sure who you are talking about.

Maybe not that you know of, but there are many atheists who hold this position. I'm sure I can find at least 6 threads about it if you want me to paste them here.

If you would like to post them I wouldn't mind seeing them.

Explicitly... No. But you would have to be incredibly naive to think that this is not a quality which the vast majority of religious folks apply to their concept of a God.

Nor implicitly... What about a "transcendent intelligent designer" would imply "the explanatory power for the unexplained"? Many religious people have used the God of the gaps fallacy and I'm not denying that. Anyone who believes God is defined as something that explains the unexplained is wrong.

Transcendent intelligent designer is not the definition most theists use of God. The vast majority of theistic concepts include all powerful and all knowing, which is where the "God is the explanation for anything" mindset comes from.

If something is a means towards an end, it must have an intelligent designer because anything that is means towards any end requires input of intent and knowledge. If the heart exists for circulating oxygenated blood throughout the body it is a means towards an end. If atheism is true everything is inherently not a means towards any end. This means that the water cycle is equally there for circulating oxygenated blood throughout our body as our heart is. In other words, there is no means towards any end for any natural process or for the products resulting from any natural process if atheism is true.

Agreed. So what? Where does this point get us?

The implications are enormous. Does the heart, lungs, brain, ozone layer, etc. really not exist for any specific function or purpose? I honestly think you and Chaosism are the only atheists that have ever actually understood this argument. Try explaining this concept in an intellectually honest fashion to any of your atheist friends and watch their response. It's intellectually demanding to convince someone that their heart, brain, the ozone layer, etc., doesn't inherently exist as a means towards any end. As an example Fkzzie apparently thought I "completely misunderstand evolution" because I said that biological structures aren't inherently means towards ends if atheism is true.

You say that the implications are enormous and yet you fail to list them. The problem with this whole "argument" (if it's even that) is that all it does is reflect backwards on what reality is by use of definitions, it makes no attempt to help us determine anything about our reality which if I understand correctly is supposed to be the point. This is like arguing over whether someone is a bachelor, and then making the argument that if he is not a bachelor then he can't be married. And you'd be correct, so how would does reiterating the definition help us determine whether he fits the definition?

So yes, if our heart is a means towards an end then it was designed by a thinking mind, otherwise it is not a means towards an end. How does this help us determine whether it actually is a means towards an end?
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 12:09:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 11:16:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/29/2015 10:53:36 PM, SM2 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 9:49:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Hitchen's razor is asserted without evidence and can be dismissed without evidence.

No, because it's a razor. Please familiarize yourself with what a razor is and how it works.

I shave with one everyday, I know how they work.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Not.

I didn't make a watchmaker argument.

If I misunderstood, it's because your post was tl;dr.

In other words too lazy to my post in its entirety?

Exactly. I have better things to do with my time. Use bullet points in future, it makes things much easier to read.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 1:23:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 12:07:10 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:02:09 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/29/2015 9:52:29 PM, Double_R wrote:
But yes, believing in the non-existence of a God based on the lack of evidence for a God is not rationally justified. Then again I know of no one who holds this position so I am not sure who you are talking about.

Maybe not that you know of, but there are many atheists who hold this position. I'm sure I can find at least 6 threads about it if you want me to paste them here.

If you would like to post them I wouldn't mind seeing them.

Here are a few excerpts from this thread
http://www.debate.org...

"The best way to ensure that the majority of what you believe is true is to disbelieve claims for which there is no evidence, or for which there is insufficient evidence".
- JmcKinley

"As noted, many of us require some kind of factual, demonstrable, potentially falsifiable evidence before accepting an assertion as most likely true. There is nothing forthcoming in that vein from any theist, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Shinto, or any other religion. Until that happens, I will reject their assertions that their deity or deities exist." -dhardage

Explicitly... No. But you would have to be incredibly naive to think that this is not a quality which the vast majority of religious folks apply to their concept of a God.

Nor implicitly... What about a "transcendent intelligent designer" would imply "the explanatory power for the unexplained"? Many religious people have used the God of the gaps fallacy and I'm not denying that. Anyone who believes God is defined as something that explains the unexplained is wrong.

Transcendent intelligent designer is not the definition most theists use of God. The vast majority of theistic concepts include all powerful and all knowing, which is where the "God is the explanation for anything" mindset comes from.

Since most theists are probably Christian that would be true. I still don't see how a definition of God as omnipotent, omniscient, etc. would imply that God is an explanation for things unexplained. Sure, it implies that everything has an explanation, but it doesn't imply the means.

If something is a means towards an end, it must have an intelligent designer because anything that is means towards any end requires input of intent and knowledge. If the heart exists for circulating oxygenated blood throughout the body it is a means towards an end. If atheism is true everything is inherently not a means towards any end. This means that the water cycle is equally there for circulating oxygenated blood throughout our body as our heart is. In other words, there is no means towards any end for any natural process or for the products resulting from any natural process if atheism is true.

Agreed. So what? Where does this point get us?

The implications are enormous. Does the heart, lungs, brain, ozone layer, etc. really not exist for any specific function or purpose? I honestly think you and Chaosism are the only atheists that have ever actually understood this argument. Try explaining this concept in an intellectually honest fashion to any of your atheist friends and watch their response. It's intellectually demanding to convince someone that their heart, brain, the ozone layer, etc., doesn't inherently exist as a means towards any end. As an example Fkzzie apparently thought I "completely misunderstand evolution" because I said that biological structures aren't inherently means towards ends if atheism is true.

You say that the implications are enormous and yet you fail to list them. The problem with this whole "argument" (if it's even that) is that all it does is reflect backwards on what reality is by use of definitions, it makes no attempt to help us determine anything about our reality which if I understand correctly is supposed to be the point. This is like arguing over whether someone is a bachelor, and then making the argument that if he is not a bachelor then he can't be married. And you'd be correct, so how would does reiterating the definition help us determine whether he fits the definition?

It does determine something about our reality. It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true. The strength of the argument consists in whether it's rational to reject that things which obviously seem to be a means towards an end are not actually a means towards an end. A heart obviously seems like it's meant for pumping oxygenated blood throughout our body, but if atheism is true, it isn't. A heart is inherently useless, realistically speaking.

So yes, if our heart is a means towards an end then it was designed by a thinking mind, otherwise it is not a means towards an end. How does this help us determine whether it actually is a means towards an end?

By studying the specificity of its function in relation to the overall system of the organism. It appears to serve a very specific function in relation to the overall system.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 3:29:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 1:23:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/30/2015 12:07:10 AM, Double_R wrote:
If you would like to post them I wouldn't mind seeing them.

Here are a few excerpts from this thread
http://www.debate.org...

"The best way to ensure that the majority of what you believe is true is to disbelieve claims for which there is no evidence, or for which there is insufficient evidence".
- JmcKinley

"As noted, many of us require some kind of factual, demonstrable, potentially falsifiable evidence before accepting an assertion as most likely true. There is nothing forthcoming in that vein from any theist, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Shinto, or any other religion. Until that happens, I will reject their assertions that their deity or deities exist." -dhardage

Disbelieving a claim and rejecting a claim does not necessarily translate into a belief that the claim is false.

Transcendent intelligent designer is not the definition most theists use of God. The vast majority of theistic concepts include all powerful and all knowing, which is where the "God is the explanation for anything" mindset comes from.

Since most theists are probably Christian that would be true. I still don't see how a definition of God as omnipotent, omniscient, etc. would imply that God is an explanation for things unexplained. Sure, it implies that everything has an explanation, but it doesn't imply the means.

Ask that to the many Christains who use God in this way. Presuppositional apologists for example claim that God accounts for the laws of logic. How exactly does that work? No idea, but he's God so he explains everything.

You say that the implications are enormous and yet you fail to list them. The problem with this whole "argument" (if it's even that) is that all it does is reflect backwards on what reality is by use of definitions, it makes no attempt to help us determine anything about our reality which if I understand correctly is supposed to be the point. This is like arguing over whether someone is a bachelor, and then making the argument that if he is not a bachelor then he can't be married. And you'd be correct, so how would does reiterating the definition help us determine whether he fits the definition?

It does determine something about our reality. It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true.

Purpose and function are two very different things.

To say that natural things appear to have purpose is begging the question. You have to establish how we go about determining the appearance of purpose first, and that's where the argument fails miserably.

To say that a heart has no function if atheism is true is plain false. To say that it has no "specific" purpose if atheism is true is just an attempt to smuggle in language to make your point since you're defining "specific" as "imposed by a designer". The point is meaningless.

So yes, if our heart is a means towards an end then it was designed by a thinking mind, otherwise it is not a means towards an end. How does this help us determine whether it actually is a means towards an end?

By studying the specificity of its function in relation to the overall system of the organism. It appears to serve a very specific function in relation to the overall system.

Determining that an organ plays a crucial role in the survival of a life form means that if the organ was not present the life form would be dead. Nothing about this infers design.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 3:50:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 3:29:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 1:23:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/30/2015 12:07:10 AM, Double_R wrote:
If you would like to post them I wouldn't mind seeing them.

Here are a few excerpts from this thread
http://www.debate.org...

"The best way to ensure that the majority of what you believe is true is to disbelieve claims for which there is no evidence, or for which there is insufficient evidence".
- JmcKinley

"As noted, many of us require some kind of factual, demonstrable, potentially falsifiable evidence before accepting an assertion as most likely true. There is nothing forthcoming in that vein from any theist, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Shinto, or any other religion. Until that happens, I will reject their assertions that their deity or deities exist." -dhardage

Disbelieving a claim and rejecting a claim does not necessarily translate into a belief that the claim is false.

I disagree if we're being logically coherent in regard to our beliefs. Disbelieving or rejecting a truth claim like "God exists" necessarily means that it is false.

Transcendent intelligent designer is not the definition most theists use of God. The vast majority of theistic concepts include all powerful and all knowing, which is where the "God is the explanation for anything" mindset comes from.

Since most theists are probably Christian that would be true. I still don't see how a definition of God as omnipotent, omniscient, etc. would imply that God is an explanation for things unexplained. Sure, it implies that everything has an explanation, but it doesn't imply the means.

Ask that to the many Christains who use God in this way. Presuppositional apologists for example claim that God accounts for the laws of logic. How exactly does that work? No idea, but he's God so he explains everything.

Ah, the transcendental argument. Personally I believe that if atheism is true, reality is illusory. So the argument that knowledge is possible only if God exists has merit in my eyes.

You say that the implications are enormous and yet you fail to list them. The problem with this whole "argument" (if it's even that) is that all it does is reflect backwards on what reality is by use of definitions, it makes no attempt to help us determine anything about our reality which if I understand correctly is supposed to be the point. This is like arguing over whether someone is a bachelor, and then making the argument that if he is not a bachelor then he can't be married. And you'd be correct, so how would does reiterating the definition help us determine whether he fits the definition?

It does determine something about our reality. It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true.

Purpose and function are two very different things.

I disagree. A function is the purpose for which something is carried out.

To say that natural things appear to have purpose is begging the question. You have to establish how we go about determining the appearance of purpose first, and that's where the argument fails miserably.

If you asked people on the street if the heart serves any apparent purpose what do you think they would say?

To say that a heart has no function if atheism is true is plain false. To say that it has no "specific" purpose if atheism is true is just an attempt to smuggle in language to make your point since you're defining "specific" as "imposed by a designer". The point is meaningless.

The heart wouldn't have any function if atheism is true aside from the function we give it. It doesn't matter if specific is used or not. A function automatically entails that it is for an end.

So yes, if our heart is a means towards an end then it was designed by a thinking mind, otherwise it is not a means towards an end. How does this help us determine whether it actually is a means towards an end?

By studying the specificity of its function in relation to the overall system of the organism. It appears to serve a very specific function in relation to the overall system.

Determining that an organ plays a crucial role in the survival of a life form means that if the organ was not present the life form would be dead. Nothing about this infers design.

what does it matter if the life form is dead rather than alive? look up the definition of "design" and get back to me.
toretorden
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 9:43:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As is partly quoted above, a general rejection of fantastic religious claims follows as a consequence of the application of principles of parsimony, inherently important to scientific philosophy.

The idea is simple. Imagine that you essentially start at zero and know nothing about the universe and then you're going to devise a philosophy to help figure it out. Possibly you know there's a you that thinks thoughts and so has an existence (Descartes). Anything else could be an illusion, but regardless, you may at least be able to figure out the rules (or not) which constrain that illusion - you can still learn about the universe. Let's say you want to figure out if balls drop to the ground if dropped. You drop a million balls and they all fall to the ground. You can mathimatically establish a certainty of 99,9999% (etc) that balls fall to the ground when dropped from your hand. That doesn't mean a ball dropped won't suddenly fly, but by doing the experiment, you could say you've gathered enough evidence so that to believe that a ball dropped from your hand wil fall to the ground 100% of times requires only about 0,0001% investment of faith. It's not so much a matter of establishing proof as it is gathering evidence and gathering knowledge, piece by piece, about how the universe works.

In the future, you may start thinking about gravity. When thinking about how gravity works, the previous ball experiment might help you and might even add evidence to your ideas of gravity, lending it some gravitas. Experience and prior knowledge form a foundation upon which new knowledge can be added. A world view can be built this way from the ground up.

Many miraculous, religious claims have basically no such support - no such foundations. They float up there on their own and then a significant problem arises; these need extra claims (foundations) about the universe to accomodate them which themselves may be false. Take a claim that souls exist. Depending on how soul is defined, that might require a universe where personalities exist independently of physical bodies. In that case, accepting one claim (souls exist) leads to the necessary acceptance of a different claim (minds existing independent of physical bodies). There may be a wealth of other claims you'd have to accept as well - and they might be wrong as well. Both the chances of being wrong and the frequency of false ideas are likely to increase by accepting fantastic claims.

Religions would have us start at the top, with some design, and then build the foundation it needs rather than starting at the bottom. It starts with the truth rather than arrive at it through searching. But. if you want to maximize the chances of having the right knowledge about the universe, which is essentially what science strives to achieve, you have to start at the bottom and you should reject fantastic claims until they are supported by evidence.

As an atheist, I am a skeptic. My position is that any god could exist, the christian god or the flying spaghetti monster, but until the existence of such a deity is backed by evidence, lending this idea credibility makes it likely that I would have to adopt several ideas about the universe which are likely to be wrong. And I don't want that, so I generally reject religious, fantastic claims.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 3:51:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 3:50:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:29:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 1:23:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"The best way to ensure that the majority of what you believe is true is to disbelieve claims for which there is no evidence, or for which there is insufficient evidence".
- JmcKinley

"As noted, many of us require some kind of factual, demonstrable, potentially falsifiable evidence before accepting an assertion as most likely true. There is nothing forthcoming in that vein from any theist, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Shinto, or any other religion. Until that happens, I will reject their assertions that their deity or deities exist." -dhardage

Disbelieving a claim and rejecting a claim does not necessarily translate into a belief that the claim is false.

I disagree if we're being logically coherent in regard to our beliefs. Disbelieving or rejecting a truth claim like "God exists" necessarily means that it is false.

First of all...
Dis-believing = Not believing
Dis-believing =/= Believing
Rejecting a claim = Rejecting a claim
Rejecting a claim =/= Accepting a claim

But more importantly, that is all irrelevant. We've had this discussion many times before and you are or at least should be fully aware that atheists generally do not go by your definitions of disbelief and rejecting a claim. If you are going by their statements to characterize what they believe then you have to apply their definitions, not yours.

Ask that to the many Christains who use God in this way. Presuppositional apologists for example claim that God accounts for the laws of logic. How exactly does that work? No idea, but he's God so he explains everything.

Ah, the transcendental argument. Personally I believe that if atheism is true, reality is illusory.

That makes. Absolutely. No sense.

So the argument that knowledge is possible only if God exists has merit in my eyes.

The idea that knowledge is contingent on the existence of a God is a complete redefinition of the word knowledge. I no longer have any idea what you are talking about.

It does determine something about our reality. It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true.

Purpose and function are two very different things.

I disagree. A function is the purpose for which something is carried out.

This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing on how you are using the word, it's about speaking in a way that makes what you are saying clear. Function and purpose are two different words because they mean two different things. Function does not require purpose by definition. A function is something we recognize. Whether that function is the result of purpose is the question we are supposed to be assessing, not something you just assert and then when challenged say "well that's how I define it".

Again, you stated: "It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true". The only reason this sentence sounds compelling to you is because of the fact that function is merely something we recognize. So it would be absurd to find out that something we do in fact objectively recognize is not actually there. But this is the problem, when someone points out that the loss of function is not the result of atheism you go on to defend your point by striping it of it's meaning and then seemingly think that your defense means that the point still stands. It doesn't. If "function" = "purpose" then your statement never meant anything in the first place.

To say that natural things appear to have purpose is begging the question. You have to establish how we go about determining the appearance of purpose first, and that's where the argument fails miserably.

If you asked people on the street if the heart serves any apparent purpose what do you think they would say?

That's completely irrelevant. If your conclusion is built on a logical fallacy then it makes no difference whether other people fall prey to the same logical fallacy. I used to think that my heart was designed for a purpose, until I stopped to think about what that meant and why I believed it.

To say that a heart has no function if atheism is true is plain false. To say that it has no "specific" purpose if atheism is true is just an attempt to smuggle in language to make your point since you're defining "specific" as "imposed by a designer". The point is meaningless.

The heart wouldn't have any function if atheism is true aside from the function we give it. It doesn't matter if specific is used or not. A function automatically entails that it is for an end.

No. It doesn't.

Funtion: an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
https://www.google.com...

By studying the specificity of its function in relation to the overall system of the organism. It appears to serve a very specific function in relation to the overall system.

Determining that an organ plays a crucial role in the survival of a life form means that if the organ was not present the life form would be dead. Nothing about this infers design.

what does it matter if the life form is dead rather than alive? look up the definition of "design" and get back to me.

It doesn't. That's my point. Your entire argument, whether you realize this or not, rests on the presumption of some divine desire for the organism to survive. That's the whole point of designing something... to serve a purpose. Purpose is nothing more than the result of a decision to fulfill a desire.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 3:24:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 3:51:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:50:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:29:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 1:23:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"The best way to ensure that the majority of what you believe is true is to disbelieve claims for which there is no evidence, or for which there is insufficient evidence".
- JmcKinley

"As noted, many of us require some kind of factual, demonstrable, potentially falsifiable evidence before accepting an assertion as most likely true. There is nothing forthcoming in that vein from any theist, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Shinto, or any other religion. Until that happens, I will reject their assertions that their deity or deities exist." -dhardage

Disbelieving a claim and rejecting a claim does not necessarily translate into a belief that the claim is false.

I disagree if we're being logically coherent in regard to our beliefs. Disbelieving or rejecting a truth claim like "God exists" necessarily means that it is false.

First of all...
Dis-believing = Not believing
Dis-believing =/= Believing
Rejecting a claim = Rejecting a claim
Rejecting a claim =/= Accepting a claim

Disbelief and nonbelief aren't synonymous. Dis- is prefix of opposites and non- is a negating prefix. Disbelief entails nonbelief but nonbelief doesn't entail disbelief.

If you rejected that 2 + 2 = 4 what you're saying is that it's true 2 + 2 doesn't = 4. It doesn't matter whether you explicitly acknowledge that or not. That's why I said "if we're being logically coherent in regard to our beliefs".

But more importantly, that is all irrelevant. We've had this discussion many times before and you are or at least should be fully aware that atheists generally do not go by your definitions of disbelief and rejecting a claim. If you are going by their statements to characterize what they believe then you have to apply their definitions, not yours.

I have to go by the meaning of the words themselves. You still treat nonbelief and disbelief as if they mean the exact same thing.

Ask that to the many Christains who use God in this way. Presuppositional apologists for example claim that God accounts for the laws of logic. How exactly does that work? No idea, but he's God so he explains everything.

Ah, the transcendental argument. Personally I believe that if atheism is true, reality is illusory.

That makes. Absolutely. No sense.

Look up "the transcendental argument".

So the argument that knowledge is possible only if God exists has merit in my eyes.

The idea that knowledge is contingent on the existence of a God is a complete redefinition of the word knowledge. I no longer have any idea what you are talking about.

I'll leave that topic for Scmike. Not interested in opening the doors of hell here.

It does determine something about our reality. It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true.

Purpose and function are two very different things.

I disagree. A function is the purpose for which something is carried out.

This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing on how you are using the word, it's about speaking in a way that makes what you are saying clear. Function and purpose are two different words because they mean two different things. Function does not require purpose by definition. A function is something we recognize. Whether that function is the result of purpose is the question we are supposed to be assessing, not something you just assert and then when challenged say "well that's how I define it".

Well function must be the result of purpose. It doesn't make sense for something to have purposeless function.

Again, you stated: "It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true". The only reason this sentence sounds compelling to you is because of the fact that function is merely something we recognize. So it would be absurd to find out that something we do in fact objectively recognize is not actually there. But this is the problem, when someone points out that the loss of function is not the result of atheism you go on to defend your point by striping it of it's meaning and then seemingly think that your defense means that the point still stands. It doesn't. If "function" = "purpose" then your statement never meant anything in the first place.

It's not equivalent to purpose but it's the result of meaningful use or purpose.

To say that natural things appear to have purpose is begging the question. You have to establish how we go about determining the appearance of purpose first, and that's where the argument fails miserably.

If you asked people on the street if the heart serves any apparent purpose what do you think they would say?

That's completely irrelevant. If your conclusion is built on a logical fallacy then it makes no difference whether other people fall prey to the same logical fallacy. I used to think that my heart was designed for a purpose, until I stopped to think about what that meant and why I believed it.

Common sense tends to be the most rational course of action. If the heart very much appears to have a purpose then it probably does. The only thing that would change people's mind is a commitment to a presupposition that it cannot. Did you think your heart had purpose while you were an atheist?

The heart wouldn't have any function if atheism is true aside from the function we give it. It doesn't matter if specific is used or not. A function automatically entails that it is for an end.

No. It doesn't.

Funtion: an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
https://www.google.com...

Well that's a charitable take on the definition but let's look at what it means: an activity natural to a person or thing. This would just means that a function is a means for action which is not even close to the meaning of the word. Synonyms include purpose (not including in the actual definition you gave), role, use, and task. Take a look at merriam-Webster:

Function : the special purpose or activity for which a thing exists or is used

Function:
2 :the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists :purpose
http://i.word.com...

By studying the specificity of its function in relation to the overall system of the organism. It appears to serve a very specific function in relation to the overall system.

Determining that an organ plays a crucial role in the survival of a life form means that if the organ was not present the life form would be dead. Nothing about this infers design.

what does it matter if the life form is dead rather than alive? look up the definition of "design" and get back to me.

It doesn't. That's my point. Your entire argument, whether you realize this or not, rests on the presumption of some divine desire for the organism to survive. That's the whole point of designing something... to serve a purpose. Purpose is nothing more than the result of a decision to fulfill a desire.

That's like saying a tv remote is built on the assumption that it's for controlling the tv with. We assume that the purpose of our brain is for controlling our body. But nope, the most rational course of action is assume that our brain is just there for no reason and isn't actually useful towards anything.
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 9:46:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 3:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:51:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:50:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:29:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 1:23:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
<clipped for space>



Disbelief and nonbelief aren't synonymous. Dis- is prefix of opposites and non- is a negating prefix. Disbelief entails nonbelief but nonbelief doesn't entail disbelief.

If you rejected that 2 + 2 = 4 what you're saying is that it's true 2 + 2 doesn't = 4. It doesn't matter whether you explicitly acknowledge that or not. That's why I said "if we're being logically coherent in regard to our beliefs".

But more importantly, that is all irrelevant. We've had this discussion many times before and you are or at least should be fully aware that atheists generally do not go by your definitions of disbelief and rejecting a claim. If you are going by their statements to characterize what they believe then you have to apply their definitions, not yours.

I have to go by the meaning of the words themselves. You still treat nonbelief and disbelief as if they mean the exact same thing.

Ask that to the many Christains who use God in this way. Presuppositional apologists for example claim that God accounts for the laws of logic. How exactly does that work? No idea, but he's God so he explains everything.

Ah, the transcendental argument. Personally I believe that if atheism is true, reality is illusory.

That makes. Absolutely. No sense.

Look up "the transcendental argument".

So the argument that knowledge is possible only if God exists has merit in my eyes.

The idea that knowledge is contingent on the existence of a God is a complete redefinition of the word knowledge. I no longer have any idea what you are talking about.

I'll leave that topic for Scmike. Not interested in opening the doors of hell here.

It does determine something about our reality. It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true.

Purpose and function are two very different things.

I disagree. A function is the purpose for which something is carried out.

This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing on how you are using the word, it's about speaking in a way that makes what you are saying clear. Function and purpose are two different words because they mean two different things. Function does not require purpose by definition. A function is something we recognize. Whether that function is the result of purpose is the question we are supposed to be assessing, not something you just assert and then when challenged say "well that's how I define it".

Well function must be the result of purpose. It doesn't make sense for something to have purposeless function.

Again, you stated: "It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true". The only reason this sentence sounds compelling to you is because of the fact that function is merely something we recognize. So it would be absurd to find out that something we do in fact objectively recognize is not actually there. But this is the problem, when someone points out that the loss of function is not the result of atheism you go on to defend your point by striping it of it's meaning and then seemingly think that your defense means that the point still stands. It doesn't. If "function" = "purpose" then your statement never meant anything in the first place.

It's not equivalent to purpose but it's the result of meaningful use or purpose.

To say that natural things appear to have purpose is begging the question. You have to establish how we go about determining the appearance of purpose first, and that's where the argument fails miserably.

If you asked people on the street if the heart serves any apparent purpose what do you think they would say?

That's completely irrelevant. If your conclusion is built on a logical fallacy then it makes no difference whether other people fall prey to the same logical fallacy. I used to think that my heart was designed for a purpose, until I stopped to think about what that meant and why I believed it.

Common sense tends to be the most rational course of action. If the heart very much appears to have a purpose then it probably does. The only thing that would change people's mind is a commitment to a presupposition that it cannot. Did you think your heart had purpose while you were an atheist?

The heart wouldn't have any function if atheism is true aside from the function we give it. It doesn't matter if specific is used or not. A function automatically entails that it is for an end.

No. It doesn't.

Funtion: an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
https://www.google.com...

Well that's a charitable take on the definition but let's look at what it means: an activity natural to a person or thing. This would just means that a function is a means for action which is not even close to the meaning of the word. Synonyms include purpose (not including in the actual definition you gave), role, use, and task. Take a look at merriam-Webster:

Function : the special purpose or activity for which a thing exists or is used

Function:
2 :the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists :purpose
http://i.word.com...

By studying the specificity of its function in relation to the overall system of the organism. It appears to serve a very specific function in relation to the overall system.

Determining that an organ plays a crucial role in the survival of a life form means that if the organ was not present the life form would be dead. Nothing about this infers design.

what does it matter if the life form is dead rather than alive? look up the definition of "design" and get back to me.

It doesn't. That's my point. Your entire argument, whether you realize this or not, rests on the presumption of some divine desire for the organism to survive. That's the whole point of designing something... to serve a purpose. Purpose is nothing more than the result of a decision to fulfill a desire.

That's like saying a tv remote is built on the assumption that it's for controlling the tv with. We assume that the purpose of our brain is for controlling our body. But nope, the most rational course of action is assume that our brain is just there for no reason and isn't actually useful towards anything.

You are strawmanning what you call "the most rational course of action" here. We do not "assume that the purpose (in the current context of using this word) of our brain is..." Rather, we OBSERVE the FUNCTION of the brain.

This earth was lifeless for a long time before life appeared on it. The earth was doing just fine. Obviously, life had no "purpose" because it wasn't even here. If life had appeared and then died out a short period later, what "purpose" would life have had? But life has survived and replicated since it first appeared. If it didn't survive, it wouldn't have the opportunity to replicate. And if it didn't replicate, then that lifeform in question would be gone. It is cause and effect, surely, but design and purpose isn't necessary for any of this to have happened.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 9:55:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 9:46:14 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:51:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:50:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:29:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 1:23:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
<clipped for space>



Disbelief and nonbelief aren't synonymous. Dis- is prefix of opposites and non- is a negating prefix. Disbelief entails nonbelief but nonbelief doesn't entail disbelief.

If you rejected that 2 + 2 = 4 what you're saying is that it's true 2 + 2 doesn't = 4. It doesn't matter whether you explicitly acknowledge that or not. That's why I said "if we're being logically coherent in regard to our beliefs".

But more importantly, that is all irrelevant. We've had this discussion many times before and you are or at least should be fully aware that atheists generally do not go by your definitions of disbelief and rejecting a claim. If you are going by their statements to characterize what they believe then you have to apply their definitions, not yours.

I have to go by the meaning of the words themselves. You still treat nonbelief and disbelief as if they mean the exact same thing.

Ask that to the many Christains who use God in this way. Presuppositional apologists for example claim that God accounts for the laws of logic. How exactly does that work? No idea, but he's God so he explains everything.

Ah, the transcendental argument. Personally I believe that if atheism is true, reality is illusory.

That makes. Absolutely. No sense.

Look up "the transcendental argument".

So the argument that knowledge is possible only if God exists has merit in my eyes.

The idea that knowledge is contingent on the existence of a God is a complete redefinition of the word knowledge. I no longer have any idea what you are talking about.

I'll leave that topic for Scmike. Not interested in opening the doors of hell here.

It does determine something about our reality. It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true.

Purpose and function are two very different things.

I disagree. A function is the purpose for which something is carried out.



Well function must be the result of purpose. It doesn't make sense for something to have purposeless function.

Again, you stated: "It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true". The only reason this sentence sounds compelling to you is because of the fact that function is merely something we recognize. So it would be absurd to find out that something we do in fact objectively recognize is not actually there. But this is the problem, when someone points out that the loss of function is not the result of atheism you go on to defend your point by striping it of it's meaning and then seemingly think that your defense means that the point still stands. It doesn't. If "function" = "purpose" then your statement never meant anything in the first place.

It's not equivalent to purpose but it's the result of meaningful use or purpose.

To say that natural things appear to have purpose is begging the question. You have to establish how we go about determining the appearance of purpose first, and that's where the argument fails miserably.

If you asked people on the street if the heart serves any apparent purpose what do you think they would say?

That's completely irrelevant. If your conclusion is built on a logical fallacy then it makes no difference whether other people fall prey to the same logical fallacy. I used to think that my heart was designed for a purpose, until I stopped to think about what that meant and why I believed it.

Common sense tends to be the most rational course of action. If the heart very much appears to have a purpose then it probably does. The only thing that would change people's mind is a commitment to a presupposition that it cannot. Did you think your heart had purpose while you were an atheist?

The heart wouldn't have any function if atheism is true aside from the function we give it. It doesn't matter if specific is used or not. A function automatically entails that it is for an end.

No. It doesn't.

Funtion: an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
https://www.google.com...

Well that's a charitable take on the definition but let's look at what it means: an activity natural to a person or thing. This would just means that a function is a means for action which is not even close to the meaning of the word. Synonyms include purpose (not including in the actual definition you gave), role, use, and task. Take a look at merriam-Webster:

Function : the special purpose or activity for which a thing exists or is used

Function:
2 :the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists :purpose
http://i.word.com...

By studying the specificity of its function in relation to the overall system of the organism. It appears to serve a very specific function in relation to the overall system.

Determining that an organ plays a crucial role in the survival of a life form means that if the organ was not present the life form would be dead. Nothing about this infers design.

what does it matter if the life form is dead rather than alive? look up the definition of "design" and get back to me.

It doesn't. That's my point. Your entire argument, whether you realize this or not, rests on the presumption of some divine desire for the organism to survive. That's the whole point of designing something... to serve a purpose. Purpose is nothing more than the result of a decision to fulfill a desire.

That's like saying a tv remote is built on the assumption that it's for controlling the tv with. We assume that the purpose of our brain is for controlling our body. But nope, the most rational course of action is assume that our brain is just there for no reason and isn't actually useful towards anything.

You are strawmanning what you call "the most rational course of action" here. We do not "assume that the purpose (in the current context of using this word) of our brain is..." Rather, we OBSERVE the FUNCTION of the brain.

What function? There can't be any function of the brain if atheism is true. If atheism is true ultimately every natural thing is the result of mindless process and mindlessness can't produce the intentionality and knowledge necessary to be considered a function. If you define function as "an activity natural to a thing" then the function of the brain is equally to slosh around in the skull as it is to control the human body.

This earth was lifeless for a long time before life appeared on it. The earth was doing just fine. Obviously, life had no "purpose" because it wasn't even here. If life had appeared and then died out a short period later, what "purpose" would life have had? But life has survived and replicated since it first appeared. If it didn't survive, it wouldn't have the opportunity to replicate. And if it didn't replicate, then that lifeform in question would be gone. It is cause and effect, surely, but design and purpose isn't necess
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 10:15:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 9:55:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:46:14 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:51:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:50:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:29:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 1:23:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
<clipped for space>

But more importantly, that is all irrelevant. We've had this discussion many times before and you are or at least should be fully aware that atheists generally do not go by your definitions of disbelief and rejecting a claim. If you are going by their statements to characterize what they believe then you have to apply their definitions, not yours.

I have to go by the meaning of the words themselves. You still treat nonbelief and disbelief as if they mean the exact same thing.

Ask that to the many Christains who use God in this way. Presuppositional apologists for example claim that God accounts for the laws of logic. How exactly does that work? No idea, but he's God so he explains everything.

Ah, the transcendental argument. Personally I believe that if atheism is true, reality is illusory.

That makes. Absolutely. No sense.

Look up "the transcendental argument".

So the argument that knowledge is possible only if God exists has merit in my eyes.

The idea that knowledge is contingent on the existence of a God is a complete redefinition of the word knowledge. I no longer have any idea what you are talking about.

I'll leave that topic for Scmike. Not interested in opening the doors of hell here.

It does determine something about our reality. It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true.

Purpose and function are two very different things.

I disagree. A function is the purpose for which something is carried out.



Well function must be the result of purpose. It doesn't make sense for something to have purposeless function.

Again, you stated: "It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true". The only reason this sentence sounds compelling to you is because of the fact that function is merely something we recognize. So it would be absurd to find out that something we do in fact objectively recognize is not actually there. But this is the problem, when someone points out that the loss of function is not the result of atheism you go on to defend your point by striping it of it's meaning and then seemingly think that your defense means that the point still stands. It doesn't. If "function" = "purpose" then your statement never meant anything in the first place.

It's not equivalent to purpose but it's the result of meaningful use or purpose.

To say that natural things appear to have purpose is begging the question. You have to establish how we go about determining the appearance of purpose first, and that's where the argument fails miserably.

If you asked people on the street if the heart serves any apparent purpose what do you think they would say?

That's completely irrelevant. If your conclusion is built on a logical fallacy then it makes no difference whether other people fall prey to the same logical fallacy. I used to think that my heart was designed for a purpose, until I stopped to think about what that meant and why I believed it.

Common sense tends to be the most rational course of action. If the heart very much appears to have a purpose then it probably does. The only thing that would change people's mind is a commitment to a presupposition that it cannot. Did you think your heart had purpose while you were an atheist?

The heart wouldn't have any function if atheism is true aside from the function we give it. It doesn't matter if specific is used or not. A function automatically entails that it is for an end.

No. It doesn't.

Funtion: an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
https://www.google.com...

Well that's a charitable take on the definition but let's look at what it means: an activity natural to a person or thing. This would just means that a function is a means for action which is not even close to the meaning of the word. Synonyms include purpose (not including in the actual definition you gave), role, use, and task. Take a look at merriam-Webster:

Function : the special purpose or activity for which a thing exists or is used

Function:
2 :the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists :purpose
http://i.word.com...

By studying the specificity of its function in relation to the overall system of the organism. It appears to serve a very specific function in relation to the overall system.

Determining that an organ plays a crucial role in the survival of a life form means that if the organ was not present the life form would be dead. Nothing about this infers design.

what does it matter if the life form is dead rather than alive? look up the definition of "design" and get back to me.

It doesn't. That's my point. Your entire argument, whether you realize this or not, rests on the presumption of some divine desire for the organism to survive. That's the whole point of designing something... to serve a purpose. Purpose is nothing more than the result of a decision to fulfill a desire.

That's like saying a tv remote is built on the assumption that it's for controlling the tv with. We assume that the purpose of our brain is for controlling our body. But nope, the most rational course of action is assume that our brain is just there for no reason and isn't actually useful towards anything.

You are strawmanning what you call "the most rational course of action" here. We do not "assume that the purpose (in the current context of using this word) of our brain is..." Rather, we OBSERVE the FUNCTION of the brain.

What function? There can't be any function of the brain if atheism is true. If atheism is true ultimately every natural thing is the result of mindless process and mindlessness can't produce the intentionality and knowledge necessary to be considered a function. If you define function as "an activity natural to a thing" then the function of the brain is equally to slosh around in the skull as it is to control the human body.

Nonsense. There isn't even anything to rebut here other than to call it BS. You are in no position to detail the misconceptions inherent to atheism as you cannot even comprehend atheism in the first place.

This earth was lifeless for a long time before life appeared on it. The earth was doing just fine. Obviously, life had no "purpose" because it wasn't even here. If life had appeared and then died out a short period later, what "purpose" would life have had? But life has survived and replicated since it first appeared. If it didn't survive, it wouldn't have the opportunity to replicate. And if it d
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 10:20:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 10:15:40 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:55:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:46:14 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:51:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:50:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:29:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 1:23:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
<clipped for space>

But more importantly, that is all irrelevant. We've had this discussion many times before and you are or at least should be fully aware that atheists generally do not go by your definitions of disbelief and rejecting a claim. If you are going by their statements to characterize what they believe then you have to apply their definitions, not yours.

I have to go by the meaning of the words themselves. You still treat nonbelief and disbelief as if they mean the exact same thing.

Ask that to the many Christains who use God in this way. Presuppositional apologists for example claim that God accounts for the laws of logic. How exactly does that work? No idea, but he's God so he explains everything.

Ah, the transcendental argument. Personally I believe that if atheism is true, reality is illusory.

That makes. Absolutely. No sense.

Look up "the transcendental argument".

So the argument that knowledge is possible only if God exists has merit in my eyes.

The idea that knowledge is contingent on the existence of a God is a complete redefinition of the word knowledge. I no longer have any idea what you are talking about.

I'll leave that topic for Scmike. Not interested in opening the doors of hell here.

It does determine something about our reality. It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true.

Purpose and function are two very different things.

I disagree. A function is the purpose for which something is carried out.



Well function must be the result of purpose. It doesn't make sense for something to have purposeless function.

Again, you stated: "It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true". The only reason this sentence sounds compelling to you is because of the fact that function is merely something we recognize. So it would be absurd to find out that something we do in fact objectively recognize is not actually there. But this is the problem, when someone points out that the loss of function is not the result of atheism you go on to defend your point by striping it of it's meaning and then seemingly think that your defense means that the point still stands. It doesn't. If "function" = "purpose" then your statement never meant anything in the first place.

It's not equivalent to purpose but it's the result of meaningful use or purpose.

To say that natural things appear to have purpose is begging the question. You have to establish how we go about determining the appearance of purpose first, and that's where the argument fails miserably.

If you asked people on the street if the heart serves any apparent purpose what do you think they would say?

That's completely irrelevant. If your conclusion is built on a logical fallacy then it makes no difference whether other people fall prey to the same logical fallacy. I used to think that my heart was designed for a purpose, until I stopped to think about what that meant and why I believed it.

Common sense tends to be the most rational course of action. If the heart very much appears to have a purpose then it probably does. The only thing that would change people's mind is a commitment to a presupposition that it cannot. Did you think your heart had purpose while you were an atheist?

The heart wouldn't have any function if atheism is true aside from the function we give it. It doesn't matter if specific is used or not. A function automatically entails that it is for an end.

No. It doesn't.

Funtion: an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
https://www.google.com...

Well that's a charitable take on the definition but let's look at what it means: an activity natural to a person or thing. This would just means that a function is a means for action which is not even close to the meaning of the word. Synonyms include purpose (not including in the actual definition you gave), role, use, and task. Take a look at merriam-Webster:

Function : the special purpose or activity for which a thing exists or is used

Function:
2 :the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists :purpose
http://i.word.com...

By studying the specificity of its function in relation to the overall system of the organism. It appears to serve a very specific function in relation to the overall system.

Determining that an organ plays a crucial role in the survival of a life form means that if the organ was not present the life form would be dead. Nothing about this infers design.

what does it matter if the life form is dead rather than alive? look up the definition of "design" and get back to me.

It doesn't. That's my point. Your entire argument, whether you realize this or not, rests on the presumption of some divine desire for the organism to survive. That's the whole point of designing something... to serve a purpose. Purpose is nothing more than the result of a decision to fulfill a desire.

That's like saying a tv remote is built on the assumption that it's for controlling the tv with. We assume that the purpose of our brain is for controlling our body. But nope, the most rational course of action is assume that our brain is just there for no reason and isn't actually useful towards anything.

You are strawmanning what you call "the most rational course of action" here. We do not "assume that the purpose (in the current context of using this word) of our brain is..." Rather, we OBSERVE the FUNCTION of the brain.

What function? There can't be any function of the brain if atheism is true. If atheism is true ultimately every natural thing is the result of mindless process and mindlessness can't produce the intentionality and knowledge necessary to be considered a function. If you define function as "an activity natural to a thing" then the function of the brain is equally to slosh around in the skull as it is to control the human body.

Nonsense. There isn't even anything to rebut here other than to call it BS. You are in no position to detail the misconceptions inherent to atheism as you cannot even comprehend atheism in the first place.

What's the function of the brain? I'll I ask is that you don't contradict yourself. Deal?
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 10:32:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 10:20:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:15:40 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:55:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:46:14 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:51:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:50:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:29:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 1:23:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
<clipped for space>

I have to go by the meaning of the words themselves. You still treat nonbelief and disbelief as if they mean the exact same thing.

Ask that to the many Christains who use God in this way. Presuppositional apologists for example claim that God accounts for the laws of logic. How exactly does that work? No idea, but he's God so he explains everything.

Ah, the transcendental argument. Personally I believe that if atheism is true, reality is illusory.

That makes. Absolutely. No sense.

Look up "the transcendental argument".

So the argument that knowledge is possible only if God exists has merit in my eyes.

The idea that knowledge is contingent on the existence of a God is a complete redefinition of the word knowledge. I no longer have any idea what you are talking about.

I'll leave that topic for Scmike. Not interested in opening the doors of hell here.

It does determine something about our reality. It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true.

Purpose and function are two very different things.

I disagree. A function is the purpose for which something is carried out.



Well function must be the result of purpose. It doesn't make sense for something to have purposeless function.

Again, you stated: "It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true". The only reason this sentence sounds compelling to you is because of the fact that function is merely something we recognize. So it would be absurd to find out that something we do in fact objectively recognize is not actually there. But this is the problem, when someone points out that the loss of function is not the result of atheism you go on to defend your point by striping it of it's meaning and then seemingly think that your defense means that the point still stands. It doesn't. If "function" = "purpose" then your statement never meant anything in the first place.

It's not equivalent to purpose but it's the result of meaningful use or purpose.

To say that natural things appear to have purpose is begging the question. You have to establish how we go about determining the appearance of purpose first, and that's where the argument fails miserably.

If you asked people on the street if the heart serves any apparent purpose what do you think they would say?

That's completely irrelevant. If your conclusion is built on a logical fallacy then it makes no difference whether other people fall prey to the same logical fallacy. I used to think that my heart was designed for a purpose, until I stopped to think about what that meant and why I believed it.

Common sense tends to be the most rational course of action. If the heart very much appears to have a purpose then it probably does. The only thing that would change people's mind is a commitment to a presupposition that it cannot. Did you think your heart had purpose while you were an atheist?

The heart wouldn't have any function if atheism is true aside from the function we give it. It doesn't matter if specific is used or not. A function automatically entails that it is for an end.

No. It doesn't.

Funtion: an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
https://www.google.com...

Well that's a charitable take on the definition but let's look at what it means: an activity natural to a person or thing. This would just means that a function is a means for action which is not even close to the meaning of the word. Synonyms include purpose (not including in the actual definition you gave), role, use, and task. Take a look at merriam-Webster:

Function : the special purpose or activity for which a thing exists or is used

Function:
2 :the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists :purpose
http://i.word.com...

By studying the specificity of its function in relation to the overall system of the organism. It appears to serve a very specific function in relation to the overall system.

Determining that an organ plays a crucial role in the survival of a life form means that if the organ was not present the life form would be dead. Nothing about this infers design.

what does it matter if the life form is dead rather than alive? look up the definition of "design" and get back to me.

It doesn't. That's my point. Your entire argument, whether you realize this or not, rests on the presumption of some divine desire for the organism to survive. That's the whole point of designing something... to serve a purpose. Purpose is nothing more than the result of a decision to fulfill a desire.

That's like saying a tv remote is built on the assumption that it's for controlling the tv with. We assume that the purpose of our brain is for controlling our body. But nope, the most rational course of action is assume that our brain is just there for no reason and isn't actually useful towards anything.

You are strawmanning what you call "the most rational course of action" here. We do not "assume that the purpose (in the current context of using this word) of our brain is..." Rather, we OBSERVE the FUNCTION of the brain.

What function? There can't be any function of the brain if atheism is true. If atheism is true ultimately every natural thing is the result of mindless process and mindlessness can't produce the intentionality and knowledge necessary to be considered a function. If you define function as "an activity natural to a thing" then the function of the brain is equally to slosh around in the skull as it is to control the human body.

Nonsense. There isn't even anything to rebut here other than to call it BS. You are in no position to detail the misconceptions inherent to atheism as you cannot even comprehend atheism in the first place.

What's the function of the brain? I'll I ask is that you don't contradict yourself. Deal?

Here's a list of various parts and functions of the brain we have observed thus far:

http://www.md-health.com...

In brief, it assists in my survival along with other organs and is necessary for the survival of all animals. However, it is not necessary to the survival of plants and Protozoa...

Did I contradict myself just then in your opinion?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 10:44:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 10:32:10 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:20:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:15:40 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:55:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:46:14 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:51:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:50:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:29:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 1:23:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
<clipped for space>

I have to go by the meaning of the words themselves. You still treat nonbelief and disbelief as if they mean the exact same thing.

Ask that to the many Christains who use God in this way. Presuppositional apologists for example claim that God accounts for the laws of logic. How exactly does that work? No idea, but he's God so he explains everything.

Ah, the transcendental argument. Personally I believe that if atheism is true, reality is illusory.

That makes. Absolutely. No sense.

Look up "the transcendental argument".

So the argument that knowledge is possible only if God exists has merit in my eyes.

The idea that knowledge is contingent on the existence of a God is a complete redefinition of the word knowledge. I no longer have any idea what you are talking about.

I'll leave that topic for Scmike. Not interested in opening the doors of hell here.

It does determine something about our reality. It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true.

Purpose and function are two very different things.

I disagree. A function is the purpose for which something is carried out.



Well function must be the result of purpose. It doesn't make sense for something to have purposeless function.

Again, you stated: "It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true". The only reason this sentence sounds compelling to you is because of the fact that function is merely something we recognize. So it would be absurd to find out that something we do in fact objectively recognize is not actually there. But this is the problem, when someone points out that the loss of function is not the result of atheism you go on to defend your point by striping it of it's meaning and then seemingly think that your defense means that the point still stands. It doesn't. If "function" = "purpose" then your statement never meant anything in the first place.

It's not equivalent to purpose but it's the result of meaningful use or purpose.

To say that natural things appear to have purpose is begging the question. You have to establish how we go about determining the appearance of purpose first, and that's where the argument fails miserably.

If you asked people on the street if the heart serves any apparent purpose what do you think they would say?

That's completely irrelevant. If your conclusion is built on a logical fallacy then it makes no difference whether other people fall prey to the same logical fallacy. I used to think that my heart was designed for a purpose, until I stopped to think about what that meant and why I believed it.

Common sense tends to be the most rational course of action. If the heart very much appears to have a purpose then it probably does. The only thing that would change people's mind is a commitment to a presupposition that it cannot. Did you think your heart had purpose while you were an atheist?

The heart wouldn't have any function if atheism is true aside from the function we give it. It doesn't matter if specific is used or not. A function automatically entails that it is for an end.

No. It doesn't.

Funtion: an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
https://www.google.com...

Well that's a charitable take on the definition but let's look at what it means: an activity natural to a person or thing. This would just means that a function is a means for action which is not even close to the meaning of the word. Synonyms include purpose (not including in the actual definition you gave), role, use, and task. Take a look at merriam-Webster:

Function : the special purpose or activity for which a thing exists or is used

Function:
2 :the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists :purpose
http://i.word.com...

By studying the specificity of its function in relation to the overall system of the organism. It appears to serve a very specific function in relation to the overall system.
like saying a tv remote is built on the assumption that it's for controlling the tv with. We assume that the purpose of our brain is for controlling our body. But nope, the most rational course of action is assume that our brain is just there for no reason and isn't actually useful towards anything.

You are strawmanning what you call "the most rational course of action" here. We do not "assume that the purpose (in the current context of using this word) of our brain is..." Rather, we OBSERVE the FUNCTION of the brain.

What function? There can't be any function of the brain if atheism is true. If atheism is true ultimately every natural thing is the result of mindless process and mindlessness can't produce the intentionality and knowledge necessary to be considered a function. If you define function as "an activity natural to a thing" then the function of the brain is equally to slosh around in the skull as it is to control the human body.

Nonsense. There isn't even anything to rebut here other than to call it BS. You are in no position to detail the misconceptions inherent to atheism as you cannot even comprehend atheism in the first place.

What's the function of the brain? I'll I ask is that you don't contradict yourself. Deal?

Here's a list of various parts and functions of the brain we have observed thus far:

http://www.md-health.com......

In brief, it assists in my survival along with other organs and is necessary for the survival of all animals. However, it is not necessary to the survival of plants and Protozoa...

Did I contradict myself just then in your opinion?

Yes you've contradicted yourself unless you believe that evolution isn't a mindless, undirected process.
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 10:57:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 10:44:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:32:10 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:20:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:15:40 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:55:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:46:14 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:51:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:50:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:29:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 1:23:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
<clipped for space>


I'll leave that topic for Scmike. Not interested in opening the doors of hell here.

It does determine something about our reality. It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true.

Purpose and function are two very different things.

I disagree. A function is the purpose for which something is carried out.



Well function must be the result of purpose. It doesn't make sense for something to have purposeless function.

Again, you stated: "It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true". The only reason this sentence sounds compelling to you is because of the fact that function is merely something we recognize. So it would be absurd to find out that something we do in fact objectively recognize is not actually there. But this is the problem, when someone points out that the loss of function is not the result of atheism you go on to defend your point by striping it of it's meaning and then seemingly think that your defense means that the point still stands. It doesn't. If "function" = "purpose" then your statement never meant anything in the first place.

It's not equivalent to purpose but it's the result of meaningful use or purpose.

To say that natural things appear to have purpose is begging the question. You have to establish how we go about determining the appearance of purpose first, and that's where the argument fails miserably.

If you asked people on the street if the heart serves any apparent purpose what do you think they would say?

That's completely irrelevant. If your conclusion is built on a logical fallacy then it makes no difference whether other people fall prey to the same logical fallacy. I used to think that my heart was designed for a purpose, until I stopped to think about what that meant and why I believed it.

Common sense tends to be the most rational course of action. If the heart very much appears to have a purpose then it probably does. The only thing that would change people's mind is a commitment to a presupposition that it cannot. Did you think your heart had purpose while you were an atheist?

The heart wouldn't have any function if atheism is true aside from the function we give it. It doesn't matter if specific is used or not. A function automatically entails that it is for an end.

No. It doesn't.

Funtion: an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
https://www.google.com...

Well that's a charitable take on the definition but let's look at what it means: an activity natural to a person or thing. This would just means that a function is a means for action which is not even close to the meaning of the word. Synonyms include purpose (not including in the actual definition you gave), role, use, and task. Take a look at merriam-Webster:

Function : the special purpose or activity for which a thing exists or is used

Function:
2 :the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists :purpose
http://i.word.com...

By studying the specificity of its function in relation to the overall system of the organism. It appears to serve a very specific function in relation to the overall system.
like saying a tv remote is built on the assumption that it's for controlling the tv with. We assume that the purpose of our brain is for controlling our body. But nope, the most rational course of action is assume that our brain is just there for no reason and isn't actually useful towards anything.

You are strawmanning what you call "the most rational course of action" here. We do not "assume that the purpose (in the current context of using this word) of our brain is..." Rather, we OBSERVE the FUNCTION of the brain.

What function? There can't be any function of the brain if atheism is true. If atheism is true ultimately every natural thing is the result of mindless process and mindlessness can't produce the intentionality and knowledge necessary to be considered a function. If you define function as "an activity natural to a thing" then the function of the brain is equally to slosh around in the skull as it is to control the human body.

Nonsense. There isn't even anything to rebut here other than to call it BS. You are in no position to detail the misconceptions inherent to atheism as you cannot even comprehend atheism in the first place.

What's the function of the brain? I'll I ask is that you don't contradict yourself. Deal?

Here's a list of various parts and functions of the brain we have observed thus far:

http://www.md-health.com......

In brief, it assists in my survival along with other organs and is necessary for the survival of all animals. However, it is not necessary to the survival of plants and Protozoa...

Did I contradict myself just then in your opinion?

Yes you've contradicted yourself unless you believe that evolution isn't a mindless, undirected process.

Says you. Again, you demonstrate only that you do not comprehend the atheist view. Here, let me give you my explanation by way of analogy:

What is the purpose of a pothole in the street? Nothing. It doesn't even have a function (yet). Then it rains. Now, the pothole is holding a pool of water. We then observe that its current function is to hold that pool of water.

You also show that you don't fully understand evolution fundamentals, either. It is not "undirected" per se-- it is directed by Natural Selection, which does not require a mind in order to work as it does...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 11:01:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 10:57:28 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:44:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:32:10 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:20:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:15:40 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:55:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:46:14 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:51:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:50:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:29:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 1:23:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
<clipped for space>


I'll leave that topic for Scmike. Not interested in opening the doors of hell here.

It does determine something about our reality. It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true.

Purpose and function are two very different things.

I disagree. A function is the purpose for which something is carried out.



Well function must be the result of purpose. It doesn't make sense for something to have purposeless function.

Again, you stated: "It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true". The only reason this sentence sounds compelling to you is because of the fact that function is merely something we recognize. So it would be absurd to find out that something we do in fact objectively recognize is not actually there. But this is the problem, when someone points out that the loss of function is not the result of atheism you go on to defend your point by striping it of it's meaning and then seemingly think that your defense means that the point still stands. It doesn't. If "function" = "purpose" then your statement never meant anything in the first place.

It's not equivalent to purpose but it's the result of meaningful use or purpose.

To say that natural things appear to have purpose is begging the question. You have to establish how we go about determining the appearance of purpose first, and that's where the argument fails miserably.

If you asked people on the street if the heart serves any apparent purpose what do you think they would say?

That's completely irrelevant. If your conclusion is built on a logical fallacy then it makes no difference whether other people fall prey to the same logical fallacy. I used to think that my heart was designed for a purpose, until I stopped to think about what that meant and why I believed it.

Common sense tends to be the most rational course of action. If the heart very much appears to have a purpose then it probably does. The only thing that would change people's mind is a commitment to a presupposition that it cannot. Did you think your heart had purpose while you were an atheist?

The heart wouldn't have any function if atheism is true aside from the function we give it. It doesn't matter if specific is used or not. A function automatically entails that it is for an end.

No. It doesn't.

Funtion: an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
https://www.google.com...

Well that's a charitable take on the definition but let's look at what it means: an activity natural to a person or thing. This would just means that a function is a means for action which is not even close to the meaning of the word. Synonyms include purpose (not including in the actual definition you gave), role, use, and task. Take a look at merriam-Webster:

Function : the special purpose or activity for which a thing exists or is used

Function:
2 :the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists :purpose
http://i.word.com...

By studying the specificity of its function in relation to the overall system of the organism. It appears to serve a very specific function in relation to the overall system.
like saying a tv remote is built on the assumption that it's for controlling the tv with. We assume that the purpose of our brain is for controlling our body. But nope, the most rational course of action is assume that our brain is just there for no reason and isn't actually useful towards anything.

You are strawmanning what you call "the most rational course of action" here. We do not "assume that the purpose (in the current context of using this word) of our brain is..." Rather, we OBSERVE the FUNCTION of the brain.

What function? There can't be any function of the brain if atheism is true. If atheism is true ultimately every natural thing is the result of mindless process and mindlessness can't produce the intentionality and knowledge necessary to be considered a function. If you define function as "an activity natural to a thing" then the function of the brain is equally to slosh around in the skull as it is to control the human body.

Nonsense. There isn't even anything to rebut here other than to call it BS. You are in no position to detail the misconceptions inherent to atheism as you cannot even comprehend atheism in the first place.

What's the function of the brain? I'll I ask is that you don't contradict yourself. Deal?

Here's a list of various parts and functions of the brain we have observed thus far:

http://www.md-health.com......

In brief, it assists in my survival along with other organs and is necessary for the survival of all animals. However, it is not necessary to the survival of plants and Protozoa...

Did I contradict myself just then in your opinion?

Yes you've contradicted yourself unless you believe that evolution isn't a mindless, undirected process.

Says you. Again, you demonstrate only that you do not comprehend the atheist view. Here, let me give you my explanation by way of analogy:

What is the purpose of a pothole in the street? Nothing. It doesn't even have a function (yet). Then it rains. Now, the pothole is holding a pool of water. We then observe that its current function is to hold that pool of water.

Oh wow. That isn't an example of a function.

You also show that you don't fully understand evolution fundamentals, either. It is not "undirected" per se-- it is directed by Natural Selection, which does not require a mind in order to work as it does...

Nothing can be "directed" if it's solely governed by a mindless process.
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 11:23:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 11:01:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:57:28 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:44:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:32:10 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:20:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:15:40 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:55:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:46:14 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:51:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:50:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:29:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 1:23:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
<clipped for space>


I'll leave that topic for Scmike. Not interested in opening the doors of hell here.


Purpose and function are two very different things.

I disagree. A function is the purpose for which something is carried out.



Well function must be the result of purpose. It doesn't make sense for something to have purposeless function.

Again, you stated: "It determines that natural things which appear to have purpose or specific function don't actually have a purpose or specific function if atheism is true". The only reason this sentence sounds compelling to you is because of the fact that function is merely something we recognize. So it would be absurd to find out that something we do in fact objectively recognize is not actually there. But this is the problem, when someone points out that the loss of function is not the result of atheism you go on to defend your point by striping it of it's meaning and then seemingly think that your defense means that the point still stands. It doesn't. If "function" = "purpose" then your statement never meant anything in the first place.

It's not equivalent to purpose but it's the result of meaningful use or purpose.

To say that natural things appear to have purpose is begging the question. You have to establish how we go about determining the appearance of purpose first, and that's where the argument fails miserably.

If you asked people on the street if the heart serves any apparent purpose what do you think they would say?

That's completely irrelevant. If your conclusion is built on a logical fallacy then it makes no difference whether other people fall prey to the same logical fallacy. I used to think that my heart was designed for a purpose, until I stopped to think about what that meant and why I believed it.

Common sense tends to be the most rational course of action. If the heart very much appears to have a purpose then it probably does. The only thing that would change people's mind is a commitment to a presupposition that it cannot. Did you think your heart had purpose while you were an atheist?

The heart wouldn't have any function if atheism is true aside from the function we give it. It doesn't matter if specific is used or not. A function automatically entails that it is for an end.

No. It doesn't.

Funtion: an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
https://www.google.com...

Well that's a charitable take on the definition but let's look at what it means: an activity natural to a person or thing. This would just means that a function is a means for action which is not even close to the meaning of the word. Synonyms include purpose (not including in the actual definition you gave), role, use, and task. Take a look at merriam-Webster:

Function : the special purpose or activity for which a thing exists or is used

Function:
2 :the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists :purpose
http://i.word.com...

By studying the specificity of its function in relation to the overall system of the organism. It appears to serve a very specific function in relation to the overall system.
like saying a tv remote is built on the assumption that it's for controlling the tv with. We assume that the purpose of our brain is for controlling our body. But nope, the most rational course of action is assume that our brain is just there for no reason and isn't actually useful towards anything.

You are strawmanning what you call "the most rational course of action" here. We do not "assume that the purpose (in the current context of using this word) of our brain is..." Rather, we OBSERVE the FUNCTION of the brain.

What function? There can't be any function of the brain if atheism is true. If atheism is true ultimately every natural thing is the result of mindless process and mindlessness can't produce the intentionality and knowledge necessary to be considered a function. If you define function as "an activity natural to a thing" then the function of the brain is equally to slosh around in the skull as it is to control the human body.

Nonsense. There isn't even anything to rebut here other than to call it BS. You are in no position to detail the misconceptions inherent to atheism as you cannot even comprehend atheism in the first place.

What's the function of the brain? I'll I ask is that you don't contradict yourself. Deal?

Here's a list of various parts and functions of the brain we have observed thus far:

http://www.md-health.com......

In brief, it assists in my survival along with other organs and is necessary for the survival of all animals. However, it is not necessary to the survival of plants and Protozoa...

Did I contradict myself just then in your opinion?

Yes you've contradicted yourself unless you believe that evolution isn't a mindless, undirected process.

Says you. Again, you demonstrate only that you do not comprehend the atheist view. Here, let me give you my explanation by way of analogy:

What is the purpose of a pothole in the street? Nothing. It doesn't even have a function (yet). Then it rains. Now, the pothole is holding a pool of water. We then observe that its current function is to hold that pool of water.

Oh wow. That isn't an example of a function.

Sounds like a disagreement over semantics coming on. What would you call the... er, deed of holding water, then?

You also show that you don't fully understand evolution fundamentals, either. It is not "undirected" per se-- it is directed by Natural Selection, which does not require a mind in order to work as it does...

Nothing can be "directed" if it's solely governed by a mindless process.

Again, says you. If you throw a ball upwards, gravity then directs it downwards. In case you have a problem with the thrower being alive, then I will remind you that gravity directs objects in absence of life as well (in fact more so).
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 11:40:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 11:23:52 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 11:01:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:57:28 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:44:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:32:10 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:20:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:15:40 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:55:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:46:14 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:51:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:50:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:29:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 1:23:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
<clipped for space>


I'll leave that topic for Scmike. Not interested in opening the doors of hell here.


Purpose and function are two very different things.

I disagree. A function is the purpose for which something is carried out.



Well function must be the result of purpose. It doesn't make sense for something to have purposeless function.


It's not equivalent to purpose but it's the result of meaningful use or purpose.

To say that natural things appear to have purpose is begging the question. You have to establish how we go about determining the appearance of purpose first, and that's where the argument fails miserably.

If you asked people on the street if the heart serves any apparent purpose what do you think they would say?

That's completely irrelevant. If your conclusion is built on a logical fallacy then it makes no difference whether other people fall prey to the same logical fallacy. I used to think that my heart was designed for a purpose, until I stopped to think about what that meant and why I believed it.

Common sense tends to be the most rational course of action. If the heart very much appears to have a purpose then it probably does. The only thing that would change people's mind is a commitment to a presupposition that it cannot. Did you think your heart had purpose while you were an atheist?

The heart wouldn't have any function if atheism is true aside from the function we give it. It doesn't matter if specific is used or not. A function automatically entails that it is for an end.

No. It doesn't.

Funtion: an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
https://www.google.com...

Well that's a charitable take on the definition but let's look at what it means: an activity natural to a person or thing. This would just means that a function is a means for action which is not even close to the meaning of the word. Synonyms include purpose (not including in the actual definition you gave), role, use, and task. Take a look at merriam-Webster:

Function : the special purpose or activity for which a thing exists or is used

Function:
2 :the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists :purpose
http://i.word.com...

By studying the specificity of its function in relation to the overall system of the organism. It appears to serve a very specific function in relation to the overall system.
like saying a tv remote is built on the assumption that it's for controlling the tv with. We assume that the purpose of our brain is for controlling our body. But nope, the most rational course of action is assume that our brain is just there for no reason and isn't actually useful towards anything.

You are strawmanning what you call "the most rational course of action" here. We do not "assume that the purpose (in the current context of using this word) of our brain is..." Rather, we OBSERVE the FUNCTION of the brain.

What function? There can't be any function of the brain if atheism is true. If atheism is true ultimately every natural thing is the result of mindless process and mindlessness can't produce the intentionality and knowledge necessary to be considered a function. If you define function as "an activity natural to a thing" then the function of the brain is equally to slosh around in the skull as it is to control the human body.

Nonsense. There isn't even anything to rebut here other than to call it BS. You are in no position to detail the misconceptions inherent to atheism as you cannot even comprehend atheism in the first place.

What's the function of the brain? I'll I ask is that you don't contradict yourself. Deal?

Here's a list of various parts and functions of the brain we have observed thus far:

http://www.md-health.com......

In brief, it assists in my survival along with other organs and is necessary for the survival of all animals. However, it is not necessary to the survival of plants and Protozoa...

Did I contradict myself just then in your opinion?

Yes you've contradicted yourself unless you believe that evolution isn't a mindless, undirected process.

Says you. Again, you demonstrate only that you do not comprehend the atheist view. Here, let me give you my explanation by way of analogy:

What is the purpose of a pothole in the street? Nothing. It doesn't even have a function (yet). Then it rains. Now, the pothole is holding a pool of water. We then observe that its current function is to hold that pool of water.

Oh wow. That isn't an example of a function.

Sounds like a disagreement over semantics coming on. What would you call the... er, deed of holding water, then?

Inconsequential happenstance. Actually look up the definition of function and apply it to a pothole that happened to fill with rain water.

You also show that you don't fully understand evolution fundamentals, either. It is not "undirected" per se-- it is directed by Natural Selection, which does not require a mind in order to work as it does...

Nothing can be "directed" if it's solely governed by a mindless process.

Again, says you. If you throw a ball upwards, gravity then directs it downwards. In case you have a problem with the thrower being alive, then I will remind yo

It's falling downwards from a subjective perspective. Direction is relative to the observer. Directedness doesn't actually exist as part of nature.
Romanii
Posts: 4,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 11:57:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 10:53:36 PM, SM2 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 9:49:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Hitchen's razor is asserted without evidence and can be dismissed without evidence.

No, because it's a razor. Please familiarize yourself with what a razor is and how it works.

Why shouldn't a "razor" be subject to its own criterion? You also failed to grasp this concept with Alder's Razor. You seem to completely lack comprehension of what circular reasoning is -- it's literally one of the most basic (and most frequently-used) logical fallacies out there. Perhaps you should first familiarize yourself with that, before trying to lecture others on much more complicated topics.
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 11:57:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 11:40:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 11:23:52 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 11:01:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:57:28 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:44:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:32:10 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:20:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:15:40 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:55:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:46:14 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:24:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:51:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:50:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:29:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/30/2015 1:23:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
<clipped for space>

To say that natural things appear to have purpose is begging the question. You have to establish how we go about determining the appearance of purpose first, and that's where the argument fails miserably.

If you asked people on the street if the heart serves any apparent purpose what do you think they would say?

That's completely irrelevant. If your conclusion is built on a logical fallacy then it makes no difference whether other people fall prey to the same logical fallacy. I used to think that my heart was designed for a purpose, until I stopped to think about what that meant and why I believed it.

Common sense tends to be the most rational course of action. If the heart very much appears to have a purpose then it probably does. The only thing that would change people's mind is a commitment to a presupposition that it cannot. Did you think your heart had purpose while you were an atheist?

The heart wouldn't have any function if atheism is true aside from the function we give it. It doesn't matter if specific is used or not. A function automatically entails that it is for an end.

No. It doesn't.

Funtion: an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
https://www.google.com...

Well that's a charitable take on the definition but let's look at what it means: an activity natural to a person or thing. This would just means that a function is a means for action which is not even close to the meaning of the word. Synonyms include purpose (not including in the actual definition you gave), role, use, and task. Take a look at merriam-Webster:

Function : the special purpose or activity for which a thing exists or is used

Function:
2 :the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists :purpose
http://i.word.com...

By studying the specificity of its function in relation to the overall system of the organism. It appears to serve a very specific function in relation to the overall system.
like saying a tv remote is built on the assumption that it's for controlling the tv with. We assume that the purpose of our brain is for controlling our body. But nope, the most rational course of action is assume that our brain is just there for no reason and isn't actually useful towards anything.

You are strawmanning what you call "the most rational course of action" here. We do not "assume that the purpose (in the current context of using this word) of our brain is..." Rather, we OBSERVE the FUNCTION of the brain.

What function? There can't be any function of the brain if atheism is true. If atheism is true ultimately every natural thing is the result of mindless process and mindlessness can't produce the intentionality and knowledge necessary to be considered a function. If you define function as "an activity natural to a thing" then the function of the brain is equally to slosh around in the skull as it is to control the human body.

Nonsense. There isn't even anything to rebut here other than to call it BS. You are in no position to detail the misconceptions inherent to atheism as you cannot even comprehend atheism in the first place.

What's the function of the brain? I'll I ask is that you don't contradict yourself. Deal?

Here's a list of various parts and functions of the brain we have observed thus far:

http://www.md-health.com......

In brief, it assists in my survival along with other organs and is necessary for the survival of all animals. However, it is not necessary to the survival of plants and Protozoa...

Did I contradict myself just then in your opinion?

Yes you've contradicted yourself unless you believe that evolution isn't a mindless, undirected process.

Says you. Again, you demonstrate only that you do not comprehend the atheist view. Here, let me give you my explanation by way of analogy:

What is the purpose of a pothole in the street? Nothing. It doesn't even have a function (yet). Then it rains. Now, the pothole is holding a pool of water. We then observe that its current function is to hold that pool of water.

Oh wow. That isn't an example of a function.

Sounds like a disagreement over semantics coming on. What would you call the... er, deed of holding water, then?

Inconsequential happenstance. Actually look up the definition of function and apply it to a pothole that happened to fill with rain water.

Function:
1.
an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
"bridges perform the function of providing access across water"
synonyms:purpose, task, use, role More

Tailored to the pothole holding water: "an activity natural to a thing."

You also show that you don't fully understand evolution fundamentals, either. It is not "undirected" per se-- it is directed by Natural Selection, which does not require a mind in order to work as it does...

Nothing can be "directed" if it's solely governed by a mindless process.

Again, says you. If you throw a ball upwards, gravity then directs it downwards. In case you have a problem with the thrower being alive, then I will remind yo

It's falling downwards from a subjective perspective. Direction is relative to the observer. Directedness doesn't actually exist as part of nature.

Here's where I say, "Oh, wow." You are just being obstinate in the face of common sense and clear argumentation here.

To conform my example to your persnickety qualifiers: gravity DIRECTS objects in a direction toward the source of said gravitational force.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz