Can Atheist Arguments Ever Convince a Devout Theist?

[Ivan Seeking]

Gravity doesn't stop working if you stop having faith in it.

If God exists, his existence does not depend on faith.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I should add that gravity doesn't exist [well, not the classic idea]. There is spacetime curvature...that is if spacetime exists. One day we may have have a more sophisticated description of whatever it is.

 

[Tony11235]

If God exists, his existence does not depend on faith.

So far this god of most people seems to depend on faith. hehe.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So far this god of most people seems to depend on faith. hehe.

Not at all. The people depend on faith. According to most beliefs, God was around before there was anyone to have faith.

Explain existence without using faith.

 

[Tony11235]

Not at all. The people depend on faith. According to most beliefs, God was around before there was anyone to have faith.

Explain existence without using faith.

Now you're sounding very silly. I think I'll stop here. Believe what you want, I would need better reason.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You mean that you ran out of objections, and you know that existence can't be explained.

That's right. It's a choice based on faith either way.

 

[Tony11235]

You mean that you ran out of objections, and you know that existence can't be explained.

That's right. It's a choice based on faith either way.

Not at all.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Then show me the error in my logic.

 

[Tony11235]

Then show me the error in my logic.

We disagree on "everyday faith" and having faith in deities. Not quite the same. A lot of things for which you say you take on faith, you actually receive feedback.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What bothers people here is the idea that we are not logically bound as humans to accept only scientific evidence. But, if you think about it, you will certainly conclude that it's not even possible to live this way. We have to make judgements about what we choose to believe every day.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We disagree on "everyday faith" and having faith in deities.

How exactly do you define the difference? You have no knowledge of how others obtain their faith.

If you are arguing why you believe the way that you do, that's fine for you but not absolute. I don't mean to interfere with your faith.

 

[Tony11235]

There is only a certain degree of rationality that we can maintain as humans, I don't disagree with you there.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

late edit on my last post:

And we all have different experiences in life.

Another late edit: Like I said, I'm not trying to convert anyone because I wouldn't know what to tell you to believe, but I do understand why people choose to have faith in deities. I have also fallen into the logical trap of the requirement of proof for any belief. People who think they live this way are only deluding themselves. We make leaps of faith every day, and most are based on what we want to believe.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, one more thought that I've been meaning to throw in. This all applies both ways. Very religious people will often get angry when challenged about their beliefs. Clearly this is a fear reaction. They know that no matter how much they talk about belief, ultimately they are making a leap of faith the can't be defended. There is no way to resolve the issue through logic. If you choose to require scientific evidence before being willing to consider a claim, that is your choice. But let's not confuse pink elephants with religion. People make choices based on the sum of their life experiences. And unless a person has been religious and experienced the basis for belief in a deity, then IMO they lack a frame of reference critical to understanding religion.

 

[Doc Al]

I like Mark Twain's quip about religious faith: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

And Bertrand Russell's: "We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the Earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Russell has faith in his defintion.

 

[Brin]

Science itself requires a "leap of faith" - we assume that the universe is constant. Based on what? We use our past experiences as inductive evidence for the future - don't know about you, but that sounds like a "leap of faith."

None the less, it seems to have worked out for us so far.

I'd like to bring up the topic of "The Spaghetti Monster," and Santa Clause. I am going to assume you are all somewhat acquainted with these figures, and I want to know why anyone would not believe in these? Why is a god so much more believable over the existence of the Spaghetti Monster? Or Santa Clause? Especially to any single one individual here...

 

[DaveC426913]

Science itself requires a "leap of faith" - we assume that the universe is constant. Based on what? We use our past experiences as inductive evidence for the future - don't know about you, but that sounds like a "leap of faith."

No. The difference is that science as a principle welcomes the opportunity to be wrong.

We assume the universe is the same every where merely because it is the best road to more knowledge. The moment some aspect of that assumption turns out to be false, science as a principle is modify its outdated models.

I'd like to bring up the topic of "The Spaghetti Monster," and Santa Clause. I am going to assume you are all somewhat acquainted with these figures, and I want to know why anyone would not believe in these? Why is a god so much more believable over the existence of the Spaghetti Monster? Or Santa Clause? Especially to any single one individual here...

For the same reason that we follow The Standard Model rather than Mr. Gravity-is-a-Push; there is a preponderance of evidence that points towards The Standard Model, and that is factored in.

As with deities, there is a preponderance of evidence that weighs heavily in favour of God over the FSM.


Note: I am not saying preponderance means it's conclusive or inescapable, I'm just saying that it does point to a good place to put your bets and away from a bad place to put your bets.

 

[Doc Al]

For the same reason that we follow The Standard Model rather than Mr. Gravity-is-a-Push; there is a preponderance of evidence that points towards The Standard Model, and that is factored in.

As with deities, there is a preponderance of evidence that weighs heavily in favour of God over the FSM.

What evidence? Popularity and familiarity does not represent evidence. Bad example with the Standard Model, which has oodles of hard-core experimental evidence to back it up.

 

[LightbulbSun]

You mean that you ran out of objections, and you know that existence can't be explained.

That's right. It's a choice based on faith either way.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ScienceVFaith.jpg/ScienceVFaith-full.jpg"

Debunked.


Now you can choose to ignore all the scientific knowledge that has been incremented over the centuries and it doesn't change a thing. Reality doesn't require you to have faith in it.

 

[Hurkyl]

So, in your silly science versus faith flowchart... which side are we using if we have the idea

The scientific method can be used to help us explain the universe​

and we continue to keep that idea, despite all of the errors it had previously led us to believe?

 

[LightbulbSun]

So, in your silly science versus faith flowchart... which side are we using if we have the idea

The scientific method can be used to help us explain the universe​

and we continue to keep that idea, despite all of the errors it had previously led us to believe?

What errors exactly? Are you creating the strawman claim that science should automatically be omniscient to begin with otherwise it's useless? Religious people use that strawman all the time.

 

[Hurkyl]

What errors exactly? Are you creating the strawman claim that science should automatically be omniscient to begin with otherwise it's useless? Religious people use that strawman all the time.

No. I'm making the claim I actually implied.

When science runs into problems (e.g. incompatability of GR and QFT), do you even consider the possibility that science itself is the flawed idea? Or do you retain an unwavering faith in science itself, and insist that a new scientific theory will be discovered that doesn't have the known problems?

 

[GleefulNihilism]

What that we should give up using a rational, naturalistic attempt to find the secrets of the universe? To ridicule and cast aside that which raises us above the beasts, our ability to be rational and objective?

Hell no.

Plus, Science has built in self-improvement protocalls- flaws are hunted down and cut out daily.

 

[LightbulbSun]

No. I'm making the claim I actually implied.

When science runs into problems (e.g. incompatability of GR and QFT), do you even consider the possibility that science itself is the flawed idea? Or do you retain an unwavering faith in science itself, and insist that a new scientific theory will be discovered that doesn't have the known problems?

Now why would science be the flawed idea and not the theory being proposed itself? I don't have any unwavering faith. Scientific theories and laws are not meant to be sacrosanct. Look at that flowchart again. Do you see an end on the science side?

 

[Hurkyl]

Now why would science be the flawed idea and not the theory being proposed itself?

The point is whether or not you even considered that possibility.

I don't have any unwavering faith. Scientific theories and laws are not meant to be sacrosanct. Look at that flowchart again. Do you see an end on the science side?

I never said you treated any particular scientific theory or law was sacrosanct. I'm saying you treat science itself as sacrosanct.

The left hand flow chart indeed has no end -- which means there is no provision for the possibility that science itself is flawed. When contradictory evidence appears, you blissfully go back to your "Get an idea" box on the left hand flow chart -- that is the means by which you "keep idea forever".

 

[LightbulbSun]

The point is whether or not you even considered that possibility.

I don't. There isn't a better methodology than science, and until there is one then why should I consider it?

I never said you treated any particular scientific theory or law was sacrosanct. I'm saying you treat science itself as sacrosanct.

I don't. If there's a better methodology that can successfully replace science someday then I will use that methodology instead.

The left hand flow chart indeed has no end -- which means there is no provision for the possibility that science itself is flawed. When contradictory evidence appears, you blissfully go back to your "Get an idea" box on the left hand flow chart -- that is the means by which you "keep idea forever".

That's not necessairly true. Look at the flowchart again. You only go back to "get an idea" if the new evidence can't modify a theory. See how it's a self-correcting process while faith does not need to self-correct itself?

 

[Hurkyl]

Now why would science be the flawed idea and not the theory being proposed itself?

The point is whether or not you even considered that possibility.

I don't.

There is your faith.

 

[LightbulbSun]

There is your faith.

That's not faith. That's recognizing the fact that against all other methodologies that it's the best one, and will be until another methodology can surpass it. As a sports analogy if I say team X was the best team in a particular season because they won it all would you consider that faith or would you simply recognize it as me reasoning that against all other teams they were the only team that fulfilled their goal of winning the championship?

 

[Hurkyl]

That's not faith. That's recognizing the fact that against all other methodologies that it's the best one,

Nuh-uh. I'm not letting you squirm out of it that easily.

You said that you don't even consider the possibility that science is flawed. That's not the same thing as simply going along with science because you think it's better than the alternatives.