Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
That is exactly it, imo. Setting the bar artifically low for one claim and not others is special pleading, and we are all guilty of it. Those of us who are guilty of this along religious lines we call "theists".
After wasting so much time reading this thread (Evidence for Design) and the I can prove God Exists, is that a problem? thread, I am in complete agreement with Tin-Man in his post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=3....
rmfr
(sounds of heaving, hacking, and toilet flushing in background...)
I jumped off the damn thing a couple of says ago. When a logical exception is raised and the theist just goes on like he has not heard it. It is time to call him a troll and just let him talk to himself. The echo will work as well as a reply.
Ok I need to tell you that you called this one correctly days ago. He's either a troll or dumber than a bucket of hair, or both of course.
I notice you never answered the question
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=3...
at someone
yes he has. you just refuse to accept his answer. look at the attached image with this post. seem familiar?
rmfr
@arakish
Can you maybe link to and quote where he answered the question:
"Can tell from your experience that at least some of reality is experiencing?"
You might want to answer it also.
@Someone
"Can tell from your experience that at least some of reality is experiencing?"
???
rmfr
Yes the question he had kept avoiding, as was indicated in the link I supplied. You seemed to be suggesting he had answered it. So I was asking if you could provide a link and quote where he did. Had you not understood, and are not claiming that he had answered that question after all?
Actually the "???" meant you need to clarify that bullshit statement. It has absolutely no meaning.
And I shall answer it for you based on how you wrote. Answer = Me thinks you with English is too not good.
Final Answer = Your Question is moot and horse hoowhee.
Reality "experiences" NOTHING! And my "experiences" do NOT count as facts.
If am not mistaken, Sheldon answered with something similar.
rmfr
@arakish
It was simply a cut and paste error which you would have been able to tell had you of followed the conversation, and checked the link.
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=3... . In it I quote from where I had previously written:
---
I noticed you again avoided answering whether you realise you can tell from your experience that at least some of reality is experiencing.
---
I simply pasted from the word "can".
I should have just restated it as:
Can you tell from your experience that at least part of reality is experiencing?
This version is surely not too hard for you to comprehend.
If
(1) You are part of reality
and
(2) You are experiencing
then
(3) At least part of reality is experiencing
Which indicates that your experience is sufficient to be able to establish the fact that at least part of reality is experiencing.
Clearly it would be wrong from (1) and (2) to conclude:
(3) All of reality is experiencing
or
(3) None of reality is experiencing
[What I mean by reality is what exists, what has existed, and what can exist]
Then just say humans are conscious beings, and spare us the unnecessary verbiage.
"[What I mean by reality is what exists, what has existed, and what can exist]"
So not deities then, as you can demonstrate no objective evidence for any deity. Only spurious arguments based on vague overly verbose claims that are barely comprehensible fallacious tautologies.
The simple fact is that nothing supernatural has ever been evidenced, and is not needed to explain human consciousness. The material universe exists, organic life exists, evolution through natural selection has been demonstrated as true beyond a reasonable doubt by a massive weight of objective evidence. None of that evidences or requires a deity to explain it.
Hence your statement apart from being overly verbose, does not remotely evidence a deity or anything supernatural, as you keep insisting it does.
As I pointed out in post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=3... you repeatedly avoid answering whether you can tell from your experience that at least part of reality is experiencing?
If the readers wonder why Sheldon won't answer it is because he supported the assertion that "personal experiences carry zero weight in proving anything" and if he replies "yes" to the question then it will indicate that his personal experience was sufficient to prove to him that at least part of reality is experiencing, and therefore the assertion he supported was wrong.
Anyway, since my personal experience is enough to prove to me that at least part of reality is experiencing, I can know that his assertion was wrong. If your personal experience is enough to prove to you that at least part of reality is experiencing, then you can know also.
We're all aware that when confronted with cogent rebuttals of your asinine quiz you go on the attack, and lie shamelessly, as you have done here again.
Nevertheless the fact that humans are conscious beings still does not need a deity or anything supernatural to explain it, nor does it evidence any deity or anything supernatural.
Proven is a relative term, but the fact remains all you have offered is spurious arguments based on vague overly verbose claims that are barely comprehensible fallacious tautologies. It is a fact that nothing supernatural has ever been evidenced, nor is it needed to explain human consciousness. The material universe exists, organic life exists, evolution through natural selection has been demonstrated as true beyond any reasonable doubt by a massive weight of objective evidence. None of that evidences or requires a deity to explain it.
So again despite you ignoring this, it is still true that your statement apart from being overly verbose, does not remotely evidence a deity or anything supernatural, though you keep insisting it does, over and over and over. You have nothing new to offer, that much is clear. This is the trouble when someone plagiarises a specious arguments they think is compelling, but doesn't fully grasp the subject.
I have offered arguments, the only rebuttal to which have so far been that personal experience cannot prove anything, and I have demolished that rebuttal by way of counter example to the assertion.
And in the post you are replying http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=4... I pointed out the question you won't answer and explained why you won't answer it, and again here you avoided answering it. Though it doesn't matter whether you answered or not because the other readers can tell the answer for themselves, they don't need you to answer it for them.
Furthermore, in the previous post to that ( http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=4... ) I had illustrated in the form of a logical argument how you can tell that the answer to the question "can you can tell from your experience that at least part of reality is experiencing?" is yes.
If
(1) You are part of reality
and
(2) You are experiencing
then
(3) At least part of reality is experiencing
Were you going to point out a fault with the reasoning. No. You aren't capable.
I pointed out the fault in it above.
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=4...
It is false to claim the only rebuttal has been " that personal experience cannot prove anything, ". In fact I never said this, and I said why the claim is flawed, but you have ignored that as well. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by repetition of your claims, especially the false ones. I explicitly outlined the limits of personal experience as evidence. I have never said that it cannot prove anything, and pointed out that the word proof here is relative.
Maybe if you spent some time researching philosophical epistemology it would help make up for your poor grasp of written English, as I feel this is major stumbling block to your understanding of the objections others have raise to your specious claims.
For what it is worth here was my objection that you ignored:
"Proven is a relative term, but the fact remains all you have offered is spurious arguments based on vague overly verbose claims that are barely comprehensible fallacious tautologies. It is a fact that nothing supernatural has ever been evidenced, nor is it needed to explain human consciousness. The material universe exists, organic life exists, evolution through natural selection has been demonstrated as true beyond any reasonable doubt by a massive weight of objective evidence. None of that evidences or requires a deity to explain it."
Again your dishonest claim about what I had posted regarding personal experience is evident from that part of my post. Despite you ignoring this of course, as you have ignored the fact that objective evidence validates claims independently of personal or subjective experience. it is simply incorrect to claim there is no such thing as objective truth, the earth is round, the sun is hot, gravity and evolution are real etc etc. These things are objectively true and were so even when human experience said otherwise.
Anyway I have to go to bed now, as I have an early start.
@Sheldon
You wrote:
---
It is false to claim the only rebuttal has been " that personal experience cannot prove anything, ". In fact I never said this, and I said why the claim is flawed, but you have ignored that as well.
---
You can see in post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design#commen... I started putting an attempt at a rebuttal into a logical argument
---
1) Our experiences are personal and unique. What I see and experience can differ from someone standing right beside me. As human beings, we are selfish and have egos. Thus, for many, their personal experiences are self-centered. That was displayed with such popular concepts as the earth being the centre of everything.
2) And I know of too many people who believe the earth rotates around them and that their shit doesn't stink.
Therefore
3) For these reasons personal experiences carry zero weight in proving anything
---
and I pointed out that (3) did not follow from premises (1) and (2). And you in post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design#commen... can be seen stating "*Actually it does follow, ..." directly under where you were quoting me write (3) does not follow from premises (1) and (2). So if you thought it followed, but was not actually true, then presumably you thought one of the premises was wrong. If so which one? Or were you agreeing with the premises, and agreeing with the logic, but then pointing out how that could be the case and (3) still be wrong?
Though anyone only has to read the post to see that you were supporting the statement:
---
*Actually it does follow, since personal experience includes subjective beliefs that can be demonstrated to be objectively false, then it (personal experience) is axiomatically useless for validating beliefs.
---
I have pointed out how I rebutted that attempt at a rebuttal to the arguments I supplied again and again, as can be seen in post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=4...
As for you claim that there have been other rebuttals, perhaps you are counting your claims that the arguments I provided involved fallacious tautologies. But those claims carry no weight when you fail to point them out. Perhaps paraphrase whichever of the arguments you think you see a mistake in (just to ensure you aren't creating a strawman), then point out the flaw.
2) And I know of too many people who believe the earth rotates around them and that their shit doesn't stink.
And I am beginning to see a resemblance here...
rmfr
So it's your claim about personal experience not mine, as I said. You lied and attributed it to me. It is my personal experience that the world is round, is that not also an objective fact now? You're using absolutes and rhetoric and worse you seem to be stuck on repeat mode.
Human consciousness doesn't need a deity to explain it. Human consciousness evolved through natural selection as did all life.
You can demonstrate no objective evidence for your claims. I pointed out your fallacious tautologies when you first posted them and several times since. I'm not going to waste my time repeating them as you will just ignore them as you have ignored much of my post here.
Personal experience can be subjectivecand therefore wrong is what I said. I didn't say it was useless and I never mentioned proof.
Objective evidence is used to validate claims as personal experience ALONE is flawed.
Are you going to ignore this again and lie about what I've posted again?
Humans are conscious beings who experience reality. This doesn't evidence a deity or anything supernatural, and you have failed to offer any objective evidence for your claim it does, beyond bare assertion and repetition. Using fallacious tautologies like a deity created conscious humans who experience reality, and the evidence is that there are conscious beings who experience reality.
You then go on to use an argument from ignorance fallacy, simply assertion again without evidence that such being need a creator deity.
And around and around your circular fallacious argument goes.
@ Sheldon
The claim that "personal experiences carry zero weight in proving anything" was first put forward by David Killens http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design#commen...
---
Our experiences are personal and unique. What I see and experience can differ from someone standing right beside me. As human beings, we are selfish and have egos. Thus, for many, their personal experiences are self-centered. That was displayed with such popular concepts as the earth being the center of everything.
And I know of too many people who believe the earth rotates around them and that their shit doesn't stink.
Additionally, if a puddle of water was capable of self realization, would it assume that the ground was designed for them, or did the water just take the shape of the hole?
For these reasons personal experiences carry zero weight in proving anything.
---
I transformed what he was stating into a logical argument and pointed out that his conclusion did not follow from the reasons he gave, as I stated in the post you were replying to http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=4... . I also supplied the link to the post where you supported the claim that David Killens made http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design#commen... . You then onto then claim that what David Killens had claimed did follow from the reasons he gave. So you were making the same claim as David Killens.
Are you denying that you wrote:
---
...since personal experience includes subjective beliefs that can be demonstrated to be objectively false, then it (personal experience) is axiomatically useless for validating beliefs
---
?
Also I wrote out the reasoning in the post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=4... that illustrates your claim is false.
If
(1) You are part of reality
and
(2) You are experiencing
then
(3) At least part of reality is experiencing
Since the experience was an axiom that was used to validate the belief that at least part of reality is experiencing.
You aren't capable of pointing out a flaw with the reasoning. So regarding your assertion "since personal experience includes subjective beliefs that can be demonstrated to be objectively false, then it (personal experience) is axiomatically useless for validating beliefs" you were wrong, and I showed it.
And I am sure that those on the forum are capable of noticing that at the end of the post you were replying to http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=4... I had written:
---
I have pointed out how I rebutted that attempt at a rebuttal to the arguments I supplied again and again, as can be seen in post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=4...
As for you claim that there have been other rebuttals, perhaps you are counting your claims that the arguments I provided involved fallacious tautologies. But those claims carry no weight when you fail to point them out. Perhaps paraphrase whichever of the arguments you think you see a mistake in (just to ensure you aren't creating a strawman), then point out the flaw.
---
Did you take up the challenge and paraphrase the arguments, and point out a flaw in them.... no. I wonder why? That was sarcasm by the way. I gave two arguments for evidence of design and you couldn't point out a flaw with either. All you could do was dishonestly pretend you had.
No sure how many times you need the word ALONE capitalised before you stop misrepresenting what I am saying about personal experience. Personal experience can be objectively wrong, but not always, we've been though this so I have no idea why you insist on pretending you don't get it.
Here from page 1 http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design#commen...
If personal experience can be wrong then we need a method for validating which experiences are objectively true, and which not, as personal experience ****ALONE**** is useless since we have no way of knowing when it correct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
" I gave two arguments for evidence of design and you couldn't point out a flaw with either. "
That's a lie, in fact it is two lies. So lets go through your op again then.
"The evidence for design is my (and I assume your) experience.
There are 2 arguments based on it.
1) The fine tuning of the experience.
With physicalist theories" ***That is a fallacious appeal to ignorance, not having an explanation for something never validates your claim or argument, it's classic argumentum ad ignorantiam, AS I TOLD YOU ALREADY hence you just lied. Moving on...
"Whereas theist theorists can explain "
Can they, well please do then as all i read was this claim no explanation and no evidence, and again you were told this, so again you have lied.
"rather than being a flash of light every time a neuron fires for example."
A straw man fallacy since no one has claimed this is an explanation of anything, and again you just lied as I have told you this already more than once.
"The fine tuning of the experience seems to me to be taken for granted and thus ignored, yet it part of the most telling arguments for design."
Another claim, I read no evidence for this claim, and what's more you have used another fallacy by begging the question, the assumption it is being ignored rather than it simply not having any evidence to support it. As yet as we see all you have done is pile up claims and fallacies with unnecessary wordy verbiage. On we go...
"2) Our ability to respond to the experience.
A theist can explain it without it being explicitly observed (quantum randomness, and fluctuations of kinetic energy, and a being (God for example) which knows the fine adjustments that can be made (explainable by chaos theory) and the means to make them)."
So theists can claim to explain something we know exists without using other things we know exist, but by invoking something they can't demonstrate any evidence for, a deity. another fallacious us of begging the question, you are using a deity in your argument for a deity, thus in your argument are assuming the very thing you're arguing for. Again no explanation is needed for consciousness to "disprove" or disbelieve your claim, because as i already explained human consciousness exists, and natural phenomena exist, and evolution is objectively evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt.
YOU ARE ADDING SOMETHING TO ALL THESE FACTS...a deity you can't evidence, and so far you have offered not one shred of objective evidence for such a being.
"Whereas with a reality without deities there is not (there is nothing that knows how the brain is configured). "
argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, ho hum, one more time then an alternative explanation is not needed to disbelieve your claim that consciousness needs a deity using magic.
"The theist can therefore explain how it is that my form can express that the person experiencing having it is infallible when it comes to the statement that "reality is not one in which none experience", for example. ]"
Oh well that's great then, when exactly can we expect this explanation? Oh and what OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE can you demonstrate to support it? I guess we won't know until you offer the explanation and the evidence but at this point it must be obvious you can't to even the most optimistic reader. The fact you're delivering your verbiage in an atheist internet forum, and not addressing the pope is also rather telling.
"Those that believe reality is one without deities"
Argumentum ad ignorantiam a spurious attempt to reverse the burden of proof, as this is irrelevant to your claim that you can evidence design and by extensions a deity designer. Now you have lied repeatedly as we have all seen, but your lie about me not pointing out fallacious tautologies is about to be exposed, pay attention....
"Because the evidence is: all the evidence! As all evidence is that which is experienced, and it is what is experienced that is the evidence."
Funny as fuck fair play. I take it no one (even you) is stupid enough to deny the tautologies in that absurd circular nonsense.
I'm only including the end of the post to show what level of dishonesty we were dealing with from the start:
"Debate restriction:
Some may go to the lengths of denying that they understand what is meant by experience, but I will not be drawn into that debate. If that is the way one of you wants to go, then I will just leave you to perhaps one day realise that you are being like one of those in the Emperor's New Clothes story that denied what they experienced in order (they thought) to appear intelligent."
You opened this thread and closed your op by trying to dictate not only how people could define experience but what they could and could not include in the "debate". Given how dishonestly you have tried to redefine words throughout this thread I think we can all see this was a bad omen.
Now that's your op with no evidence for design offered, and a sting of fallacies and the tautologies you said I had not demonstrated.
Atheism is not a belief but the absence of one single belief, and you have offered no evidence for design.
You write:
---
No sure how many times you need the word ALONE capitalised before you stop misrepresenting what I am saying about personal experience. Personal experience can be objectively wrong, but not always, we've been though this so I have no idea why you insist on pretending you don't get it.
Here from page 1 http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design#commen...
If personal experience can be wrong then we need a method for validating which experiences are objectively true, and which not, as personal experience ****ALONE**** is useless since we have no way of knowing when it correct.
---
So what else do you need other than personal experience to realise that at least a part of reality is experiencing?
As for your other replies, you failed to paraphrase either argument. And from what I read from your comments on the first argument you have just pulled a few words out of context, and then wrote comments about them that don't make sense given the actual argument. You seem to be trying to imply some straw man argument from out of context words. Why don't you paraphrase either one or both the arguments, then point out the error?
Up to you but if you really thought you had a counter to the arguments, you could simply accept that you don't need anything other than personal experience to realise that at least a part of reality is experiencing, and then do the paraphrasing and use whatever other counters you thought you had. Because if you really believed you had other counters then why wouldn't you go for the option of losing a battle to win a war, rather than losing a war because you could not admit to losing a battle type thing.
Alternatively anyone else on the forum could jump in and paraphrase the arguments and point out why they don't accept them.
All you have done again is repeat the original spurious claim for evidence, with no attempt to address the fallacies in it.
You have offered no evidence just a fallacious tautology that a designer is needed for human consciousness, and that human consciousness is evidence for design. It's a woeful unevidenced circular fallacy that makes a fallacious argument from ignorance by claiming there is no physical or material explanation for human consciousness.
If human consciousness was created by a deity evidence that claim. Then evidence the deity. Don't just repeat your original assertion or link posts where you have done this.
Unless of course you don't care whether your argument is remotely compelling. In which case why come here to an atheist forum?
That Sheldon did not answer what else other than personal experience was needed in order to realise that at least part of reality was experiencing was not surprising. Because I believe Sheldon wasn't able to.
Neither was it surprising that neither him, nor any other atheist on the forum paraphrased either argument and pointed out any problem. Because I believe there doesn't exist an atheist that is able to.
Because of those beliefs I predict that either the atheists won't respond, or if they do they will do neither (1) or (2).
1) State what else is needed other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing.
or
2) Paraphrase the original arguments correctly, and then point out errors with the arguments.
Arrogant aren't we? I pointed out what you say in (1) in this post:
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=5...
I guess you just chose to ignore it.
And actually, I also responded to (2) also.
And you forgot choice number (3).
3) I, "Someone", shall just ignore and refuse to answer any questions posed to me.
rmfr
Edit: fixed link
" I, "Someone", shall just ignore and refuse to answer any questions posed to me."
Remind you of anyone?
@arakish
You did not in the post you linked give a response to the request in (1) (you simply showed yourself unable to understand an argument related to the request), nor have you ever paraphrased the either of the original arguments and pointed out any issues with them.
Read it again. And set your ignorance aside.
rmfr
Edit to add: Also see this: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=5...
@arakish
Just quote from the post where you think you answered the question:
What other evidence do you need other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing?
All you have done is point to a post where from that post it seems you don't even understand the question.
Someone: All you have done is point to a post where from that post it seems you don't even understand the question.
Actually what surprises me is your level of ignorance. NOTE: I am pronouncing ignorance as ig-nor-unce; NOT ig-nur-unce; meaning the act of ignoring what is right in front of you.
rmfr
Pages