The Devil's advocate

[Guest guest]

> >That's not necessary. They all say the same things

>

> How can you know if you haven't spoken with all of them?

 

I can know that the same way I can know a pot of rice has been cooked by

examining just one grain.

 

> >Well, it fires back because all atheists sound the same. They say the

> >exact same things. It seems as if they cannot very well think for

> >themselves. They always repeat what they have heard from other atheists.

>

> Yes, of course we listen, accept, learn and repeat if others say something

> reasonable. That's why we stick to the atheistic position

 

Very good. So you admit that to receive knowledge is largely a matter of

accepting authority.

 

> >Of course I am. Is there anything wrong with being prejudiced? You are

> >certainly very prejudiced towards any notion of God, so you shouldn't

> >have any problems with being prejudiced, right?

>

> Of course there something wrong with sticking to ones subjective meaning

> about others.

 

What's wrong with that? Atheists do it all the time.

 

> Like I told you I'm not prejudiced towards any notion of

> God.

 

I don't believe that. Can you prove it?

 

> I would love a proof. If you have one then please put forward. Why

> all this talking about what I will accept as proof etc. Just give what you

> have, so that we can see it.

 

I have lots of proof, but I have to know what you will accept as proof

otherwise you could just be wasting my time. What if I present some proof,

and you are not qualified to evaluate it, or even willing to evaluate it? So

before we get into the whole area of evidence you have to let me know what

you will accept as evidence.

 

> >If you don't find the logical arguments of God reasonable, then obviously

> >we don't have the same definition of reasonable. What's your definition

> >of reasonable?

>

> Well, anything that is logical or and/or based on the scientific method.

 

The existence of irreducible complex systems like a cell, suggests design of

a higher intelligence, but atheists don't accept that, so I am not sure it

will be productive to cite scientific proof. That's why I need to know what

you will accept as evidence of God. An irreducible complex system like a

cell suggests ID, but you reject that, on the basis of your imagination that

it was produced by natural selection. Then what will you accept?

 

> >Well, why can't there be little pink, invisible unicorns living under my

> >bed?

>

> Well, I think there's a big difference between postulating that there

> can't be IPU's under your bed and saying that that the universe can't be

> eternal. We have good reasons to reject IPU's whereas no good reasons to

> reject the eternal universe.

 

We also accept that the universe as an energy is eternal. But obviously it

is not being run blindly without intelligent direction. Please tell me what

observation of the universe suggests that eg. awareness was produced by

matter.

 

> >I am talking about what's within our experience. Within our experience

> >of the universe, everything is constantly undergoing the three phases of

> >creation, maintenance and destruction. The only element, again as far as

> >we can observe, that is not undergoing these three phases, is the self,

> >or the sense of I-ness. For instance, it is not within anyone's

> >experience of ever having been created or destroyed. Your only experience

> >is of being conscious.

>

> Well, just because we haven't that experience doesn't mean that it's

> eternal. To say so would be an argument from ignorance - a logical

> fallacy.

 

To say that consciousness (which directly can be observed to be constant) is

not constant is an argument from ignorance. Not only is it an argument from

ignorance, but it is completely baseless. At least there is basis for saying

that consciousness is constant, so it is not an argument from ignorance. it

is based on observable facts.

 

>Everything we know about consciousness tells us it's simply

> material.

 

That is a baseless assumption. Can you give any evidence at all that

suggests consciousness is material? If you can give me the chemical formula

of consciousness I will accept that and give up my religion. Of course, you

can't do that, but I will accept even a logical argument. Do you have any?

 

> >So you admit that your conception of the universe, so far, is just your

> >religion. It is not backed up by hard, empirical facts. Very good. You

> >are making advancement.

>

> It's a appeal to the most reasonable answer.

 

I don't find it reasonable at all. In fact, if you were to make a survey of

all the people on the planet, you would find that the majority would appeal

to a higher intelligence in the universe. So your claim that it is the most

reasonable answer is false.

 

> I science we don't go out

> claiming - like religionists always do - that we have some kind of perfect

> knowledge.

 

What's wrong in claiming to have perfect knowledge, when you have it? Of

course, atheists cannot make that claim without seeming highly

unintelligent, but to make the claim on the basis of the Vedas is only

intelligent. Of course if you don't know anything about the Vedas you can't

understand that. Still you just claimed that everything you know about

consciousness tells you that it is material. I would still like you to

support that claim with some evidence.

 

> We are willing to correct our understanding if the hard

> empirical edvidence and logic tells us that we are wrong, whereas the

> religionists never change their dogmas even if they are presented with

> such hardcore scientific facts. So yes, we are making progress whereas you

> are not.

 

You are speaking from a platform of ignorance. In my religion there is no

rule against accepting hardcore scientific facts. In fact they are welcomed

in Vedanta. One of the methods of acquiring knowledge in Vedanta is

prataksya, which means empiric knowledge. The fact is that there are no

hardcore scientific facts in support of atheism. Atheism is a matter of pure

belief. So I would like to ask you how you can be an atheist, when there are

no scientific facts to support it?

 

> >Why should we name it natural selection? It seems you have just replaced

> >the word God with natural selection.

>

> I never said "natural selection". I said - I don't find the watchmaker

> analogy convincing. Seems like you are trying to change subject here by

> putting forward false alligations.

 

Why is it not convincing to you? Do you have any argument to back up your

conviction? Otherwise you are just arguing from your own incredulity.

 

> >Ok, fair enough. So what kind of empirical proof, perceivable by one of

> >your five senses, would you accept as proof of God?

>

> ANYTHING I can sense with my five senses and which proofs God!

 

Like what? Give me an example, or admit that God cannot be proven on the

basis of your senses alone.

 

> >Ok, so which ways of getting knowledge do you accept?

>

> I told you: Logic, empirical knowledge - plus I'm open to whatever other

> way of gaining knowledge if you provide GOOD REASONS to believe that way

> of getting knowledge is valid.

 

But you have shown again and again that you are opposed to logic and good

reason. I have given you logic and reason, like the watch maker analogy and

the existence of irreducible complex systems like a single cell, but you

reject these by saying that you can imagine so many other solutions. So

prove to me that atheism is anything else but an imagination, or define what

you mean by logic and reason. because obviously we don't have the same

understanding of logic and reason. If you don't accept logic and reason as

it is commonly understood then what is the use of demanding proof based on

logic and reason? I am beginning to think you are not really interested in

logic and reason but are only trying to obfuscate matters, because you know

you have no basis for your claim of atheism.

 

> >I can give you very good reasons, but I suspect we don't have the same

> >definitions of good, so before I launch into all the good reasons for

> >believing in God, please define what you mean by 'good reason.'

>

> I already did, see above!

 

You didn't define what you mean by logic and reason, you only made a claim

that you accept logic and reason. But when you are faced with logic and

reason, like the existence of irreducible complex systems like single cells,

you reject it. Therefore your claim of logic and reason is empty. Can you

prove to me that you accept logic and reason?

 

> Best wishes,

> The Devil's Advocate

 

Kind regards

The voice of reason.