Religion & Spirituality > Atheism

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Burden of Proof [I Am Not An Atheist]

When atheists asked me for proof that God exists, I always tell them that the proof lies with them. After all there are so many obvious signs of design in the universe - such as the extreme fine tuning of so many forces - that unless someone can show beyond doubt it’s a cosmic accident I will not violate my common sense.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SW-User

Though I already know this will fall on deaf ears, I’ll say it anyway...

We don’t begin by accepting every claim as true. If we did, we run the risk of holding contradictory beliefs. That’s the purpose of the burden of proof - we must hold to a standard of evidence, otherwise there’s no way to differentiate between true and not true.

Also, fine tuning? Where?

To start with, humans have so many design flaws that it’s laughable to conceive we were created by a God. We use the pharynx for breathing and eating making it incredibly easy to choke (other species have separated these functions), we have terrible spines which bend near the top which causes stress on the lower spine (around 80% of people end up with back problems because of this), women have very narrow pelvises which makes childbirth an awful experience (it was the leading cause of death for a millennia); too many teeth, which again historically led to infection and subsequent death before modern dentistry; we can’t synthesise vitamin C which is a real issue for our immune systems, we don’t have flexible knees, we have a blind spot in our eyes, too many sweat glands... the list goes on.

We can go on forever about the “fine tuning” of the universe, but there’s no hypothesis or theories behind this claim - just a very crude observation. You have no evidence of a designer, nor a comparable universe to compare with our own.

The best answer is often “I don’t know, let’s find out” - there are many mysteries to be solved about our universe, but they’re not explained away by the proposition of a “designer”.

1-25 of 227

Speedyman · 70-79, M

The fact that you are here at all against every kind of chance is the proof. You are obviously accepting Dawkins’ tired old argument about ‘design flaws’ which are frankly piffle. The atheist argument is laughable, as it does not take into account the fact we have to live and move in @ body not in separate components. As to fine tuning,I suggest you do some reading on the 35 finely tuned forces @SW-User

SW-User

@Speedyman Sorry Speedy, that’s a poor excuse. The fact that animals exist [b]without[/b] these design flaws, and in fact many exist with superior designs, refutes your argument entirely.

And there’s so many more obviously insane design ideas.

Take the sun, which gives us life, but was also “designed” to constantly dole out massive levels of radiation which mutates our DNA and gives us cancer. Does God make us immune to cancer? Nope, he gives that ability to Whales. Instead, God just makes it so that humans can’t tell they’ve got cancer for years by which point it’s too far along and ends up killing us (slowly and painfully!) - such an amazing design...

For you to accept a designer, Speedy, you have to accept that for thousands of years, humans were needlessly dying of tooth infections, childbirth, cancer, autoimmune disease, tuberculosis, Alzheimer’s... for no other reason than we were designed by an idiot.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Speedyman Finely tuned [i]for what?[/i]

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Speedyman You think this is ‘piffle’? Then you should have no trouble in accounting for it

https://similarworlds.com/6146296-I-Accept-the-Theory-of-Evolution/2849269-In-a-female-mammal-there-is-a-pair-of-tubes-along

https://similarworlds.com/6146296-I-Accept-the-Theory-of-Evolution/2835860-The-recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-RLN-originates-near

https://similarworlds.com/6146296-I-Accept-the-Theory-of-Evolution/2822368-All-vertebrates-have-discs-of-cartilage-that

https://similarworlds.com/6146296-I-Accept-the-Theory-of-Evolution/2821464-Unlike-other-primates-humans-walk-on-two-legs

https://similarworlds.com/6146296-I-Accept-the-Theory-of-Evolution/2817467-When-you-inhale-through-your-nostrils-the-flow-of

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Speedyman [quote]The fact that you are here at all against every kind of chance[/quote]

A common error, and one based in self-pride

I was never ‘meant’ to be here. If my presence here was intended, then what would have intended it to happen, and indeed such intention is unnecessary.

I am here... but if not I then perhaps someone else (or nobody). You cannot claim [i]ex post facto[/i] intent.

Speedyman · 70-79, M

Oh boy how gullible you are accepting these arguments. You are one of these people who actually believes that if we leave dirt for long enough life will be formed? Of course Hod does not make us immune to cancer as he has decreed that our lifespan is limited. I should have 5hought that the design of whales should have told you something. If you don’t accept the idea of a designer you have to accept the idea of a cosmic accident, the probability of which makes Scrodinger’s cat look like an everyday occurance. Sorry but even if (and it is a bit I’d) we still have the design flaws you mention) then a designer is far more likely than your cosmic accident which just ‘happened’ to line everything up. It really is incredible how you guys live in The world of fantasy @SW-User

Speedyman · 70-79, M

Now how did your cosmic accident line everything up? @newjaninev2

Speedyman · 70-79, M

Hilarious! As if we are proud to be created! Atheism is the chief expression of human pride @newjaninev2

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Speedyman the 35 finely tuned forces

I am more than happy to work through all 35 with you, and you will find that they are not at all ‘finely tuned’, but there is a simpler way to dispense with this claim.

You are saying merely that were the universe not the way it is, then it would be different.

A trivial observation at best.

Unless, of course, you have such hubris and self-absorption that you think your personal life was somehow necessary, important, and anticipated

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Speedyman ‘line everything up’ [i]for what?[/i]

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Speedyman [quote]proud to be created[/quote]

A simple case of begging the question... you need to first demonstrate creation in a prior part of an argument before you use it in a conclusion.

Speedyman · 70-79, M

The creation is demonstrated by the fact we are here. Now prove we are the result of a cosmic accident @newjaninev2

SW-User

@Speedyman [quote] you have to accept the idea of a cosmic accident[/quote]

[b]*BEEP*[/b] [i]Wrong[/i].

I don’t have to accept anything without evidence. You know what I can say? “I don’t know”. It’s a wonderfully honest (and accurate) answer sometimes.

[quote]lifespan is limited[/quote]

So let’s make it as arduous and traumatic as possible. Another great design idea by your friend, God.

Let’s keep going with these design flaws, because it’s clear you can’t explain them away, being that your design argument has no explanatory power, no hypothesis and no theories.

Why design allergies? God creates his Magnus Opus, Man, tells us to live off the land, then designs a bunch of us to be allergic to it. Wheat, gluten, soya, nuts, dairy, fish... these things can kill some people. What an amazing design!

Go on, tell me again how gullible I am that I don’t believe in this preposterous design idea...

Speedyman · 70-79, M

You have all the evidence you need. I don’t need evidence my car is designed. How much more ridiculous is it to say that this vastly more complicated universe hadn’t designer? You say it’s preposterous? You wait till I tell my mechanic that! What i# preposterous is your idea of a cosmic accident which violates every idea of sense. @SW-User

SW-User

@Speedyman

[quote]I don’t need evidence my car is designed[/quote]

Awful argument, but a perfect example of the False Analogy fallacy. Here’s your argument in a nutshell; cars are complex, cars are designed; the Universe is also complex, therefore the Universe was designed.

[b]*BEEP*[/b] [i]Wrong again[/i].

The modern car was also invented at the end of the 19th century by Karl Benz. Was the Universe invented at the end of the 19th century by Karl Benz too? The point being, just because two things share one quality, doesn’t mean they share another.

The fact is, the reason you recognise that a car was designed is because you [b]already know[/b] and have [b]evidence[/b] the car was designed. In fact we have millions of examples of them being designed. We know who designed them, how they work, where and when they were manufactured. I can give you the exact names of the people who invented each car, and you can even physically meet some of these people today. Give me [b][i]any[/i][/b] of this for your proposed designer of the universe.

I’ll save you time: you don’t have anything. Hence why you’ve provided nothing but banal observations and strawman arguments, such as...

[quote] your idea of a cosmic accident [/quote]

I’ve said already, I don’t accept this as true. In fact, you’re the only person to have mentioned this bizarre idea.

Speedyman · 70-79, M

Of course your argument has been tried before and found this has been totally false. Your reasoning is hilarious actually because it is totally bogus. How can forces which are impersonal create personality? How can nonliving things create living things? You have nothing but these total nonsensical statements. Just how did the sale design itself. You are still back in the era of Darwin when they thought cells were jelly. How did a highly complex machine managed to fit itself together? Any fool can see it’s designed. It was not a cosmic accident even though you seem to think it is. I can see you also think Schrödinger’s cat regularly appears outside its box@SW-User

SW-User

@Speedyman Show me specifically where I’m wrong. You haven’t been able to explain away huge design flaws, you haven’t been able to provide a solid foundation for your argument besides “well, my car has a mechanic, so the universe must have a designer”.

[quote] Any fool can see it’s designed.[/quote]

For anyone else who reads this; Speedy’s entire argument is summed up by the above quote. Don’t bother going back through the comments because he hasn’t expounded any further.

[quote] It was not a cosmic accident even though you seem to think it is.[/quote]

Here’s evidence to confirm you don’t actually read my replies - twice now I’ve told you that’s not something I believe and that you’re the only one who brings this up. You’re attributing quotes to me I’ve never said. At this stage you’re literally debating a figment of your own imagination (a little bit like that designer you believe in...)

[quote] How did a highly complex machine managed to fit itself together?[/quote]

It was Dr Lyn Evans. You want evidence? Well, he designed the Large Hadron Collider, which is super complex. The Universe is also complex, therefore Dr Lyn Evans designed the Universe. That’s Speedy logic.

Speedyman · 70-79, M

Of course your design floors are completely imaginary but even if they are there that does not prove were not designed. So your Dr Lynn Evans design the large hadron Collider? Do you think the large hadron Collider designed itself? That is about as stupid as saying the universe designed itself. If only you would apply your same logic to the universe as you do to the Collider design we might get somewhere. You are saying that the hadron Collider was designed but that the far more complex universe was not designed. That doesn’t seem to be logic that seems to be total nonsense. @SW-User

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Speedyman [quote]your design floors are completely imaginary[/quote]

Did you not see these... or are you merely trying to hide from them?

I’ll try again. How about you try to address them in a germane, adult, and reasoned manner.

https://similarworlds.com/6146296-I-Accept-the-Theory-of-Evolution/2849269-In-a-female-mammal-there-is-a-pair-of-tubes-along

https://similarworlds.com/6146296-I-Accept-the-Theory-of-Evolution/2835860-The-recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-RLN-originates-near

https://similarworlds.com/6146296-I-Accept-the-Theory-of-Evolution/2822368-All-vertebrates-have-discs-of-cartilage-that

https://similarworlds.com/6146296-I-Accept-the-Theory-of-Evolution/2821464-Unlike-other-primates-humans-walk-on-two-legs

https://similarworlds.com/6146296-I-Accept-the-Theory-of-Evolution/2817467-When-you-inhale-through-your-nostrils-the-flow-of

Speedyman · 70-79, M

N9 you hide from reality. How can non personal forces produce personality? How can non-intelligence produce intelligence? @newjaninev2

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Speedyman Stop trying to run away! Stop trying to ignore the topic.

How about you try to address these ‘design’ flaws in a germane, adult, and reasoned manner.

SW-User

@Speedyman [quote]Do you think the large hadron Collider designed itself?[/quote]

No? The point here is that concluding Dr Lyn Evans designed the universe based on nothing more than the fact he designs complex things, is just as absurd as your conclusion that the universe was designed because your car has a mechanic. Neither argument is sensical.

But let's get serious again. I’ll try to explain why your car analogy is so flawed. It’s essentially a re-hash of the watchmaker argument.

The reason why you recognise a watch or a car was designed has nothing to do with how complex or ordered it is, but instead because you [b][i]already know[/i][/b] they were designed, you have millions of examples of them being designed, but no examples of them occurring naturally. That’s an important distinction.

The salient point here is: [b]You haven’t demonstrated that complexity necessitates design[/b]. We can just as easily recognise design in simplicity; if you were walking through the woods and stumbled upon a cardboard box, you wouldn't assume it occured naturally, despite the fact it’s an incredibly simple object to design. So there’s no reason to conclude that design must derive from your subjective opinion on complexity.

And if we take you argument to its logical conclusion; does your God necessitate a designer? Assumingly you’d argue no. But if your God, the most complex thing there is, fails to meet your own design criteria, so does everything else which is less complex.

Speedyman · 70-79, M

Yes but design implies two things by specificity and uniqueness. Your problem is that you do not recognise intelligent design when you see it. You are mixing up design by naturally occurring phenomena with design by intelligence. For example we know that rocks which are eroded can have a certain design but no-one would say the rocks n Mount Rushmore were made by anything but a intelligent designer. I could fling watch parts in the air and get a certain design by the force of gravity pulling them to the Earth but if I put them together as a watch you would say that there was an intelligent designer. Your problem is you fail to understand design @SW-User

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Speedyman. How about you try to address these [b]‘design’ flaws[/b] in a germane, adult, and reasoned manner.

Now’s good...

https://similarworlds.com/6146296-I-Accept-the-Theory-of-Evolution/2849269-In-a-female-mammal-there-is-a-pair-of-tubes-along

https://similarworlds.com/6146296-I-Accept-the-Theory-of-Evolution/2835860-The-recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-RLN-originates-near

https://similarworlds.com/6146296-I-Accept-the-Theory-of-Evolution/2822368-All-vertebrates-have-discs-of-cartilage-that

https://similarworlds.com/6146296-I-Accept-the-Theory-of-Evolution/2821464-Unlike-other-primates-humans-walk-on-two-legs

https://similarworlds.com/6146296-I-Accept-the-Theory-of-Evolution/2817467-When-you-inhale-through-your-nostrils-the-flow-of

BlueVeins · 22-25

@Speedyman The key difference there is that rocks and watches aren't self-replicating. The theory of evolution basically holds that all organisms currently alive were molded into their current form by millions to billions of years of relentless trial and error. This can't really occur with an inanimate object like a rock because rocks have no such natural mechanism of error correction.

1-25 of 227