Hereinafter are the contents of a discussion between an Atheist and myself related to my video Richard Dawkins take one step back on calling theists delusional.
Two things to note: 1) stick with this discussion till the very ends as it ends where all my discussions seem to end with Atheists which is with me prodding into core of their worldview, they seeming to recognize (without admitting it to me) that it is nothing but a bottomless pit of assertion and they deciding that it is a good time to run off and 2) I recommend that he leave this comment section be and head to “the other one” since we were having two discussions at once and they both ended up focusing on the same topic which essentially is why (on his worldview) would an accidentally and temporarily existing bio-organism attempt to get another accidentally and temporarily existing bio-organism to agree with them, to bypass their own bio-chemical neural reactions and adhere to those of the other?
The Atheist goes by the pseudonym ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ and he and/or she began by writing:
Why would any Atheist want to make the claim that “god does not exist” and unnecessarily shift the burden of proof to themselves? The concept of “god” is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, which can’t be proven or disproved by any method empirical or theological.
My reply was:
Friend, it seems to me that just like with “explanations” there are various levels of proof. For example, John Lennox makes a point about explaining why the water in the pot it boiling: one could say because of the chemical reaction of the molecules to the heat, one could say because someone put the pot on the heat, one could say because I wanted tea, etc. Likewise, there are various sorts of proof. For example, “proof” in the lab may differ from “proof” in the courtroom.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
The examples you just gave were falsifiable claims, but the concept of “god” is not. Do you know the difference between falsifiable and unfalsifiable?
Ken Ammi
Yes, thank you for asking. May I be as bold as to ask the same of you, friend? Of course, the examples I gave are NOT falsifiable since there are various levels of proof and the water is boiling for various reasons—the “right” reason or answer or explanation would depend upon the context in which it is given.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
“For example, John Lennox makes a point about explaining why the water in the pot it boiling: one could say because of the chemical reaction of the molecules to the heat, one could say because someone put the pot on the heat, one could say because I wanted tea, etc.”
These are all falsifiable claims that have evidence that can be objectively proven to be either true or false through observation or experimentation, but the concept of “god” is an unfalsifiable claim without evidence to test its veracity through observation or experimentation. Here is definition for both words that you seem to be confused with.
Ken Ammi
My point was that you cannot falsify one over the other or one by appealing to the other until such as time as we determine the context. Is the question of why it is boiling asked within a chemistry class or asked by a person with an empty tea cup in their hands right around tea time in the UK.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
The context of WHY, HOW and WHAT made the water boil can be determined through experimentation, observation and demonstration. Now explain to me how you do this with the concept of “god”.
Ken Ammi
What would you consider the WHY, HOW and WHAT experimentation, observation and demonstration regarding the concept of “god”?
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
“What would you consider the WHY, HOW and WHAT experimentation, observation and demonstration regarding the concept of “god”?”
That’s the problem we have with unfalsifiable claims and the point i’ve been stressing to you all along. There is NO mechanism by which to measure or demonstrate the existence/non-existence of a “god” and all we are left with is an intellectual dead end of unverifiable claims.
Ken Ammi
That’s the problem I have been stressing to you all along: there are different levels of explanations, different modes of evidence, different standards of proof, etc. You seem to be authoritatively demanding that the issue of God’s existence can only be dealt with via a “mechanism by which to measure or demonstrate” but this seems more like a fundamental misapplication of the scientific method.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
“You seem to be authoritatively demanding that the issue of God’s existence can only be dealt with via a “mechanism by which to measure or demonstrate” but this seems more like a fundamental misapplication of the scientific method.” No, i’m saying the exact opposite. The veracity of “gods” existence/non-existence cannot be dealt with using the scientific method and that’s what makes it UNFALSIFIABLE, and comparing the subjective proofs of argumentation with the objective proofs discovered through repeatable experimentation is a false equivalence, but i think you already know that.
Why are you intentionally taking out of context? Do you actually have an argument that isn’t an obvious obfuscation?
Ken Ammi
Friend, it is literally impossible for you to know whether I am “intentionally” taking you out of context as that would require mind reading on your part. You and I both know and believe in a tremendous amount of things for which there is no proofs discovered through repeatable experimentation.
Now, you reference “the subjective proofs of argumentation” (such as the subjective proofs of argumentation upon which you rely to conclude that falsifiability is cogent) so for what are you asking me if I “have an argument that isn’t an obvious obfuscation”?
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
“Friend, it is literally impossible for you to know whether I am “intentionally” taking you out of context as that would require mind reading on your part. You and I both know and believe in a tremendous amount of things for which there is no proofs discovered through repeatable experimentation.” It literally took you only 2 sentences for you to contradict your own logic. If i can’t know your intentions without being able to read your mind than how exactly do you know what i believe? “Now, you reference “the subjective proofs of argumentation” (such as the subjective proofs of argumentation upon which you rely to conclude that falsifiability is cogent) so for what are you asking me if I “have an argument that isn’t an obvious obfuscation”?” Why should anyone have to convince someone of the necessity of falsifiablity in order to objectively prove or disprove a claim?
To me it seems like a total waste of my time, especially when you consider the fact that you still don’t even know the difference between falsifiable and unfalsifiable claims even after it’s been explained to you multiple times.
Ken Ammi
It is simple common knowledge that all of us believe in a tremendous amount of things for which there is no proofs discovered through repeatable experimentation. Friend, please stay focused as you did not answer as to for what are you asking me if I “have an argument that isn’t an obvious obfuscation.”
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
“Friend, please stay focused as you did not answer as to for what are you asking me if I “have an argument that isn’t an obvious obfuscation.” I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
Ken Ammi
You asked whether I “have an argument that isn’t an obvious obfuscation” so I am following up by asking an argument for what?
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
“You asked whether I “have an argument that isn’t an obvious obfuscation” so I am following up by asking an argument for what?” I’m asking for you to show me the falsifiability of the concept of “god”, but so far you’ve only chosen to give me predictable apologetic deflections.
Ken Ammi
If I may, what would count as “falsifiability of the concept of ‘god’”?
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
Something we could test or demonstrate through repeatable experimentation.
Ken Ammi
Friend, the sort of repeatable experimentation to which you are referring is a tool, a method, whereby to explore the material realm, the physical world.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
Exactly what i’ve been saying all along. The concept of “god” is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, which cannot be objectively proven or disproved by any method empirical or theological. You would first have to verify the existence of a immaterial realm or spiritual world before anyone could take your claim seriously, but you haven’t meet the “burden of proof”, which makes your claim worthless. 🙂
Ken Ammi
Actually my claim is not worthless as I am not restricted to the boxes into which you demand claims, evidence, proof, etc. be placed. I know that there are various levels of explanations for any given phenomena for example. For instance, by definition whatever preceded the manifestation of matter was immaterial.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
The “burden of proof” is objectivity, which you have none to offer. Your claims are worthless.
Ken Ammi
Proof comes in many forms. Also, you must understand that—and please correct me if I am wrong—you consider the both of us to be temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms who are expressing interpretations of bio-sensory/chemical/neural reactions occurring within out haphazardly and accidentally evolve brains as we sit atop a spinning rock, orbiting an average star in the backwaters of a temporarily and accidentally existing universe.
Thus, I am not sure what your point is in any of this? Have you appointed yourself some sort of truth police because you think that your gray matter is more finely attuned to discern reality? Not that it would matter anyhow in such an existence.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
I’m asking for objective proof, not subjective proof, which is all you and any other believer seem to have. It’s why you will always lose an argument if your position is untenable.
Ken Ammi
By sidestepping my statement I discern that you, indeed, agree with it. Thus, I am not sure why you demand that my haphazardly evolved bio-chemistry agree with yours or why you are some sort of self-appointed arbiter of whose haphazardly evolved bio-chemistry more closely reflects reality: the reality of an accidentally and temporarily exsisting universe.
So, what would be acceptable “objective proof”?
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
Feel free to continue arguing with the strawman you’ve created for me, but i’m going to continue “sidestepping” it because of how little relevance it has to any of the arguments i’ve previously presented to you in this comment thread. “So, what would be acceptable objective proof?”
Any objective proof would be acceptable, but i’ve already given you the answer to this question when you asked “If I may, what would count as “falsifiability of the concept of ‘god?”, and i replied by saying “Something we could test or demonstrate through repeatable experimentation.”. How many times are you going to ask me this same question and when is my answer going to finally sink in? LOL:)
Ken Ammi
Friend, I created no strawman but posed a scenario in the form of a question and you keep sidestepping it. It has ALL of the relevance to any such discussion you have whatsoever because in essence, on your view, we are both bio-sausages on a cosmic frying pan now, you are going “Fiiiiiizzzzzz” as you cook down to nothingness and I am going “Fuuuuzzzzzz” as I do the same. Yet, you demand that “Fiiiiiizzzzzz” is the one true accurate way to think because “Fiiiiiizzzzzz” most accurately reflects reality and thus “Fuuuuzzzzzz” is wrong and you must seek out those who oppose “Fiiiiiizzzzzz” and attempt to convert them to “Fiiiiiizzzzzzism” by showing them that there is no reason to believe in “Fuuuuzzzzzz.”
As far as “objective proof” you are arguing in a circle as you can keep asserting (via your haphazardly evolved brain) that it must be “Something we could test or demonstrate through repeatable experimentation” but I have already explained to you how and why that is a faulty view. Show me microscopic proof through a telescope or stellar proof through a microscope and then we will be getting somewhere. You are making category errors.
This is your Atheist worldview creeping in again because since you are a materialist then you think all is material and thus, all must be testable, discernable, etc. via methods that were specifically designed to observe and test that which is material.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
Without even realizing it you’ve just demonstrated my argument for me. There is no method, test or demonstration that can objectively prove the existence of the supernatural, which has been my argument all along. 🙂
Ken Ammi
Well friend, what is evident is that you are asking for subjective definitions of “method, test or demonstration.” You are proving my point since when I ask about what that method, test or demonstration might be you ensure that you demand that it be materialistic, naturalistic, physicalist aka Atheistic. That is my point, you are viewing all things via your Atheistic worldview and so Atheism build barriers beyond which you cannot think. Atheism is thought restricting since you must keep everything in check with your Atheistic premise. Thus, you only ask for evidence that will fit within your Atheism and when it is pointed out that it is a faulty requirement you conclude that Atheism has been verified.
Again, show me microscopic evidence by only using a telescope or stellar evidence by only using a microscope—and then, make sure that you ponder the observations via a haphazardly evolved brain which exists accidentally and temporarily.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
No need to try and move the goal post again when you’ve already defeated your own argument. Thank you for your time. 🙂
Ken Ammi
Well, at least you now recognize that you are mixing up your categories in asking for evidence for God via the narrow parameters which were designed to investigate the material realm.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
Well, at least you recognize your inability to objectively validate your core beliefs. 🙂
Ken Ammi
Well friend, I am being forced to the conclusion that you are missing the point on purpose. Now, upon what foundation do you appeal to objectivism as the standard?
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
Without objectivity there is no way to validate ones beliefs, which has been thoroughly demonstrated by this prolonged and pointless discussion.
Ken Ammi
Well, since “Without objectivity there is no way to validate ones beliefs…” then you are positively affirming that objectivity is the standard: now you need to objectively prove this claim. You see that has to be, at least in a roundabout manner, based on supposing that there is truth, there is logic and that our accidentally evolved brains just so happen to be able to accurately access and employ these. Also, by the way, the ethic you are promulgating is that we not only should access and employ these but should hold each other accountable to access and employ these or be told that we are _______________ (fill in the blank with favorite put down here).
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
This is a common apologist tactic to shift the burden of proof when they have already lost the argument. My standard of objectivity rejects the idea that reality is ultimately determined by personal opinion, social convention or by divine decree, and that an individual’s ideas or beliefs do not make reality what it is, nor can they directly change anything about it; they either correspond to the facts of reality, or they do not.
How do we objectively determine facts about our reality? We verify their existence by demonstration and observation. 🙂
Ken Ammi
Friend, from what I can tell, your worldview fails at the get go as there is actually has no get go or perhaps the get go is a long series of happy accidents that lead to us having this discussion. Yet, that get go is premised on nothing causing nothing to explode which leads to bio-sensory neural explosions which we call thoughts and you are here to tell me that since your thoughts more accurately reflect reality, then mine do not and I should change mine to fit yours.
Seeking to understand one’s epistemology is not in the least bit shifting the burden of proof rather, it is seeking to determine by what premise one can even begin to discuss proof, discuss who has the burden, how is that burden to be met, etc. just thinking that you have won something does not do away with facts.
Now, note that what I have been saying about Atheism being your worldview is accurate as, among other things, your “standard of objectivity rejects the idea that reality is ultimately determined by…divine decree.”
Yet, the point has NOT been that “reality is ultimately determined by…” and thus, has not been about “an individual’s ideas or beliefs” making reality what it is, etc. Rather, it is about how and why you—based on relying on a haphazardly evolved brain that if it is capable of corresponding to the facts of reality at all, does so by accident—then demand that correspondence to the facts of reality is an imperative and people should agree with your brain’s ability to correspond to the facts of reality—as you subjectively see them.
Thus, this is not solely about how “we objectively determine facts about our reality” but about why we should, why you demand that we do so as per your view. And, by the way, on your view, generally speaking, the reason that people disagree despite “demonstration and observation” is that they have different brain chemistry than you.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
After almost 6 months of speaking with you i’ve come to the realization that there is absolutely nothing i could say to you that would likely change your mind about anything.
Ken Ammi
Well then friend, if that is the case then drop this comment section and focus on the other one since both have come to the same point: based on your worldview (whatever it is and however you care to define it) what is the purpose of an accidentally and temporarily existing bio-organism to attempt to get another accidentally and temporarily existing bio-organism to agree with them?
The other discussion began with me referring to the fact that Atheists mass murdered more people in a few decades than all religious wars in all of history combined, ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ taking me to task on this and us ending up in the same basic point as we did here. The follow-up post is Discussion with Atheist on religious wars vs. Atheist wars (which will be posted on December 4, 2016 AD).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.