Atheists have no evidence to proclaim that God does not exist

[Manfred]

We have observed speciation in real-time. We have observed instantaneous speciation happen in a single step, such as during a whole genome duplication event.

Ok.

Can you give an example how this duplication event can/have caused a new species to develop and what differences came about between the one species and the new.

 

[Manfred]

Not a problem for biological evolution. But is a problem for the origin of life.

Could I ask what you think/know the probability would be that in all species (and not only in a select few) any changes in in their genetics are caried over to their progeny and becomes dominant.

And as an aside, which came first the chicken or the egg, or the sperm or the egg. Lets go back billions of years.

 

[Manfred]

@Manfred

I will tell you this. You (and I and others) were right to question neo-darwinian selection-mutation theory. Random mutation with natural selection is *not* sufficient to explain life's diversity.

Modern understanding about evolution has radically changed even just in the past 20-40 with advances in genomics and molecular biology.

Instead of the Modern Synthesis (which was never entirely successful), we now have the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. Natural selection is not sufficient to explain evolution, and the vast majority of changes (mutations) in genomes are neither lethal deleterious nor positive advantageous. But neutral to slightly negative with little to no effect on the organism.

Not only that, in a rather stunning turn of events, we've learned that most mutations are not *accidents* but under biological control. Mutations are still random in terms of what DNA change occurs, but *not* random in frequency, or where they occur in genomes, and they're not "accidents" but under biological control. Similar to the random assortment of genes during cellular meiosis. It's random but under biological control.

For example, the now well documented SOS Response in bacteria. During starvation, the SOS response kicks in in bacteria where in response to starvation, bacteria will purposely switch from using a high fidelity DNA Polymerase enzyme that makes few mistakes when copying DNA during DNA replication to low fidelity polymerases. Bacteria switch from an enzyme that rarely makes any mistakes to an enzyme that makes lots of mistakes and then switches back when starvation is no longer an issue. It's sort of a hail Mary mechanism in the hopes a new genetic variant will be more adaptive to the environmental stressor.

Instead of seeing evolution as a series of accidental events, a substantial amount of evidence has been amassed in recent decades that show cells have built-in "evolvability" mechanisms that enable read-write modifications of genomes. Genomic evolution is largely under biologic evolution and occurs via controlled cellular, genetic, and viral mechanisms that allow changes in genomes in a biologically controlled way that is not accidental or haphazard. "Natural Genetic Engineering" as it's been called (* in truth, we didn't actually invent genetic engineering, but learned what cells were already doing).

This has made biological evolution all the easier to explain, but the origin of life and the origin of such "evolvability" mechanisms all the more difficult to explain.

Thank you for this insightful reply. It answers some previous queries made.

 

[Manfred]

It came from God, of course, as everything does. That is our theological understanding. But we still don't understand it scientifically because the Standard Model of particle physics breaks down at the Planck scale, where quantum effects of gravity become significant. Until someone develops a complete theory of quantum gravity that can describe the physics at such high energies and densities as existed in the early universe—that is, prior to the inflationary period—our theological understanding is all we have for now. A scientific understanding will have to wait.




I am beginning to suspect that you're not arguing in good faith. It's possible (but unlikely) that you genuinely don't know what theoretical means in the context of physics, but someone engaging in this kind of discussion should, at a minimum, know that it doesn't mean speculative. I will charitably assume for now that you're just uninformed and explain to you that "theoretical" in physics refers to mathematical systems for describing reality, which are tested against experimental observations and empirical data (e.g., discovering the Higgs boson with the Large Hadron Collidor).

​

NOTE: A person is arguing in bad faith if he's not being honest or sincere in his arguments or has ulterior motives or hidden agendas. He may use fallacies, distortions, misrepresentations, or personal attacks to undermine his opponent's position or credibility. He may also refuse to acknowledge valid points, evidence, or counter-arguments, or change the subject when challenged. He may not be interested in finding the truth or reaching a mutual understanding, but rather in winning the argument or advancing his own interests. A Christian should never be guilty of this but, unfortunately, it happens.​

​

I am dumbstruck that you need to be told this but the term "kind" is not something that proponents of evolution need to define—because it's not a term they use. It is a creationist term, also known as baramin (created kind) and still, despite 60 years of prolific creationist publications, no clear and consistent definition has ever been provided. I can't explain how one kind of animal evolved into another kind of animal because I have no idea what kind even means.




I wasn't disputing or questioning its legitimacy. I said it's like asking how felines evolved into cats. Just as cats ARE felines, so humans ARE hominids (apes).

Yes, there are many differences between humans and gorillas, including the obvious morphological differences. But humans did not evolve from gorillas, nor vice-versa, so I am missing whatever your point was. There is something like ten million years of evolution between humans and gorillas, so clear differences should be expected.

And, no, I've never seen a gorilla worship the living God. (In fact, I've never seen a gorilla, period.) But it would not surprise me if it does, in its own way unrecognizable to us: "Let everything that has breath praise the LORD" (Ps 150:6; cf. Rev 5:13).




Humans did not evolve from orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, or bonobos, much less rhesus monkeys (which are Old World monkeys). There are 30 million years of evolution between humans and rhesus macaques, 14 million years of evolution between humans and orangutans, 10 million years between humans and gorillas, and 7 million years between humans and chimpanzees (and bonobos).

Think of it like this: You have population X that split into two populations, A and B. At this point, they are the same species but two different populations. Fast-forward 10 million years through some speciation and extinction events and now A and B are no longer the same species—but at no point of that history did A evolve from B, nor did B evolve from A. Go back 10 million years and you'll see they were the same species and in the same population X (which was neither A or B).




If some wolves (Canis lupus) could evolve into dogs (Canis familiaris), it's not difficult to suppose that some dogs could evolve into a species that is not-dog.




This is another reason why I'm beginning to suspect that you're not arguing in good faith, because you're asking questions that defy my response. I said very clearly that, "by converting hydrogen into helium through nuclear fusion, the Sun increases its entropy." That is why I called the Sun "a source of high-entropy radiation." That point was fundamental to the argument I was making about decreased entropy in this part of the system coinciding with significantly increased entropy in that part of the system, whereby the entropy of the system overall relentlessly increases.

Talking about "good faith"

You write as if "30 million of years of evolution between humans and rhesus monkeys" is a proven fact and undisputable, when my claim is that there is zero/zilch/nill proof of that.
It is "modern" science taking a guess as to what supports their favorite theory of the time.

A wolf being domesticated and bread to live among humans, is not a fish or a lizard or a mosquito or a cow or a bear.

Talking about good faith!
You claim you cannot understand a concept of there being different kinds of animals!

 

[TB2]

Talking about "good faith"

You write as if "30 million of years of evolution between humans and rhesus monkeys" is a proven fact and undisputable, when my claim is that there is zero/zilch/nill proof of that.
It is "modern" science taking a guess as to what supports their favorite theory of the time.

A wolf being domesticated and bread to live among humans, is not a fish or a lizard or a mosquito or a cow or a bear.

Talking about good faith!
You claim you cannot understand a concept of there being different kinds of animals!

See, "Evidence for Human-Chimp Ancestry"

 

[John Bauer]

Talking about "good faith." You write as if "30 million of years of evolution between humans and rhesus monkeys" is a proven fact and undisputable, when my claim is that there is zero proof of that.

That is incorrect. I have been defending the theory of evolution in response to the questions and disputes you've been raising against it, which means I've been writing as if the theory postulates that 30 million years of evolution separate humans and rhesus monkeys—because it does. I didn't invent the theory, I'm just trying to represent it as accurately as I can.

At any rate, practically nobody regards the idea—that millions of years of evolution separate humans and rhesus monkeys—as indisputable, much less a proven fact. It is regarded as a theory. I mean, they even call it the theory of evolution. We are dealing with science, Manfred, which is intentionally and self-consciously tentative and provisional. Nothing in science is indisputable, including evolution. In fact, even direct observations are disputable, because we understand less than five percent of what constitutes the universe. Just let that sink in. We don't understand either dark energy or dark matter, which constitute a whopping 95 percent of the universe!

Listen, science does not deal in proof or proven facts. There are empirical data, observations made of the real world, and there are theories that attempt to explain the data. It is typical of creationists to represent evolution as a theory in desperate search of observable evidence to support it—and to describe its advocates as pulling mental gymnastics to make that evidence fit. What they don't seem to understand is that this completely inverts the reality of the situation because we don't have a theory in search of observable evidence to support it, we have observable evidence in search of a theory to explain it.

The heliocentric theory of our solar system is a good example. We have these really strange but regular motions of celestial objects in the sky. How do we make sense of what we're seeing? That's the role of a theory. It makes sense of (and predicts) these "wandering" stellar objects across our sky. (That is what the word planet literally means, coming to us from a Greek word that means "wanderer.") Heliocentricism is "just a theory" but it explains the data so well that we can intercept planets with satellites and rovers, land scientific instruments on distant comets, and even calculate the location and orbit of tiny Kuiper belt objects several billion kilometers away with enough accuracy to perform a relatively close photographic fly-by (as we did with 486958 Arrokoth). Whatever the truth turns out to be, this theory certainly approximates it more closely than any other theory ever has. It may be just a theory, but it's the best scientific explanation we have for all these observations that are true. To summarize: We had observable evidence in need of an explanation, which is the job description of a theory. It tries to explain or make sense of the empirical data. Whether or not the theory itself is true, the evidence it explains certainly is true.

The same thing applies to evolution. Whether or not it's true—which is actually a philosophical question—the theory is the best scientific explanation we have for all these things that are true, the empirical data collected from paleontology, population and developmental genetics, biogeography, molecular biology, paleoanthropology, and so on. These are the observations made of the real world. But how are we to understand and make sense of all these categorically different observations being made? That is the role of a scientific theory, which is a conceptual structure that provides a way of organizing, interpreting, and understanding a large collection of data, drawing all the relevant facts together into a coherent scientific model that makes sense of them or explains them. And the theory of evolution has such explanatory power that it makes predictions that result in new, previously unknown evidence being discovered (e.g., Tiktaalik roseae)—which then adds to the credibility of the theory.

A wolf being domesticated and bred to live among humans is not a fish or a lizard or a mosquito or a cow or a bear.

I have no idea what that bizarre comment was meant to assert. No, she was not a fish or lizard or bear.

She was a wolf. And she had pups. Presumably, she trained her pups in these domesticated tricks. The wolves grew up and had pups. And on it went for 15,000 years. They aren't wolves today. They are dogs. Somewhere along the way, certain wolves became dogs.

You asked, "A species like a dog can evolve into a species that is not a dog?"

And I pointed to these wolves when I replied, "If some wolves (Canis lupus) could evolve into dogs (Canis familiaris), it's not difficult to suppose that some dogs could evolve into a species that is not-dog."

Talking about good faith!

Now, in anything I wrote here or any previous response to you, can you point to anything that indicates a bad faith engagement?

You claim you cannot understand a concept of there being different kinds of animals!

Because "kind" is a uniquely creationist term. It originates from the scriptures that say God created all the creatures of the world, each "according to its kind" (Hebrew min; another word they use for kind is baramin, "created kind"). And creationists interpret this in different ways. It might mean one thing for young-earth creationists and something else for old-earth creationists. In fact, it might not mean the same thing for two different young-earth creationists. As a Christian and a creationist myself, obviously I have a lot of creationist literature in my library and nowhere is a clear and consistent definition of biological "kind" ever provided.

So, when a creationist asks me if I can explain how this animal kind evolved from that animal kind, I have to explain that I can't because I have no idea what that word means when a creationist uses it because nobody wants to commit themselves to a specific, biologically coherent definition. That's why I said, "You may as well be asking whether I can explain how one quhal of animal evolves into another quhal of animal."

"What does quhal mean?" Yes, exactly.

 

[Manfred]

That is incorrect. I have been defending the theory of evolution in response to the questions and disputes you've been raising against it, which means I've been writing as if the theory postulates that 30 million years of evolution separate humans and rhesus monkeys—because it does. I didn't invent the theory, I'm just trying to represent it as accurately as I can.

Understood
However the writing is indeed as if it is fact and not based on theory.

At any rate, practically nobody regards the idea—that millions of years of evolution separate humans and rhesus monkeys—as indisputable, much less a proven fact. It is regarded as a theory. I mean, they even call it the theory of evolution. We are dealing with science, Manfred, which is intentionally and self-consciously tentative and provisional. Nothing in science is indisputable, including evolution. In fact, even direct observations are disputable, because we understand less than five percent of what constitutes the universe. Just let that sink in. We don't understand either dark energy or dark matter, which constitute a whopping 95 percent of the universe!

I disagree completely.
Chemical reactions are definitive and not theorized. If you ad a known amount of one chemical substance with a known amount of another you end up with exactly the same final product - every time.
That is indisputable science.
If you have 10 mice and you inoculate each with E. Coli, they will all become sick with the same symptoms. That is indisputable.

Not understanding the exact method by which the E. Coli causes the resulting Diarrhea does not negate the fact.

Listen, science does not deal in proof or proven facts. There are empirical data, observations made of the real world, and there are theories that attempt to explain the data. It is typical of creationists to represent evolution as a theory in desperate search of observable evidence to support it—and to describe its advocates as pulling mental gymnastics to make that evidence fit. What they don't seem to understand is that this completely inverts the reality of the situation because we don't have a theory in search of observable evidence to support it, we have observable evidence in search of a theory to explain it.

And this is the modern scientific cop-out. Of course there are proven scientific facts as shown above. It does not fit the evolutionist narrative to acknowledge that it is a fact that mixing copper and zinc will result in Brass. It is NOT a theory but a fact.

The heliocentric theory of our solar system is a good example. We have these really strange but regular motions of celestial objects in the sky. How do we make sense of what we're seeing? That's the role of a theory. It makes sense of (and predicts) these "wandering" stellar objects across our sky. (That is what the word planet literally means, coming to us from a Greek word that means "wanderer.") Heliocentricism is "just a theory" but it explains the data so well that we can intercept planets with satellites and rovers, land scientific instruments on distant comets, and even calculate the location and orbit of tiny Kuiper belt objects several billion kilometers away with enough accuracy to perform a relatively close photographic fly-by (as we did with 486958 Arrokoth). Whatever the truth turns out to be, this theory certainly approximates it more closely than any other theory ever has. It may be just a theory, but it's the best scientific explanation we have for all these observations that are true. To summarize: We had observable evidence in need of an explanation, which is the job description of a theory. It tries to explain or make sense of the empirical data. Whether or not the theory itself is true, the evidence it explains certainly is true.

You refute yourself.
Predicting something with a 100% accuracy constantly does not a theory make, but a proven method.

The same thing applies to evolution.

That is the bias. Do you see it yet or not?

Whether or not it's true—which is actually a philosophical question—the theory is the best scientific explanation we have for all these things that are true, the empirical data collected from paleontology, population and developmental genetics, biogeography, molecular biology, paleoanthropology, and so on.

Based on faith that is greater than my faith in God.
Even you have to regress and say that God caused the energy etc. required for something to start evolving and then steps aside. (Perhaps I wrong?)
You postulate how you believe something inorganic can become organic, yet if you were to put all those inorganic components together in the right quantities (to create a single cell organism) it cannot be done.
Then you inadvertently deny the "image of God" and you even go as far as speculating the possibility of animals worshiping God.

These are the observations made of the real world. But how are we to understand and make sense of all these categorically different observations being made? That is the role of a scientific theory, which is a conceptual structure that provides a way of organizing, interpreting, and understanding a large collection of data, drawing all the relevant facts together into a coherent scientific model that makes sense of them or explains them. And the theory of evolution has such explanatory power that it makes predictions that result in new, previously unknown evidence being discovered (e.g., Tiktaalik roseae)—which then adds to the credibility of the theory.

I understand this but....
In Organizing, Interpreting, Understanding a large collection of data there is a HUGE amount of speculation and guesswork and bias involved. Carbon dating being a good example with the recent publications regarding soft tissue in fossils.

I have no idea what that bizarre comment was meant to assert. No, she was not a fish or lizard or bear.

Your denial that there are different kinds of animals forces you to come to a conclusion that I make bizarre comments and you fake incredulity.

She was a wolf. And she had pups. Presumably, she trained her pups in these domesticated tricks. The wolves grew up and had pups. And on it went for 15,000 years. They aren't wolves today. They are dogs. Somewhere along the way, certain wolves became dogs.

Presumptions again?
You do not consider that humans played the role of training pups to become domesticated.

But that is not the point. Your denial in that you do not recognize that there are different kind of animals, and your denial of the scripture that states that has to make me stop and think about your sincerity.

You asked, "A species like a dog can evolve into a species that is not a dog?"

And I pointed to these wolves when I replied, "If some wolves (Canis lupus) could evolve into dogs (Canis familiaris), it's not difficult to suppose that some dogs could evolve into a species that is not-dog."

More speculation with "if's" There is NO evolution at play. Cross breeding once domesticated. And dogs remain dogs. There is ZERO evidence that dogs are starting to split into another species and there may be something else that evolved from a dog that is no longer a dog.

Now, in anything I wrote here or any previous response to you, can you point to anything that indicates a bad faith engagement?

Yes. Your denial of different kinds of animals to start with:
1Co 15:36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
1Co 15:37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
1Co 15:38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
1Co 15:39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.

 

[makesends]

..... In order for atheists to have any credibility .. they must provide scientific evidence of life emerging from non-life. How do two dirt-clods decide to be three ? Indeed folks .... the evidence belongs to the theist, especially the believer in Jesus Christ Reasons I am not an Atheist .....

​

I don't know if it is a recent development or not, but for last several years, those to who I speak about this say that atheism doesn't claim there is no God, but that it merely fails to believe that there is a God.

 

[makesends]

And I pointed to these wolves when I replied, "If some wolves (Canis lupus) could evolve into dogs (Canis familiaris), it's not difficult to suppose that some dogs could evolve into a species that is not-dog."

I know of several myself, and I will never visit that house again!

More seriously, though, I have my doubts that no-longer-wolves are not wolves. But I seem to remember seeing pictures of some not-dog, not-cat, not-weasel mammals. I can't help but wonder how we decide the borders of "species".

Makes me think of National Geographic's drawings of Lucy, when I was young. First time I saw the picture, was without introduction except the name, as I remember. And my thought was, "Hey!! —I KNOW her!"

 

[John Bauer]

I don't know if it's a recent development or not but, for last several years, those to whom I speak about this say that atheism doesn't claim there is no God, but that it merely fails to believe that there is a God.

I guess the answer to whether it's a "recent" development or not depends on how old you are. Older folks (e.g., Boomers) are likely to say, "Yes." But younger people (e.g., Zoomers) would probably answer, "No." The reality is that this shift in the definition of atheism and atheists began in the 1970s with figures like Antony Flew (c. 1972) and George H. Smith (c. 1979) but it didn't really gain much traction, really, until the 21st century and the rise of the New Atheists in response to Islamic terrorism (cf. 9/11)—Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett (c. 2006), the "Four Horsemen" of New Atheism. Historically, atheism was almost universally understood as the belief that no gods exist. This was the definition used by classical philosophers, Enlightenment thinkers, and even early atheists themselves.

It is also a trend that has run out of steam. It is losing traction once more, as philosophers like Paul Copan, Anthony Kenny, Michael Ruse, and Graham Oppy—the last two are my favorites—oppose this failed, cowardly, mealy-mouthed redefinition of atheism as mere lack of belief in God. Oppy writes, "According to the way that I use these words, atheism is the claim that there are no gods, and atheists are those who believe that there are no gods" Since theists are "those who believe that there is at least one God," he argues, the negation of that term (i.e., atheists) must refer to those who believe that there are no gods. (Graham Oppy, Atheism: The Basics [2019]). And let us not overlook the fact that philosophy texts likewise define atheism according to its historical usage. For example, the Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy (2004) defines atheism as "the belief that God—especially a personal, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God—does not exist."

 

[EarlyActs]

The modern person does not want to deal with facts. Compare the gender identity war on biological fact. All modern views are statements of preferences, of wishes, immune from testing. The line by Sartre truly means nothing should exist at all (‘the modern dilemma is that something, rather than nothing, is there.’). Atheism has no past or future.

 

[EarlyActs]

That is incorrect. I have been defending the theory of evolution in response to the questions and disputes you've been raising against it, which means I've been writing as if the theory postulates that 30 million years of evolution separate humans and rhesus monkeys—because it does. I didn't invent the theory, I'm just trying to represent it as accurately as I can.

At any rate, practically nobody regards the idea—that millions of years of evolution separate humans and rhesus monkeys—as indisputable, much less a proven fact. It is regarded as a theory. I mean, they even call it the theory of evolution. We are dealing with science, Manfred, which is intentionally and self-consciously tentative and provisional. Nothing in science is indisputable, including evolution. In fact, even direct observations are disputable, because we understand less than five percent of what constitutes the universe. Just let that sink in. We don't understand either dark energy or dark matter, which constitute a whopping 95 percent of the universe!

Listen, science does not deal in proof or proven facts. There are empirical data, observations made of the real world, and there are theories that attempt to explain the data. It is typical of creationists to represent evolution as a theory in desperate search of observable evidence to support it—and to describe its advocates as pulling mental gymnastics to make that evidence fit. What they don't seem to understand is that this completely inverts the reality of the situation because we don't have a theory in search of observable evidence to support it, we have observable evidence in search of a theory to explain it.

The heliocentric theory of our solar system is a good example. We have these really strange but regular motions of celestial objects in the sky. How do we make sense of what we're seeing? That's the role of a theory. It makes sense of (and predicts) these "wandering" stellar objects across our sky. (That is what the word planet literally means, coming to us from a Greek word that means "wanderer.") Heliocentricism is "just a theory" but it explains the data so well that we can intercept planets with satellites and rovers, land scientific instruments on distant comets, and even calculate the location and orbit of tiny Kuiper belt objects several billion kilometers away with enough accuracy to perform a relatively close photographic fly-by (as we did with 486958 Arrokoth). Whatever the truth turns out to be, this theory certainly approximates it more closely than any other theory ever has. It may be just a theory, but it's the best scientific explanation we have for all these observations that are true. To summarize: We had observable evidence in need of an explanation, which is the job description of a theory. It tries to explain or make sense of the empirical data. Whether or not the theory itself is true, the evidence it explains certainly is true.

The same thing applies to evolution. Whether or not it's true—which is actually a philosophical question—the theory is the best scientific explanation we have for all these things that are true, the empirical data collected from paleontology, population and developmental genetics, biogeography, molecular biology, paleoanthropology, and so on. These are the observations made of the real world. But how are we to understand and make sense of all these categorically different observations being made? That is the role of a scientific theory, which is a conceptual structure that provides a way of organizing, interpreting, and understanding a large collection of data, drawing all the relevant facts together into a coherent scientific model that makes sense of them or explains them. And the theory of evolution has such explanatory power that it makes predictions that result in new, previously unknown evidence being discovered (e.g., Tiktaalik roseae)—which then adds to the credibility of the theory.




I have no idea what that bizarre comment was meant to assert. No, she was not a fish or lizard or bear.

She was a wolf. And she had pups. Presumably, she trained her pups in these domesticated tricks. The wolves grew up and had pups. And on it went for 15,000 years. They aren't wolves today. They are dogs. Somewhere along the way, certain wolves became dogs.

You asked, "A species like a dog can evolve into a species that is not a dog?"

And I pointed to these wolves when I replied, "If some wolves (Canis lupus) could evolve into dogs (Canis familiaris), it's not difficult to suppose that some dogs could evolve into a species that is not-dog."




Now, in anything I wrote here or any previous response to you, can you point to anything that indicates a bad faith engagement?




Because "kind" is a uniquely creationist term. It originates from the scriptures that say God created all the creatures of the world, each "according to its kind" (Hebrew min; another word they use for kind is baramin, "created kind"). And creationists interpret this in different ways. It might mean one thing for young-earth creationists and something else for old-earth creationists. In fact, it might not mean the same thing for two different young-earth creationists. As a Christian and a creationist myself, obviously I have a lot of creationist literature in my library and nowhere is a clear and consistent definition of biological "kind" ever provided.

So, when a creationist asks me if I can explain how this animal kind evolved from that animal kind, I have to explain that I can't because I have no idea what that word means when a creationist uses it because nobody wants to commit themselves to a specific, biologically coherent definition. That's why I said, "You may as well be asking whether I can explain how one quhal of animal evolves into another quhal of animal."

"What does quhal mean?" Yes, exactly.

Re evidence in search of a theory
How can the repeated current courses of our planets possibly be in the same category as vulnerable changes of forms of biological life Ms of years ago, as equally observable? You just declared impossible time travel to be possible.

 

[makesends]

I guess the answer to whether it's a "recent" development or not depends on how old you are. Older folks (e.g., Boomers) are likely to say, "Yes." But younger people (e.g., Zoomers) would probably answer, "No." The reality is that this shift in the definition of atheism and atheists began in the 1970s with figures like Antony Flew (c. 1972) and George H. Smith (c. 1979) but it didn't really gain much traction, really, until the 21st century and the rise of the New Atheists in response to Islamic terrorism (cf. 9/11)—Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett (c. 2006), the "Four Horsemen" of New Atheism. Historically, atheism was almost universally understood as the belief that no gods exist. This was the definition used by classical philosophers, Enlightenment thinkers, and even early atheists themselves.

It is also a trend that has run out of steam. It is losing traction once more, as philosophers like Paul Copan, Anthony Kenny, Michael Ruse, and Graham Oppy—the last two are my favorites—oppose this failed, cowardly, mealy-mouthed redefinition of atheism as mere lack of belief in God. Oppy writes, "According to the way that I use these words, atheism is the claim that there are no gods, and atheists are those who believe that there are no gods" Since theists are "those who believe that there is at least one God," he argues, the negation of that term (i.e., atheists) must refer to those who believe that there are no gods. (Graham Oppy, Atheism: The Basics [2019]). And let us not overlook the fact that philosophy texts likewise define atheism according to its historical usage. For example, the Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy (2004) defines atheism as "the belief that God—especially a personal, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God—does not exist."

Yes. I can see how it follows, rather than leads, 20th century +, nihilism and the search for meaninglessness that seems (pointedly) pointless. Those that argue it, with whom I have spoken at any length, are more, "I see no reason to believe that", instead of even looking at, "that makes more (or less, as the case may be,) sense than to believe otherwise". I can say, "there can be only one first cause", and instead of saying, "No, here's how you are wrong", they only say, "I don't see how there can be only one first cause."

Some of these are actually pretty far down the education hall of Quantum Physics, which, frankly, I can't help but wonder about. When I hear about calculations done on probability, described as though chance can actually cause things to happen, I have to back away a bit. I hope these are following the science rather than leading it.

 

[John Bauer]

How can the repeated current courses of our planets possibly be in the same category as vulnerable changes of forms of biological life millions of years ago, as equally observable?

I answered that question in the very material you quoted. This is not a category error because I am not treating two fundamentally different things as the same. Both the heliocentric and evolutionary theories address a vast wealth of observable evidence collected over many centuries and provide an explanatory framework for it. Since that is precisely what scientific theories do, they belong in the same category. The heliocentric theory explains observations made with the unaided human eye, large reflecting telescopes orbiting Earth, and unmanned probes like Voyager 1 and 2. The theory of evolution explains observations made through various means in paleontology, population and developmental genetics, molecular biology, and other scientific fields.

 

[Josheb]

..... In order for atheists to have any credibility .. they must provide scientific evidence of life emerging from non-life. How do two dirt-clods decide to be three ? Indeed folks .... the evidence belongs to the theist, especially the believer in Jesus Christ Reasons I am not an Atheist...

​

Evidence, or proof?

Why scientific evidence and not some other type of evidence?

Dirt clods are not life. Don't you mean, "How do two dirt clods make something organic?" And why would the dirt clod need to decide to do anything? How is volition relevant?

 

[EarlyActs]

I answered that question in the very material you quoted. This is not a category error because I am not treating two fundamentally different things as the same. Both the heliocentric and evolutionary theories address a vast wealth of observable evidence collected over many centuries and provide an explanatory framework for it. Since that is precisely what scientific theories do, they belong in the same category. The heliocentric theory explains observations made with the unaided human eye, large reflecting telescopes orbiting Earth, and unmanned probes like Voyager 1 and 2. The theory of evolution explains observations made through various means in paleontology, population and developmental genetics, molecular biology, and other scientific fields.

Have you not read Lewis “Two Lectures” about the ‘slur of speech’ by the one professor that had everyone thinking he was talking about evidence? GOD IN THE DOCK.

Yes the debate has been centuries but always claiming nearly ‘live’ proof of things Bs of years ago. Which is an oxymoron. And dumping all kinds of fossil and bone evidence in the Atlantic and in NY harbor.

Whenever a link is really needed, it’s missing!

 

[John Bauer]

Have you not read Lewis “Two Lectures” about the ‘slur of speech’ by the one professor that had everyone thinking he was talking about evidence? GOD IN THE DOCK.

No. However, I own a copy of God in the Dock. Is it in there? What chapter?

 

[atpollard]

What was the original question? Oh, yeah ...

Atheists have no evidence to proclaim that God does not exist​

... Well, I have NO EVIDENCE to proclaim that Unicorns do not exist, so I guess that means that Unicorns are REAL!

[Atheists believe that God does not exist because the evidence of "no god" is greater than the evidence for "a god" in their opinion. What constitutes "convincing evidence" varies with each individual.]

For me, the "problem of evil" outweighed any arguments for "intelligent design" or "first cause".

My thinking followed this 'logical argument':

• If God exists, then he is (by definition) "omniscient", "omnipotent" and "omnipresent" ... or he is not God, but something lesser.
• Bad things happen (an empirical given).
• God was aware of the "bad things happening" and chose to do nothing to stop it [If God was not aware, then God is not "omniscient"]
• God had the power to stop the "bad things happening" and chose to do nothing to stop it [If God was not able to stop it, then God is not "omnipotent"]
• God was present at the place where the "bad things happening" and just watched [If God was not there, then God is not "omnipresent"]
• The definition of a being that stands and does nothing but merely allows evil when they have the power to stop it [like standing eating a sandwich as you watch people starve to death at your feet] is "evil".
• So the two options are: 1) God is EVIL or 2) God does not exist.
• Of those choices, (2) atheism seemed the more likely.

So my evidence for the "non-existence" of God was His inaction ... the hollow ring to the platitudes compared to the empirical reality as you bury friends and younger siblings, and accumulate scars.

 

[John Bauer]

The argument from evil takes either a logical or evidential form.

The logical argument from evil tries to establish that there is a logical contradiction between the existence of evil and the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God. The result of the argument is that God doesn't exist, for he can't exist. The evidential argument from evil tries to establish that the existence and extent of evil in the world makes the existence of God less likely or improbable (rather than logically impossible). This argument contends that, if God did exist, we would expect to see less evil than we do. The result here is that God probably doesn't exist.

Since what atpollard presented is the evidential form, it fails to refute the original claim in the thread title. It would, however, suffice to refute the claim that "atheists have no evidence to proclaim that God probably doesn't exist."

Incidentally, the evidential form of the argument can be undermined by the premise that defeats the logical form, namely, the premise that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing the existence of evil. It requires the defender of the evidential form to argue that there is gratuitous evil in the world.

 

[makesends]

What was the original question? Oh, yeah ...

Atheists have no evidence to proclaim that God does not exist​

... Well, I have NO EVIDENCE to proclaim that Unicorns do not exist, so I guess that means that Unicorns are REAL!

[Atheists believe that God does not exist because the evidence of "no god" is greater than the evidence for "a god" in their opinion. What constitutes "convincing evidence" varies with each individual.]

For me, the "problem of evil" outweighed any arguments for "intelligent design" or "first cause".

My thinking followed this 'logical argument':

• If God exists, then he is (by definition) "omniscient", "omnipotent" and "omnipresent" ... or he is not God, but something lesser.
• Bad things happen (an empirical given).
• God was aware of the "bad things happening" and chose to do nothing to stop it [If God was not aware, then God is not "omniscient"]
• God had the power to stop the "bad things happening" and chose to do nothing to stop it [If God was not able to stop it, then God is not "omnipotent"]
• God was present at the place where the "bad things happening" and just watched [If God was not there, then God is not "omnipresent"]
• The definition of a being that stands and does nothing but merely allows evil when they have the power to stop it [like standing eating a sandwich as you watch people starve to death at your feet] is "evil".
• So the two options are: 1) God is EVIL or 2) God does not exist.
• Of those choices, (2) atheism seemed the more likely.

So my evidence for the "non-existence" of God was His inaction ... the hollow ring to the platitudes compared to the empirical reality as you bury friends and younger siblings, and accumulate scars.

Might be interesting to start a thread on atheist's excuses/ reasons for not believing. That is, unless that is what was intended with the OP.