Jump to content

6 Impossible Beliefs Of Naturalism/atheism


Asimov
 Share

Recommended Posts

This was posted by a guy named Jhud over at Christianity.com, isn't it amazing?!?

 

Joe Carter of the Evangelicaloutpost, is I think one of the most concise writers on Christianity, philoisophy, and apologetics on the web. He recently posted an article, Alice, Atheists, and the Ability to Believe Impossible Things wherein he makes the point that though believers in naturalism, and their metaphysical counterparts, atheists, claim to not believe in God either because there is no evidence or because there is no need, they actually believe in a number of impossible things. Six things to be specific. This is the list of impossible things according to Joe:

 

I'm quivering in my booties.

 

1. Emergent properties ‘arise’ out of more fundamental entities (i.e., matter) and yet are ‘novel’ or ‘irreducible’ with respect to them. Consciousness, for example, is an emergent property of the brain, arising – like magic – from a specific arrangement of molecules. This magical property which is created by the physical can also turn around and affect the physical matter from which it came.

 

Um....ok. So basically he's saying that elementary particles cannot create bigger things when they come together.

 

Like....the parts of a car cannot comprise a car. Or the cells and organs in a human cannot comprise a human.

 

Sounds silly? It is.

 

2. Everything that is real is, in some sense, really physical. Therefore, mental states such as beliefs, desires, and sensations do not exist. Mental states such as the belief that mental states do not exist, do not actually exist but are merely physical states in the brain.

 

What?

 

3. Our cognitive faculties have resulted from blind mechanisms like natural selection, working on sources of genetic variation such as random genetic mutation, yet are reliable for distinguishing between truth and false aspects of reality, such as the claim that our cognitive faculties have resulted from blind mechanisms.

 

What about it?

 

4. Evolution is a blind process that has no teleology; whatever behavior works is the behavior that survives. Yet ethical norms of behavior should not be based on what works or what will lead to survival but should be based on concepts not found in nature (even though nature is all that exists).

 

I don't see a point here either.

 

5. The brain is nothing more than a physical system whose operation is governed solely by the laws of chemistry and physics. Nevertheless, a person’s beliefs (i.e., about the purported existence of deities) are not determined by random fluctuations in the natural laws but are chosen by the individual and should be considered “rational.”

 

Still don't get the point.

 

6. A human being has a finite ability to know yet should be taken seriously when making claims that no infinite beings exist.

 

Since infinity is an abstract concept created by humans....yes.

 

I particularly appreciate point 4; atheists specifically tend to reject morality that is based on evolutionary principles, despite the fact that they claim that same morality was the result of evolution.

 

And what morality is based on evolutionary principles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Everything that is real is, in some sense, really physical. Therefore, mental states such as beliefs, desires, and sensations do not exist. Mental states such as the belief that mental states do not exist, do not actually exist but are merely physical states in the brain.

 

What?

 

That's how they can believe in their hell and their 3-in-1 spook. They are all just mental states, but are given physical reality because they exist in their brains :lmao:

 

And they call us deluded...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Everything that is real is, in some sense, really physical. Therefore, mental states such as beliefs, desires, and sensations do not exist. Mental states such as the belief that mental states do not exist, do not actually exist but are merely physical states in the brain.

 

What?

 

That's how they can believe in their hell and their 3-in-1 spook. They are all just mental states, but are given physical reality because they exist in their brains :lmao:

 

And they call us deluded...

 

........................................................................So there are no mental states only physical states......................... or what? I am confused..... Does he know what he's saying.

 

Peace,

BC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Carter of the Evangelicaloutpost, is I think one of the most concise writers on Christianity, philoisophy, and apologetics on the web. He recently posted an article, Alice, Atheists, and the Ability to Believe Impossible Things wherein he makes the point that though believers in naturalism, and their metaphysical counterparts, atheists, claim to not believe in God either because there is no evidence or because there is no need, they actually believe in a number of impossible things. Six things to be specific. This is the list of impossible things according to Joe:

 

I'm famous :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um....ok. So basically he's saying that elementary particles cannot create bigger things when they come together.

Like....the parts of a car cannot comprise a car. Or the cells and organs in a human cannot comprise a human.

Sounds silly? It is.

Fundy: "but someone designed the car." :)

 

2. Everything that is real is, in some sense, really physical. Therefore, mental states such as beliefs, desires, and sensations do not exist. Mental states such as the belief that mental states do not exist, do not actually exist but are merely physical states in the brain.

He's trying to make an argument for the existence of a "soul".

 

He's practically comparing consciousness with computer software, that an Atheist believe consciousness is the result of the activity of running the "software" in our "cpu", the brain.

 

 

3. Our cognitive faculties have resulted from blind mechanisms like natural selection, working on sources of genetic variation such as random genetic mutation, yet are reliable for distinguishing between truth and false aspects of reality, such as the claim that our cognitive faculties have resulted from blind mechanisms.

The dude is trying to establish that there is an absolute moral, and that evolution could not have made us to understand such concept.

 

4. Evolution is a blind process that has no teleology; whatever behavior works is the behavior that survives. Yet ethical norms of behavior should not be based on what works or what will lead to survival but should be based on concepts not found in nature (even though nature is all that exists).

 

I don't see a point here either.

Neither do I... Sounds like it is mixed with the two previous items? Is he trying to argue that not only absolute morals exists, but they must exist for us to exist?

 

5. The brain is nothing more than a physical system whose operation is governed solely by the laws of chemistry and physics. Nevertheless, a person’s beliefs (i.e., about the purported existence of deities) are not determined by random fluctuations in the natural laws but are chosen by the individual and should be considered “rational.”

He's arguing that free will exists.

 

6. A human being has a finite ability to know yet should be taken seriously when making claims that no infinite beings exist.

Here he's using the Ontological Argument.

 

To me, it sounds like this guy is using the same old arguments, but without saying it. He doesn't use words as "moral", "free will" etc, just so he can sneak around the established refutations and make it look like something new.

 

He's assuming a priori that these concepts exists, free will, absolute moral, consciousness etc, and expect the reader to agree to these concepts, and then attack the ones that disagree. He doesn't prove his own points, only points his finger at say "look, they don't think like me, so they must be wrong!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Carter of the Evangelicaloutpost, is I think one of the most concise writers on Christianity, philoisophy, and apologetics on the web. He recently posted an article, Alice, Atheists, and the Ability to Believe Impossible Things wherein he makes the point that though believers in naturalism, and their metaphysical counterparts, atheists, claim to not believe in God either because there is no evidence or because there is no need, they actually believe in a number of impossible things. Six things to be specific. This is the list of impossible things according to Joe:

 

I'm famous :D

:lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy fucking shit...

 

This guy has never touched a science textbook in his life. He's utterly distorted any semblance of truth or scientific fact.

 

Moving on.

 

Merlin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.