Hi again Nocredo,

You said,

This inference is the prosecutor’s fallacy. I mentioned it earlier because fine-tuning arguments tend to commit it…..So, you haven’t shown that a life-permitting universe is highly unlikely on atheism….

Its not “unlikely”. Its impossible.

Simple metaphor. Say that you walk on the beach and you see the words, “I love Lucy” written in the sand. Will you presume that the action of the waves has written this message in the sand? I wouldn’t. I would presume that some human had written that message.

Why? Because only humans can do intelligent tasks.

Now consider that even the simplest living organism has messages (i.e. codes) written into its dna which are thousands of times more complex than the simple three word sentence found in the sand.

It is impossible that any living thing came to be by mere chance.

Further, even if you did show that some generic life-permitting universe was more probable on theism than atheism and didn’t commit the prosecutor’s fallacy, the actual life-permitting universe we observe is less likely on theism than atheism. (e.g., billions of years of empty space, we may very well be the highest level of intelligence evolved, etc.) i.e., the argument would commit the fallacy of undetermined evidence.

Reasonableness is the test which should be applied. It is not reasonable that any living thing could come to being without being created by a Higher Power.

It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a believer. You believe that highly intricate living things could make themselves or could be created by accident.

That is the biggest leap of faith of all.

Sincerely,

De Maria

• Hi again Nocredo,

  This is just sketching how you might try to establish the motives of credibility. Actually doing these things is quite another thing.

  
  

  But, the sketch itself seems naive to me:Since knowledge is factive, to say God’s existence can be known begs the question against the atheist.

  
  

  1. Think about it. An atheist asserts that God does not exist. Who is begging the question.

  2. We do have facts proving God’s existence. But facts are not always accepted by the unbelieving party. Have you ever heard of the Flat Earth Society?

  Further, look at the fine-tuning argument you mentioned. Have you heard of any of the following?1. The principle of indifference.2. Bayesian probability.3. Fallacy of undetermined evidence.4. Prosecutor’s Fallacy.

  
  

  I have now.

  Unless you’re fairly fluent with these concepts (and there are still others), I’d doubt you could formulate a fine-tuning argument that could even get off the ground.

  Sounds like you’ve made up your mind.

  The same thing goes for the Resurrection. There are so many objections I’d raise to that. Your task just seems daunting.

  1. You’re assuming some task? As though we must prove something to someone. That is false. This may sound sort of “members only” and “snooty”, but the fact is:
  1 Corinthians 2:14
  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

  Unless God the Father, opens your eyes to His Grace in this world, no amount of argumentation will convince you of anything Spiritual.

  2. But IF He does. YOU will look at all those theories you enumerated and decimate them yourself. We will simply stand back and watch.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  De Maria

Hi Nocredo, 

You said:

As an atheist, I can’t grant that there is any faith as you’d understand it.

How do you understand faith?

Here’s how I understand faith. I have faith in my mom. She has loved me and taken care of me all my life. I trust her completely.

I think you’d infer the Trinity, or Church’s guidance (etc.) just like any other belief. But, that’s neither here nor there.

I’m not sure what you mean. Unless you are saying that you don’t “trust” the Church. Which is key to believing her doctrines. But not to believing in God’s existence. Many who believe in God do not trust the Catholic Church.

The motives of credibility are the existence of God and the fact of revelation (usually argued for by Jesus’ resurrection), right?

“Motives of credibility”? Reasons to believe?

I don’t speak for everyone here, but my reasons to believe are all over the place. All I have to do is look around and see that only God could have made such a wondrous creation.

It’s those that I’d take to be overwhelming tasks. It’s not near enough to just wave in the Quinque Viae’s direction and throw a Habermas book at the unbeliever :p. (not saying all Catholics do this)

Been there. I wasn’t brought to faith by the convincing arguments of believers. If anything, they may have turned me off by their insisting that I “didn’t mean what I was saying.”

However, if I was a typical atheist, then there will be times when you will reach out to an Entity which you can’t see. You might curse yourself for being so foolish.

If that ever happens to you, go with the flow.   Ask Him to prove Himself to you.  He will.

Sincerely,

De Maria