A Review of Ray Comfort’s The Atheist Delusion (Yep, I Watched the Whole Thing)

[rug]

July 30, 2016
by Hemant Mehta

Last night, I watched Ray Comfort‘s latest film The Atheist Delusion… because I’m a masochist and it’s one of the requirements.

I’ll admit I was curious what the movie would look like after our interview. After all, the film’s tagline is “Atheism destroyed with one scientific question.”

Since atheism is still around, I figured this must be a new question no one has heard before!

But my atheism wasn’t destroyed. It wasn’t even nicked. If anything, it’s stronger than ever before since the big “scientific question” turned out to be a version of a question we’ve all thought about many times before.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/07/30/a-review-of-ray-comforts-the-atheist-delusion-yep-i-watched-the-whole-thing/

http://www.atheistmovie.com/

If you're in a hurry, the question is simply argument from complexity, i.e., intelligent design.

[brooklynite]

1. If part of the "Great Commission" is to convert the heathens, why are they charging me?

[rug]

2. You of all people can afford the $19.99 download.

I'm spending mine on cave-grown mushrooms at the farmers' market later.

[Cartoonist]

3. Intelligent design destroyed in one question

Who created God?

I thought intelligent design was discredited long ago.

[guillaumeb]

4. Where did the matter come from that exploded in the first explosion?

[Cartoonist]

5. It was left over

from the previous explosion.

[guillaumeb]

6. Which begs the follow up question:

Who lit the fuse, and was the fuse made in China?

[anoNY42]

29. If it was made in China

what are the chances it would have exploded as advertised?

[edhopper]

13. there are scientific explanations

with no need for an intelligent entity shoe horned in.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/26/scientists-may-have-solved-mystery-of-matters-origin/

[rug]

7. You have inadvertently put your finger on the crux of the matter.

God is posited as eternal, outside of time and space, with no beginning or end. The Uncaused Cause, an argument going back to Aristotle.

In that sense, the question you asked is irrelevant to the concept of god under examination, as is the demand for finite evidence of the existence of such a god.

[Cartoonist]

8. Matter

Why can't matter be thought of as uncaused?

[rug]

9. Because by its very nature, it requires a cause and in turn makes an effect.

Until and unless matter and energy are proven to be otherwise, that will be the case.

As it is, both a natural and a super-natural explanation of existence are speculative. It's an intellectual push, i.e., a tie. No action, all bets returned.

[Cartoonist]

10. With one major difference

I can see matter

[rug]

11. I can think.

Is one process better than the other?

[edhopper]

12. I think therefore

God is?
I don't think Descartes would go along with that leap.

unless you are God in the "I am" way.

[rug]

15. I think, therefore it may.

[guillaumeb]

19. If all of creation is a reflection of the Creator, then yes,

because any one being thinks, the Creator is.

And if all of creation is a reflection, it is also a part of the Creator.

But as Rug previously stated, it is a matter of faith because it cannot be proven.

[Cartoonist]

14. Reality vs imagination

I can think of a unicorn

[rug]

16. Do you think thinking is simply imagining?

What do you see?

[edhopper]

17. A and B

have the same value, which multiple people can test and come up with the same answer.

others will say they think they are different and leave it at that, cause "they know" or "it just makes sense" to them.

[Cartoonist]

18. Nothing important

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion

[rug]

20. Seeing things is no guarantee of knowing things.

The converse is also true.

[edhopper]

21. that is why we don't trust

just seeing things but use measurements that are repeatable and verifiable without observer bias.

not just different opinions of what we think.

[rug]

22. What instruments do you use to take measurements of infinity?

[edhopper]

23. Is that Ram Das

or the Maharishi?

[rug]

24. That's Baba to you.

Which raises another question.

Do you also lack belief in infinity, mathematical or otherwise?

[edhopper]

25. I don't think a construct like infinity

is something to believe in or not.

[rug]

26. Well, then, do you accept or reject such a construct?

[edhopper]

27. I accept the concept.

especially in math. rejecting it would be like rejecting a square root.

[rug]

28. So, how do you measure it?

[edhopper]

50. it's a construct used in math

not an entity like God.

the analogy is meaningless and and fruitless.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Math, usually.

Calculated the final position of Pi yet?

Let us know.

[rug]

39. Hardly.

This is the latest stab:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160524-mathematicians-bridge-finite-infinite-divide/

With discoveries like the finitistic reducibility of RT22 — the longest bridge yet between the finite and the infinite — mathematicians and philosophers are gradually moving toward answers to these questions. But the journey has lasted thousands of years already, and seems unlikely to end anytime soon. If anything, with results like RT22, Slaman said, “the picture has gotten quite complicated.”

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Moore's law applies, in this case.

One cannot judge the potential future progress of mathematics when computational tools that enable such investigations are growing at a pace like this.

(technically not a 'law' per se)

Out of curiosity, how many Beowulf clusters have you built? How large? Do you have one in your home?

(Your response is a non-sequitur by the way, Pi is, despite being apparently infinite, a tool we use in measuring the real world. So your response makes zero sense.)

[rug]

44. By the same token, one cannot assert there is no evidence of a god if they lack the

"computational tools that enable such investigations".

I have built no Beowulf cluster but I have renewed my library card.

(BTW, I was not responding to your comment about pi because, in the context of the discussion, it was irrelevant, if not irrational.)

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Infinity is a thing that 'we get'.

In cryptography we 'get' arrays of infinities within infinities.


Every thing that theists raise as an argument that god must exist because X is too complex or too whole, or appears to have the characteristics of design, and we turn around and show natural processes by which it arose, that's another element in the body of evidence that a god is not necessary to explain the universe, and not what theists claim it is.

If enough theistic claims are shown to be unreliable, and the universe shows no sign of requiring or having been influenced by a god, two possibilities are left;

1. A god is not necessary at all, even if it exists.
2. It probably doesn't exist, and was simply the invention of man, trying to explain a confusing world around him.

[rug]

55. By definition, infinity can not be within anything, including another infinity.

Now I agree the vast majority of particular religious claims can be debunked naturally.

I do not agree that that means the essential attribute of a god, i.e., its existence outside of time or place, a/k/a infinity, is likewise debunked.

To the contrary, the more religious claims that are debunked, the closer humans can get to a glimmer of its essential nature.

To misquote Sherlock, Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Then you sir are not a mathematician.

Because yes, you can have infinite sets with different cardinality within each other.

Cantor's Diagonal Proof.
An infinite list of numbers should have all possible numbers, because it is infinite, but there are more real numbers than fit on an infinite list of counting numbers.

We agree on Sir Doyle's take on Ockham's Razor, though not the likely result.

[rug]

58. Mathematics is a poor measure of meta-physics. We're not in the Mathematics Group, are we?

The mathematical sense of infinity is much, much different than an infinity which is, by definition without limits.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. I am unable to express infinity in any other way.

[rug]

60. It's a hard concept to even analogize.

[Jim__]

61. Infinity: does it exist?

A debate between 2 mathematicians. The discussion is conceptual - everyone should be able to follow their arguments. The video is just a bit over 40 minutes.

[center]

[/center]

[rug]

62. Real interesting. Thanks.

I've bookmarked it to watch a few more times.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Matter is energy.

At the end of the day, that's all the universe is. If you total up all the positive and negative energy of the universe and it balances, net zero, then it can in fact be Uncaused and not violate any known law of said universe.

[rug]

33. At the end of the day you're confronted with either eternal matter/energy or

a super-natural explanation.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. No. It need not be eternal.

The math exists if you are interested. Hawking' last book does a deep dive into it.

[rug]

37. If it either begins or ends, it is not eternal.

If it either begins or ends, describe the natural process by which it does either.

Alternatively, describe anything that does not, by its nature, begin or end.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time.

Because they cancel each other or and annihilate (ending), no actual imbalance exists.

The universe may very well exist in the margins between two states, if the net energy of the universe is zero.

We don't necessarily know why yet, but I do encourage you to read the book. You'll then at least know most of what we as a species have been able to puzzle out so far.

Of course this invites a revision of the good old 'God of the gaps, relegating god to the quantum foam.

[rug]

46. From where?

And how?

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Presupposes a 'from'.

The latter is easier; because nothing(tm) is unstable.

[rug]

48. The nature of the thing demands it.

Or a natural explanation.

I get the unstable part. You explained that well.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Are you familiar with 'spooky action at a distance'?

I suspect the energy differential between positive and negative particles is something that won't have a 'from' type answer at all, like SAAAD. Quantum physics is a whole different rule set, wholly alien environment, to our visible natural world.

It's going to take some time to fully flesh it out. We don't even know the full complement of subatomic particles yet.
More progress is made every day.

[rug]

56. The EPR Paradox.

I don't know much more than what it purports to be.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. And you've call us "Incurious"

If one assumes (based on literally no evidence at all) that God cannot be perceived by us, that doesn't rule out perceiving and validating the toolmarks left behind by such a creator.

[rug]

36. You really should identify "us" if you're speaking for them.

In this case, I will call "you" incurious.

This bespeaks an incurious stance:

At the end of the day, that's all the universe is.

Now, if you've been following along, the evidence argument is intellectually lazy when you cannot describe what evidence will define an infinite, super-natural concept.

Rather than simply repeat a meme, why don't you describe the "toolmarks" that you believe will validate or disprove the concept?

[AtheistCrusader]

41. You tell me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1264&pid=2667

You defined it. I fit within the "nonbelief" pool of humans.

Must be nice posting that shit in a 'safe space' where no one will challenge your bald assertion that the natural world's 'terms' preclude a natural explanation for it.

[rug]

45. You used "us" so you tell me.

I already told you you were one of the incurious. You fit the definition to a tee.

Nonbelief requires a basic acceptance of two things: 1) look around, there's nothing else, and 2) we can only accept what little of it we know or may know.

Challenge away, AC. I hope you do better than you have to date.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. That's an incredibly rude proclamation.

This is why our conversations come to a head at times, and I suspect you don't realize it.

Nonbelief requires a basic acceptance of two things: 1) look around, there's nothing else, and 2) we can only accept what little of it we know or may know.

Do you see the implied insult? The backhanded assertion? What we may know?

Why would you presuppose a limit on what we can learn, and why would you think I'd overlook that you tried to do it?

Are you doing that on purpose, or is this just a communication style thing?

[Lordquinton]

43. I'd like to know how they came about determining their god was eternal

What methods were used? But not that curious I suppose.

[Brettongarcia]

35. Philosophy now says an uncaused cause is incoherent

[rug]

38. I'll take your authority on incoherence but I need a link to the philosopy you assert.

[struggle4progress]

49. It was Nietzsche, I think, who warned us about spending too much time

with vacuities like Ray Comfort: if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you

[DetlefK]

51. Intelligent Design destroyed with math:

Evolution says that things happen because of random events. The ID-claim is that random events cannot create a state of lower entropy (higher information).

1. The laws of thermodynamics only apply when the system is in equilibrium. They do not apply for non-equilibrium-systems.

2. The laws of thermodynamics are most often about scenarios with infinite particles.

3. It is possible for a random event to destroy entropy:
Let's take a classic example: The streaming-experiment of Gay-Lussac. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Louis_Gay-Lussac
You have two volumes. One volume has n gas-particles, the other volume is empty. You open the valve between the volumes and the particles spread evenly between the two volumes.

Q: What is the probability for one particle to be on one side of the valve but not on the other?
A: 1/2

Q: What is the probability for all n particles to be on one side of the valve and none to be on the other side?
A: (1/2)^n

Q: What happens if random events make all particles go to one volume and then a random event closes the valve?
A: Then a random event has just created information and thus destroyed entropy.

=> Random events can create information.



ID's argument would be valid if there were an infinite amount of particles. But in real life there is no chemical system with infinite particles.