Sh-eh-lah

Agnostic atheist .

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

The argument does not establish its conclusion because it conflates epistemology with ontology. Numbers requiring a mind to be perceived, understood, or represented does not imply that numbers require a mind to exist. The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 does not appear to depend on anyone thinking about it. If every conscious being ceased to exist tomorrow, no one would be perceiving mathematical truths, but it does not follow that those truths would become false. This means the argument never establishes that numbers are thoughts in a mind rather than mind independent truths discovered by minds, so its central inference is unsupported. Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant that an infinite and eternal mind exists, the argument still does not identify that mind. Establishing the existence of a mind is not the same as establishing its identity, just as establishing a designer is not the same as identifying the designer. At this point, we must compare competing explanations, such as mind independent mathematical truths, abstract objects, structural realism, a deistic mind, a pantheistic mind, or the god of a particular religion. Because the existence of mathematical truths is compatible with multiple hypotheses, the evidence does not uniquely favor an infinite divine mind, much less any specific god. Additional independent, objective, non circular, and discriminating evidence would be required to distinguish among the alternatives and justify that conclusion.

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

This is a category error because science textbooks and the bible serve different epistemic functions. A science textbook is not considered true because the textbook says it is true, it is a summary of evidence derived from observation, experimentation, measurement, testing, and replication. The claims it contains can, in principle, be independently verified and challenged without appealing to the textbook itself. By contrast, when the bible is used to prove that the bible is divinely inspired or true, the text is often being treated as both the claim and the evidence for that claim, which is circular reasoning unless supported by independent evidence. The relevant comparison is not between a science textbook and the bible, but between the underlying evidence for scientific claims and the evidence for biblical claims. A textbook reports evidence. It is not the evidence. More importantly, scientific claims can be tested by conducting the experiment and comparing the results to the prediction. If a claim is wrong, the experiment can reveal that. By what equivalent method can the claim that the bible is divinely inspired be independently verified? The fact that a religious text claims divine authority does not, by itself, establish that the claim is true. The issue is not whether both books make claims, but whether there is a reliable, independent method for determining whether those claims correspond to reality.

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

The question is not uniquely for atheists because the same epistemological challenge applies to theists as well. Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that something appears to be the product of a mind, the real question is how we determine that scientifically or empirically, and what method reliably distinguishes agency from non agency. We do not directly observe minds,we infer them from effects, patterns, and behaviors that seem better explained by an agent than by known non agent causes. But even if one concludes that a mind is involved, that does not answer the further question of which mind. How do we know it is the god of the bible rather than the god of another religion, a deistic creator, multiple gods, or some other intelligence altogether? Appealing to scripture does not solve the problem because the authority and reliability of that scripture are precisely what is in dispute, and appealing to science does not automatically identify a particular deity either. The real issue, therefore, is not whether atheists can recognize the products of minds, but what objective and reliable method anyone uses to infer a specific mind from an observed effect and to justify that conclusion over competing alternatives. Simply proposing an answer is not the same as demonstrating how that answer was reached.

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

Genesis describing a global flood is not unique. The Epic of Gilgamesh and other Mesopotamian flood traditions describe similar events and predate Genesis in written form. What independent archaeological, geological, or historical evidence distinguishes the biblical account as the correct one?

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

Even if someone granted that biological systems appear designed, that still would not establish the christian god specifically. At most, it would establish an unspecified intelligent cause, because detecting possible design and identifying a designer are two entirely separate questions. Archaeologists can infer an object was manufactured without knowing who made it, and SETI could potentially infer an artificial signal without identifying the civilization behind it. In the same way, terms like specified complexity,irreducible complexity, or interdependent coordination, do not uniquely point to the christian god over a deistic creator, multiple creators, extraterrestrial intelligence, simulation hypotheses, unknown natural mechanisms, or some other cause entirely. The conclusion ,therefore the biblical god designed life, is therefore an interpretation layered onto the observation, not something logically forced by the evidence itself. The argument also relies heavily on asserting that nature has never been observed producing complexity, but evolutionary theory does not claim modern biological systems appeared instantly in one step,it studies cumulative processes like mutation, heredity, selection, and incremental adaptation over vast timescales. Whether every detail is fully explained or not, gaps in current scientific understanding do not automatically validate divine causation, otherwise the reasoning becomes a god-of-the-gaps argument. So the central issue is not whether humans can sometimes infer design, but that the argument never demonstrates why the alleged designer must specifically be the christian god rather than one of countless alternative explanations, and without independent, discriminating, non-circular evidence connecting the design to that particular deity, the conclusion remains an interpretation rather than a demonstrated fact.

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

@DrScotMSullivan @AleMartnezR1 The argument equivocates between epistemic rejection and metaphysical impossibility. One can rationally reject belief in a god due to insufficient evidence without claiming that a god is logically impossible.

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

Saying Christianity explains logic, morality, meaning, science, or evil does not demonstrate that Christianity is true. Multiple worldviews attempt to explain those same things, so simply having an explanation is not evidence that the explanation is uniquely correct. The missing step is demonstrating why Christianity succeeds where every competing worldview fails, using independent and non circular evidence.
The argument also repeatedly depends on circular reasoning. Fulfilled prophecy is usually sourced from the same theological framework claiming the fulfillment. Resurrection claims primarily come from Christian texts and traditions themselves. Archaeology confirming that certain cities, rulers, or cultures existed does not automatically validate supernatural events, miracles, or divine inspiration. Historical accuracy in some areas does not logically prove the theology attached to those narratives.
The Romans 1 appeal is circular for the same reason. It assumes Christianity is already true in order to explain why people reject Christianity. Quoting the Bible to prove that unbelievers secretly know the Bible is true only works if the Bible’s authority has already been independently established, which is the very point under dispute.
And saying atheists reject god because they don’t want the truth, is not evidence. It’s psychologizing disagreement instead of demonstrating the claim. The issue has never been whether Christianity can offer explanations. Many belief systems do that. The issue is whether Christianity has independently verifiable evidence that uniquely establishes its supernatural claims over competing explanations. That still needs to be demonstrated, not asserted.

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

The scenario doesn’t actually refute secular or consequence based morality. At most, it refutes pure moral subjectivism by showing that widespread approval does not magically transform severe harm into something morally good. But that same problem applies even more strongly to divine command morality if actions become right simply because an authority commands or approves them. In the biblical narrative, commands involving genocide, including the killing of civilians and children in certain passages, were treated as morally justified because god commanded them, not because the suffering itself became objectively good. So the example does not uniquely undermine atheist morality. A consequence based moral framework can consistently say that psychopathic animal cruelty remains wrong regardless of public approval or brainwashing, because the underlying harm, suffering, and destruction inflicted on conscious beings has not changed. The machine only alters people’s perceptions and judgments, not the objective consequences of the act itself. The argument therefore creates the same problem for divine command theory, because if authority alone determines morality, then any atrocity could become good by decree.

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

The distinction being made here doesn’t actually separate real science from belief.Both historical science and observational science rely on present evidence interpreted through inference. Fossils, genetics, geology, and radiometric dating are all examined in the present using repeatable methods, measurements, predictions, and cross confirmation from independent fields. The fact that the events occurred in the past does not make the conclusions automatically religious or unscientific. By that standard, forensic science, archaeology, and cosmology would also stop being science because they reconstruct past events from present evidence.
And the argument cuts both ways. Biblical claims about Genesis, miracles, Exodus, or the resurrection are also claims about the past inferred from present texts and traditions. Nobody today directly observed those events either. So if historical inference is dismissed as just belief, then the same standard must also apply to theology. Otherwise it becomes special pleading,one epistemic standard for science and another for religion.
The issue is not whether something studies the past or present. The issue is whether the conclusions are based on evidence, methodological consistency, predictive power, and whether alternative explanations can be tested against the data.

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

If humans are truly comparable to machines, then actions ultimately reduce to design, programming, and causal determination, which shifts responsibility back to the creator and conflicts with the idea of genuine free will. But if humans possess genuine independent agency and the ability to choose otherwise, then the machine analogy breaks down because humans are no longer deterministic tools. The analogy therefore depends on switching between two incompatible models of human behavior. Deterministic machinery when assigning glory to the creator, and autonomous agency when assigning moral responsibility. A coherent explanation should consistently follow one framework, rather than shifting between determinism and free agency depending on which conclusion is being defended.

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

Even if I grant the design claim, how do you determine who the designer is? Out of all the competing alternatives, what method are you using to identify one over the others? The same evidence can be explained by different gods, deism, or unknown natural processes, so it doesn’t uniquely point to any single option. To justify a specific designer, you need a method that is independent, non circular, and able to rule out alternatives. If you want to appeal to one particular deity, you have to show why that one uniquely explains the evidence better than all the others. Without that, it’s not identification,it’s just assumption. An unsupported assumption doesn’t establish truth.

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

The argument doesn’t follow. It treats change as a flaw, when revision is exactly how errors are corrected and accuracy improves,scientific models change because they are evidence-based. The bible, by contrast, is not an invariant text. It is reconstructed from multiple manuscripts with textual variants. So it isn’t a perfectly preserved document. The claim that ,god got it exactly right the first time, is assumed, not demonstrated, which makes the argument circular. And it compares fundamentally different categories,evidence responsive models versus fixed religious texts, so the comparison is invalid from the start.

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

Same kind is a classification claim, not an environmental one. Freshwater and seawater are fundamentally different conditions at a physiological level, so treating them as the same environment is just incorrect. If an organism can live in both, then either it already had the full capacity for both environments, which itself requires explanation, or it developed that capacity over generations. And if it developed it, that’s the same kind of biological change you’re rejecting elsewhere. So appealing to same kind doesn’t solve the problem, it bypasses the environmental difference that actually needs explaining, and leaves the inconsistency intact.

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

Calling them the same kind doesn’t solve the problem, it just shifts it. The difference in salt tolerance is evidence of coordinated physiological change. If you reject evolution by treating that kind of change as unlikely, you can’t then accept it here without changing your likelihoods. You’re treating the same evidence as unlikely when it supports evolution, and likely when it supports your claim. That’s not updating on evidence, that’s selectively weighting it.

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

The issue isn’t whether evidence presents itself, that is a discussion on its own. The issue is that the same kind of mechanism is being treated differently. If you reject evolution because you think the evidence isn’t there, then you can’t turn around and accept freshwater animals becoming saltwater organisms, because that relies on the same type of genetic and physiological changes across generations. Either that kind of mechanism is valid or it isn’t. Accepting it in one case and rejecting it in another isn’t following the evidence, it’s applying it selectively.

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

Shifting the burden doesn’t solve the problem, it avoids it. The claim on the table is that freshwater animals became saltwater organisms. That already requires a mechanism involving genetic and physiological change across generations. If you reject that kind of mechanism when it’s called evolution, you don’t get to rely on it here without explaining it. This isn’t about proving evolution, it’s about the fact that your claim depends on the same type of process you’re rejecting. Changing the topic to show macro evolution, doesn’t address that inconsistency, it sidesteps it.

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

For a prophecy to function as evidence, it must be clearly defined beforehand and independently established. Otherwise, its fulfilment is unconstrained and becomes open to interpretation.
If the meaning and identification of the prophecy depend on the same framework that is being rejected, then the claim of fulfilment is derived from that framework, not independently verified. A claim of fulfilment only has evidential force if the prophecy is independently attested prior to the event. Otherwise, it can be applied after the fact.
The relevant question is whether the claimed fulfilment is more likely if the prophecy is genuinely predictive, or if it is being interpreted after the event.
If the interpretation depends on the same framework used to define the prophecy, then the evidence is equally expected under both scenarios, genuine prediction and post hoc interpretation.
So it does not significantly increase the probability of the claim.
And if the framework is rejected, then the prior definition of the prophecy is no longer fixed, which makes the fulfilment even less constrained and more susceptible to reinterpretation.
So the prophecy doesn’t function as independent evidence, it remains an interpretation within the same system, and therefore does not increase the probability of the resurrection relative to alternative explanations.
In that case, the evidential standard is not met.

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

That doesn’t follow.
If the prophecy comes from an earlier framework, then its validity depends on that framework being reliable. You can’t reject the framework and still use its content as evidence.
If the framework is rejected, then the prophecy loses its evidential basis, because its meaning and identification depend on that same system.
So you can’t use the prophecy both to validate the claim and to justify rejecting the framework,that’s internally inconsistent.
Either the prophecy is grounded in the earlier framework, in which case that framework must be independently justified, or there is no independently established prophecy to appeal to.
A source can’t be both necessary for a claim and invalidated by that same claim without collapsing the argument.

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

Observable reality isn’t preference, agreed,but then you have to apply that consistently. We don’t observe freshwater animals turning into saltwater ecosystems on a global scale, and we don’t observe the kind of large scale transformation your claim requires. Pointing to observable reality, only works if the thing you’re claiming is actually observed. Otherwise, you’re appealing to observation where it doesn’t exist, while dismissing other conclusions that are based on far stronger, converging evidence.

[Sh-eh-lah @Brightburnlight]

Calling it selective,doesn’t fix the problem, it exposes it. If you’re applying different standards to the same kind of evidence, then the conclusion isn’t coming from the evidence, it’s coming from preference. You can’t reject evolution on the basis that the evidence isn’t there, and then claim there is evidence for large scale biological change that relies on the same mechanisms, without defining a consistent standard. Without that, it’s not evidence establishing the claim, it’s the claim deciding what counts as evidence. That undermines the credibility of the position.