agit-prop, opinion manipulation and well-poisoning games Correcting trollish fallacies Darwinist rhetorical tactics Design inference

drc466 exposes the argument from incredulity fallacy

Spread the love

Here at UD, we will headline particularly noteworthy comments spotted in discussion threads. Today, drc466 has a gem, in the Show a Natural OoL for $10 mn prize thread,:

drc466 , no. 21:] “there is nothing more irritating than the constant (invalid) refrain from evolutionists of “argument from incredulity”. And the variant “God of the Gaps” or “Goddidit” accusations.

When a scientist, engineer, or layman for that matter, conclusively demonstrates mathematically or empirically that something is impossible, that is not an “argument from incredulity”. It is a proof requiring evidence to the contrary.

Say, for example, that I make the claim “Iron doesn’t float”. That’s not an argument from incredulity, that is a positive hypothesis based on experimental observation that contradicts an alternate theory, that iron does float.

Now, a clever individual may come along, create a boat from the iron, and say, “Look – iron does float. Your theory is falsified.” Which may lead me to restate my theory – “Iron not shaped in such a fashion to capture ‘lighter than water’ materials within its volume does not float”. Again – this is not an argument from incredulity, it is a theory that requires contrary evidence to disprove.

So, when Dr. Axe presents mathematical and empirical evidence that new gene and protein folds cannot occur via gradualistic processes, that is not an “argument from incredulity”. It requires falsification. Merely stating “yeah, we can’t provide you any empirical evidence, mathematical equations, or even realistic computer models that contradict that assertion, but you’re wrong because argument from incredulity!” is not just invalid, it’s outright offensive. And ignorant. And yet, evolutionists do it all the time!

“Organic molecules degrade in 1000’s of years not millions. Original organic material has been found in these fossils. Therefore, they cannot be millions of years old.” – “Argument from incredulity!”

“Mutation experiments demonstrate a limit of random mutations before the organism becomes non-viable, and no evidence than mutations can add new information.” – “Argument from incredulity!”

“Mutation rates in genetic material show that even the millions of years evolutionists claim occurred are insufficient to account for any major phyletic transition” – “Argument from incredulity!”

“The time period for the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ is significantly too small to allow for the wide variety of body plans that appeared during this period.” – “Argument from incredulity!”

“2 + 2 does not equal 22” – “Argument from incredulity!”

It’s really tiresome, don’t you think? If I ever use the phrase, I hope someone slaps me. If you honestly believe that someone is postulating a theory based solely on whether or not they personally believe something is possible, then you should be able to offer a reasonable explanation of how it is possible, not just hide behind mommy’s “argument from incredulity” skirt. “

Food for thought, END

9 Replies to “drc466 exposes the argument from incredulity fallacy

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    drc466 exposes the argument from incredulity fallacy

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one’s personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

    Arguments from incredulity can take the form:

    I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false.

    I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.

    Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive ‘gut’ reaction, especially where time is scarce. This form of reasoning is fallacious because one’s inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality.

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    Aeronautical engineers do not specify materials of unknown properties when designing a new aircraft to which hundreds of people may trust their lives. New drugs are subjected to rigorous and extensive tests before they can be licensed for public use.. One of the goals of design is to minimize risk and to that end designers and engineers rely on the hard-won knowledge of science.

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, yes but science is not synonymous with the ideology of evolutionary materialistic scientism. The observable evidence is that digital code expressing algorithms, data structures and associated execution machinery manifest language using intelligence, and reflect highly knowledgeable, skilled design. This is backed up by needle in haystack search challenge for large config spaces requiring beyond 500 to 1,000 bits worth of possibilities to describe them. Worse, since 1948 we had a prediction, vindicated since the discovery of DNA in 1953, that self replicating kinematic automata would require stored coded information that guides self replication, per von Neumann, i.e. this is a further case of FSCO/I not an escape from it. It is imposition of a priori materialism that is suppressing the empirically warranted inference that we are seeing a clear signature of intelligently directed configuration in the heart of the living cell. KF

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    At post 3 Seversky, a Darwinian Atheist, defines the argument from incredulity. Which is all fine and well, but he then fails to apply his definition to Intelligent Design Advocates and/or to Darwinian Atheists to show us why he personally thinks Intelligent Design Advocates, not Darwinian Atheists, are the ones arguing from personal incredulity.

    I hope that Seversky does not mind if I remedy this rather glaring defect in his argument.

    To remedy this defect in Seversky’s argument, let’s deconstruct his definition of the argument from incredulity claim by claim to see how it applies to Intelligent Design Advocates and Darwinian Atheists,

    As to the first claim

    Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement,

    OK, so who has “inappropriate emotional involvement”? Well, as the following study shows, it is the Darwinian atheist: “I’ve never been angry at unicorns. It’s unlikely you’ve ever been angry at unicorns either.,, The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.”

    When Atheists Are Angry at God – 2011
    Excerpt: I’ve never been angry at unicorns. It’s unlikely you’ve ever been angry at unicorns either.,, The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.
    A new set of studies in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology finds that atheists and agnostics report anger toward God either in the past or anger focused on a hypothetical image of what they imagine God must be like. Julie Exline, a psychologist at Case Western Reserve University and the lead author of this recent study, has examined other data on this subject with identical results. Exline explains that her interest was first piqued when an early study of anger toward God revealed a counterintuitive finding: Those who reported no belief in God reported more grudges toward him than believers.

    As to the second claim:

    the conflation of fantasy and reality,

    OK, so who is more prone to conflating fantasy and reality? Again, it is the Darwinian Atheist who is found to be more prone to conflating fantasy and reality.

    Look Who’s Irrational Now – 2008
    Excerpt: “What Americans Really Believe,” a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.

    Don’t Believe in God? Maybe You’ll Try U.F.O.s
    Excerpt: The less religious people are, the more likely they are to endorse empirically unsupported ideas about U.F.O.s, intelligent aliens monitoring the lives of humans and related conspiracies about a government cover-up of these phenomena.

    As to the third claim

    a lack of understanding,

    So who displays less understanding? Well given that emotion plays a big part in their atheism, it is first interesting to note that atheists have less empathy and/or understanding for, and of, other people:

    Atheists lack empathy and understanding – FEBRUARY 3, 2013
    Excerpt: But their analyses went further. They also asked them about their empathy (using questions like “I often find it difficult to judge if someone is rude or polite” and “I am good at predicting how someone will feel.”).
    They found that empathy also correlated with belief. Not only that but, using a statistical technique called “bootstrapping”, they found that the most plausible explanation for the correlation was that autism was related to a lack of empathy, which in turn was related to lack of belief (see the figure).
    In other words, lack of empathy was the ‘in between’ factor that mediated the relationship between autism and lack of belief.

    A scientific case for conceptual dualism: The problem of consciousness and the opposing domains hypothesis. – Anthony I. Jack – 2013
    Excerpt page 18:  we predicted that psychopaths would not be able to perceive the problem of consciousness.,,
    In a series of five experiments (Jack, in preparation), we found a highly replicable and robust negative correlation (r~-0.34) between belief in dualism and the primary psychopathic trait of callous affect7.
    Page 24: Clearly these findings fit well with the hypothesis (Robbins and Jack, 2006) that psychopaths can’t see the problem of consciousness8. Taking these finding together with other work on dehumanization and the anti-social effects of denying the soul and free will, they present a powerful picture. When we see persons, that is, when we see others as fellow humans, then our percept is of something essentially non-physical nature. This feature of our psychology appears to be relevant to a number of other philosophical issues, including the tension between utilitarian principles and deontological concerns about harming persons (Jack et al., accepted), the question of whether God exists (Jack et al., under review-b), and the problem of free will9.

    On the intellectual level, although atheists often pride themselves on their understanding of a particular branch of scientific knowledge, understanding itself, (i.e. that is to say the ability to grasp what something actually means or how something actually works), is directly undermined by atheism.

    First, if atheism were true there would be no meaning to anything in the universe, much less would there be any understanding of what something actually means,

    “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
    – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

    Secondly, to presuppose that it is possible to understand how something actually works in this universe is to presuppose that there is a ultimate purpose and/or teleology behind its existence in this universe. Yet atheists explicitly deny the existence of purpose and/or teleology:

    Dr. Michael Egnor has a very insightful article explaining exactly why Darwinists are so intent on denying teleology and/or purpose in, and for, the universe,

    Teleology and the Mind – Michael Egnor – August 16, 2016
    Excerpt: From the hylemorphic perspective, there is an intimate link between the mind and teleology. The 19th-century philosopher Franz Brentano pointed out that the hallmark of the mind is that it is directed to something other than itself. That is, the mind has intentionality, which is the ability of a mental process to be about something, rather than to just be itself. Physical processes alone (understood without teleology) are not inherently about things. The mind is always about things. Stated another way, physical processes (understood without teleology) have no purpose. Mental processes always have purpose. In fact, purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) is what defines the mind. And we see the same purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) in nature.
    Intentionality is a form of teleology. Both intentionality and teleology are goal-directedness — intentionality is directedness in thought, and teleology is directedness in nature. Mind and teleology are both manifestations of purpose in nature. The mind is, within nature, the same kind of process that directs nature.
    In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts.
    The link between intentionality and teleology, and the undeniability of teleology, is even more clear if we consider our inescapable belief that other people have minds. The inference that other people have minds based on their purposeful (intentional-teleological) behavior, which is obviously correct and is essential to living a sane life, can be applied to our understanding of nature as well. Just as we know that other people have purposes (intentionality), we know just as certainly that nature has purposes (teleology). In a sense, intelligent design is the recognition of the same purpose-teleology-intentionality in nature that we recognize in ourselves and others.
    Teleology and intentionality are certainly the inferences to be drawn from the obvious purposeful arrangement of parts in nature, but I (as a loyal Thomist!) believe that teleology and intentionality are manifest in an even more fundamental way in nature. Any goal-directed natural change is teleological, even if purpose and arrangement of parts is not clearly manifest. The behavior of a single electron orbiting a proton is teleological, because the motion of the electron hews to specific ends (according to quantum mechanics). A pencil falling to the floor behaves teleologically (it does not fall up, or burst into flame, etc.). Purposeful arrangement of parts is teleology on an even more sophisticated scale, but teleology exists in even the most basic processes in nature. Physics is no less teleological than biology.

    Thus, since atheism denies the existence of meaning, purpose and/or teleology in the universe, and yet since understanding itself necessarily presupposes that meaning, purpose and/or teleology actually exist in the universe so as to be understood in the first place, then that directly undermines any claim that atheism can ground understanding in the first place.

    Simply put, atheists display ‘a lack of understanding’ in the most fundamental way possible in that their worldview, in their resolute denial that there is any real meaning and purpose behind why the universe exists in the first place, forsake any claim they may make for understanding the universe in the first place. As Einstein himself stated, “Well, a priori, (if atheism were true) one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way,,,”

    On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952
    Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.
    There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.”
    -Albert Einstein

    As Dr. Cornelius Hunter observed, “Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth.,, (an atheist) needs God In order to deny Him.””

    “Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.
    Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God In order to deny Him.”
    – Cornelius Hunter
    Photo – an atheist contemplating his own ‘mind’

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    As to the fourth claim

    or an instinctive ‘gut’ reaction, especially where time is scarce.

    This is an interesting claim in that the ‘instinctive gut reaction, especially where time is scarce’ is shown to be a default belief that things are Intelligently Designed and that atheists have to mentally work suppressing their instinctual belief that the universe and the things in it are Intelligently Designed.

    Is Atheism a Delusion?

    Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012
    Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,,
    Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation.

    Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study – Mary Papenfuss – June 12, 2015
    Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the “knee jerk” reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they’re purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the “Divided Mind of a disbeliever.”
    The findings “suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed,” writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers’ words, “religious non-belief is cognitively effortful.”
    Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or “default” human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether “any being purposefully made the thing in the picture,” notes Pacific-Standard.
    “Religious participants’ baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher” than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants “increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made” when “they did not have time to censor their thinking,” wrote the researchers.
    The results suggest that “the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs,” the report concluded.
    The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US.
    “Design-based intuitions run deep,” the researchers conclude, “persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them.”

    It is not that Atheists do not see purpose and/or Design in nature and biology, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided, (emotional?) reason, live in denial of the purpose and/or Design that they themselves see in nature.

    Perhaps the two most famous quotes of atheists suppressing their innate ‘design inference’ are the following two quotes:

    “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
    Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
    Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit

    It is easy to see why Crick, the co-discoverer of the DNA helix, was constantly ‘haunted’ by his own innate design inference

    Cross Section of DNA – google search

    Then finally the definition that Seversky cited gives this overarching reason for why ‘the augment from incredulity’ is fallacious

    This form of reasoning is fallacious because one’s inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality.

    In other words, Seversky, nor any other atheist, can give any coherent reason, much less can they give any empirical evidence, for why they do not believe in God.

    As the following article points out, “Elite Scientists Don’t Have Elite Reasons for Being Atheists”

    Elite Scientists Don’t Have Elite Reasons for Being Atheists – November 8, 2016
    Excerpt: Dr. Jonathan Pararejasingham has compiled video of elite scientists and scholars to make the connection between atheism and science. Unfortunately for Pararejasingham, once you get past the self-identification of these scholars as non-believers, there is simply very little there to justify the belief in atheism.,,,
    What I found was 50 elite scientists expressing their personal opinions, but none had some powerful argument or evidence to justify their opinions. In fact, most did not even cite a reason for thinking atheism was true.,,,
    The few that did try to justify their atheism commonly appealed to God of the Gaps arguments (there is no need for God, therefore God does not exist) and the Argument from Evil (our bad world could not have come from an All Loving, All Powerful God). In other words, it is just as I thought it would be. Yes, most elite scientists and scholars are atheists. But their reasons for being atheists and agnostics are varied and often personal. And their typical arguments are rather common and shallow – god of the gaps and the existence of evil. It would seem clear that their expertise and elite status is simply not a causal factor behind their atheism.
    Finally, it is also clear the militant atheism of Dawkins is a distinct minority view among these scholars.

    There simply is no evidence, nor logical argumentation, that the atheist can appeal to, that can withstand scrutiny, in order to support his rejection of God. Again, as was shown, his unbelief is rooted primarily in emotion not in reason (in fact reason itself cannot be grounded within his atheistic worldview). Whereas the Christian Theist has a veritable overabundance of logical arguments and empirical evidence that he can appeal to support his belief in God:

    Theism compared to (Atheistic) Naturalism – (Major predictions of each Philosophy compared to the scientific discoveries we now have in hand) – video

    Table Of Contents for TWO DOZEN (OR SO) ARGUMENTS FOR GOD: THE PLANTINGA PROJECT (the book is due out Summer 2017)
    I. Half a Dozen (or so) ontological (or metaphysical) arguments
    (A) The Argument from Intentionality (or Aboutness)
    • Lorraine Keller, Niagara University
    • “Propositions Supernaturalized”
    (B) The Argument from Collections
    • Chris Menzel, Texas A&M
    • “The Argument from Collections”
    (C) The Argument from (Natural) Numbers
    • Tyron Goldshmidt, Wake Forest
    • “The Argument from (Natural) Numbers”
    (D) The Argument From Counterfactuals
    • Alex Pruss, Baylor University
    • “Counterfactuals, Vagueness and God”
    (E) The Argument from Physical Constants
    • Robin Collins, Messiah College
    • “The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability”
    (F) The Naive Teleological Argument
    • C. Stephen Evans, Baylor University
    • “An Argument from Design for Ordinary People”
    (H) The Ontological Argument
    • Elizabeth Burns, Heythrop College
    • “Patching Planting’s Ontological Argument by Making the Murdoch Move”
    (I) Why is there anything at all?
    • Josh Rasmussen, Azusa Pacific; and Christopher Gregory Weaver, Rutgers University
    • “Why is There Anything?”

    II. Half a dozen Epistemological Arguments
    (J) The argument from positive epistemic status
    • Justin Barrett, Fuller Seminary
    • “Evolutionary Psychology and the Argument from Positive Epistemic Status”
    (K) The Argument from the confluence of proper function and reliability
    • Alex Arnold, The John Templeton Foundation
    • “Is God the Designer of our Cognitive Faculties? Evaluating Plantinga’s Argument”
    (L) The Argument from Simplicity and (M) The Argument from Induction
    • Bradly Monton, Independent Scholar
    • “Atheistic Induction by Boltzmann Brains”

    (N) The Putnamian Argument (the Argument from the Rejection of Global Skepticism)[also, (O) The Argument from Reference and (K) The Argument from the Confluence of Proper Function and Reliability]
    • Even Fales, University of Iowa
    • “Putnam’s Semantic Skepticism and the Epistemic Melt-Down of Naturalism: How Defeat of Putnam’s Puzzle Provides a Defeater for Plantinga’s Self-Defeat Argument Against Naturalism”

    (N) The Putnamian Argument, (O) The Argument from Reference, and (P) The Kripke-Wittgenstein Argument from Plus and Quus
    • Dan Bonevac, University of Texas
    • “Arguments from Knowledge, Reference, and Content”

    (Q) The General Argument from Intuition.
    • Rob Koons, University of Texas at Austin
    • “The General Argument from Intuition”

    III. Moral arguments
    (R) Moral Arguments (actually R1 to Rn)
    • David Baggett, Liberty University
    • “An Abductive Moral Argument for God”

    (R*) The argument from evil.
    • Hud Hudson, Western Washington University
    • “Felix Culpa!”

    IV. Other Arguments
    (S) The Argument from Colors and Flavors
    • Richard Swinburne, Oxford University
    • “The Argument from Consciousness”
    (T) The Argument from Love and (Y) The Argument from the Meaning of Life
    • Jerry Walls, Houston Baptist University
    • “The God of Love and the Meaning of Life”
    (U) The Mozart Argument and (V) The Argument from Play and Enjoyment
    • Philip Tallon, Houston Baptist University
    • “The Theistic Argument from Beauty and Play”
    (W) Arguments from providence and from miracles
    • Tim McGrew, Western Michigan University
    • “Of Miracles: The State of the Art and the Uses of History”
    (X) C.S. Lewis’s Argument from Nostalgia
    • Todd Buras, Baylor University and Mike Cantrell
    • “A New Argument from Desire”
    (Z) The Argument from (A) to (Y)
    • Ted Poston, University of South Alabama
    • “The Argument from So Many Arguments”

    V. “Or so”: Three More Arguments
    The Kalam Cosmological Argument
    • William Lane Craig, Houston Baptist University
    • “The Kalam Cosmological Argument”
    The Argument from Possibility
    • Brian Leftow, Oxford University
    • “The Argument from Possibility”
    The Argument from the Incompleteness of Nature
    • Bruce Gordon, Houston Baptist University
    • “The Necessity of Sufficiency: The Argument from the Incompleteness of Nature”


    Job 28
    20 ‘Where then does wisdom come from?
    And where is the place of understanding?
    21 It is hidden from the eyes of all living,
    and concealed from the birds of the air.
    22 Abaddon and Death say,
    “We have heard a rumour of it with our ears.”
    23 ‘God understands the way to it,
    and he knows its place.
    24 For he looks to the ends of the earth,
    and sees everything under the heavens.
    25 When he gave to the wind its weight,
    and apportioned out the waters by measure;
    26 when he made a decree for the rain,
    and a way for the thunderbolt;
    27 then he saw it and declared it;
    he established it, and searched it out.
    28 And he said to humankind,
    “Truly, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom;
    and to depart from evil is understanding.” ’

  7. 7
    ET says:

    Arguments from incredulity follow directly from evidence-free arguments from wishful thinking. Is it really personal incredulity to say that a 4 year old couldn’t solve the problem x^3 + y^3 + z^3 = 42? No, it is a fact.

    Just because evos NEVER support their nonsensical claims does not mean that their opponents argue from incredulity.

  8. 8
    drc466 says:

    By your own definition@3, every time you’ve used argument from incredulity, you’ve misapplied it.
    Dr. Axe, for example, clearly CAN imagine what he’s disproved, or he wouldn’t have been able to put so much rigor behind it. Rigor demands response. Argument from incredulity ain’t it.

  9. 9
    john_a_designer says:

    Pointing out that the naturalist/materialist’s arguments are insufficient explanations based on insufficient evidence is not an argument from personal incredulity. It is an argument from the evidence as we presently understand it. That’s not personal incredulity; it’s rational skepticism.

    Recently I gave an example of this relating to the existence of the so-called multiverse.

    The reasons for the so-called multiverse hypothesis are purely metaphysical. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for such a hypothesis. Some atheistic scientists are more or less willing to admit this.

    For example, in 2007 while making observations at the Keck observatory in Hawaii, Sandra Faber, a professor of astronomy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, told science writer Anil Ananthaswamy, “that there were only two possible explanations for fine-tuning. ‘One is that there is a God and that God made it that way…’ But for Faber, an atheist, divine intervention is not the answer.

    ‘The only other approach that makes any sense is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one,’ she said.

    This ensemble would be the multiverse. In a multiverse, the laws of physics and the values of physical parameters like dark energy would be different in each universe, each the outcome of some random pull on the cosmic slot machine. We just happened to luck into a universe that is conducive to life. After all, if our corner of the multiverse were hostile to life, Faber and I wouldn’t be around to ponder these questions under stars.”
    I pointed out that, “An appeal to the multiverse is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to chance.


    The appeal to the multiverse is… fallacious because we have no evidence that other universes even exist. Is it sufficient for us to infer the existence of other universes simply because the existence of our universe appears to be so improbable without considering the other “possibilities?”

    The argument then boils down to a debate about logically possible explanations and an appeal to sufficient evidence.

Leave a Reply