Friday, June 22, 2012

Rosa Rubicondior Evidence Gaffe

My "Atheist" Twitter pal Rosa Rubicondior recently tweeted a link to a blog that I found interesting. The blog  attempts to define what evidence is and how it will impact the conversion of an Atheist.

However, like with most blogs and works written by Atheists, the logic is flawed and the intellectual thoughts behind them are obtuse.  I will explain why in this blog. 
Rosa's words will be in blue and mine will be in black.

<If you want to convert an Atheist your task should be simple.  Atheists believe in evidence; our opinions are based on it and when the evidence changes, or we discover new evidence, we change our opinions.  We have no sacred dogmas which can't be questioned; no tenets of 'faith' to which we must subscribe.

This should make us very easy to convert.

Sacerdotus comments:
Atheists will always demand "evidence" for the claims of believers; however, they will never provide evidence for their counter argument.  To date no Atheist has proven the "There is no god hypothesis."  It is a presumptious argument that has no evidence and is merely an exaggerated claim.   

Sacred Dogmas are not the same as Scientific knowledge.  If a Dogma says for example that God is good, how can anyone alter that?  It is an attribute of God which only God can alter.  Similarly, if a college graduate achieves a summa cum laude, how can one alter this fact?  This is an attribute that is unique to that graduate and cannot be altered.  

Science will change because our understanding of nature changes.  However, that does not mean that nature itself changes.  It merely means that what we at first observed and interpreted needs to be updated or retracted.   

<<All you need is authenticated, incontrovertible evidence that your god exists and your evidence only needs to pass a few simple tests which, presumably, you believe it's already passed>>

Sacerdotus comments:
This statement is ambiguous.  Evidence can be anything to anyone.  For centuries believers have offered evidence that is incontrovertible, however, Atheists simply reject them.  For centuries miracles have happened which are confirmed by the scientific community as "unexplainable" and Atheists still reject them.  So what needs to change is not the evidence, but the objectivity of the Atheist who is studying the evidence.  

<<You will need to explain why your evidence is evidence ONLY for your god and not any other.  Since people have believed in over 3000 different gods in recorded human history, obviously you will need to show why your evidence couldn't be evidence for any of those.
You will also need to explain how a god is the ONLY possible explanation for your evidence and why it can't possibly be explained as the result of a natural process.Now, since, presumably, you were convinced of your god's existence by just such evidence, it shouldn't be too difficult to tell us Atheists where it's to be found and how it meets the above criteria

Sacerdotus comments:
This statement is ridiculous.  Any evidence for a deity/deities provided by believers of different faiths will not have any major difference in regards to ontology and metaphysics.  The evidence provided will deal with the deity's/deities' existence, attributes and how that deity/deities interacts with the universe.  Therefore, whether humanity has 3000 different gods or 10, those gods will be defended in a universal manner.  
Note how an Islamic follower of Rosa's blog is using similar arguments to defend Allah just as any Christian or Jew would defend his/her ideas of God.  

Natural processes are not the finality of everything that occurs in nature.  Behind any process there is a cause.  No process in this universe is eternal.  Every process in this universe has a primal cause.  For example: A computer turns on when I turn it on.  It did not appear out of nowhere fully constructed and running eternally.  

The answer to how does not answer the why.     

<<In your own time....

(p.s.  Opinion isn't evidence and nor is a quote from a book unless the quote refers to authenticated, observable evidence meeting the above criteria).

[Later note] It seems many Creationists are unsure of what constitutes 'evidence' and imagine it includes ignorance and even the opinions of others.  The following blogs may help them gain the necessary understanding to be able to use the above method:

(Thanks to @kaimatai on Twitter for providing these helpful link)

Sacerdotus comments:

The suggestion that opinion  -isn't evidence nor a quote from a book - unless it is authenticated etc is an opinion in itself.  Rosa in the first paragraph told us that evidence changes.  If evidence changes, how can we trust it as being truth?   

Moreover, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to borrow from Sagan/Rees.  One cannot conclude there is no God based on any lack of what one defines as substantial incontrovertible evidence for the former.  For example, I can ask Rosa and everyone in my area what color is the sun.  They will most likely reply "yellow."  If I ask why, they will most likely reply that they see it in the sky as yellow.  Their evidence is what they observe with their eyes.  

However, in reality the Sun is white, not yellow.  See, to those who I've asked, the evidence they rely upon is what they have perceived, which is the color yellow in the sky.  However, my evidence is that the Sun is a G2V star that is white.  Its rays appear yellow due to the Earth's atmosphere.   

To add more "spice" to the situation, which evidence is evidence: my evidence or the evidence of the people I have asked?  Both are observable, can be tested and are incontrovertible.  Who is correct?

Now in regards to the 2 links by @kaimatai:  

They are interesting, however let me throw a wrench into the arguments.  
"@kaimatai" goes on in length to define what evidence is and is not.  The problem here is that in reality no one has ever had evidence of anything!   We never perceive things in actuality.  We never touch anything in reality!  

Touch, perception, sensation, are illusions based on the interpretation of electrical signals from an Atom's electrons by our nervous system.  Strange as it may seem, we never ever kissed our own mothers on the cheek!  We never ever hugged anyone!   

When we touch, grab, feel things, what we sense as "touch" is the Coulomb repulsion.  We are not actually touching anything.  Without the field generated by the electrons in the outer shell of atoms, we all would explode.  In other words, if atoms touch each other, they would annihilate each other.  The entire universe would become the largest atomic explosion possible.

So in reality, evidence is all in the brain and subject to perception!  This whole universe could be a simulation -for all we know- as Philosopher Chalmer's theorized.  That being said, both Rosa's and @kaimatai's logic have been destroyed.  Evidence is in the senses and perception of the beholder.    



  1. An interesting example of the intellectually, morally and scientifically bankrupt use of the href=">False Dichotomy Fallacy as a smokescreen for not being able to meet the challenge.

    Have you many more examples of the morally and intellectually bankrupt debating trick you normally try to fool people with?

  2. As usual, you resort to Ad hominem. Instead of attacking the arguments, you attack the arguer. This is common among Agnostics/Atheists such as yourself who do not have the intellectual confidence to articulately construct a rebuttal. They attack the arguer and falsely throw around fallacy accusations in order to save face.

    Moreover, you erroneously make charges of False Dichotomy. No such attempt was made to force anyone to accept a position. A False Dichotomy is when one is not of A then one is of B. Any well read person would see that my blog post has no such content. It is merely a commentary of your blog and why it is irrational.

    To date, you have not provided any evidence supporting your counter argument that my blog post is "bankrupt." Until you do so, your ad hominem comments proudly display your defeat.

    PS. I have no problem posting comments as long as they are not vulgar, hateful, and they pertain to the discussion.

    1. It's really very simple. There is a specific challenge on the blog you are getting so upset about. You can read it here

      No excuses in the world will hide the fact that you have not even had the courage to try to take it and nor will your attempt to put up this smokescreen. This can only be because you know you can't.

    2. I am not upset. Someone retweeted your tweet and I saw the "evidence" blog link you were advertising and laughed at it as I read it because it holds no ground as I have demonstrated here. I then decided to write on it so others can see how you and kaimatai proposed ideas that have no weight to them.

      Rosa, with all due respect, your blog offers no challenge. Your blogs repackage the same misconceptions and lack of knowledge on Scripture and Christianity that Atheists and Agnostics have demonstrated throughout the centuries. You quote Biblical passages as if you've discovered some strange thing about each that no one else has. Your misconceptions have answers.

      I will not even touch upon your blog's scientific illiteracy...

      It seems to me that your blog is your way of indirectly asking questions regarding religion. I think behind that "atheist/agnostic" facade is a curious person looking to learn about God, Scripture and Faith.

  3. So, where is the evidence of your god? It really is a simple question. The burden of proof is on you, Sacerdotus. You make the claim of talking snakes, a woman being turned into a pillar of salt, and a god sending a son who was himself as a blood sacrifice for our sins. Then you expect RosaRubicondior to prove that no god exists? Really? Is that all you have to offer?

    1. This blog posting is not meant to provide evidence of anything but to comment on Rosa's blog. Evidence for God is in the works and is rather lengthy, stay tuned. :)

  4. Sacerdotus, the issue is simple. Give us a credible, reliable reason to claim that a god exists and we'll accept that a god exists. This reason must be such that it leads to the conclusion that a god exists MORE PROBABLY than to any alternative conclusion, inclusing the conclusion that humans simply lack some aspect of knowledge (gap arguments).



    1. Again, that is not the purpose of this blog post. I commented on Rosa's blog that I will debunk her view of what constitutes evidence. I never offered to provide evidence. That will come at a later point. Look at the comment before yours. I said it is in the works. Rosa's blog post deals with what she expects evidence to be for God that will be suffice to covert an Atheist. She is not requesting it.

  5. Well, she's pretty much right. An atheist will not accept anything short of credible evidence. She might be wrong in saying that you'll have to exclude all other gods. You can hypothetically prove that a god (an intelligent creator) exists without proving a specific deity. And true enough, that (flawed) argument is one that most religions have in common. It's one of the few gaps still left for you guys to rely on.

    Personal experiences will NOT amount to acceptable evidence for an atheist. We accept that people feel things and that they do really have an experience. Many different types of experience, often inconsistent with those of others. That's only evidence of an experience, not of any external source of it.

    1. Credible evidence is subjective to the observer. An Atheist has to be objective. Certain experiences are valid, for examples miracles. The Church before elevating anyone to Sainthood must have evidence of miracles that are tested by the scientific community.

  6. Sacerdotus,

    Since when do you get to define your own rules of evidence?

  7. Interesting post. I agree with you that what Rosa asks is something that can't be achieved and that the logic is not there in asking to show evidence that *your* god is the right god and not any of the other gods. Anything that proves the supernatural should be enough to convert an atheist away from atheism (even if it wouldn't convert him to Christianity).

    I'm a Muslim agnostic myself so I don't believe there is proof that God exists, but I still believe He does exist. I see evidence to support my belief but I don't think it's enough to be proof so I wouldn't even try to convince an atheist. They have their path and I have mine.

    1. I agree. Anything that proves the supernatural should be enough; however, Atheists/Agnostics will always question and hide behind God of gaps. It all depends on what one views as evidence or proof.


Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.


Catholic Church (782) God (408) Jesus (348) Atheism (344) Bible (318) Jesus Christ (288) Pope Francis (234) Atheist (229) Liturgy of the Word (195) Science (156) LGBT (146) Christianity (139) Pope Benedict XVI (81) Gay (80) Rosa Rubicondior (79) Abortion (75) Prayer (66) President Obama (57) Liturgy (55) Physics (53) Philosophy (52) Christian (50) Vatican (50) Blessed Virgin Mary (46) Christmas (43) New York City (43) Psychology (42) Holy Eucharist (38) Politics (34) Women (34) Biology (32) Baseball (30) Supreme Court (30) NYPD (27) Religious Freedom (27) Traditionalists (24) priests (24) Health (23) Space (23) Pope John Paul II (22) Racism (22) Evil (20) Theology (20) Apologetics (19) First Amendment (19) Pro Abortion (19) Protestant (19) Astrophysics (18) Christ (18) Death (18) Child Abuse (17) Evangelization (17) Illegal Immigrants (17) Pro Choice (17) Donald Trump (16) Police (16) Priesthood (16) Pedophilia (15) Marriage (14) Vatican II (14) Divine Mercy (12) Blog (11) Eucharist (11) Gospel (11) Autism (10) Jewish (10) Morality (10) Muslims (10) Poverty (10) September 11 (10) Easter Sunday (9) Gender Theory (9) Holy Trinity (9) academia (9) CUNY (8) Cognitive Psychology (8) Human Rights (8) Pentecostals (8) Personhood (8) Sacraments (8) Big Bang Theory (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Spiritual Life (7) Barack Obama (6) Hell (6) Hispanics (6) Humanism (6) NY Yankees (6) Babies (5) Cyber Bullying (5) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (5) Massimo Pigliucci (5) Podcast (5) Pope Pius XII (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Pope Paul VI (4) Catholic Bloggers (3) Death penalty (3) Evangelicals (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Eastern Orthodox (2) Encyclical (2) Founding Fathers (2) Freeatheism (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1)