# Using The Climate Alarmists' Logic To Prove God
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [May 7, 2017, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056 "2017-05-07T07:47:26Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/61 "2017-05-08T00:17:37Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#):
>
> I’d like to hear more about the 5% of theologians who read the Bible, studied other evidence, and came to the conclusion that God does NOT exist.
Some of them are [over here.](http://clergyproject.org/)
---
### Author:  [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/62 "2017-05-08T00:18:25Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> Actually, I’m pretty sure that the Bible does contain laws concerning the minimum distance the latrines must be from the camp, which would be reasonably good sanitation for a nomadic people. It’s not good enough for the needs of a city, but it’s not nothing.
The OT has hundreds of such now-inane rules (laws).
---
### Author:  [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/63 "2017-05-08T01:55:44Z")
> [@Bullitt](#):
>
> Please describe your journey, from presumably a faithful believer to how you came to believe there is no God.
I don’t ‘believe there is no God’ - I no longer have any belief in God(s) -period.
There is a distinction with that difference.
My journey has run the gambit from true believer (serious bible thumper, etc) thru the rejection of any ‘revealed’ religion after study with and of several, to deism, to my current standing as an atheist.
Any more that that deserves its own thread(s) - that I will likely particpate very little in. I only raised my hand here to say that such people certainly ‘exist’, and our paths thru that journey are as varied.
---
### Author:  [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/64 "2017-05-08T02:22:37Z")
I think the OP _sort of_ has a point, in that if you are going to rely on using only the argument from authority on something, there needs to be more caveats than “They need to be experts in their field”.
What his point _doesn’t_ show is any issue with climate change advocates specifically, since the argument from authority is used in virtually every field every day. If “All the experts say X” is now dubious, then better dust off your lab coat, engineer’s overalls, surgeon’s gown etc and prepare to verify everything humans think they know.
Also of course, “alarmists” don’t only rely on the argument from authority.
---
### Author:  [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/65 "2017-05-08T04:22:51Z")
> [@simster](#):
>
> I don’t ‘believe there is no God’ - I no longer have any belief in God(s) -period.
>
> There is a distinction with that difference.
>
> My journey has run the gambit from true believer (serious bible thumper, etc) thru the rejection of any ‘revealed’ religion after study with and of several, to deism, to my current standing as an atheist.
>
> Any more that that deserves its own thread(s) - that I will likely particpate very little in. I only raised my hand here to say that such people certainly ‘exist’, and our paths thru that journey are as varied.
Thanks for sharing, and, totally understand.
---
### Author:  [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/66 "2017-05-08T06:04:17Z")
> [@simster](#):
>
> I don’t ‘believe there is no God’ - I no longer have any belief in God(s) -period.
>
> There is a distinction with that difference.
>
> My journey has run the **gambit** from true believer (serious bible thumper, etc) thru the rejection of any ‘revealed’ religion after study with and of several, to deism, to my current standing as an atheist.
>
> Any more that that deserves its own thread(s) - that I will likely particpate very little in. I only raised my hand here to say that such people certainly ‘exist’, and our paths thru that journey are as varied.
Ahem.
_Gamut_.
That is all.
---
### Author:  [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/67 "2017-05-08T09:44:42Z")
95% of children aged 4 believe in Santa
95% of conspiracy wackos believe the moon landing was a hoax
etc
The argument for climate change is not based solely on popularity of the position, but also, _quality of the data_.
---
### Author:  [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/68 "2017-05-08T09:53:19Z")
Science: Propose a hypothesis. Does the evidence support the hypothesis? If not, the hypothesis is wrong.
Religion: Propose a hypothesis. Does the evidence support the hypothesis? If not, the evidence is wrong.
---
### Author:  [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/69 "2017-05-08T11:19:15Z")
> [@Great\_White\_Dope](#):
>
> Exact. Same. Logic.
The faithful are so cute when they try to use logic.
One of the less flattering definitions of faith is, “strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.”
Take the question, “Why is the sky blue?”
A person basing his life totally on faith would answer, “Because God wills it that way,” and look no further.
A person basing his life totally on science would answer, “Well, it’s [complicated](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html),” and go on from there.
Most of us live a blend of the two, but it is easy to see how the former leads nowhere but the latter leads to more inquiry and more answers, some of them useful.
For centuries, while Europe languished in the Dark Ages, the Islamic world was enjoying a [Golden Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age) with in advances in philosophy, social sciences, art, and other areas including math and what we now call science. Then in the 13th century this flowering came to an end. There was no simple cause – the Crusades and the invasion of Genghis Khan didn’t help – but I believe the philosopher [Al-Ghazali](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali) to be chief among them. In his [_Incoherence of the Philosophers_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali#Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers) he asserted that _everything_ is the will of God.
> [@wiki](#):
>
> Al-Ghazali gave as an example of the illusion of independent laws of cause the fact that cotton burns when coming into contact with fire. While it might seem as though a natural law was at work, it happened each and every time only because God willed it to happen—the event was “a direct product of divine intervention as any more attention grabbing miracle”. Averroes, by contrast insisted while God created the natural law, humans “could more usefully say that fire cause cotton to burn—because creation had a pattern that they could discern.”
This cut the legs out from under any inquiry, and research in the Islamic world has languished ever since, to the point where there have been exactly three [Nobel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_Nobel_laureates#Sciences) laureates in the sciences.
So, the OP can believe what he likes but if he wants to persuade me, he is going to have to come up with higher quality sophistry.
---
### Author:  [@Not\_Carlson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Not_Carlson)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/70 "2017-05-08T12:58:02Z")
> [@Bullitt](#):
>
> For one with faith, the OT and NT are consistent, coherent, and correct.
I used to believe this, because that’s what I had been told and that’s what I wanted to believe.
I similarly believed the Book or Mormon was consistent with each of its predecessors.
After reading each book multiple times and finding the struggle to accept their contents increasingly and then impossibly difficult, I no longer see them as consistent.
The apparent connections between them are due to the efforts of each subsequent book’s authors to forge a connection to the preceding books, not due to the preceding books pointing prophetically toward the latter books.
They are consistent in the sense that a Mary-Sue fanfiction is consistent with an original work.
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> I agree that Jesus, John the Baptist, etc. all of the religious leaders forming schisms at that time probably weren’t thinking (consciously) in those terms. But you’ll note that there was a time period there where a lot of new cults and beliefs were being generated, just as Mormonism was but one of several movements at that time.
I’m currently reading “And Man Made God”, a fascinating book that explores the political and social circumstances that led to the birth of Christianity. One of the intriguing things it points out is that Christianity was just one of many similar cults around the time.
But not to stray too far from the OP’s topic and logical fallacy, I’ll just observe that his other climate-change denialist thread, in the Pit,\* is similarly based on the type of extremely flawed reasoning that could only be accepted by those who are already convinced that their premise is correct, not matter what counter arguments they may receive.
\*(In the Pit thread, his argument is basically that people warning about climate change shouldn’t be believed because they aren’t living off the grid and preparing for the apocalypse. The shared premise being that climate-change is a hoax.)
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/71 "2017-05-08T13:01:21Z")
> [@Bullitt](#):
>
> (Disclosure: I am Christian)
>
> This is wrong: “Christianity was created when the Old Testament proved itself wrong”
> This is wrong too: “the New Testament proved itself wrong”
>
> For one with faith, the OT and NT are consistent, coherent, and correct. For staunch unbelievers I’m not trying to convert and convince anyone. But those statements are very wrong.
For one with faith, the ratio between circumference and diameter of a circle may be exactly three. :rolleyes: Faith doesn’t actually help the problems, it just closes one’s eyes to them.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/72 "2017-05-08T13:55:28Z")
Premise III: 0% of theologians believe in God because they think they have seen _empirical proof_. So it’s not “the exact same logic.”
---
### Author:  [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/73 "2017-05-08T14:32:45Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> Premise III: 0% of theologians believe in God because they think they have seen _empirical proof_. So it’s not “the exact same logic.”
Quite a lot of theologians think they have seen empirical proof of God. Quite a lot of theologians also don’t understand what actually constitutes “empirical proof”.
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/74 "2017-05-08T14:46:52Z")
Premise: My rabbi once started a sermon by telling us he wasn’t completely confident in God’s existence.
Conclusion: Grilled cheese sandwiches are better if you don’t try to fancy them up with extra nonsense like tomatoes.
Am I doing it right?
---
### Author:  [@Not\_Carlson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Not_Carlson)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/75 "2017-05-08T15:31:00Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#):
>
> Grilled cheese sandwiches are better if you don’t try to fancy them up with extra nonsense like tomatoes.
_Heresy!_
---
### Author:  [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/76 "2017-05-08T15:35:37Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#):
>
> Conclusion: Grilled cheese sandwiches are better if you don’t try to fancy them up with extra nonsense like tomatoes.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let’s not say thing we can’t take back.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/77 "2017-05-08T15:40:33Z")
> [@Gyrate](#):
>
> Quite a lot of theologians think they have seen empirical proof of God. Quite a lot of theologians also don’t understand what actually constitutes “empirical proof”.
I doubt a single one would tell you they became believers because of empirical proof. I daresay some might tell you they found empirical proof backing up their faith after they became believers.
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/78 "2017-05-08T15:45:32Z")
\*And lo, the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
“Though tomatoes are tasty in conjunction with grilled cheese, thou shalt consume them in soup form only. Thou shalt not place them in the sandwich or thou shalt surely DIE. This is the law. I am the LORD your GOD who brought you out of Egypt so that you might not screw up your rainy day lunches.”
And Moses spoke unto God, saying:
“Okay but what about a raw slice next to the sandwich?”
And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
“What, like with a little salt and pepper on top?”
And Moses was like, “yeah man.”
And God said, “Okay, just so long as the tomato juice doesn’t get the toast soggy.”\*
And now you know why the Third Crusade happened.
---
### Author:  [@Not\_Carlson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Not_Carlson)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/79 "2017-05-08T15:55:35Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#):
>
> \*And lo, the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
>
> “Though tomatoes are tasty in conjunction with grilled cheese, thou shalt consume them in soup form only. Thou shalt not place them in the sandwich or thou shalt surely DIE. This is the law. I am the LORD your GOD who brought you out of Egypt so that you might not screw up your rainy day lunches.”
To quote another Good Book: _“All right then, I’ll go to hell!”_
---
### Author:  [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2017, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/80 "2017-05-08T18:24:11Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#):
>
> \*And lo, the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
>
> “Though tomatoes are tasty in conjunction with grilled cheese, thou shalt consume them in soup form only. Thou shalt not place them in the sandwich or thou shalt surely DIE. This is the law. I am the LORD your GOD who brought you out of Egypt so that you might not screw up your rainy day lunches.”
>
> And Moses spoke unto God, saying:
>
> “Okay but what about a raw slice next to the sandwich?”
>
> And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
>
> “What, like with a little salt and pepper on top?”
>
> And Moses was like, “yeah man.”
>
> And God said, “Okay, just so long as the tomato juice doesn’t get the toast soggy.”\*
>
> And now you know why the Third Crusade happened.
It’s “spake,” isn’t it?
I mean, we don’t want any sloppy theology, now do we?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056.md?page=5)