Demanding scientific evidence only and placing such a high priority on it leaves the skeptic in a little mess.
For instance, there is no scientific evidence for God, not because God doesn't exist, but because He is simply absent from scientific literature, this is the little mess the skeptic finds himself in, as he believes in things that have no scientific evidence at all. They believe their brother/mother/spouse loves them, or their friends like them but there is no scientific evidence for that. Which leads me to my next point.
God wants peoples faith, He wants people to have faith in Him and if we go by various quotes from skeptics.
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/...s/dawkins.html
Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists.
One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...e-faith-based/
This is completely wrong. It shows (unsurprisingly) an utter misunderstanding of how science works. Science is not faith-based, and here’s why.
Scientific evidence is not faith. Science is not faith based. Why doesn't God show Himself or give scientific evidence for His existence? because according to the skeptics, it would be pointless for God to do so, since scientific evidence is not faith, and that is what God wants us to have, faith. The demand for scientific evidence of God is a self defeating one, the lack of scientific evidence for God is actually evidence of His existence.
25 comments:
Please show how this doesn't fall victim to reductio ad absurdem.
Please show why miracles (the flood would be a great start) wouldnt have left scientific evidence.
"...the lack of scientific evidence for God is actually evidence of His existence."
Man, I can't quit laughing!
TD is even more stupid and rediculous than Ray Comfort!
The fractured logic is absolutely precious, another christian making himself irrelevent.
This just in: !!!
Since there is no scientific evidence for astology, that is evidence that astrology is valid.
This MUST be a Poe site.
Not even the dumbest christians would make statements like I find here.
Good job TD at making christians look like the undereducated ignoramuses that most of them are.!
Keep up the good work!
There's no scientific evidence of Thor either.
"Regarding evidence there is historical, testimonial, and eye witness evidence for God"
--Which god? There's no shortage of testimonials for all kinds of gods.
"Scientific evidence is not faith. Science is not faith based. Why doesn't God show Himself or give scientific evidence for His existence? because according to the skeptics, it would be pointless for God to do so, since scientific evidence is not faith, and that is what God wants us to have, faith."
Faith is a fall back position because of the lack of evidence. Believing things without evidence is not a good idea.
Please show why miracles (the flood would be a great start) wouldnt have left scientific evidence.
Ignorance, is that observable testable and repeatable? no it is not. Thus it is not scientific evidence.
Man, I can't quit laughing!
TD is even more stupid and rediculous than Ray Comfort!
The fractured logic is absolutely precious, another christian making himself irrelevent.
Ignorance, this doesn't even constitute a coherent rebuttal, just antother ignorant atheist who doesn't understand logic or Christian theology.
This just in: !!!
Since there is no scientific evidence for astology, that is evidence that astrology is valid.
Whoopsie, is a defining characteristic of astrology the requirement of faith? no it is not. Due to your complete and utter ignorance you can't obviously understand that we should expect to see NO scientific evidence for God being that it does not produce faith. Froggie being the ignorant pathetic atheist that he is cannot grasp that concept.
There's no scientific evidence of Thor either.
Awwww, another ignorant atheist stumbles in and can't grasp the concept that God wants us to have faith, scientific evidence does not produce said faith, thus we should expect to see no scientific evidence. Does thor want us to have faith you ignorant atheist? no he does not, thus your logical error is exposed. I don't expect much being from these ignorant atheists anyway.
--Which god? There's no shortage of testimonials for all kinds of gods.
Good job, now if you can wrap your tiny atheist brain around the quality of evidence regaring each God you might actually learn something. Due to your complete ignorance of...well..just about anything of relevance here, you obviously can't understand that just because there are 2 pieces of testmonial evidence does not automaticlaly make them equal. Testemonial evidence from a doctor is going to be taken over testemonial evidence from a crack head. You being the atheist you are cannot grasp the quality of evidence concept and how it applies to testemonial evidence regarding God.
Faith is a fall back position because of the lack of evidence. Believing things without evidence is not a good idea.
Does this even refute anything I said? in fact it proves it, Christians have evidence you ignorant atheist, testemonial, historical and personal experience evidence. How ignorant are you? being an atheist I suspect you are very ignorant.
"Whoopsie, is a defining characteristic of astrology the requirement of faith? no it is not."
Scince there is no evidence for astrology being a vaalid way of predicting events it is therefore believed on faith.
Keep writing. You're merely digging deeper and deeper.
Scince there is no evidence for astrology being a vaalid way of predicting events it is therefore believed on faith.
Ignorant atheist froggie is confusing requirements due to desires and commands with post facto requirements due to results.
Gods requires us to have faith INITIALLY, not as a command and as a desire. Faith is the post facto result and consequence of astrology, not because of a command or a desire, but because after the fact you realize you . Froggie due to his incompetance and ignorance quite common amongst athests can't tell the difference between a requirement based upon attributes and characteristics of a living commands and desires of a living entity and requirements based upon the result of something. It is a requirement of my coach to be skilled at fighting(based upon the commands and desires of a living entity)before joining the gym, it is a requirement that one gets skilled at fighting as a post facto result of constantly getting beat up. Froggie due to him being an ignorant atheist can't comprehend the difference between the 2.
Keep writing. You're merely digging deeper and deeper.
Keep responding, you're merely making yourself look more and more ignorant.
I just can't participate in a discussion with someone that can use the word ignorant in every single post they make and sometimes more then once. I don't understand what the purpose of that is unless it is to heighten ones position by exclaiming ignorance over and over and over.
God gave us more then one word, please try using a few of them.
Ignorance, is that observable testable and repeatable? no it is not. Thus it is not scientific evidence.
Your ignorance call is a naked assertion. A flood of that size would leave a wealth of evidence that would be both observable and testable. Are you arguing that it would not?
Also you dodged my request to indicate why your argument was not invalidated by reductio ad absurdem.
I just can't participate in a discussion with someone that can use the word ignorant in every single post they make and sometimes more then once. I don't understand what the purpose of that is unless it is to heighten ones position by exclaiming ignorance over and over and over.
Perhaps you should read the rules of the blog.
3. You will be addressed how you addressed others. Expect the typical smug atheist I know it all attitude to be met with a smug Christian/agnostic/etc. I know it all type attitude, reverse applies as well.
Address others the way you would like to be addressed, and don't carry a smug 'I know it all attitude' and one won't be shown to you.
God gave us more then one word, please try using a few of them.
He sure did, and there are no need to use them if members follow the rules.
Your ignorance call is a naked assertion. A flood of that size would leave a wealth of evidence that would be both observable and testable. Are you arguing that it would not?
Is it observable and testable that The Christian God did it and not aliens or allah or any of the Hindu gods? no it is not. All we would have would be a global flood with no testable observable scientific evidence of who did it or who caused it.
Also you dodged my request to indicate why your argument was not invalidated by reductio ad absurdem.
No point was dodged, You did not provide a shred of evidence that it can be invalidated by reduction ad absurdem. Do you even know what that is?
Is it observable and testable that The Christian God did it and not aliens or allah or any of the Hindu gods? no it is not. All we would have would be a global flood with no testable observable scientific evidence of who did it or who caused it.
Agreed. But the Bible, which I assume (correct me if needed) you believe to be inerrent, makes a scientifically falsifiable claim of a global flood. Please explain why you think it cannot be falsified by scientific method.
No point was dodged, You did not provide a shred of evidence that it can be invalidated by reduction ad absurdem. Do you even know what that is?
The fallacy you committed was self evident. To quote yourself "Is it observable and testable that The Christian God did it and not aliens or allah or any of the Hindu gods? no it is not.". QED. If I have incorrectly read rhetoric in your question I'm happy to actually educate you.
Agreed. But the Bible, which I assume (correct me if needed) you believe to be inerrent, makes a scientifically falsifiable claim of a global flood. Please explain why you think it cannot be falsified by scientific method.
Firstly,
1. A valid translation of the scripture can be inferred for it to mean a global flood.
2. A valid translation of the scripture can be inferred for it to mean a local flood.
3. I don't know which one is right, I simply don't know.
Secondly, Please explain why you think you cannot stop beating your wife, your statement here: "Please explain why you think it cannot be falsified by scientific method.
" is a loaded one, I don't appreciate it.
Thirdly, This is about evidence for Gods existence not evidence for a global flood, so even if a global flood could be falsified there is still the valid interpretation that it was a local flood, not to mention Gods existence is not dependent upon floods anymore than mine or your existence is not dependent upon floods.
The fallacy you committed was self evident. To quote yourself "Is it observable and testable that The Christian God did it and not aliens or allah or any of the Hindu gods? no it is not.". QED. If I have incorrectly read rhetoric in your question I'm happy to actually educate you.
I am asking you to provide evidence for your assertion, as per the rules of the blog. Now due so.
your statement here: "Please explain why you think it cannot be falsified by scientific method." is a loaded one, I don't appreciate it.
Its a valid question. You state that 1. A valid translation of the scripture can be inferred for it to mean a global flood.
2. A valid translation of the scripture can be inferred for it to mean a local flood.
3. I don't know which one is right, I simply don't know.
I'm concentrating on you believing (from your main post) that the scientific method is incapable of handling the existence of God.
If we look at your point 3, it indicates that you consider point 1 to have not been falsified.
I repeat, why do you believe a global flood would not leave an abundance of testable evidence?
"I am asking you to provide evidence for your assertion, as per the rules of the blog. Now due so."
You provided yourself evidence for reductio ad absurdem, its clear from your quoted words in my previous post. It is, however, clear from your latest request that you haven't grasped the concept, so I'll oblige.
I don't think its useful to rewrite your entire post, so I'll focus on your concluding remarks: "The demand for scientific evidence of Allah, praise be to him, is a self defeating one, the lack of scientific evidence for Allah, praise be to him, is actually evidence of his existence."
So again, please show how your point doesn't fall victim to reductio ad absurdem?
I'm concentrating on you believing (from your main post) that the scientific method is incapable of handling the existence of God.
If we look at your point 3, it indicates that you consider point 1 to have not been falsified.
I am not stating the scientific method is incapable of handling God. I am stating that there is no reason for God to give us scientific evidence of His existence because doing so would not produce faith.
You provided yourself evidence for reductio ad absurdem, its clear from your quoted words in my previous post. It is, however, clear from your latest request that you haven't grasped the concept, so I'll oblige.
I don't think its useful to rewrite your entire post, so I'll focus on your concluding remarks: "The demand for scientific evidence of Allah, praise be to him, is a self defeating one, the lack of scientific evidence for Allah, praise be to him, is actually evidence of his existence."
How is that reductio ad absurdum? where am I trying to disprove something by showing it leads to an absurd consequence? If you're trying to show me that my argument can be used for allah then YOU are the one engaging in reductio ad absurdem not me.
http://www.answers.com/Reductio%20ad%20ABSURDUM
Disproof of a proposition by showing that it leads to absurd or untenable conclusions.
Are you trying to disprove my proposition by showing that it can be used for allah as well? it seems like that's what you're doing, if so then you are the one engaging in reductio ad absurdem not me.
So again, please show how your point doesn't fall victim to reductio ad absurdem?
This is why I don't think you understand what reductio ad absurdem is. Reductio ad absurdem is a fallacious argument. Your statement about allah leads me to believe that you're insinuating my argument can be used for allah as well?
I am not stating the scientific method is incapable of handling God. I am stating that there is no reason for God to give us scientific evidence of His existence because doing so would not produce faith.
I am aware of what you are trying to do and have found it lacking. I am showing that the people who invented God provided a testable hypothesis via the claims in the Bible and by extension the claims for evidence are warranted.
Are you trying to disprove my proposition by showing that it can be used for allah as well?
Indeed I am!
it seems like that's what you're doing, if so then you are the one engaging in reductio ad absurdem not me.
Absolutely, and you did too as per the quote previously provided. Well done.
This is why I don't think you understand what reductio ad absurdem is. Reductio ad absurdem is a fallacious argument. Your statement about allah leads me to believe that you're insinuating my argument can be used for allah as well?
It can be clearly observed you are unaware of the unintended irony that you provide to anyone familiar with structured argument or logical thinking when you claim they are "ignorant". Reductio ad absurdem is in no way a fallacious argument.
Existence is a complicated philosophical matter. It behooves you to not make grand pronouncements about existence when you have little or no idea about some of its most basic tenets.
I look forward to you issuing a statement that indicates this post was not well thought out in which you concede it falls victim to reductio ad absurdem.
I am aware of what you are trying to do and have found it lacking. I am showing that the people who invented God provided a testable hypothesis via the claims in the Bible and by extension the claims for evidence are warranted.
1. The fact you find it lacking means nothing, you can find it lacking all day if you want too, that states nothing about the validity of the argument. Either provide evidence it is lacking or retract that statement.
2. Prove people invented God or retract the statement.
3. Remember this is about scientific evidence for GOD not scientific evidence for things God did.
4. Show me these testable claims.
5. Show me how these testable claims leave room for faith?
Indeed I am!
Good, then you're completely incorrect, by applying the argument to allah you are showing your ignorance of theology. Allah, Jehovah, God = the same God or in Christian language, God the father, which is why Judaism, Christianity and Islam all fall under what is called the ABRAHAMIC FAITHS. Abraham had 2 kids, Isaac and Ishmel, one is the original jew and one is the original muslim, both worship the same God, God the father, but they just call Him by different names. So your argument fails, as Allah is Jehovah who is Yahweh who is God the father. The biggest difference of all 3 faiths is Jesus, we maintain that Jesus along with the Holy Spirit and God the Father are 1, Jews don't and neither do Muslims, so it can EASILY be inferred that the Jews and Muslims worship only God the father but just call Him by a different name. So yes, your reductio ad absurdum is fallacious.
Absolutely, and you did too as per the quote previously provided. Well done.
no I didn't. I am not seeking to disprove anything, where am I trying to disprove something by showing it leads to an absurd consequence? answer the question.
It can be clearly observed you are unaware of the unintended irony that you provide to anyone familiar with structured argument or logical thinking when you claim they are "ignorant". Reductio ad absurdem is in no way a fallacious argument.
It can be CLEARLY observed that you are both ignorant of theology and logic as well, you cannot disprove an original proposition by finding an absurd consequence down the road. Reductio ad absurdum is valid in formal logic, but you are using the fallacious version which is like saying the following:
"If you are skeptical of God you must also be skeptical of the top of the george washington, because you have not personally seen either of them." Not only that but using this argument for allah is not reductio ad absurdem at all since you are talking about the same Entity. Look forward to your admission of error.
Existence is a complicated philosophical matter. It behooves you to not make grand pronouncements about existence when you have little or no idea about some of its most basic tenets.
It behooves you to not make such terrible attempts at refuting these pronouncements, as you have little to no idea about some of logic and theology. You have yet to refute what I said you ignorant atheist. You want to act like a smug know it all, fine with me.
I look forward to you issuing a statement that indicates this post was not well thought out in which you concede it falls victim to reductio ad absurdem.
I look forward to you issuing a statement that you were incorrect about your allah example, I also look forward to you either providing evidence of a VALID reductio ad aburdum or retracting that statement.
TD,
I'm a bit confused on this whole global/local flood thing. You say that either alternative is valid (though you don't particularly side with either) but, clearly, only one can be correct.
So, how can two interpretations be valid if only one of them is correct? Can you give an example of this elsewhere (other than in the Bible) because I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this.
Does this mean, for example, that other interpretations of Scripture could be wrong as long as there is another, valid, interpretation available (even if nobody has thought of it yet)?
Cheers,
TD,
I'm a bit confused on this whole global/local flood thing. You say that either alternative is valid (though you don't particularly side with either) but, clearly, only one can be correct.
So, how can two interpretations be valid if only one of them is correct? Can you give an example of this elsewhere (other than in the Bible) because I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this.
Well the original author had only one meaning to each of the words. Since the original author is not here, we can never know(academically that is) what their original intent was. A look at the flood narrative found in Genesis we see the following.
Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.
The word for Earth is 'erets'. The word erets has many different meanings, ranging from the entire planet to only a small part of the earth. Each of those meanings is a valid interpretation of the word 'erets' but we can never know which interpretation is the correct interpretation because we can't ask the original author. We can speculate, but we can never be sure what is the correct version. We can look at the historical context to determine which valid interpretation is more applicable, but even then we simply do not know the original meaning.
Does this mean, for example, that other interpretations of Scripture could be wrong as long as there is another, valid, interpretation available (even if nobody has thought of it yet)?
well a valid interpretation of scripture must range between the accepted interpretations of the word. The word eret has like 20 different interpretations of the word. All of which are valid interpretations of the word, but only one is the correct one. We can look at historical context and determine which valid interpretations are applicable for that word. For example, one of the interpretations of the word 'eret' is 'sheol land of no return(which is where dead people go)' we know that the flood narrative is not talking about sheol as the historical context tells us the sheol is referred to the land of the dead. The Genesis narrative is not talking about the land of the dead, but the land of the living, so we know sheol is not applicable to the Genesis narrative, although it is a valid interpretation of the word 'eret'.
TD, you must realize that two people can play the "Prove it or retract it" game. Let me give your an example: (quotes from your first post)
"Regarding evidence there is historical, testimonial, and eye witness evidence for God. "
Prove there is historical, testimonial, and eye witness "evidence" for God. Trying prove this will slow the conversation to a standstill.
"there is no scientific evidence for God"
Prove that there is no scientific evidence for God. Since you can not know all of science this will be difficult.
"not because God doesn't exist,"
Prove God does exist or retract the statement.
"but because He is simply absent from scientific literature"
Prove He is absent from scientific literature. Since no-one has read every piece of scientific literature this will be difficult.
If everyone was held to your rules, the conversation would go nowhere. If everyone held you to these rules, each post would be much longer than that Flute one.
TD To address your five points:
1) I was letting you know you didnt need to repeat what has already been considered.
2)The burden of proof is not on me to provide proof for the supernatural.
3)Are you suggesting that the things God did are not scientific evidence for God?
4)You are currently reviewing the flood example I provided. I am awaiting an answer for my previous question:
"If we look at your point 3, it indicates that you consider point 1 to have not been falsified."
5) I will not argue your point for you, but I would suggest that if we found a worldwide flood it would still leave a hefty amount of faith around the concept of two of every air breathing land animal somehow existing on a boat for 40 days and nights.
Good, then you're completely incorrect, by applying the argument to allah you are showing your ignorance of theology etc.
If Allah is God, explain why you're not abiding by your own rules and capitalising Allah?
Are you suggesting Jesus is not God or do you concede that Allah is not the same as the Christian God?
If you sufficiently answer the above I will retract my example. I will not however concede my reductio ad absurdem point which remains valid. You may apply it to Vishnu.
no I didn't. I am not seeking to disprove anything, where am I trying to disprove something by showing it leads to an absurd consequence? answer the question.
Please keep track of what you have said. You tried to disprove your strawman of my argument here using reductio ad absurdem: Is it observable and testable that The Christian God did it and not aliens or allah or any of the Hindu gods? no it is not.
You then tried to tell me it was invalid reason, which provided me great humour, but was clear hypocrisy.
It can be CLEARLY observed that you are both ignorant of theology and logic as well, you cannot disprove an original proposition by finding an absurd consequence down the road. Reductio ad absurdum is valid in formal logic, but you are using the fallacious version.
There is no such thing as a fallacious version of reductio ad absurdem. Perhaps you are thinking of a category error?
The absurd consequence you ask for is your inability to worship Jesus as God and the Islamic version of God at the same time. I assumed this was clear, but it can be observed I have overestimated your comprehension skills, I apologise.
You have yet to refute what I said you ignorant atheist. You want to act like a smug know it all, fine with me.
You have still yet to address my two points which show your reasoning is illogical. I acted smug in order to comply to your rules which suggest you treat people with reciprocation. Let me know if I need to reiterate or rephrase for clarity.
I have some questions which should speed this up:
1. Do you believe Jesus is God?
2. Do you think Islamic people believe Jesus is Allah?
3. Do you think that forensic scientists waste their time when they investigate crime scenes?
4. Yous said Reductio ad absurdem is a fallacious argument. If you wont admit you thought reductio ad absurden was a fallacy, why should anyone believe anything you say?
2)The burden of proof is not on me to provide proof for the supernatural.
Irrelevant, I suggest you read rule #1.
3)Are you suggesting that the things God did are not scientific evidence for God?
Yes, since there is no scientific evidence that God did these things.
4)You are currently reviewing the flood example I provided. I am awaiting an answer for my previous question:
That is not scientific evidence for God anymore than it is scientific evidence for aliens or for the tons of other gods in all the other flood stories. Like I said before, even if we had a global flood, we're left with no scientific evidence of who did it. I do hate repeating myself.
5) I will not argue your point for you, but I would suggest that if we found a worldwide flood it would still leave a hefty amount of faith around the concept of two of every air breathing land animal somehow existing on a boat for 40 days and nights.
Good job arguing with yourself. Scientific evidence does not leave room for faith.
If Allah is God, explain why you're not abiding by your own rules and capitalising Allah?
What on earth is your point here? does my inability to capitalize the word allah somehow invalidate the points I made in the God the Father thread? try again.
Are you suggesting Jesus is not God or do you concede that Allah is not the same as the Christian God?
Neither, what part of God the father do you not understand? I am saying Jesus is God, I am also saying that muslims and Jews don't recognize that. You seem to miss the part where Christians believe in the Trinity, God the Son, God the Father and the Holy Spirit. You also seem to miss the part where I said the Muslims and Jews only worship God the Father, they refuse to acknowledge Jesus divinity. Muslims and Jews worship the same God but simply refuse to acknowledge a certain characteristic of that God. This does not mean they worship an entirely different God, just an incorrect concept of God.
If you sufficiently answer the above I will retract my example. I will not however concede my reductio ad absurdem point which remains valid. You may apply it to Vishnu.
No, you cannot apply it to Vishnu.
The requirement of faith is a defining characteristic of God. God wants us to have faith. It does not work with every god, since no where does any other deity states that without faith it is impossible to please Him, nor do they require us to have faith in order to be saved. For that logic to follow, the other gods would have to have the same characteristics of the Christian God. I await your admission of error.
Is it observable and testable that The Christian God did it and not aliens or allah or any of the Hindu gods? no it is not.
What on earth are you talking about? pointing out your ignorance of scientific evidence and how it works is not reductio ad absurdum.
You then tried to tell me it was invalid reason, which provided me great humour, but was clear hypocrisy.
What are you talking about now? you seem to have pointing out your ignorance in a simple concept confused with reductio ad absurdum.
There is no such thing as a fallacious version of reductio ad absurdem. Perhaps you are thinking of a category error?
I just showed you the fallacious version.
The absurd consequence you ask for is your inability to worship Jesus as God and the Islamic version of God at the same time. I assumed this was clear, but it can be observed I have overestimated your comprehension skills, I apologise.
Whoopsie, due to your complete inability to comprehend basic theology you cannot grasp the fact that Muslims and Jews are worshiping the same God as Christians but an incomplete/incorrect concept of Him.
You have still yet to address my two points which show your reasoning is illogical. I acted smug in order to comply to your rules which suggest you treat people with reciprocation. Let me know if I need to reiterate or rephrase for clarity.
No, your inability to think in a coherent logical manner does not make my reasoning illogical. Just because you can't wrap your tiny atheist brain around simple concepts does not make me illogical.
I have some questions which should speed this up:
See the other thread.
Post a Comment