Any suggestions to refute atheism

[spectrm]

Part 1 - this 7000 character limit is killing me…damned MySQL.

That’s a terrible comparison. Scientists tell me they know what the brain’s made of and its basic structures yet there is nothing near an explanation. Here I am offering evidence for the existence of God. And you have yet to offer me anything more than I could find in a science book well except for those unorthodox views.

No…what you’re doing is drawing a logical fallacy. Lack of conclusive evidence (because there’s mounds of circumstantial and observational evidence) is not proof for the competing argument. And even at that, an immaterial mind is not proof of a godhead. Honestly, you’re not giving me anything I didn’t get out of philo101. And you might expand on what you mean by ‘unorthodox views’ - unorthodox compared to?

Let’s say we do, let’s say a fetus produces brain waves…

There is the problem of reportablity - I agree. That’s a matter of contention to be dealt with when we’re at a level to carry out that type of research. We’re nowhere near that kind of neural observation, yet. There’s also (always) the whole “observing without disturbing” principle, so there are a number of tricks to be worked out. But this is all well down the road.

Don’t delude yourself. Atheism is inherently nihilistic. Are you forgetting the implications of no free will? Even Dawkins has stated how morals are human illusions. If they evidence indicates, it accept it don’t deny it. What we know does indicate that animals are nothing more than extremely complex automatons. Their behavior as you have stated may indicate some form of consciousness but that is in now way conclusive.

You just couldn’t be more wrong. Yes, morals are human illusions. I don’t think that cheapens them in any way shape or form. As he was saying that, he was well aware that it was that illusion that prevented a person from killing him where he stood. As for your statement of conclusiveness, you’re right. It’s not anything conclusive. But I follow a school of science that recognizes peer collaborated subjective observation - aka common sense - and can certainly distinguish behaviors that are without direct evolutionary or stimulated causes. If it looks like a fish and smells like a fish and tastes like a fish…we can’t be 100%, but I’d say it’s a fish.

If an earthworm is any bit aware of its environment instead of just a machine responding to it then it has consciousness. Now from what we see, animals brains are all function in basically the same way. Since all of these brains arrangements of nerves how can anyone possibly say which animals are conscious, or self aware? It just doesn’t make sense.

All animals brains function the same way? Animal brains vary in composition, size, regions present…some animals have frontal lobes, some don’t. Some have regions near their hypothalamus that respond identically to the same regions on a human given the right stimuli. There is plenty of reason to believe that animals are conscious, if not self-aware. Behavioral patterns, brain-wave patterns, hormonal changes to environmental stimuli - all similar or parallel to the same brain activities in human beings. It’s a bit of inductive logic (which is reason enough in most cases, usually in academia, but rarely in science and never with me), but we see a brain activity and various other physiological changes at times when a subject reports a feeling of happiness. With the same electrodes on the same lobes, a dog being rewarded with attention from a master shows the same physiological changes. The conclusion seems fairly easy to draw to me. I’d like so conclusive evidence myself, so if you ever figure out how to communicate with dogs or cats, let me know (I’d really like to know why my cat insists on hair-balling on top of my servers).

I’m just pointing out an observation, I mean don’t you remember sideline? He accepted no form of an ethereal mind whatsoever, now that’s what you see in the mainstream.

frankly, I don’t know why you’re so caught up in atheist ‘orthodoxy’. Orthodoxy is your people’s bag. It’s not like there’s a place atheists meet up to talk about how cool atheism makes us feel, and how much more empowered and special we are because we’re atheist (that, again, is generally the behavior of the religious). There would be no reason to think mine and sideline’s thoughts on the matter would be the same - not with what you know as I type this period.

I’m older, but Sideline and mine backgrounds are pretty similar (@sideline: I fell away from the faith ~13). We grew up in different parts of the world/country (presumably, I don’t actually know) with (statistically) average parents of average intelligence and average dedication to their faith. But leading different lives, out of phase with one another, we came to (thus far) the same conclusions regarding a godhead and various properties of the world in which we live. I feel sideline is on the right track. He’s smart, processes and presents information well, and is clear on his beliefs even if not overtly assertive (stay that way…no sense becoming an intellectual bully). He’s a few years behind me on his ‘apostacy’, chronologically and in age, and I certainly can’t speak for where his philosophical endeavors may lead him (mine lead me to a form of pantheism/metaphysical-naturalism - I don’t like the term ontological), but at least when he finds his answers, they’ll be truly HIS answers. I takes a lot of courage to stand-up and be an atheist (assuming he’s ‘come out’ to his family/friends).

 

[spectrm]

Part II - you’re welcome

No, no, no, from what I see mainstream science accepts both oxygen breathing and the water proof properties of human skin.

I will admit, you have an excellent sense of humor.

Not a matter of complexity? fine then if I have a pile of matter what is the least amount i could do to it to have the matter produce consciousness?

If you want MY belief, I believe a form of consciousness can be achieved in a single cell (given some completely unknown and far off set of properties and circumstances) because I believe that an force exists below the level of the cell - something sub-atomic or based on the relationship of sub-atomic particles with one-another. If you want the best science answer I could give (eg, what I’ve perceived to have successfully brought forth a consciousness), I would need somewhere around 200,000,000 neurons (if you want to approximate how many atoms that is, go ahead…I don’t have a figure on how many atoms compose a typical neuron) and enough myelin sheaths to create about 2x10e12 synaptic connections. This is approximately how large and the typical contents of a squirrel’s brain (which I’ve seen in a pet setting and behaved very much like a cat) which I believe have about the lowest level of consciousness I’ve been able to observe.

You’re right I meant fully working.

Okay - they work. I contend that most of our systems are still under development

This sounds much like speculation. I don’t think the workings…

Fair enough…you had posited how it was even possible for a piece of matter to produce consciousness…I was merely explaining one of the more popular theories on the subject I’ve had the pleasure of debating. There are a number of theories on how the brain operates, but in the end, you either believe there’s a little spirit engine in there, or you believe that the organ’s purpose is to drive all mental faculties (subconscious and conscious alike). If YOU are right, what’s the real purpose of the brain (beyond the brain stem and, perhaps, cerebellum) if all mental faculties occur…where WOULD they occur?

Maybe it’s time for you to start answering some questions. My uncle (for educational purposes…he was a bit of a UFO nut) had this conversation with me:
HIM: So you think aliens exist, huh?
ME: Yeah.
HIM: Why?
ME: There’s how many planets around how many stars? And there’s one in nine, here, that supports life? (etc. etc. - we know how this one goes)
HIM: So what?
ME: You’re saying aliens don’t exist?
HIM: Sure. A priori, it doesn’t exist - the burden of proof is on the believer.

I don’t have to prove science to you - while I don’t see a cause or need for a god or godhead, I recognize that science and a god are not incompatible (the Abrahmic god is almost certainly improbable, though). You are the one who is claiming the falsehood of something that is the foundation for all scientific research in the last 100 years.

All the mounds of evidence and yet the statement is still “Yeah, but it’s still just a theory - it’s not conclusive”…okay…so is gravity still “Just a theory” ?

I am busy in the week, and i’ve read part II so let’s just continue the conversation.

I was under the impression I WAS continuing the conversation. I’m busy as well - I got into the office at 10 this morning and this post was the first thing I did when I got off tonite - you should be honored…I don’t value my time cheaply

 

[buffalo]

Suggestions on refuting Atheism?

Well… since it is the negative position… it seems the only way to prove the God Hypothesis is to scientifically demonstrate that the positive position is the most probable idea.

…Good luck.

Theology - the divine science has shown this.

 

[Logos385]

Theology - the divine science has shown this.

This is not the case. No theology has ever successfully shown God to exist, or successfully necessitated his existence. I realize your (most likely) Catholic nature will cause you to think differently, but the fact that this is based on a matter of opinion is evidence that it is not scientific fact. Until scientific validity is given to the God hypothesis, it remains a hypothesis, and one that is next to useless, as it provides no new information about scientific processes and their workings.

 

[spectrm]

Theology - the divine science has shown this.

Roflmfao!!!1!!111!11eleventyelevenqwertybbq

Oh…you’re serious!?

 

[Logos385]

Roflmfao!!!1!!111!11eleventyelevenqwertybbq

Oh…you’re serious!?

I’m quite impressed with the hilarity of your first-glance nonsense after the roflmao. “eleventyelevenqwertybbq?” Priceless and genius.

 

[spectrm]

I’m quite impressed with the hilarity of your first-glance nonsense after the roflmao. “eleventyelevenqwertybbq?” Priceless and genius.

Thnx. Lots of practice at work…all IT all the time.

 

[reggieM]

Theology - the divine science has shown this.

The divine science is on a higher order than natural science because its subject is that of intellect and being which are above that of the natural/material world.

Natural science cannot function without a metaphysical foundation – and as such, it is not capable of producing it’s own foundation.

This is a great post that I came across today which explains this well.

An atheist posted: —-”As I have pointed out repeatedly in the past and in other venues, metaphysics has literally nothing to do with the empirical sciences.”

**Response: ** This statement is false. As E. A. Burtt put it, “The world view is the final controlling factor in all thinking whatever.”

Metaphysics has everything to do with empirical science. It was the Christian metaphysics that launched the entire scientific enterprise in the first place, and there can be little doubt that metaphysical beliefs are just as important today as they were centuries ago. Indeed, it is metaphysics of monistic atheism that introduced this novelty approach to science called “methodological naturalism.” Prior to Darwin and the world view that he inspired, no one had ever approached science in this way. Atheist Darwinists didn’t choose methodological naturalism because they were science purists. They chose it because allowed them to practice atheism openly while, at the same time, enjoying the benefits of “strategic ambiguity” of “plausible deniability.” “What? Me an atheist? Why no! My methodological naturalism has nothing at all to do with my metaphysical naturalism.”]

One of the reasons why Darwinists will not budge from their position is because their global world metaphor, materialism or some metaphysical equivalent, rules out any possibility of interpreting patterns of information as evidence for design. Why argue design with someone who would not accept it under any circumstances? Also, notice the way they completely ignore or rationalize away the evidence for the “anthropic principle.” Only a firmly held world view of the most bizarre kind could prompt someone who is familiar with the evidence for a fine-tuned universe to discount the design explanation and speculate about infinite multiple universes. If, tomorrow, a pattern was found in a DNA molecule that read, “Yahweh was here,” monists would find a way to rationalize it away. Since it is their metaphysics calling the shots, it almost seems fruitless to argue science with them.

Possibly the most destructive world view of all is the one which questions reason’s foundational principle, the proposition that we have rational minds, that we live in a rational universe, and that there is a correspondence between the two. It is this intellectual harmony between the investigator and the object of investigation that sustains rationality. Without a correspondence between the mind and the real world, there can be no rationality. Put another way, unless there is a vehicle [mind] and a destination [truth], there obviously can be no intellectual journey. I have never yet met a Darwinist who accepts this principle. Given that kind of myopia, what hope is there that they could appreciate the even more important fact that a supernatural agent [God] had to set up such a correspondence in the first place? How can we expect them to make the intellectual journey to truth, when they don’t believe that there is any destination at the end of the journey? In keeping with that principle, what can we say about the rationality of those who question very conditions necessary for rationality? Can we not say that they have chosen irrationality?

---

As I observe atheistic responses to challenges, I see the best refutations of atheism (so far) are with Causality, cosmological fine tuning, the denial of metaphysics and reason (as above) and “the moral argument”. There are many other good ones as well – miracles, the Gospels, religious sense in human beings … but those first few seem to be the best.

 

[Logos385]

The divine science is on a higher order than natural science because it’s subject is that of intellect and being which are above that of the natural/material world.

Natural science cannot function without a metaphysical foundation – and as such, it is not capable of producing it’s own foundation.

This is a great post that I came across today which explains this well.

An atheist posted: —-”As I have pointed out repeatedly in the past and in other venues, metaphysics has literally nothing to do with the empirical sciences.”

**Response: ** This statement is false. As E. A. Burtt put it, “The world view is the final controlling factor in all thinking whatever.”

Metaphysics has everything to do with empirical science. It was the Christian metaphysics that launched the entire scientific enterprise in the first place, and there can be little doubt that metaphysical beliefs are just as important today as they were centuries ago. Indeed, it is metaphysics of monistic atheism that introduced this novelty approach to science called “methodological naturalism.” Prior to Darwin and the world view that he inspired, no one had ever approached science in this way. Atheist Darwinists didn’t choose methodological naturalism because they were science purists. They chose it because allowed them to practice atheism openly while, at the same time, enjoying the benefits of “strategic ambiguity” of “plausible deniability.” “What? Me an theist? Why no! My methodological naturalism has nothing at all to do with my metaphysical naturalism.”]

One of the reasons why Darwinists will not budge from their position is because their global world metaphor, materialism or some metaphysical equivalent, rules out any possibility of interpreting patterns of information as evidence for design. Why argue design with someone who would not accept it under any circumstances? Also, notice the way they completely ignore or rationalize away the evidence for the “anthropic principle.” Only a firmly held world view of the most bizarre kind could prompt someone who is familiar with the evidence for a fine-tuned universe to discount the design explanation and speculate about infinite multiple universes. If, tomorrow, a pattern was found in a DNA molecule that read, “Yahweh was here,” monists would find a way to rationalize it away. Since it is their metaphysics calling the shots, it almost seems fruitless to argue science with them.

Possibly the most destructive world view of all is the one which questions reason’s foundational principle, the proposition that we have rational minds, that we live in a rational universe, and that there is a correspondence between the two. It is this intellectual harmony between the investigator and the object of investigation that sustains rationality. Without a correspondence between the mind and the real world, there can be no rationality. Put another way, unless there is a vehicle [mind] and a destination [truth], there obviously can be no intellectual journey. I have never yet met a Darwinist who accepts this principle. Given that kind of myopia, what hope is there that they could appreciate the even more important fact that a supernatural agent [God] had to set up such a correspondence in the first place? How can we expect them to make the intellectual journey to truth, when they don’t believe that there is any destination at the end of the journey? In keeping with that principle, what can we say about the rationality of those who question very conditions necessary for rationality? Can we not say that they have chosen irrationality?

---

As I observe atheistic responses to challenges, I see the best refutations of atheism (so far) are with Causality, cosmological fine tuning, the denial of metaphysics and reason (as above) and “the moral argument”. There are many other good ones as well – miracles, the Gospels, religious sense in human beings … but those first few seem to be the best.

I cannot comment on the history of science, for I don’t feel I am qualified to do so. I’ll let someone else take up that section.

However, I do have a rational, intellectual mind that can spot semantic BS that argues from authority when I see it. “Natural science cannot function without a metaphysical foundation…” What?! What are you talking about? Natural science, by definition, ignores the metaphysical (1). You’ve been gravely mislead, my friend.

Basically, the entire post you just referenced relies on the idea that the evidence for design is so utterly prevalent that one must be irrational to ignore it. This is a simple fallacy (2). 99% of all existing species are extinct (3), human bodies constantly deteriorate and are, in fact, far from perfect (4), cancer occurs in almost perfectly healthy people, etc etc etc. Unless you provide conclusive evidence for design, all rational people will view the hypothesis as worthless. Evolution, on the other hand, is a biological theory supported by over 150 years of research and evidentiary discoveries that elegantly explains the diversity and resourcefulness of life we see on Earth (5).

1- dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=natural+science&search=search
2- talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
3- nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/extinction/extinction.html
4- talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html
5- Freeman, S and JC Herron. 2007. Evolutionary Analysis, 4th ed. Prentice Hall.

 

[reggieM]

“Natural science cannot function without a metaphysical foundation…” What?! What are you talking about?

You might want to think about this statement from the text I just quoted:

“Indeed, it is metaphysics of monistic atheism that introduced this novelty approach to science called methodological naturalism.”

Methodological naturalism is the metaphysical foundation upon which you build your own world view. This foundation cannot be proven or even supported by natural science.

Natural science, by definition, ignores the metaphysical (1).

I would like to see your proof for that. That is, not a dictionary definition (which is simply an argument from authority) but your empirical evidence – your testing and proof. You can even supply someone else’s empirical evidence for your statement if you want.

Again, this is something you assert and claim. You point me to a dictionary reference which gives a definition of the fact which you claim is true. I believe I can supply a dictionary definition of God – therefore, by your own “resource” and “logic”, God certainly exists.

Basically, the entire post you just referenced relies on the idea that the evidence for design is so utterly prevalent that one must be irrational to ignore it.

I think we can see that you didn’t understand even a small part of the post, so your claim about “the entire post” cannot be correct. I do agree with this additional quote from the text I posted:

“Since it is their metaphysics calling the shots, it almost seems fruitless to argue science with them.”

More importantly, this thread has asked for suggestions on refuting atheism.

I cannot see where you’ve given any suggestions on how to refute atheism at all.

Therefore, you’re off topic.

Unless you provide conclusive evidence for design, all rational people will view the hypothesis as worthless.

You’re making unfounded assertions that are very easy to refute. You should take a little more time and reflect on what you’re saying. Given your attraction for LOL’s, I’ll assume that you’re quite young – probably a teenager or perhaps early 20s.

 

[Logos385]

Methodological naturalism is the metaphysical foundation upon which you build your own world view. This foundation cannot be proven or even supported by natural science.

Here you demonstrate that you do not understand the workings of the scientific process. The scientific process is a thing of proof. There is no proof for the natural realm, yet there is an abundance of proof for the natural world (mainly the natural world). Thus, the scientific process relies on methodological naturalism because it is all we know to be in front of us: the natural world.

I would like to see your proof for that. That is, not a dictionary definition (which is simply an argument from authority) but your empirical evidence – your testing and proof. You can even supply someone else’s empirical evidence for your statement if you want.

My argument relied on the definition of natural science, not on evidence there. I can’t provide empirical evidence for a definition other than a dictionary source… I’m confused as to what request you are making.

Again, this is something you assert and claim. You point me to a dictionary reference which gives a definition of the fact which you claim is true. I believe I can supply a dictionary definition of God – therefore, by your own “resource” and “logic”, God certainly exists.

Uhmm… no. My assertion was that, by definition, naturalistic science deals with the physical, not the metaphysical. Thus, I included a definition of “naturalistic science.” If your claim was not that god existed, yet that, “the definition of god is a supernatural deity” or something of that effect, then yes, by my logic, your claim would be proven.

I think we can see that you didn’t understand even a small part of the post, so your claim about “the entire post” cannot be correct. I do agree with this additional quote from the text I posted:
“Since it is their metaphysics calling the shots, it almost seems fruitless to argue science with them.”

I still fail to see how it is our “metaphysics” calling the shots, when base natural science relies on the physical universe.

And excuse me, only 11/21 sentences deal with design. I meant half the post.

More importantly, this thread has asked for suggestions on refuting atheism.

I cannot see where you’ve given any suggestions on how to refute atheism at all.

My first post was a suggestion: evidence. Also, by testing the suggestions given, I can help the OPer to refine the arguments/ideals given, to more accurately, efficiently and successfully refute atheism. If an atheist can debunk a refutation given, wouldn’t the OPer like to know, as to not embarrass themselves when attempting a refutation? Or should I let all explanations fly, and let the OPer fail to achieve the goal of this thread?

You’re making unfounded assertions that are very easy to refute. You should take a little more time and reflect on what you’re saying. Given your attraction for LOL’s, I’ll assume that you’re quite young – probably a teenager or perhaps early 20s.

Because I enjoy humor, I must automatically be young? What an unfounded assertion that is very easy to refute. Maybe you should take a little more time and reflect on what you are saying?

 

[buffalo]

Here you demonstrate that you do not understand the workings of the scientific process. The scientific process is a thing of proof. There is no proof for the natural realm, yet there is an abundance of proof for the natural world (mainly the natural world). Thus, the scientific process relies on methodological naturalism because it is all we know to be in front of us: the natural world.

My argument relied on the definition of natural science, not on evidence there. I can’t provide empirical evidence for a definition other than a dictionary source… I’m confused as to what request you are making.
Uhmm… no. My assertion was that, by definition, naturalistic science deals with the physical, not the metaphysical. Thus, I included a definition of “naturalistic science.” If your claim was not that god existed, yet that, “the definition of god is a supernatural deity” or something of that effect, then yes, by my logic, your claim would be proven.
I still fail to see how it is our “metaphysics” calling the shots, when base natural science relies on the physical universe.

And excuse me, only 11/21 sentences deal with design. I meant half the post.
My first post was a suggestion: evidence. Also, by testing the suggestions given, I can help the OPer to refine the arguments/ideals given, to more accurately, efficiently and successfully refute atheism. If an atheist can debunk a refutation given, wouldn’t the OPer like to know, as to not embarrass themselves when attempting a refutation? Or should I let all explanations fly, and let the OPer fail to achieve the goal of this thread?

Because I enjoy humor, I must automatically be young? What an unfounded assertion that is very easy to refute. Maybe you should take a little more time and reflect on what you are saying?

So the natural world is all there is?

 

[Logos385]

So the natural world is all there is?

All I’m saying is that there is no scientific evidence there is any supernatural realm.

 

[buffalo]

All I’m saying is that there is no scientific evidence there is any supernatural realm.

Right, science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. That being so don’t expect to find empirical evidence for it. The question then is why would anyone (especially scientists who are by nature curious) limit themselves so?

 

[Logos385]

Right, science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. That being so don’t expect to find empirical evidence for it. The question then is why would anyone (especially scientists who are by nature curious) limit themselves so?

That isn’t quite true, although a very valid objection. Science has gone quite far beyond our five senses, with scientific instruments… even if ultimately many of these are enhancements to the original senses.

Science, thanks to M-Theory, has postulated up to 11 dimensions, not just the 4 of space-time.

True, a blanket supernatural realm will not be allowed to have empirical evidence under the scientific umbrella. However, claims about such a realm can make testable predictions, which science can comment on.

The reason this is acceptable as a world view is because it is only confining in the sense that it “confines” you to falsifiable conclusions, which are the only things we can be reasonably sure are true. If we can’t reasonably experience a supernatural realm (within the natural world you provide), why force yourself to postulate one? Why not stick with falsifiable, rational conclusion?

 

[buffalo]

That isn’t quite true, although a very valid objection. Science has gone quite far beyond our five senses, with scientific instruments… even if ultimately many of these are enhancements to the original senses.

Science, thanks to M-Theory, has postulated up to 11 dimensions, not just the 4 of space-time.

True, a blanket supernatural realm will not be allowed to have empirical evidence under the scientific umbrella. However, claims about such a realm can make testable predictions, which science can comment on.

The reason this is acceptable as a world view is because it is only confining in the sense that it “confines” you to falsifiable conclusions, which are the only things we can be reasonably sure are true. If we can’t reasonably experience a supernatural realm (within the natural world you provide), why force yourself to postulate one? Why not stick with falsifiable, rational conclusion?

How can empirical science comment on something it can say nothing about? It cannot. When it tries it has entered the world of philosophy and metaphysics.

 

[Logos385]

How can empirical science comment on something it can say nothing about? It cannot. When it tries it has entered the world of philosophy and metaphysics.

I said it couldn’t comment on it… “True, a blanket supernatural realm will not be allowed to have empirical evidence under the scientific umbrella.”

I also said that if the supernatural realm posits an effect on the natural world, the effect can be measured. For example, if a God is said to have caused something to the effect of a mass human migration, there would be expected historical/scientific evidence of such an occurrence. Granted, the appearance of this evidence wouldn’t necessarily provide proof of the deity’s existence, but the nonexistence of the evidence can be grounds for non-belief in that particular description of the supernatural.

Sure, science can’t provide evidence for the supernatural realm. What field of study then can presume to do so? If all of science is limited in such a way, then every field of study must be as well. All metaphysical philosophy then, is simply wild speculation.

But this, sadly, is far, far off-topic, haha. If you wish to continue the discussion, you should probably PM me, or we risk the closing of this thread. : P.

 

[reggieM]

My argument relied on the definition of natural science, not on evidence there. I can’t provide empirical evidence for a definition other than a dictionary source…

You made a claim about science and you have no empirical evidence to support the claim. Therefore, you accept some truths that are supported by zero empirical evidence. This is enough to refute your position. You relied strictly on an argument from authority. You can argue against the existence of God on this basis, but you’d have to accept arguments supporting the existence of God on the same basis as well.

I’m confused as to what request you are making.

I asked you to support your assertion by providing some empirical, scientific evidence. You made a claim about science. You also claim that science provides the only reliable evidence about reality. But the contradiction is obvious since you accept ideas about science while having zero empirical evidence. Science cannot support your conclusion and you’ve admitted that.

So, you answered my request by stating that you cannot provide empirical evidence for the assertion you made. You arrived at your conclusion using some other method of thought – clearly, it was not through a scientific approach but rather through philosophical assumptions and conclusions.

The problem here is that you deny the same methodology to others that you accept for yourself.

Uhmm… no. My assertion was that, by definition, naturalistic science deals with the physical, not the metaphysical.

Argument from authority. “By definition” is not something that can be referenced by emipirical data or through natural science. The philosophy of science determines the definition of the field of study. Metaphysics is the foundation for the philosophy of science since it deals with a topic area that is higher and more comprehensive than natural science.

Thus, I included a definition of “naturalistic science.”

You already admitted that you have no evidence to prove that any definition of science is the correct one. Your only source is a dictionary – so, you argue from authority. You accept a dictionary definition – so apparently, whatever someone tells you would be enough to convince you it is true. That would mean that you’d need no other evidence from nature to prove this. But you wouldn’t take the same approach in dealing with arguments supporting the existence of God.

… base natural science relies on the physical universe.

Again, that statement is not true because of empirical evidence but because of the acceptance of a philosophical system.

Also, by testing the suggestions given, I can help the OPer to refine the arguments/ideals given, to more accurately, efficiently and successfully refute atheism.

Ok, offering counter-points is a good thing, but that is different than ridiculing Catholic theology, which both you and spectrm just did. That kind of thing is not only off-topic, but it’s actually against the rules on CAF and enough for a moderator warning.

 

[buffalo]

I said it couldn’t comment on it… “True, a blanket supernatural realm will not be allowed to have empirical evidence under the scientific umbrella.”

I also said that if the supernatural realm posits an effect on the natural world, the effect can be measured. For example, if a God is said to have caused something to the effect of a mass human migration, there would be expected historical/scientific evidence of such an occurrence. Granted, the appearance of this evidence wouldn’t necessarily provide proof of the deity’s existence, but the nonexistence of the evidence can be grounds for non-belief in that particular description of the supernatural.

Sure, science can’t provide evidence for the supernatural realm. What field of study then can presume to do so? If all of science is limited in such a way, then every field of study must be as well. All metaphysical philosophy then, is simply wild speculation.

But this, sadly, is far, far off-topic, haha. If you wish to continue the discussion, you should probably PM me, or we risk the closing of this thread. : P.

That is why Revelation is necessary.

 

[reggieM]

If we can’t reasonably experience a supernatural realm (within the natural world you provide), why force yourself to postulate one? Why not stick with falsifiable, rational conclusion?

Those are good questions, but we can see that scientists make conclusions on aspects of nature that we cannot possibly experience also. This is true for evolutionary theory where no one can witness what happened in the past, as well as for quantum states which cannot be directly experienced.