The absurdity of atheism

[Charles_Darwin]

So would it be fair to say you hold your Catholic teachings above all else?

My second question is then, do you not see that as a contradiction to searching for truth? Why hold yourself back with preconceived notions?

Exactly.

I will also add that it is impossible to believe in “micro evolution” and not “macro evolution” they are exactly the same thing. Its the equivalent of saying, i believe one can walk to the next room, but it is impossilbe to walk to the house next door.

 

[tonyrey]

What do they have to do with atheism?

Let me spell it out for you:

1. We have empirical evidence of consciousness, reason, free will, creativity, self-control, conscience, purpose and love.
2. These facts require explanation.
3. Science does not explain these facts.
4. Atheism does not explain these facts. It explains nothing because it is merely a negation.
5. The most economical, adequate, coherent, intelligible, probable, verifiable and fertile explanation of these facts is a rational, free, good, purposeful and loving Creator.

How do **you **explain all these facts? By fortuitous combinations of atomic particles?

 

[wanstronian]

Let me spell it out for you:

1. We have empirical evidence of consciousness, reason, free will, creativity, self-control, conscience, purpose and love.
2. These facts require explanation.
3. Science does not explain these facts.
4. Atheism does not explain these facts. It explains nothing because it is merely a negation.
5. The most economical, adequate, coherent, intelligible, probable, verifiable and fertile explanation of these facts is a rational, free, good, purposeful and loving Creator.

How do **you **explain all these facts? By fortuitous combinations of atomic particles?

You were doing so well until you got to Point 5, then you started talking drivel. Every single adjective you ascribed to your ‘solution’ is inappropriate and indefensible.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Let me spell it out for you:

1. We have empirical evidence of consciousness, reason, free will, creativity, self-control, conscience, purpose and love.
2. These facts require explanation.
3. Science does not explain these facts.
4. Atheism does not explain these facts. It explains nothing because it is merely a negation.
5. The most economical, adequate, coherent, intelligible, probable, verifiable and fertile explanation of these facts is a rational, free, good, purposeful and loving Creator.

How do **you **explain all these facts? By fortuitous combinations of atomic particles?

Ah so were back to the “I dont understand this, therefore god did it”

Atheism is not a belief system, all atheism is is a rejection of a claim. So of course atheism does not explain those things, it doesn’t try to.

“5. The most economical, adequate, coherent, intelligible, probable, verifiable and fertile explanation of these facts is a rational, free, good, purposeful and loving Creator.”

Why? Whats your rational justification for this position?

 

[buffalo]

So would it be fair to say you hold your Catholic teachings above all else?

My second question is then, do you not see that as a contradiction to searching for truth? Why hold yourself back with preconceived notions?

Yes. Catholic teachings rock.

No it does not hold me back, it propels me with confidence.

 

[buffalo]

Exactly.

I will also add that it is impossible to believe in “micro evolution” and not “macro evolution” they are exactly the same thing. Its the equivalent of saying, i believe one can walk to the next room, but it is impossilbe to walk to the house next door.

That is why I made the distinction - adaptation.

Bogus. There are some things that could make it impossible to walk to the next house.

 

[buffalo]

Exactly.

I will also add that it is impossible to believe in “micro evolution” and not “macro evolution” they are exactly the same thing. Its the equivalent of saying, i believe one can walk to the next room, but it is impossilbe to walk to the house next door.

Anyone of you guys who talk about holding yourself back" are the finest examples of doing just that. You will not walk out of your closed windowless science room. You have painted yourself in a corner. You indeed hold yourself back by refusing to explore history, metaphysics and philosophy.

A strict materialist position in untenable.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

That is why I made the distinction - adaptation.

Bogus. There are some things that could make it impossible to walk to the next house.

lol ok, then for a fit man to be able to walk 10 meters in an open space, but not be able to walk 11.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Anyone of you guys who talk about holding yourself back" are the finest examples of doing just that. You will not walk out of your closed windowless science room. You have painted yourself in a corner. You indeed hold yourself back by refusing to explore history, metaphysics and philosophy.

A strict materialist position in untenable.

Explain how i hold myself back.

Are you saying that science would never be able to prove the existence of a god? If so why, on what grounds do you make that assumption?

 

[buffalo]

Explain how i hold myself back.

Are you saying that science would never be able to prove the existence of a god? If so why, on what grounds do you make that assumption?

Science explains the supernatural. By its own definition it cannot say anything at all about the supernatural.

I explained how you hold yourself back already.

 

[buffalo]

lol ok, then for a fit man to be able to walk 10 meters in an open space, but not be able to walk 11.

It still depends what is between the 10th meter and the 11th.

 

[Fran65]

Karl Popper argues that in science, hypotheses can only be falsified. What this means is that to reject the God hypothesis, it must be proved wrong.

As it cannot be proved wrong it is not therefore a scientific hypothesis and this means that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

It really is that simple.

Those of you who believe that science will prove that God does not exist are in for a long wait. Those of you who think that it already has are mistaken.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Karl Popper argues that in science, hypotheses can only be falsified. What this means is that to reject the God hypothesis, it must be proved wrong.

As it cannot be proved wrong it is not therefore a scientific hypothesis and this means that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

It really is that simple.

Those of you who believe that science will prove that God does not exist are in for a long wait. Those of you who think that it already has are mistaken.

I don’t know anyone who thinks science can disprove god.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

It still depends what is between the 10th meter and the 11th.

In this case amd in the case of evolution there is nothing. Speciation occurs through the exact processes of “micro evolution”.

 

[Fran65]

I don’t know anyone who thinks science can disprove god.

You haven’t spent much time on this forum then!

 

[tonyrey]

Every single adjective you ascribed to your ‘solution’ is inappropriate and indefensible.

It is pointless to make a gratuitous statement… How do **you **explain these facts? By fortuitous combinations of atomic particles? Or do you remain irrationally entrenched in your closed bunker of physical processes?

 

[wanstronian]

It is pointless to make a gratuitous statement… How do **you **explain these facts?

As I have said many times by now: I don’t know. But that doesn’t compel me to fabricate impossibly complex sentient entities just to hide my lack of ignorance. I’m content to not know for now, in the knowledge that sooner or later our advancing empirical knowledge of our universe will, in all probability, answer the question. And in so doing, cause religion of all types to back-pedal furiously once again, as it has had to do so many times in the face of scientific advances.

Or do you remain irrationally entrenched in your closed bunker of physical processes?

Oh! The sweet sweet irony of that statement!!!:clapping:

 

[buffalo]

As I have said many times by now: I don’t know. But that doesn’t compel me to fabricate impossibly complex sentient entities just to hide my lack of ignorance. I’m content to not know for now, in the knowledge that sooner or later our advancing empirical knowledge of our universe will, in all probability, answer the question. And in so doing, cause religion of all types to back-pedal furiously once again, as it has had to do so many times in the face of scientific advances.Oh! The sweet sweet irony of that statement!!!:clapping:

There are questions that have been asked over human history that we have not been able to answer.

But what questions might Adam and Eve ask? And who did they ask? They knew God. They were not using God as a God of the gaps.

The relationship with God started immediately.

 

[tonyrey]

Ah so were back to the “I dont understand this, therefore god did it”.

Ah so we’re back to the “God did it, therefore I refuse to understand…”

So of course atheism does not explain those things, it doesn’t try to.

If atheism does not explain anything it is useless and worthless…

" The most economical, adequate, coherent, intelligible, probable, verifiable and fertile explanation of these facts is a rational, free, good, purposeful and loving Creator."
Why? What’s your rational justification for this position?

Let me spell it out for you:

1.The most adequate explanation of rational beings is a Rational Being.
2.The most inadequate explanation of rational beings is a set of irrational particles.
3.The most adequate explanation of free beings is a Free Being.
4.The most inadequate explanation of free beings is a set of particles which are not free.
5.The most adequate explanation of moral beings is a Moral Being.
6.The most inadequate explanation of moral beings is a set of amoral particles.
7.The most adequate explanation of purposeful beings is a Purposeful Being.
8.The most inadequate explanation of purposeful beings is a set of purposeless particles.
9.The most adequate explanation of beings with a capacity for love is a Loving Being.
10.The most inadequate explanation of beings with a capacity for love is a set of particles without a capacity for love.

 

[cerad]

There are questions that have been asked over human history that we have not been able to answer.

But what questions might Adam and Eve ask? And who did they ask? They knew God. They were not using God as a God of the gaps.

The relationship with God started immediately.

Too bad they are just myths. Oh well, I guess it makes sense to have make believe people explain make believe gods.